New Paper: Experiment Reveals No Detectable
‘Greenhouse’ Difference Between CO2 And Air
Below is a very abridged quoted summary of a new scientific paper published by Dr. Thomas Allmendinger, a physicist (chemistry, quantum mechanics) who uses a real-world experiment to document a glaring lack of empirical support for the position that CO2 is a dominant agent of atmospheric warming.
One-sentence summary: Shortwave radiation heats both CO2 and air only up to a limited temperature threshold, and there is no observed difference between the heat absorption/emission of air vs. CO2.
Dr. Thomas Allmendinger (2017)
Original Greenhouse Theory Not Backed By Experimental Data
The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof … This [greenhouse effect] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data.
The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrhenius continued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.
[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if […] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative. … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.
The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.
The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions.
Questioning The CO2-IR-Warms-The-Atmosphere Assumption
[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.
Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:
1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere.
4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no
theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions. But the link between the two phenomena is not known.
5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas theory.
Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences.
Air Vs. CO2 Experiment: ‘The Final Proof That The Climate Theory Cannot Be True’
Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [Allmendinger, 2016] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state.
Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.
The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.
Firstly: The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.
Secondly: The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube since the latter one was comparatively weak.
And thirdly: Between the two tubes [one filled with air, the other with CO2] no significant difference could be detected. Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded.
As evident from Figure 8, any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble [non-greenhouse] gases argon, neon and helium do so – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air.
Conclusion/Summary
Besides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors, the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission. The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.
Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect [shortwave] which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected.
But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing.
I think the saran-wrap used at the ends is behaving both as a filter for different wavelengths and a absorber that will convert radiation into heat and transfer that heat into the chamber by conduction.
When dealing with IR, say in thermocameras or CO2 lasers, they are using special lenses made of ZnSe.
Since the saran-wrap is very thin (0.01 mm), its adsorption effect can be neglected.
“I think the saran-wrap used at the ends is behaving both as a filter for different wavelengths and a absorber that will convert radiation into heat and transfer that heat into the chamber by conduction.”
Maybe, maybe not. The saran-wrap doesn’t have a high enough heat capacity to transfer much heat by conduction. Assuming that the ambient temperature during the experiment was far below the temperature in the tubes, convection would rather be directed outwards.
Polyethylene is transparent to IR, Saran wrap (cling film) is now made from polyethylene (originally PVDC). The different IR absorption properties of glass and polyethylene are another problem for the conventional junior school explanation of how a greenhouse works (IR has almost no effect on a conventional glass greenhouse, polytunnel film can be formulated to absorb IR to prevent scorching of tender fruit and vegetables but polytunnels work fine with standard polyethylene).
Interesting that this got published – what as been the reaction from the faithful? Also, I agree that the apparatus seems primitive, we’ll see as attempts to replicate are hopefully made. I also would have liked to see other components of air tested, notably Nitrogen and high humidity vs. low humidity air (I.e. Water vapor).
A repost.
Apparently anyone can publish in a OMICS journal after they pay the processing fee. https://www.omicsonline.org/article-processing-charges.php
Would you agree that OMICS needs to prevent Ph.D. head lab scientists/professors with degrees and field work experience in electrochemistry, quantum mechanics, and fuel cell (alternative energy) projects from publishing scientific papers in their journal?
Predatory journals generally lack any credibility. If OMICS prevented those folks from paying to play, their profits would suffer.
My CRAAP detector goes off when I see those types of publications.
Your “CRAAP detector” doesn’t pass the smell test.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/03/nobel-prize-winner-calls-peer-review-very-distorted-completely-corrupt-and-simply-a-regression-to-the-mean/
See also here….
https://ktwop.com/category/peer-review-2/
…and here…
https://www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize
Does your CRAAP detector go off when someone like Michael Mann publishes a paper riddled with statistical errors and logical fallacies in the journal Nature?
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
The Four Errors in Mann et al’s “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth”
How did this paper get past peer-review and published in Nature?
yonason Your comment reminded of Donna Laframboise’s missive on peer review at GWPF. Here is the text of an email that I sent her – she did not respond.
_________
I read PEER REVIEW Why skepticism is essential this weekend and feel the need to comment.
You state “If half of all peer-reviewed research ‘may simply be untrue’, half of all climate research may also be untrue. ” While you present many examples from fields such as medicine, physics, etc., you do not include one specific documented example from the field of climate science. Let me provide some.
1) Soon and Baliunas, 2003
2) Spencer and Braswell, 2011
As you must know, in both cases editors resigned after it was realized that the peer view process was seriously flawed.
In the Spring of 2003, Soon and Baliunas, with three additional co-authors, published a longer version of the paper in Energy and Environment. When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of the revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen said, “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”
+++++++++++++++++
In another case the publisher of a journal ceased publication after it was clear that the peer-review process for a special edition of the journal was highly flawed.
From the Copernicus Publications website.
Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.
Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts”. Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).
Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.
In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.
Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.
++++++++++++++
You further state “Reproducibility is the backbone of sound science.” I agree. The hockey stick has been reproduced at least 38 times using different data sets and different methodologies by different researchers.
While these examples of flawed peer-review come from “denialists” (to use the term employed Dr. Carl Mears of RSS), I am sure with your investigative skills you can find similarly egregious examples by “affirmers” of climate science. I would appreciate seeing those.
Impossible, at least if they were being honest.
I recently posted this on Mann’s egregious assault on scientific integrety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cecmvYq_91A
Not surprised she didn’t answer you.
Michael Mann himself couldn’t even reproduce the original 1998/99 hockey stick. His subsequent graphs produced a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and the MWP was no longer -0.9 C colder than modern.. His “trick” to “hide the decline” was exposed: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Hide-the-Decline-Using-Mikes-Nature-Trick.jpg
Below are 320 non-hockey stick graphs taken from peer-reviewed scientific papers.
https://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/
PS – My point, Jack, is that you are trying to impugn the quality of the article by calling into question the reputation of the journal, a form of ad hom attack. That in and of itself also doesn’t pass the smell test.
Pierre Gosselin For you edification, here is an example of CRAAP test:
https://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf
You should learn to apply it. I use it regularly.
You might take your own advice, and show us just how the article violates those excellent rules.
yonason and Kenneth Richards
More than three dozen hockey sticks:
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.ca/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
Jack Dale:
More than 320 non-hockey sticks from peer-reviewed scientific papers…
https://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/
…or graphs showing today’s temperatures aren’t unusual, unprecedented, or warmer than most of the last 10,000 years.
By the way, many of those reconstructions on that list only begin during the Little Ice Age or only extend to the last 1,000 years. It is well known that much of the Earth has warmed up some since the years spanning the Little Ice Age (1450-1900 C.E.), consistent with the trends in solar activity (i.e., a Grand Maximum of solar activity during the last century and centennial-scale minimums during the LIA).
Absolutely ZERO of those graphs reproduce the original shape of Mann’s 1998/99 hockey stick graph which had no Medieval Warm Period, no Little Ice Age, and had NH temperatures -0.9 C colder during the MWP compared to today. As mentioned, not even Mann’s subsequent graphs reproduced this same hockey stick shape.
CRAAP TEST FAIL – AGAIN.
“Seven runs of Dr Mann’s algorithm (a-g) using untrended random red noise, and a single run (MBH) using Dr Mann’s tree-ring data. Dr Mann’s algorithm generates “hockey stick” curves more than 99% of the time, even if untrended random data are input to it.”
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/clip_image014.png
So, yeah Jack, No surprise you have so many. It’s almost impossible to NOT get a hockey stick using Mann’s flawed statistical method, no matter what data one uses.
(See the Crichton video I linked to earlier for that and more.)
Your Briggs deflection requires some further reading, which I will do. This earlier paper draws similar conclusions to Mann. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163
Since we are on deflections, has you seen This https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
I’m still waiting for you to answer why it is not acceptable for a scientific journal to accept papers authored by a Ph.D. lab scientist, but yet you here provide links to a paper authored by blogger/writer Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook, former cartoonist.
Why not address the substance of what is written here (the contents of the paper itself) rather than issue ad hominem responses to Dr. Allmendinger’s credentials?
With regard to the “likelihood of record warmth”, I am curious if you can identify a clear anthropogenic signal in modern temperature variations (just 0.05 C per decade since 1850) when the climate has varied at rates between 30 and 40 times modern values (i.e., 5 meters per century of sea level rise vs. 0.17 m/century today, 4 to 5 degrees C of NH warming in a matter of decades vs. <1 degree C in 170 years today).
-
https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/21/10000-to-5000-years-ago-global-sea-levels-were-3-meters-higher-temperatures-4-6-c-warmer/
10,000 To 5,000 Years Ago, Global Sea Levels Were 3 Meters Higher, Temperatures 4-6° C Warmer
–
https://notrickszone.com/2017/04/13/new-paper-northern-hemisphere-temperatures-rose-4-5c-within-a-few-decades-14700-years-ago/
Temperatures, Sea Levels ‘Naturally’ Rise 30 – 40 Times Faster Than Today’s Rates
My experience is that “CRAAP detectors” are gimmicks made up by those who are losing the argument and forced to resort to name-calling.
Jack Dale, you have just catalogued for us a list of corrupt practices by those con artists you support. We have the back-stories of how editors were threatened etc by your friends, while Soon et al remain beacons of honest science. The warmist actions remain contemptible, and time is running out for them.
Jack Dale, who whines about deflections has yet to answer a couple questions posted on why he is deflecting from talking about the paper itself.
When are you even going to address the paper itself?
Your evasions here are making you appear stupid to others,who are wondering why the IRRELEVANT fuss you promote.
Jack, you were asked about Michael Mann’s ‘science’. What do you think of it? Was Michael Mann’s work worthy of an IPCC lead author? Prior to his appointment as lead author I believe he had accomplished precisely nothing. So how was he ever appointed? Do you think they planned to erase the history of the Medieval Warm Period beforehand, or did Mann’s random stats tinkering produce the Hockey Stick by accident?
You asked “I’m still waiting for you to answer why it is not acceptable for a scientific journal to accept papers authored by a Ph.D. lab scientist,”
Is is not unacceptable. They can accept any paper they wish.
I have responded to the experiment, as have others I think it is seriously flawed.
No. You said the journal he published in was predatory. You wrote nothing at all about the experiment or what specifically you thought was wrong with it.
Talk about deflections.
BTW – John Cook has a PhD in Cognitive science. His peer-reviewed publications on conspiracy ideation are within the scope of his expertise. Calling him a former cartoonist is like calling John Christy a former Baptist missionary.
Dana Nuccitelli has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He also works as an environmental consultant in private industry. I find it ironic that a blogger dismisses him as a blogger.
Yes, he just got that psychological degree recently. When he published Cook et al. (2013) with Nuccitelli, he had this on his website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
“This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.”
To me, it doesn’t really matter what the credentials of the author are as much as the substance of the paper itself. Obviously, you are more concerned with the author’s credentials and the “predatory” journal publishing the paper than you are the science. It’s the ad hominem logical fallacy. You employed it, Jack. Why?
BTW – Did you know that John Cook cannot be trusted? He is seriously ethically challenged. It used to be that any self respecting university would fire someone for what he’s done.
1. He has committed identity theft, a very serious crime in most locals.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html
2. “Jose Duarte, expert in Social Psychology, Scientific Validity, and Research Methods, has actually called the Cook paper “multiply fraudulent”, and, as far as I know, Cook has taken no action to challenge the claim.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/
In other words, he fails the CRAAP test, royally; as do you for supporting him.
Kenneth Richard
http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
You went back to 2008 for that.
Much has happened in 9 years. Including a PhD for Cook.
Yes, as I wrote, John Cook recently earned a Ph.D. in pscyhology. He got it last year, in 2016.
Again I ask: Why do the credentials of the authors of scientific papers matter so much to you? Why did you question Dr. Allmendinger’s fitness to publish his paper in a “predatory” journal as the first comment you made here?
Jack Dale, thinks people posting science research is unacceptable because it was in the wrong journal.
You are hilarious since it doesn’t matter WHO publish it,it is the CONTENT of the paper that matters.
Your CRAAAP detector is is all in your head,since many publications does the very same thing you complained about with this journal,Do try to be this stupid again.
Then he writes this howler,
“I have responded to the experiment, as have others I think it is seriously flawed.”
In your dreams since you provided ZERO counter to the paper itself,the details not addressed.The Methodology used for the experiment not addressed either.
Why bother making empty postings,since it gets exposed quickly as being worthless.
That experiment would not pass muster at junior high science. How did he fill one chamber with CO2 – he could not evacuate a Styrofoam container: it would collapse and the Saran wrap would tear. The Styrofoam would emot flourcarbons, a known green house gas.
Dale your reply is an OPINION, where is the EVIDENCE to support your claim.
Still waiting for a real counterpoint to the paper…..
Waiting,Dale waiting……….
Styrofoam has not been made with fluorocarbons for some time now. Get with the program! Also, flushing a container with CO2, which is heavier than air, would displace the air. Wake up!
The respective basic work is entitled “The thermal behaviour of gases under the influence of infrared-radiation”. It was published within the “International Journal of Physical Sciences” (Vol. 11(15), pp. 183-205, 16 August, 2016). The here referenced article represents solely a summary, pointing to its relevance to the atmospheric greenhouse theory
Similar result here
http://www.schmanck.de/TreibhausMessung.pdf
Another relevant investigation here.
http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html
My comment about the seriously flawed experiment.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1228459
This is your rebuttal?
According to the results outlined in the paper, CO2 and argon absorb light/heat almost identically. Argon isn’t even a greenhouse gas. So what does that say about CO2?
How did he evacuate chambers contracted of Styrofoam, Saran Wrap and aluminum foil? A vacuum would shred those materials.
Dale, has nothing against the paper from scientific standpoint,just silly opinions.
Try harder Dale!
Indeed, in such a tube from Styrofoam a vacuum cannot be generated. Thus for filling the tube with a special gas, the tube had to be flushed with that gas during more than one hour. Thereby, a complete filling is not possible, but an extensive one.
That’s as I had surmised, but since I didn’t know, I didn’t want to speculate. Thank you for addressing that.
Styrofoam off gasses flourocarbons, a known GHG. How did you prevent that from contaminating the experiment?
How did you analyze the contents of the chambers to determine how extensive is filling was?
@Jack Dale 7. September 2017 at 12:40 AM
It is well known is that malicious trolls outgas nonsense, and lots of it.
I’m only aware that in the production of styrofoam CFCs are produced, but I haven’t been able to find anything on them in normal use. So, it would be very helpful if you could provide a reference, especially given as much as you have been wrong about in the past.
As to how completely the gasses fill the tubes, as long as the preponderance is what he said, your objection is just silly.
Apparently Allmendinger agrees with my concern.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1228747
I cannot totally agree with the statement “The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.”
I would call >5% a practical difference, especially when the “Air” contains CO2 as well.
What this experiment does NOT do is look at the main claim of warmists,ie that it is IR downwelling (not solar) that does the warming.
Solar Stills/Ovens that turn to nighttime refrigerators strongly suggest that the warmist theory is wrong, it is a shame that the experiment was not aimed at refuting that claim.
The experiments yielded that the limiting temperatures depend on the gas kind. Significant differences could solely be detected in the case of the noble gases helium, neon and argon, while pure carbon-dioxide and pure air behaved quite similar. Since – moreover – in the atmsophere the carbon-dioxide content is solely approx. 0.04 %, it will not have the slightest influence on the atmospheric temperature. As a consequence, the atmospheric greenhouse theory turns out to be completely wrong, so it has to be abandoned as soon as possible. A more detailed refutation of this theory, comprising more than 20 further arguments, is delivered in an article published in the related journal “Environment Pollution and Climate Change” (2017, 1:2).
However, that does not contest the fact of climate warming. It solely refutes the greenhouse explanation exposing it as a phantasm, while the surface darkening of the Earth – particularly in cities -, leading to a decrease of the so-called albedo, has to be identified as the real cause of the global warming.
“…the real cause of the global warming” that could be traced to human activity. This would not apply to water surfaces or ocean heat content, for which variations in solar radiation absorption (as modulated by cloud and aerosol albedo) would account for variations in temperature/heat energy.
In other words, we humans do influence the surface climate…just not as much with our CO2 emissions as with the pavements and roofs and machines and land clearing.
Without that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere the earth would be ball of ice.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study has concluded that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero. https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
BERKELEY SCHMERKELY
That’s true for it’s affect on actual overall air temperatures. BUT, most of the temperature measurement is done there, and then they use those results to “adjust” their data, artificially and fraudulently raising the values. And, when they don’t have rural data to “adjust,” they make up temperatures for regions they have no ability to measure (oceans, deserts, polar regions, tropical forests, etc.)
So, again, there’s no reason to believe that the UHI adds significant heat to the planet, but when it comes to generating phony data, I have no doubt there is a substantial effect.
“Numerous peer reviewed papers have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from UHI contamination alone.”
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0023.pdf
And then there’s how they erase the past…
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image904_shadow-1024×714.png
Bottom line, activist climatologists are scoundrels!!
Judith Curry has called Heller’s analysis “bogus” and “highly problematic”.
BEST completed their research after the UK Parliament hearing. BEST is more current.
To say it with Kenneth’s words: has the strategy of yours been effective so far? What are you trying to achieve with that condescending language?
“Judith Curry has called Heller’s analysis “bogus” and “highly problematic”.” – Jack Dale
SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS WITH FACTS, JACK….!
“Goddard’s actual analysis (including averaging, etc) has been shown to be highly problematic.”
https://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/#comment-603261
After this she asked Zeke Hausfather to write a series of posts on her blog refuting claims of data manipulation.
@Jack Dale 8. September 2017 at 3:26 PM
Give the whole quote, Jack@$$
Here’s the rest of it….
“His point about ‘estimated data’ and zombie stations is well taken (which was tabulation rather than involving any mathematical analysis.) It is not very easy to convey complex points on twitter”
Do you really think the greenhouse effect is the warming of the atmospheric gases caused by them absorbing radiation? And do you really think that your heat lamp (artificial light source in your paper) emits SW radiation as the Sun does?
“Do you really think the greenhouse effect is the warming of the atmospheric gases caused by them absorbing radiation?”
Do you really think that it ISN’T that?
In its most basic terms the greenhouse effect is described something along the lines of “SW radiation from the sun comes in, the atmosphere is not warmed by it, LW radiation from the warmed Earth’s surface exits the top of atmosphere (TOA), there is a radiative balance between what comes in and what goes out; an increase in greenhouses gases reduces the amount that exits, so there is then less outgoing energy than incoming energy, and that results in warming”.
But WHAT exactly is supposedly warmed in that “warming”?
a) the Earth’s actual, physical, ground (and water) surface.
b) the atmosphere.
c) both.
First of all, we don’t measure the temperature of a). What’s referred to as global average temperature is actually comprised of temperature measurements made of the ATMOSPHERE 1 metre or so above the ground (or water). So if your answer is either a) or c) then you face the problem that we are not actually measuring the temperature of what you state is supposed to be warming in the first place!
If your answer is b), then by what mechanism do you propose that the atmosphere is being warmed, if not ultimately by absorption of additional radiation (that radiation which is not now leaving the Earth) by greenhouse gases?
And in answer to your second question, he is talking about SW infrared radiation and not SW radiation (like for instance UV). Infrared radiation is all essentially LW radiation in comparison to e.g. UV light, however it (infrared radiation) can still be further categorised into short, medium or longwave infrared.
These apparatuses were of 3 sections angles with 3 temperatures of one at each angle. Gases lighter than air would therefore rise to the higher section and those heavier to the lower section and only the middle section temperatures are given. This should be done under a vacuum before adding the air/gases to be exposed to the direct sunlight at high altitude to not be filtered by the atmosphere of lower elevations. The gases should be near pure and added in proportion to the atmosphere for the “air” and how do you create water vapour in a vacuum? There is potential for this experiment that needs to be addressed.
Creating a vacuum in a Styrofoam and Saran wrap environment would be difficult. As well Styrofoam off gasses fluorocarbons which are GHGs.
Just your opinion,Dale.
Why can’t you address it from a scientific angle instead?
Waiting for something beyond empty unsupported words from you Dale,where is the science based reply?
“Styrofoam off gasses fluorocarbons which are GHGs.” fact, not opinion
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#f-gases
That quote appears nowhere on that page, Jack.
A page search (ctl f) yields zero hits for “styro.” There are two hits for “foam” and both are “foam blowing agents.”
Not what you said it was.
sty·ro·foam
ˈstīrəˌfōm/Submit
nountrademark
a kind of expanded polystyrene.
The beads of polystyrene produced by suspension polymerization are tiny and hard. To make them expand, special blowing agents are used, including propane, pentane, methylene chloride, and the chlorofluorocarbons.
Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Expanded-Polystyrene-Foam-EPF.html#ixzz4s3BBL9er
I released that Allemendinger likely did not use Styrofoam(tm) which is usually blue. His apparatus is white. He likely used another expanded polystyrene product.
Is it possible to get an English translation of the paper yonason 4 linked?
http://www.schmanck.de/TreibhausMessung.pdf
It seems to be a very thorough experiment.
Sorry, Bryan. I’ve looked, but haven’t found one. My fallback in cases like this is Google Translate. Its a bit clunky, but it’s usually sufficient.
I hope that helps.
Pgs. 23-34, especially “High School Experiments” here:
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
This has been known for some time, I thought. Shine a light on a gas in a bottle, the gas will warm up. That does not, by logical necessity, mean that the same effect will be seen in the open atmosphere. The open atmosphere has many more ‘degrees of freedom’ as it were.
What have controlled scientific experiments of the open atmosphere revealed when using parts per million (0.000001) changes in CO2 as a variable? How was CO2 controlled in the open atmosphere relative to other other gases/atmospheric constituents, including cloud cover? Do you have those results?
For that matter, what have controlled scientific experiments involving CO2 as the control revealed with regard to CO2 heating/cooling the ocean when its concentration is increased or decreased in volumes of 0.000001? After all, the ocean is where well over 90% of the net heat changes in the Earth’s climate system occur. The atmosphere’s heat represents just 1%. So where are the experiments showing how much (real-world physical measurements) CO2 heats or cools water bodies when increased or decreased? What are those results?
Hi, CD. Nice to see you here.
The Berthold-Klein Mylar balloon expt got similar results – no GHE apart from when convection is blocked. Arguments over how purportedly unreactive gases handle sunlight frequencies point to the possibility we have more to learn there. But CO2 as a bogeyman, that is finished, should never have started. Would not have without incredible dishonesty. Gas Laws rule!
“Firstly: . . .for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation.”
The word “sunlight” seems wrong here.
Is “atmosphere” intended?
Sunlight is composed of many different wavelengths with eyes and brains producing a colour. I’m confused by this usage.
I agree on the confusion. English is not Dr. Allmendinger’s first language (Zurich), so perhaps this could be a consequence.
What language did those who conducted the “peer review” speech?
I’m not sure, since the journal’s editors/reviewers are an international conglomeration, spanning the US to Turkey to Australia to Japan to India to Algeria to the Czech Rep. to New Delhi to Germany to Canada…
Your question appears to border on ethnocentrism, Jack. Do you have a prejudicial bias against non-English-speaking people, or people for whom English is a second/tertiary language?
Finally, did you mean to write “speak” instead of “speech” in the question above?
I am probably one of the least ethnocentric people you would encounter. Thanks for the ad hom.
Yes, I did mean “speak”. Thanks for the quibble. This forum requires an edit function.
I am definitely not convinced by the greenhouse hypothesis (it is far from a theory), but I am also not convinced by this experiment. The author claims he has discovered a new effect, with diatomic gaz absorbing radiations. Waoooo ! Incredible results need outstanding demonstrations.
I think there is a much simpler explanation: sunlight simply heats the thermometers in the tube, and the gaz cool them down, so the equilibrium temperature is slightly depending on the nature of the gaz. Are the thermometers shielded from incident sunlight?
By the way I don’t agree with affirmations like “it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up” or “There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat”. At normal pressure (and far below) the gaz do not emit any radiation. Simply because the flight time of the molecule (the time before it hits a neighboring molecule) is much shorter than the life time of the excited state. Thus all the molecules come back to the fondamental state through collision, and therefore to kinetic energy (temperature). To be convinced one can look at a barbecue. The charcoal is red hot, but the gaz above (mainly air and CO2) at the same temperature does not emit anything. And on the image from IR camera one never see any image of the gaz emitting above a heat source.
If you want to see a gaz emitting a radiation, it has to be at very low pressure!
Therefore the greenhouse hypothesis is simply wrong because the radiative effects in the atmosphere are negligible. The temperature of the atmosphere is due to adiabatic gradient and to convection (plus the phase transition of the water).
[…] – Ph.D. Physicist Uses Empirical Data To Assert CO2 Greenhouse Theory A ‘Phantasm’ To Be ‘Neglec…: […]
[…] Ref.: https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theor… […]
A more valid experiment would be to place the tube over a tub of heated water held at say 30C, similar to a tropical ocean, that is emitting IR then measure the temperature in the tubes with the top of the tube aimed at the night sky.
The experiment conducted with sunlight is looking at the response to incoming broad spectrum EMR not IR emitted at surface temperature. It is meaningless in terms of the way radiative gasses affect the release of heat from the surface, which is predominantly water.
The atmosphere certainly limits the rate of heat loss from the tropical oceans. The question is whether a tiny amount of additional CO2 can make any measurable difference. If it could we would see reduction in sea ice cover at the poles due to increasing ocean temperature and that is not significant for the last 35 years:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgVQxxALD4EXWLeWB
In the past 2.5 centuries atmospheric CO2 has increased 40%. That is not insignificant. Using carbon isotope analysis that 40% increase can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuel.
Antarctic and Arctic sea ice are both in decline.
“Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
Yes, in the last 250 years, the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has increased by a little over 1/100ths of a percentage point (0.01%). In the last 25 years, the increase has accelerated; CO2 molecules are now spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990 (353 parts per million).
The Antarctic (and entire Southern Hemisphere’s) sea ice has been growing, not declining, since the 1970s: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Sea-Ice-Extent-Southern-Hemisphere-Comiso-2017.jpg
–
Comiso et al., 2017
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0408.1
“The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models. After a record high extent in 2012 the extent was even higher in 2014 when the magnitude exceeded 20 × 106 km2 for the first time during the satellite era. … [T]he trend in sea ice cover is strongly influenced by the trend in surface temperature [cooling].”
–
This sea ice expansion probably has to do with the Southern Ocean cooling trend since 1979.
–
Fan et al., 2014
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059239/pdf
“Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately 0.2–0.4°C per decade or 0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”
–
The Greenland ice sheet gained mass in the last year – 544 billion tonnes of ice. That’s 32.5% above the long-term average and the 5th highest mass gain since the 1970s.
–
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-greenland-ice-sheet-2017
“For the 2016-17 SMB year, which ended yesterday, the ice sheet had gained 544bn tonnes of ice, compared to an average for 1981-2010 of 368bn tonnes. … The SMB for 2016-17 is the fifth highest in the 37-year record.”
–
Greenland has been cooling since 2005, just as the North Atlantic has been cooling since about 2005.
–
The Arctic is no warmer now than in the 1930s and 1940s…despite humans emitting 9 GtC/yr in recent years vs. just 1 GtC/yr for during the 1930s and 1940s.
–
Since 1993, Greenland’s ice sheet melt has added just 0.39 of a centimeter to global sea levels, after having adding nothing to sea levels between 1940 and 2000 and just 1.5 cm in total since 1900.
Speaking of, Jack, can you answer this question:
Why did the Arctic cool down by about ~1.5 C from 1940 to 1990 during the same time that human emissions exploded? What was the mechanism that caused 50 years of Arctic cooling?
Not sure where you get 1940-1990 data, but ..
We know that the increase of war and post war industrial aerosols resulted in a cooling trend that continued until the 1970’s Clean Air Acts reduced those aerosols which were also producing the smog found in cities like Los Angeles.
This graph (https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Arctic-Temperatures-1920-2017-HadCRUT4.jpg) shows a fairly pronounced and steady increase in Arctic temperatures from the mid 1960’s to the present.
Wow. You must be very proud of America’s prowess, as you apparently assume the US government’s laws and the absence or presence of smog in US cities are significantly responsible for heating and cooling the Arctic.
Since you are so concerned about Arctic warming, should the US Clean Air Act be rescinded so your fine country can, once again, cool the Arctic down again? If not, why not?
–
“Temperature cools between 1940 and 1995.”
–
Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years [1950-1990]
“In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions. … The lack of widespread significant warming trends leads us to conclude that there is no strong evidence to support model simulations of greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean for the period 1950-1990.”
–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.852/abstract
“Temporal and spatial variability are analysed in Greenland instrumental temperature records from 24 coastal and three ice sheet locations. … The standard period 1961–90 was marked by 1–2°C statistically significant cooling.”
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-Drinkwater06-copy1.jpg
–
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/GreenlandIce.pdf
“A substantial decrease in the surface air temperature occurred over the Greenland ice sheet summit in summer season during the period of available measurements from 1987 to 2001. The average temperature of the warmest month and the summer average (June, July and August) temperature show a decreasing trend of 3.0 and 2.2°C/decade between 1987 and 2001”
–
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Hanna.pdf
“Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland, 1958–2001, shows a significant cooling (trend-line change −1.29°C for the 44 years), as do sea-surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador Sea”
–
http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf
“The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
–
Greenland gained ice mass between 1992 and 2002:
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat/publications/IGS/mass_changes_2005.pdf
The Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins (–42 ± 2 Gt/yr–1 below the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA)) and growing inland (+53 ± 2 Gt/yr–1 above the ELA) with a small overall mass gain (+11 ± 3 Gt/yr–1; –0.03 mm a–1SLE (sea-level equivalent)).”
That is not a plot of temperatures. It is a plot of “Temperature Anomalies.” Richard Lindzen explains their “significance” (or lack thereof) here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIixU1JyDU
A greatly magnified grain of sand may resemble a boulder, but at the end of the day it remains nothing more than a grain of sand.
Jack Dale must know the numbers.
Has he ever wondered about ice mass loss?
In numbers this is 2000 Gt in Antarctica over 20 Years.
You find source IPCC 2013.
This is little loss compared to how much ice is there in Antarctica.
0.01%! How measured? Maybe a day too late. Sun melted 0.01% in Antarctica.
True numbers you need to look at. Not difference which has no meaning.
John Dale
The plot (Hadcrut4 Arctic) is very interesting since it demonstrates a number of important points, namely:
1. That the temperatures today are no warmer than they were in 1938 or 1946 (smoothing 37 moving average); and more significantly
2. During the 24 year period between 1922 and 1946 there were 12 years when the anomaly was +4degC (or more), whereas in the 24 year period between 1992 and 2016, there are only 6 years when the anomaly was +4 degC (or more).
3. It follows from the 2 above that there were twice as many warm years during the early part of the 20th century when manmade CO2 emissions were minimal, than there were during the last part of the 20th century and early 21st century. This is significant because some 95% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place since 1946, and yet it was considerable warmer before those manmade emissions than after the manmade emissions.
4. If one looks at the peak anomalies, the peaks were higher in the past. Indeed 1937 saw a peak exceeding ~+7 degC which is about +3 deg C higher than any recent peak.
To summarise, the fact is that there has been no warming in the Arctic. Lots of multidecadal variation, but overall no warming, and one can see that the 1930s and 1940s were collectively warmer than today.
This is also consistent with sailing expeditions to the North pole. In the 1920s they were able to sail more than 1 degree further north than either the 2017 sailing or 2017 rowing expedition could achieve this year when they become stuck in ice. Indeed, in 1922 the expedition although more than 1 deg further North reported an open and ice free ocean! the sailing vessel was not stick in ice.
Here’s the context for that graph, btw.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/05/01/new-paper-greenland-gained-ice-between-1940s-2000s-added-just-1-5-cm-to-sea-levels-since-1900/#sthash.2dkDGDsB.dpbs
It doesn’t mean what you are asserting it does.
A bit more info on Antarctica.
http://www.c3headlines.com/arcticgreenlandantarcticglacierssea-ice/
Kenneth, do you believe the ice mass of Greenland increased from 1981 to 2010 because the SMB was positive at an average value of 368bn tonnes? Or do you know what the SMB is?
Did you have a problem with directly quoting carbonbrief.org?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-greenland-ice-sheet-2017
“For the 2016-17 SMB year, which ended yesterday, the ice sheet had gained 544bn tonnes of ice, compared to an average for 1981-2010 of 368bn tonnes.”
“The SMB for 2016-17 is the fifth highest in the 37-year record.”
The 544 billion tonnes of ice gained during the ice sheet growth season is balanced by the losses during the melt season. The ice sheet growth during the 2016-’17 gain season was 32.5% above the 1981-2010 average.
Did you stop reading after that paragraph? So you really think the SMB value means that the ice mass was growing every year?
I wrote nothing of the kind to even suggest this. Why do you insist on making up thoughts and statements and then dishonestly pretend that I “really think” what you made up? I have no respect for such blatantly dishonest behavior. It’s like cheating in a debate. Stop fabricating, SebastianH.
Just a quick note about SMB. Its does not account for calving, which is a source of ice floss. “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Jack
The charts you linked to are prepared for gullible public who do not understand data. It shows anomaly that exaggerates the true picture. I have plotted the sea ice extent to a base of zero so it is much easier to assess the significance of the changes. It has not changed much in total and cycles over each year. Picking one day and writing headlines about it is desperation to bolster belief in an unproven theory.
The sudden drop in Antarctic extent in the austral summer was in the aftermath of the 2016 El Nino. The reduction in sea ice just means greater heat loss from the planet so it will now be cooler following that event.
Greenland had the end of its melt in early August. The ice gained in 2017 was in the top quartile of the recorded data at 550Gt. That will actually reduce sea level by some unmeasurable amount. The Arctic sea ice melt season was shorter than average and temperature is already plummeting. The Arctic sea ice minimum extent is some 2Mkm^2 greater than the 2012 record low. Wadhams Arctic death spiral ended in 2012. We are now 5 years down the track and he is desperate to sell more of his fear mongering book.
Less ice means the planet is losing more heat. The ice insulates the ocean. Reasonably obvious when you look at this chart:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
The surface of the sea ice will be 30 degrees cooler than the water below and the surface has low emissivity while water has high emissivity. So heat loss from very cold ice is much lower than heat loss from open ocean water surface. Water, in all its phases, regulates the global climate. CO2 is a tiny bit player in the thermal balance hardly worthy of any credit or consideration. Its significant role is that almost all life on the planet relies on CO2 for the basic building blocks.
I notice that Dale doesn’t delve into the science of the paper at all, he whines about some of the materials used for the test, but never factually explains why he doesn’t like the set up.
He employs a number of fallacies, and thinks fact free opinions is good enough to counter the paper. He also avoids science based questions given to him.
Dale, thinks attacking the person credentials and the publication journal are legitimate points of discussion. All it really shows that this is a miserable warmist troll, who has no interest in an honest debate.
You guys aren’t the least bit skeptical about the content of this paper despite the huge BS signs?
Do you have anything that could support the notion that this paper contains a great scientific discovery and finally disproves the greenhouse effect? It’s junk science and if you can’t see that and are not skeptical about papers like these then well … why do you even call yourselves skeptics then?
So it’s not important to you what scientific review a paper received before being published? But it is important to you guys that this author has a PhD and experience in the field? And that’s enough to believe anything he publishes without being skeptical about it? Hmm …
Anyway, staying away from the comment section of this blog has been refreshing. You continue to attack commenters who don’t share your opinion and try to “convince” them with you weird arguments. Keep going and stay in wonderland … this author didn’t disprove the greenhouse effect and as his other recent papers show he is one of those “there is no AGW” nutters. The fact that you feel that he has a point makes me sad. Be skeptical towards those papers/authors that seem to support your opinion guys … could help your “side” not look as nuts as it does 😉
————–
So why return only to offer your substantive analysis above?
Sebastian, have you noticed that I haven’t stated any position on this article?
What I am asking Dale to do is point out factually WHY he doesn’t like the article,opinions doesn’t convince anyone.
You are being absurd when you complain about people,who amazingly want more than fact free opinions on the topic.
“So it’s not important to you what scientific review a paper received before being published? But it is important to you guys that this author has a PhD and experience in the field? And that’s enough to believe anything he publishes without being skeptical about it? Hmm …”
Dale tried to derail the conversation away from the research itself, by attacking the Researcher and the Journal that publishes his paper. It is why I am pushing Dale to get back to the research itself,comment on WHY he thinks it is no good. But he never has gone beyond the opinion level,which is why he failed to state his case.
You are doing the very same thing,trying to complain about what others think,so you can avoid the published paper itself. Then you can tell your friends about your chest beating exploits here……………….
It is clear here in the thread that You,chip and Dale, don’t offer ANYTHING based on the science,just complaints and opinions.
You are a poor alarmist.
“Sebastian, have you noticed that I haven’t stated any position on this article?” – sunsettommy
Same here.
I wouldn’t mind at all if they gave objective criticism, but their unhelpful activist trolling is both laughable and annoying.
Why do you believe the paper? Why aren’t you the least bit skeptical?
Ha ha ha.
Sebastian as usual has nothing to say.
Myself and Yonason TOLD you that we don’t have a position on the paper. Can’t you read and think at the same time?
This means you,Dale and anyone else who is unhappy with the paper,have an OPPORTUNITY to persuade readers here,but NOOOOOOO….., you clods pee all over the place with NOTHING but deflecting drivel.
Seb and Dal, why don’t two TELL us in some science based detail,WHY you don’t like the paper.
Why is it so hard for you two to do it?
@sunsettommy 5. September 2017 at 8:48 PM
When in grad school, and then when employed (retired now), we used to meet periodically for “journal club.” It was for the purpose of critiquing a recent paper or two, not always favorably. Personally, I would be happy if posters would be more critical of some of the material presented here, but in a constructive way.
In fact, I think what Kenneth Richard is doing is totally going over the trolls heads. Rather than realize he is just presenting another side of the story, they attack him as if he’s thinking as concretely as they are, which doesn’t appear to me to be the case. But then, I suppose we should understand how hard it is for trolls to think clearly when their heads are exploding.
Yes I have concerns about predatory journals. I have not questioned the credentials of the author. I have questioned the mickey mouse apparatus used – as have others.
Yes, we know you question it, but you NEVER tell us why in some detail WHY you don’t like it.
Speaking of mickey mouse apparatus, the “pal review” hijacking of major journals by warmist activists, in order to control the narrative, should bother you a lot more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
Does it? If not, why not?
Fact- Styrofoam off gasses fluorocarbons, known GHGs, which would contaminate the experiment.
The data would show it, and it doesn’t
Is there someone here – anyone at all – who has written that this paper “contains a great scientific discovery and finally disproves the greenhouse effect”?
Is there someone here – anyone at all – who has written that the credentials of Dr. Allmendinger are “enough to believe anything he publishes”? No and no.
This is just you, SebastianH, fabricating thoughts or opinions that no one has expressed (or thought) so that you can justify your name calling, characterizing both Dr. Allmendinger and those you don’t agree with as “nutters”.
Do you have something you could offer here besides fabrications, name-calling, and straw man concoctions? If not, why are you even here?
Then why post papers like this? What is the reason? To show another side of the story you say? Do you want to show the “warmists” just how insane science on the skeptics side can get? Why distance yourself from this now?
I don’t consider it “insane” to present scientific papers detailing the results of an experiment involving the unsettled science of the theoretical/hypothetical greenhouse effect. Controlled experiments are what science is all about, and trying to simulate what occurs in the atmosphere is exceedingly difficult as it is. (It doesn’t appear that others view the consideration of experiments like these “insane” either, as this article has been “shared” and retweeted nearly 4,000 times in 5 days.)
What I found most interesting about the paper is that there was no forced thermal difference at all between the effects of adding an inert gas like Argon to a container and the observed effects of adding a presumed climate-controlling greenhouse gas like CO2 to a container. Considering you believe that atmospheric CO2 molecules spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely now than they were in 1900 are the forcing mechanism that has been heating up the thousands-of-meters deep oceans in the last 100+ years, and inert gases like Ar have had absolutely nothing to do with the ocean heating up (since they don’t contribute to the GHE), shouldn’t there be at least some difference between the observed thermal effect of having CO2 vs. Ar in a container? Even a smidgen? But no, as this and other experiments have revealed, there is no thermal difference observed when using CO2 vs. a non-greenhouse gas. Considering how crucial to warming the planet it’s thought to be, I should think CO2 should at least warm up the container at least slightly more than an inert gas would.
Speaking of, in the experiment that you have said demonstrates how the atmospheric greenhouse effect works (i.e., the one you necessarily don’t label “insane”), there is also no thermal difference observed between adding CO2 or adding Ar either. Like the Allmendinger paper, both gases yield the same thermal result.
Can I assume you do believe that high school lab “greenhouse” experiments actually demonstrate how CO2 heats the Earth’s atmosphere? Because that’s been rather convincingly debunked. Do you believe it anyway? If so, I won’t call your belief “insane”. I’ll just assume you are unwilling to consider evidence that doesn’t align with your beliefs…which has been apparent for quite some time.
Wagoner et al., 2010
http://emerald.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
Our results demonstrate that the temperature rise observed in a popular classroom demonstration arises not from the radiative greenhouse effect responsible for global warming but primarily from the suppression of convective heat transport between CO2 and air due to the density difference between the two. This density difference, much like the roof of a real greenhouse, suppresses gas mixing at the CO2-air interface and therefore inhibits heat transfer. The magnitude of the radiative effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller and is difficult to demonstrate convincingly [in a lab experiment].
Before carbon dioxide was added, the temperature was about 5 °C above ambient. Therefore, the radiative greenhouse effect due to the addition of carbon dioxide should have increased the temperature by at most a few tenths of a degree. In reality, T more than doubled when CO2 was added, increasing by about 7°, too large an effect by at least a factor of 10 to be explained by a radiative mechanism.
The observations that CO2 and Ar gave almost identical results rule out a primarily radiative mechanism and strongly implicate convection. In addition to being consistent with these observations, our model shows that radiative effects are small and easily dominated by changes in convection, making it difficult to devise a convincing and authentic classroom demonstration of the radiative greenhouse effect. Even if the experiments were done in a sealed container, and CO2 were compared with Ar, differences in convective transport could not be ruled out. The abrupt transition from gradual warming to rapid cooling in our experiment at about 1200 s provides hints as to the actual nonradiative processes responsible for the temperature rise when either Ar or CO2 is added.
Although the level of CO2 decreased throughout the experiment, the temperature increased continuously and appeared to be smoothly approaching a steady-state value until the level of the gas dropped below the temperature sensor, at which time the gas abruptly began to cool. The suddenness of the transition suggests that the rate of heat transfer to the air outside the box is unrelated to the thickness of the Ar or CO2 layer, but depends only on the presence of an interface [a lid, glass, etc.] between the dense gas and the lighter ambient air.
None of the “Global Warming” models has explained the recovery from the last Ice Age, which was presumably done without the aid of SUVs and coal-fired power plants.
Milanovitch cycles are considered by the “alarmists”.
Milankovitch cycles are a solar forcing of climate changes. So you agree that the warming since the LIA has been solar-forced?
It wasn’t an actual ice age just because it is called LIA …
Gee Seb, Kenneth said NOTHING about Ice age at all. You keep making up irrelevant statements.
When are you ever going to TELL us in some detail, WHY you don’t like the paper.
You also failed to answer his question.
He he.
Milankovitch cycles are generally revered to as causing the back and forth between ice ages and interglacials. The thread was about the last ice age. Kenneth used the term little ice age.
Oh, not demanding a counterpoint this time? And can I use this reply whenever you didn’t answer my question in your replies? 😉
The Little Ice Age was the period that spanned the Sporer, Maunder, Dalton, and 1890-1910 minimums (1450-1900) – centennial-scale periods with low solar activity and low temperatures and glacier readvances. The last ice age was the period that ended the Pleistocene that spanned the ~80,000 years between the last interglacial and Younger Dryas (14,700 – 11,700 years ago), when sea levels were 120 meters lower than they are now. What amount of solar forcing, in W m-2, do you believe caused the melting of the great ice sheets that covered Canada, the UK, Russia, Scandinavia…in kilometers-thick ice?
Did someone call the 1450-1900 C.E. period of low solar activity an “actual ice age”? I know I didn’t. So who do you think did? Or are you just doing what you do routinely: making up statements that no one wrote and then dishonestly claiming that someone actually wrote what you made up? Of course that’s what you’re doing.
Kenneth, you are mixing up two different solar forcings here. One is the variability in the actual output of the Sun (TSI) and the other is the amount of that energy that is reaching different parts of this planet.
You usually argue that it’s an increase in TSI that is causing the current warming (since the LIA). You mention the solar maximum, etc … and now it’s the Milankovitch cycles? What changed your opinion?
I’m not “mixing them up” in the slightest. Both are means by which the Sun impacts the climate. It’s not an either/or thing.
IPCC: “Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet (see FAQ 1.1). There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change: (1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself), (2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected(this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and (3) altering the longwave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations). In addition, local climate also depends on how heat is distributed by winds and ocean currents.”
The (1) above, or the indication of the Modern Grand Maximum is the sunspot number, as reflected in solar spectral irradiance (SSI).
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/67/meta
We have then examined solar spectral irradiance (SSI) to find a good phase correlation with a sunspot number in the wavelength range of 170-260 nm, which is close to the spectral range effective in heating the Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, it appears that SSI rather than TSI is a good indicator of the chromospheric activity, and its cycle length dependent variation would be more relevant to the possible role of the Sun in the cyclic variation of the Earth’s atmosphere.
–
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2Fs40645-014-0024-3#page-1
[T]he main focus has moved from TSI [total solar irradiance] towards understanding SSI [solar spectral irradiance] variations and their impact as well as shifting from the global responses to more regional responses. With better understanding of SSI [solar spectral irradiance], the importance of the top-down stratospheric UV mechanism has been widely accepted.
—
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Modern-Grand-Maximum-UVR-Chen-2015.jpg
–
Again, it’s not either/or. It’s both.
What’s the mechanism that caused ocean’s temperatures to plummet by -0.9 C (0-700 m) between 1000 C.E. and 1600-1800 C.E., Sebastian? The radiative forcing mechanism was very substantial, obviously, to have caused that much of a temperature/heat change. So what was it? Be specific in identifying it.
–
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
“We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses [Pacific Ocean] were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.”
Milankovitch cycles are based on eccentricity, precession and axial tilt, not solar variability / forcing. Therefore your question does not follow.
Dale, you sure about that?
Lets see what this college website thinks about Solar effects on his work:
“Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
The episodic nature of the Earth’s glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth’s circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth’s climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth’s glaciers.”
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
Kenneth didn’t say Solar VARIABILITY, you made that up.
yonason
“solar forcing = total irradiance” I will accept that.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies 0.1% which is insignificant in climate change.
A review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf
The TSI is not really the measure by which the Sun influences climate. It’s not a direct cause-effect connection. Variations in geomagnetic activity and albedo (cloud cover, which are connected to cosmic rays) assume a significant role. I’ll provide just a few links below. But these are just a sample of the over 225 peer-reviewed scientific papers that have been published in the last 2 years alone linking modern and past climate changes to solar forcing, not 0.000001 variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. There are already 98 alone that have been published in 2017, and there were over 130 published in 2016. Sorry, but the idea that the science is “settled” that the Sun plays little to no role in climate changes is becoming less and less supportable.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1019331613030015
The author associates the recently observed climate warming and carbon dioxide concentration growth in the lower atmospheric layers with variations of solar-geomagnetic activity in global cloud formation and the significant decrease in the role of forests in carbon dioxide accumulation in the process of photosynthesis. The contribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon-containing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant.
–
http://file.scirp.org/Html/7-2801173_63199.htm
These results indicated that the increase in CO2 and global temperatures are primarily caused by major geophysical factors, particularly the diminishing total geomagnetic field strength and increased geomagnetic activity, but not by human activities.
–
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys-discuss.net/2/1447/2015/npgd-2-1447-2015.pdf
Introduction: Several recent studies of solar–geomagnetic effects on climate have been examined on both global as well as on regional scales. The Sun’s long-term magnetic variability is the primary driver of climatic changes. The magnetic variability (mostly short-term components) is due to the disturbances in Earth’s magnetic fields caused by the solar activity, which is usually indicated by indices of geomagnetic activity. The Sun’s magnetic variability modulates the magnetic and particulate fluxes in the heliosphere. This determines the interplanetary conditions and imposes significant electromagnetic forces and effects upon planetary atmospheres. All these effects are due to the changing solar-magnetic fields which are relevant for planetary climates, including the climate of the Earth. The Sun–Earth relationship varies on different time scales of days to years bringing a drastic influence on the climatic patterns. The ultimate cause of solar variability, at time scales from decadal to cen tennial to millennial or even longer scales, has its origin in the solar dynamo mechanism. During the solar maxima, huge amounts of solar energy particles are released, thereby causing the geomagnetic disturbances. The 11 years solar cycle acts an important driving force for variations in the space weather, ultimately giving rise to climatic changes.
Changes in albedo (cloud cover
Kenneth
Sorry to rain on your parade. Cosmic rays have precious little to do with cloud formation. Svensmark’s hypothesis has no standing.
Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists.
The findings, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reconfirm the basic science that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing most climate change. They also reexamine the alternative case made by climate deniers: that it is the Sun’s changing activity and not us that is causing the Earth to heat up.
The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/
And from CERN
In the latest work, published in Science, researchers built a global model of aerosol formation using CLOUD-measured nucleation rates involving sulphuric acid, ammonia, ions and organic compounds. Although sulphuric acid has long been known to be important for nucleation, the results show for the first time that observed concentrations of particles throughout the atmosphere can be explained only if additional molecules – organic compounds or ammonia – participate in nucleation. The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.
https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/10/cloud-experiment-sharpens-climate-predictions%5B
Uh, Jack, believe me: you’re not raining on my parade in the slightest.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/23/russian-scientists-dismiss-co2-forcing-predict-decades-of-cooling-connect-cosmic-ray-flux-to-climate/
Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate
–
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_2008.pdf
Even a small change in the cloud cover modifies the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and affects the amount of absorbed solar radiation, even with no changes in the solar irradiance. Since the flux of CR [cosmic rays] is modulated by the solar magnetic activity, this provides a link between solar variability and climate.
–
Utomo, 2017
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/817/1/012045/pdf
A similar result was also found for the relationship between solar activity and cosmic ray flux with a negative correlation, i.e. 0.69/year. When solar activities decrease, the clouds cover rate increase due-0.61/month and – to secondary ions produced by cosmic rays. The increase in the cloud cover rate causes the decrease in solar constant value and solar radiation on the earth’s surface. … The increase in the formation rate of cloud would affect the decrease in the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The relationship between cosmic rays and solar constant is an “opposite” relationship because of the negative correlation type (r < 0). The phenomenon of “opposite” is in a good agreement with the result by Svensmark (1997) who found a correlation between temperature and global cloud coverage with the cosmic rays - Luthardt and Rößler, 2017 http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2017/01/12/G38669.1.abstract
The 11 yr solar cycle, also known as Schwabe cycle, represents the smallest-scaled solar cyclicity and is traced back to sunspot activity (Douglass, 1928; Lean, 2000), which has a measurable effect on the Earth’s climate, as indicated by the Maunder minimum (Usoskin et al., 2015). Global climate feedback reactions to solar irradiance variations caused by sunspots are complex and hypothesized to be triggered by (1) variation in total energy input (Cubasch and Voss, 2000), (2) the influence of ultraviolet light intensity variation on composition of the stratosphere (Lean and Rind, 2001), (3) the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002), and/or (4) the effect of high-energy particles on the strato- and mesosphere (Jackman et al., 2005). … [L]ike today, sunspot activity caused fluctuations of cosmic radiation input to the atmosphere, affecting cloud formation and annual rates of precipitation.
–
Biktash, 2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123217300334
The effects of total solar irradiance (TSI) and volcanic activity on long-term global temperature variations during solar cycles 19–23 [1954-2008] were studied. It was shown that a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI [total solar irradiance] and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters. … Recent studies by Pudovkin and Raspopov, Tinsley, and Swensmark have shown that the Earth’s cloud coverage is strongly influenced by cosmic ray intensity. Conditions in interplanetary space, which can influence GCRs and climate change, have been studied in numerous works. As has been demonstrated by Biktash, the long-term CR count rate and global temperature variations in 20–23 solar cycles [1960s-2000s] are modulated by solar activity and by the IMF (interplanetary magnetic field).
Well, those two British scientists have some competition:
https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/24/attribution-shift-scientists-increasingly-link-climate-change-to-solar-forcing-in-scientific-journals/
According to a paper published in the journal Nature last year, the CO2 greenhouse effect was overwhelmed by cloud cover changes between 1992-2014, such that there was a “hiatus” in the radiative forcing of the greenhouse effect during that time period. 100s of billions of tonnes of CO2 emissions from humans between 1992 and 2014 yielded a pause in greenhouse forcing. Why did that happen, Jack? (By the way, see the supporting evidence from scientists that CO2 has a minimal influence on temperature changes at the bottom.)
https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/
Changes in solar radiation are known as solar forcing. Milankovitch cycles are independent of changes of solar radiation. There is a reason it called a solar constant; it varies about 0.2% at most. Milankovitch cycles do affect how much of that solar radiation reaches the earth.
The warmest point of the last Milankovitch cycle was around 10,000 years ago, at the peak of the Holocene. Since then, there has been an overall cooling trend, consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, and this cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all else remained the same.
All else did not remain the same. Dumping 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over the past 2.5 centuries has messed up the natural cycles.
“Changes in solar radiation are known as solar forcing.” – Jack Dale
Nope. It’s not the changes, but the total that counts for that.
“…solar (total irradiance) forcing.” – Nir Shaviv, listing various forcings, in an article on our ignorance of just how much if any temp change is cased by CO2 vs solar.
I.e., he’s giving the definition…
solar forcing = total irradiance
You keep CRAAPing out. Are you gong for some kind of record?
Sorry, I am not a native speaker, but how is your reply making sense here? If solar forcing = TSI and that’s the output of the Sun reaching us (as in “our orbit”), then it is not what the Milankovitch cycles are about. That’s exactly what Jack Dale is saying. Or did I miss something here?
Jack Dale seems to be saying that the climate has been slowly cooling for 1,000s of years, without any significant warming or cooling episodes due to declining insolation…until modern times, when abrupt and significant climate changes occurred. The (a) lack of abrupt heating and cooling variability is definitely not reflected in the temperature record of 100s of temperature reconstructions from across the world, as shown here, for example, and (b) the association between the low and high solar activity (UV light intensity, geomagnetic activity, sunspot number…) and corresponding temperature changes is robust. And the low activity during 1450-1900 is repeatedly and routinely ascribed as the cause of the cold temperatures during the Little Ice Age, but yet at the same time people on your side are unwilling to acknowledge the influence of high solar activity with the warmer temperatures of the 20th century. Why dismiss so much (rapidly growing) evidence?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Modern-Grand-Maximum-Chen-2015.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Modern-Grand-Maximum-UVR-Chen-2015.jpg
–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12130/full
“We explored the sources and characteristics of each pigment, reconstructed an 800-year record of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and total incoming light intensity, and identified the possible factors that may have influenced historical UVR changes in this region. The results indicated at least four UVR [ultraviolet radiation] peaks during the past 800 years, corresponding to c. AD 1950–2000, 1720–1790, 1560–1630 and 1350–1480, with the intensity from the most recent [1950-2000] sediments being the highest.”
Jack Dale not knowing his numbers.
Dismissing 0.1% as not relevant for Solar Irradiation.
But will think that 0.01% ice mass loss in Antarctiva is relevant, like the IPCC 2013 suggests.
He not realises that energy content in atmosphere changes by only 0.3% for one Kelvin up.
Since “how much of that solar radiation reaches the earth” is referred to as insolation, and insolation changes determine the Earth’s climate….so, just as I wrote, Milankovitch cycles are a solar forcing of climate changes.
How much solar forcing (insolation) was required to warm up Greenland by 10 degrees within a span of a few decades 14,700 years ago? What’s the radiative forcing (in W m-2) required to warm up entire continents enough (and that quickly) to melt kilometers of ice thickness and raise sea levels by 120 meters?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/full/nature12374.html
Milankovitch theory proposes that summer insolation [solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface] at high northern latitudes drives the glacial cycles, and statistical tests have demonstrated that the glacial cycles are indeed linked to eccentricity, obliquity and precession cycles. … Here we show, using comprehensive climate and ice-sheet models, that insolation and internal feedbacks between the climate, the ice sheets and the lithosphere–asthenosphere system explain the 100,000-year periodicity. … Therefore, once a large ice sheet is established, a moderate increase in insolation [solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface] is sufficient to trigger a negative mass balance, leading to an almost complete retreat of the ice sheet within several thousand years.
–
So why do you think it is that sea levels have continued rising since then, to the point that they were 2 or 3 meters higher than they are now between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago?
And why do you think temperature changes in the oceans were so much more pronounced and rapid than what has been recorded in the last few hundred years?
For example, according to Rosenthal et al. (2013), the Pacific Ocean was 0.9 C warmer in 1000 C.E. (Medieval Warm Period) than it was during the years between 1600-1800 (Little Ice Age). Since then, or in the last ~300 years, ocean temperatures have only warmed up by a total of 0.25 C in the 0-700 m layer. That’s less than 0.1 C per century. In contrast, during the Middle Holocene, when sea levels were meters higher than they are now, ocean temperatures warmed up by 2 degrees C within less than 200 years (Bova et al., 2016). That’s more than 1.0 C per century, or greater than 10 times the rate and amplitude of warming in the years of CO2 rise/anthropogenic influence [1750-today]. So if CO2 didn’t cause those far more rapid and expansive centennial-scale warmings during the Mid-Holocene, and you don’t believe variations in insolation caused those 2 degrees C/200 years warmings, what was the mechanism that did, Jack? Please be specific in providing an answer to this question.
When you put ice in a glass of hot tea, does the ice melt despite the temperature of the liquid decreasing?
Do you trust that proxy reconstruction? What makes you think that it’s a global ocean temperature that Bova et al. are writing about? Do you think it is possible that you misunderstood the paper (or rather the abstract)?
Do you realize what you are doing here? You take local proxy data from a “test” and assume that this means that the ocean heat content changes more rapidly and on a global scale in the past. You state it as a fact … why?
So why do you think it is that sea levels have continued rising since then, to the point that they were 2 or 3 meters higher than they are now between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago?
When you put ice in a glass of hot tea, does the ice melt despite the temperature of the liquid decreasing?
So it is your belief that the oceans didn’t have centennial-scale (and perhaps millennial-scale) warming periods during the overall cooling progression, looking like this…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Heat-Content-Rosenthal13-copy.jpg
…with sea levels rising during the warmer periods and falling during the cooler periods? Because that is clearly what the paleoclimate record shows. For example:
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Western-Tropical-Pacific-Zhang-2017.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Norwegian-Atlantic-Tegzes-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Northeastern-Atlantic-OHC-Rosenthal-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Alaska-Gulf-North-Pacific-Wilson-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Yellow-Sea-Nan-2017.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Western-Pacific-Bird-2017.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Irminger-Sea-North-Atlantic-de-Jong-16.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Holocene-Cooling-Western-Tropical-Pacific-Park-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Holocene-Cooling-China-SW-Sun-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Holocene-Cooling-Sunda-Shelf-SSTs-SE-Asia-Woodson-2017.jpg
Do you deny that the paleoclimate record clearly shows abrupt and dramatic warming and cooling events that far exceed modern changes throughout the last several thousand years, or do you accept that water temperatures have not followed a smoothly and slowly declining path?
SebastianH, Bova et al. (2016) is just one of many dozen reconstructions that show rapid warming and cooling events from all over the world. The tiny sample above is just a few of what’s available. This shouldn’t be new information for you…but I would not be surprised that you haven’t looked into this before now, as the idea that ocean temperatures fluctuated up and down (warmed and cooled) at far more abrupt and pronounced rates and amplitudes than during the modern record would seem to contradict your beliefs, wouldn’t it…since it would have to be driven by some other mechanism besides CO2? What would that mechanism be, SebastianH? Can you identify the cause of ocean temperatures from all over the world that warm and cool at 10 times the rate and amplitude of the modern changes?
I carefully avoid using the word “fact”, and I did not employ that word here despite your fabrication. What are the “facts” as you see them, though, about Holocene ocean heat content variations?
Fact is that we are influencing the climate and your attempts in trying to attribute the current warming to the same causes that affected previous warming are weird.
sunsettommy
Why did you omit this paragraph from the Indiana website?
“It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.”
I didn’t because this was good enough,which presumably you read:
“Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.”
Neither has Kenneth or myself say it the way you claim we say it.
Kenneth writes,
“Milankovitch cycles are a solar forcing of climate changes.”
Gee,he never said MK cycles causes the sun to vary,he was referring to alterations of the solar effect,by the long term MK changing cycles,on the planets surface.
YOU wrote this using a phrase Kenneth NEVER wrote,
“Milankovitch cycles are based on eccentricity, precession and axial tilt, not solar variability / forcing…..”
He never wrote Solar Variability, as if the Sun had variable output because of the MK theory. He was talking about the MY cycle effecting the solar radiation impact on the planet.
You got it BACKWARDS!
Kenneth wrote,
“Milankovitch cycles are a solar forcing of climate changes. So you agree that the warming since the LIA has been solar-forced?
How did you manage to misread it so badly?
Astonishing. It has happened again.
The papers you have presented depend on correlation. As we all know correlation is not sufficient to claim causation; a mechanism must be shown. The CLOUD experiment at CERN can find no such significant mechanism; there, there is not causal link between cosmic rays and cliud formation. CERN has found a mechanism for amines and cloud formation.
Here we use the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) chamber at CERN and find that dimethylamine above three parts per trillion by volume can enhance particle formation rates more than 1,000-fold compared with ammonia, sufficient to account for the particle formation rates observed in the atmosphere. Molecular analysis of the clusters reveals that the faster nucleation is explained by a base-stabilization mechanism involving acid–amine pairs, which strongly decrease evaporation. The ion-induced contribution is generally small, reflecting the high stability of sulphuric acid–dimethylamine clusters and indicating that galactic cosmic rays exert only a small influence on their formation, except at low overall formation rates.”
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7471/full/nature12663.html
If you have some thing that demonstrates a mechaism for cosmic rays, please provide it. Just one will do; no word salad please.
What I am looking for a a replication of Svensmark’s claims’ so please do not post Svensmark’s experiments; I have read them.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cooling-Warming-Temperature-Cloud-Page-17.jpg
http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% [between 1984 – 2009] means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere… To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report…states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2. The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present].
–
ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 […] translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.
You keep quoting those numbers as if we never discussed this nonsense comparison and/or you didn’t understand what the result was.
Why is it ok for you to compare 5.4 W/m² of increased SW radiation to the CO2 forcing without accounting for the decrease in LW radiation? As you wrote yourself, the cooling caused by clouds is just 18 – 21 W/m² … so and 6.8% reduction of cloud cover would mean a negative forcing of 1.22 – 1.43 W/m².
Also, why do you think the cloud cover changed independently from the increase of the greenhouse effect? Cosmic rays? 😉
Because 5.4 W m-2 is the net radiative forcing difference for cloud cover changes including both SW and LW.
You still have no idea what you’re talking about with regard to cloud radiative forcing. After having explained this to you before, and you still repeating the same misunderstanding, I find it pointless to try to educate you once again.
So you disagree with yonason’s post:
“…solar (total irradiance) forcing.” – Nir Shaviv, listing various forcings, in an article on our ignorance of just how much if any temp change is cased by CO2 vs solar.
I.e., he’s giving the definition…
solar forcing = total irradiance
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1228674
Shaviv does not include total irradiance in his definition.
I fully disagree that the only means by which the Sun influences climate is measured by modeled reconstructions of TSI.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1228826
None of these replicate Svensmark.
I didn’t write that they “replicate Svensmark”. You asked for a mechanism whereby variations in clouds, which are seeded by cosmic rays, influence temperature. Cloud variations influence temperature far more than 0.000001 (ppmv) variations in atmospheric CO2 do.
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/cloud%20radiative%20forcing.pdf
Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. ..The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.
–
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/usoskin_CR_2008.pdf
Even a small change in the cloud cover modifies the transparency/absorption/reflectance of the atmosphere and affects the amount of absorbed solar radiation, even with no changes in the solar irradiance. Since the flux of CR [cosmic rays] is modulated by the solar magnetic activity, this provides a link between solar variability and climate.
–
“[A]nything increasing the cloud cover, such as a decrease in the air-earth electrical field produced by a cosmic-ray flux increase resulting from a weaker solar wind (Tinsley, 1996, 1997) may have an effect on the earth’s climate that is much greater than expected from the initial change in TSI. A variation in cloud cover of 3% during an average 11-year solar cycle produces an effect of approximately 0.8 to 1.7 W/m-2 (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997). Significantly, this amount is similar to the total radiative forcing of 1.56 W/m-2 estimated for the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (Lakeman, 1995).” – Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change (AAPG Studies in Geology) , pg. 28, 29
My request
What I am looking for a a replication of Svensmark’s claims’ so please do not post Svensmark’s experiments; I have read them.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1228791
Woolly Mammoth farts. And look what happened to them! Learn from history, or repeat it. (-;|
Who else has done this experiment?
Hi Ton
I would suggest that you have a look at this paper
A comparison of the efficacy of green house gas forcing and solar forcing at https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/HT14/HT14024FU1.pdf
The take home observation from the experiment is this:
It is quite interesting since this paper reproduces (and validates) an experiment conducted by Konrad Hartmann. This experiment has evolved in its sophistication. Konrad used to comment on WUWT, and I recall exchanges on an article by Willis Radiating the Oceans wherein Konrad, I (and others) sought to point out to Willis the problem with DWLWIR and the oceans. DWLWIR, because of its omni-directional basis, is essentially fully absorbed within the top 6 vertical microns of the ocean.
There are a lot of problems if this is sensible energy capable of doing real work in this environment, unless the energy so absorbed can in some way be diluted to depth (thereby dissipating the energy in a large volume of water), at a speed greater than the speed that this absorbed energy would otherwise drive evaporation.
That experiment has the same problem as the one from the paper above. Someone with an opinion about how things ought to work got exactly the results he wanted to get. That the setup could be flawed doesn’t occur to them … (And you guys)
But of course you don’t tell us WHY you think they have problems (You don’t state them),you say the set up is flawed (You don’t state them)
Again you put a lot of words on the board,but gee whiz where are the details,the evidence,the facts….., my dog ate it!
It is clear that you can’t tell us why they are bad.
sunsettommy, it takes a lot of time to read all those papers that Kenneth posts here and trying to make you understand why it’s either nonsense or you (Kenneth) is omitting important information or just doesn’t understand the conclusion. Maybe that is his strategy … to maximize the waste of the time of his “opponents”.
Anyway, since you asked:
1) the paper is full of language errors (so nobody read this paper before it was published = zero peer review)
2) On page 2 the author tries to explain the greenhouse effect as absorption of “medium-wave IR-radiation” by the atmosphere and thus causing the warming of that atmosphere. He is missing the important part of back radiation. Does the author really know what he is writing about?
3) He writes that Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is only valid in a vacuum, which is false.
4) The “previous investigation” he refers to got this wrong too. The result is that he thinks radiation is only a minor part of how the emission from an object. Is that so? If heat conduction accounts for 60% of the energy emitted, how many hundreds of W/m² is that exactly?
5) I don’t know what his point 2 on page 2 is about. Something about issues with averaging?
6) Point 3 seems to be nonsense too … “the latter one [artifical light] – as well as the up-going IR-radiation –
exhibiting an intensity loss inversely proportional to the distance in the square while the intensity of the incident solar radiation is independent of the distance”. I am pretty sure every kind of radiation behaves the same.
7) I don’t know why Kenneth implies that the author means “to space” with “re-emitted, to wit in all directions” in point 4. I can’t decide if the rest is made up or not … is the kinetic gas theory really being completely ignored by climatology? I hope not 😉
8) Point 5 is weird again. The atmosphere behaves like a black body towards space. The effect it has on the surface can also be interpreted as if the atmosphere were a black body. That hides the true mechanism and distribution, but it’s good enough for some calculations. Regarding all gases radiating at certain temperatures, sure. But it’s a different story with mono atomic gases vs. gases with more atoms, e.g. greenhouse gases as the author himself explained in point 4.
Regardings the experiment itself:
– the author is ignoring that the Sun is heating his styrofoam enclosure.
– the author is ignoring that a heat lamp heats his styrofoam enclosure and temperature sensors. He is measuring a temperature gradient corresponding to that and his conclusion from this is point 3 on his list.
– the author thinks that a heat lamp (or IR-bulbs as he wrote) emits “shortwave IR-radiation”
The author seems to be overwhelmed by his “discovery” which is just the result of a flawed setup. Rest assured, it is no planet wide conspiracy if you’ll never hear from this discovery again anywhere 😉
It is highly likely that Dr. Allmendinger knows significantly more than you (or I) about the physics of gas and light. That you appear to think you know more than he does, and thus you feel entitled to use condescending language and call him names (a “nutter”) is disgusting.
Because “in all directions” means that the re-emission can include to space, not just downwards. Perhaps this wasn’t as clear as I thought it was. I’ll remove it.
Dr. Allmendinger is a lab professor (a chemist). He is likely significantly more familiar with kinetic gas theory than you, SebastianH.
In what way is he “ignoring” this? He isn’t, of course. Why the condescension? Have you at some point earned that, SebastianH? Here’s what Dr. Allmendinger writes about his areas of professional expertise:
Dr. Allmendinger: “I’m familiar not only with experimental methods such as photometry, infrared-spectroscopy and atomic absorption spectroscopy, but also with the basic theories such as thermodynamics, kinetic gas theory and quantum mechanics.”
This is an odd criticism coming from the same person who claimed that this youtube Alka Selzer experiment demonstrates how CO2 heats water:
Again with the haughty, know-it-all condescension. Are you going to call Dr. Allmendinger a “nutter” again too?
Sebastian,
at least you gave it a try,but still has ZERO science based counterpoints in it.
You say:
“1) the paper is full of language errors (so nobody read this paper before it was published = zero peer review)”
No examples provided.
“2) On page 2 the author tries to explain the greenhouse effect as absorption of “medium-wave IR-radiation” by the atmosphere and thus causing the warming of that atmosphere. He is missing the important part of back radiation. Does the author really know what he is writing about?”
He is talking about the ATMOSPHERE itself,He is trying to account for how much of the atmosphere warming can be had via the IN THE AIR absorption effect.
“3) He writes that Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is only valid in a vacuum, which is false.”
You didn’t show where he said that,you should provide a quote to make a case.
“4) The “previous investigation” he refers to got this wrong too. The result is that he thinks radiation is only a minor part of how the emission from an object. Is that so? If heat conduction accounts for 60% of the energy emitted, how many hundreds of W/m² is that exactly?”
where is the quote? You again failed to show what the researcher actually said.
“5) I don’t know what his point 2 on page 2 is about. Something about issues with averaging?”
Again no quote.
“6) Point 3 seems to be nonsense too … “the latter one [artifical light] – as well as the up-going IR-radiation –
exhibiting an intensity loss inversely proportional to the distance in the square while the intensity of the incident solar radiation is independent of the distance”. I am pretty sure every kind of radiation behaves the same.”
No it doesn’t. In any case you failed to back up your claim with evidence. Opinions are not enough in science.
“7) I don’t know why Kenneth implies that the author means “to space” with “re-emitted, to wit in all directions” in point 4. I can’t decide if the rest is made up or not … is the kinetic gas theory really being completely ignored by climatology? I hope not 😉”
You failed to show what Kenneth said,therefore your entire complaint is up in the air.
“8) Point 5 is weird again. The atmosphere behaves like a black body towards space. The effect it has on the surface can also be interpreted as if the atmosphere were a black body. That hides the true mechanism and distribution, but it’s good enough for some calculations. Regarding all gases radiating at certain temperatures, sure. But it’s a different story with mono atomic gases vs. gases with more atoms, e.g. greenhouse gases as the author himself explained in point 4.”
You write confusingly,since you don’t quote at all. What are you really complaining about?
Your case against him is poor and unconvincing.
For me it doesn’t matter since a simple calculation of the Postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 is simply too small to be a climate driver. Here is the basics at this website that explains it:
The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!
“A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.
If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.
The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/
Kenneth,
isn’t that interesting. You attribute knowledge to this “scientist” (yes, in quotes) because of his biography. No skepticism or fact checking required?
The statement of this Dr. Allmendinger that he thinks his artificial light source (the heat lamp) is outputting SW radiation and that he thinks the greenhouse effect is warming the atmosphere through radiation from the ground should have been enough to cause suspicion. His claim that he discovered something extraordinary (and new) with such a setup (the experiment part) should have made all your BS detecting lights go on immediately.
Why do you blindly believe such junk science without questioning it at all?
sunsettommy,
are you serious? Open the paper and read it … it isn’t that much text and you’ll find the sections I am talking about.
No quotes no counterpoint? What is wrong with you?
What kind of argument is that? The author uses the temperature and OLR difference between two dates to show that Earth “loses” more energy towards space when it is warmer. And then he argues that it won’t get warmer because of the loss? Besides, isn’t the difference between OLR and downwelling SW radiation what determines whether or not Earth is losing energy (cooling) or gaining energy (warming)?
A comparison of the efficacy of green house gas forcing and solar forcing at https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/HT14/
Another predatory journal.
Apparently you have not learned that this “rebuttal” is not effective here. The journal a paper is published in, nor the credentials of the author, are less important than the substance and robustness of the scientific evidence presented. This response amounts to an ad hominem logical fallacy argument.
“Apparently you have not learned that this “rebuttal” is not effective here. ”
Because you seem willing to accept junk science.
“This response amounts to an ad hominem logical fallacy argument.”
It speaks to credibility.
As shown earlier, a journal such as Nature has been shown to be willing to accept and publish papers filled with logical errors and statistical malpractice and mistakes that high schoolers commonly make, such as…
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
The Four Errors in Mann et al’s “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth”
…and yet I have yet to see you do anything other than accept and defend this clearly identifiable “junk science” anyway.
Which, again, goes to show that the journal that a paper is published in is significantly less important than contents of the paper itself.
What does it say about your credibility that you’re willing to defend Mann’s paper as sound scientific analysis (despite its exposed “junk science” status) because of (a) who the author is and (b) which journal the paper is published in?
What is the substance and robustness of the content of the paper you presented here? Can you determine that for us? You mention high schoolers making mistakes … can you find the high schooler mistake in that paper? Or do you blindly believe the conclusion because it matches your opinion about the GHE? 😉
While I find it interesting that there was no detectable “greenhouse” difference between air or argon and CO2 in this experiment with regard to heat retention, I am reluctant to accept that the observations presented here are representative of what occurs in the real-world atmosphere. The atmosphere does not have containers. For that matter, high school lab experiments involving test tubes and CO2 do not represent what happens in the atmosphere or what is alleged to occur due to the CO2 GHE either (see scientific paper below). This is why I remain very skeptical on this issue, and I have not reached the definitive conclusion that Dr. Allmendinger has with regard to “neglecting” the greenhouse hypothesis as a phantasm. So no, despite your attempts to, once again, claim that I believe in something I do not, and in spite of your efforts to characterize my positions in the way you see fit (and falsely), I am very content to say that, at this point, the science is far from settled and further examination must be done to decipher the effects of variations in CO2 on climate.
http://emerald.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
Our results demonstrate that the temperature rise observed in a popular classroom demonstration arises not from the radiative greenhouse effect responsible for global warming but primarily from the suppression of convective heat transport between CO2 and air due to the density difference between the two. This density difference, much like the roof of a real greenhouse, suppresses gas mixing at the CO2-air interface and therefore inhibits heat transfer. The magnitude of the radiative effect is more than an order of magnitude smaller and is difficult to demonstrate convincingly. The interpretation of other similar demonstrations2–5 differs in detail, but is subject to the same considerations.
You sure make it look like you believe the nonsense in the paper is true. Why do you defend it so desperately?
It shows that CO2 absorbs LW radiation. One part of the greenhouse effect.
I have not addressed the contents of the paper itself, let alone what I “believe”. You’ve once again made up thoughts and positions and attributed them to me in a disingenuous attempt to smear and marginalize. Your lack of trustworthiness is one of the main reasons that I habitually assume you aren’t telling the truth first, and then check into it secondly. I have attempted to defend Dr. Allmendinger, the scientist, from ad hominem attacks…and from gratuitous smears related to the journal his paper is published in.
In a container. Which doesn’t exist in an atmosphere. (Sigh.)
LOLOL. That from the chatbot that wants us to think Michael Mann’s hockey schtick is anything but the horse hockey that it’s been shown to be.
http://www.c3headlines.com/hockey-stick-science-empirical-bogosity/
“You sure make it look like you believe the nonsense in the paper is true.” – Chatbot_SebH
And the proof of that is . . . crickets chirping.
You know, chatbots are … a lot like squirrels. They never learn, either.
I see, so it’s like you posting papers about gravity/pressure (with GHGs having no effect) being responsible for the surface temperatures? Why post this if you don’t think there is something to those nonsense theories?
You defended the claims of the paper …
So we are back at that analogy with space and gravity. Do you believe the laws of gravity are different at different coordinates in the universe? Do we need to measure it everywhere before we send probes and satellites into space?
When you know the properties of stuff then you can deduce what happens when variables change. That’s a simple principle. And you try to argue that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist because you can’t easily perform an experiment as big as would be required? And you try to support this argument with nonsense papers like the one in this article?
I really wish you would stop purposely writing false statements, SebastianH. I have not argued “the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist”.
You do not have my permission to make up thoughts and positions and dishonestly claim they are mine in your attempts to smear and marginalize.
[…] For those keeping count, the number of highly-qualified experts from the ‘hard’ sciences who have either published in the peer-reviewed literature or made public statements refuting the consensus theory of climate change is rising fast. More details of the new paper may be found at No Tricks Zone. […]
A device in local thermal equilibrium with its surroundings will exhibit no temperature effects that depend on emissivities. This is a consequence of Kirchoff’s radiation law, and is evident because all of the objects in your living room have come to the same temperature. A valid experiment must create a disequilibrium condition within the device itself. A conceptual experiment might involve a hollow sphere with the shell maintained at a low temperature by some means, with a heating element installed in the center that supplies a known heat load to the device. The cavity is filled with the gas to be studied, and a fan keeps the gas well mixed. The temperature of the gas is measured. If the presence of the gas produces an elevation in temperature compared to a reference monatomic gas, then the gas is shown to be a “greenhouse gas.”
Understanding predatory publishers
Their primary goal is to make money.
They do not care about the quality of the work published.
They make false claims or promises.
They engage in unethical business practices.
They fail to follow accepted standards or best practices of scholarly publishing.
http://instr.iastate.libguides.com/predatory
One of the many problems with predatory journals.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/07/22/predatory-journals-star-wars-sting/#.Wa9mKz595QI
Here is a list of predatory journals:
http://beallslist.weebly.com/
against which I check.
Epic failure by Jack Dale, the troll of the month:
http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/edition/16_August,_2016
Not on your list, is it?
Time to put your scientific arguments up or shut up, you sad little troll
Actually it is. IJPS is published by Academic Journals for a $550 publishing fee.
http://www.academicjournals.org/manuscript_handling_fee
Speaking of epic failures.
So what? Many journals have fees to be paid upfront and publish open access articles, others take loads of money afterwards by use of subscriptions that cost so much that many university libraries are forced to allocate their diminishing resources very carefully, forcing scientists to buy access through paywalls.
You obviously have no idea how academic publishing works so stop make a bigger fool of yourself.
But, but you said it was not on the list. But, but it is on the list.
Yes, predatory journals take upfront processing fees.
Subscriptions are a different matter.
My blunder, I admit, I checked for journals and not publishers. But you did not even realize that you were barking the wrong tree (which means that you had not read even the first sentence of the article that was the starting point of this thread) which is what I was referring to with my notion of epic failure.
Nevertheless, the list you are using specifically states that the list covers “Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open‑access publishers”. Do you even understand what that means? Do you understand how open access publishing functions?
In science, it does not matter where you publish. Only your data and methods count. It is the argument and the proof that matters, not who presents the arguments and proof, nor where they are presented. The only point with peer review is to filter scientifically plausible arguments, and even Nature has numerous retractions of their articles, when the “findings” are later shown to be wrong due to bad data or methods, or both. Therefore, if the publication has low impact factor, or is published in a “questionable publication”, you should read the article even more critically, not dismiss it automatically.
@Jack Dale 6. September 2017 at 5:16 AM
Just substitute “climatologists” for “journals,” and you get…
Understanding predatory “climatologists.”
Their primary goal is to keep the govt funding pouring in.
They do not care about the quality of the work published.
They make false claims or promises.
They engage in unethical academic practices.
They fail to follow accepted standards or best practices of scholarly behavior.
They’ve been exposed for so long, that only fools and scoundrels come to their defense.
Many thanks to Dr Allmendinger .
Is it possible to get his article ? I am french speaking,
and made a similar but theoretical article in french the 10-8 2017 without knowing this one.
“L’atmosphère n’est pas une bouteille de verre…”(atmosphere is not a glass bottle)
The link to the paper is provided in the body of the article. But here it is too:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-novel-investigation-about-the-thermal-behaviour-of-gases-under-theinfluence-of-irradiation-a-further-argument-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf
As Dr. Allmendinger points out further above in this thread, the original work was published here:
http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/edition/16_August,_2016
the OMICS publication is just a reference article as is stated in the first sentence of the article (under Introduction)
Unfortunately this thread is an epic proof of what trolls can do if you play with them. Ignoring the trolls suffocates them and save your valuable time and effort to focus on better things.
I find it better to provide counterpoints (especially citing scientific literature) than to ignore people like Jack. They interpret “ignoring” their comments to be tacit assent that they have made points so irrefutable that we have nothing to say.
We have robust scientific backing for our positions…which we should utilize.
Why should we care what trolls “think”?
As I have said before, I wish you would focus you time producing the excellent posts of yours, rather than trying to convince trolls who by definition are not going to listen to you.
The goal isn’t to “convince” them. Their minds are closed and they are certain the science is settled and unfalsifiable. The goal in responding is to attempt to further prevent the spread of misinformation.
If they say that today’s temperatures are warmer than at any time in the last 10,000 years, or that today’s sea level rise rates are faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years, it is better to respond to this false information with scientific evidence than to let them continue to mislead. Not everyone here is aware that these “fastest ever” or “warmest ever” claims are false. The Mann and Marcott hockey teams have been afforded ample opportunity to shape people’s perceptions, and we don’t have the platform that they do.
And as far as focusing my time producing posts vs. convincing “trolls”, I can continue to do the former while acknowledging that the latter is not going to happen, nor does it affect the focus in any way.
This is pure gold. You are the ones with the closed minds spreading misinformation (and believing in the results of “junk science” papers). It’s kind of funny that you think it is the other way around.
Oh look – Academic Journals only charges $550 to publish in International Journal of Physical Sciences.
http://www.academicjournals.org/manuscript_handling_fee
Dale, you are making a fool of yourself now,since that very journal doesn’t force anyone to present the paper there for that fee.
Then why was the paper not published elsewhere in a journal with more academic credibility?
Can you explain why Nature published Mann’s paper when it had so many rudimentary logical and statistical errors in it? Will you be addressing this at some point, Jack? Or will you continue to defend Mann’s paper despite its “junk science” status?
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
The Four Errors in Mann et al’s “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth”
Dr. Briggs: “I am anxious people understand that Mann’s errors are in no way unique or rare; indeed, they are banal and ubiquitous. I therefore hope this article serves as a primer in how not to analyze time series.”
Kenneth
Big strawman! Big diversion!
1) I have not defended Mann’s paper. I have said nothing about it.
2) Why has Briggs not published his critique in a peer-reviewed journal (yes I know he is including in his next book) or at least submitted it as a letter to Nature or comment on the Disqus forum on the Nature article?
Really? Your original response (besides whining about it being a “diversion”) was to a link to a paper that shared Mann’s position that it is highly unlikely we would have such temperatures now using similar probability analysis that Mann used in this paper. Are you now backtracking on that, having been shown how flawed the paper is? For that matter, why have you not denounced the paper, then, since it obviously is “junk science”? Why was this paper allowed to be published in the journal Nature with so obvious (high school level, “banal” and “ubiquitous”) logical errors in it? Shouldn’t “peer review” have caught them? What this goes to show is that the journal that a paper is published in is no guarantee of its quality or scientific merit. Which has been my point all along and why I have refused to engage your argument that we can dismiss or extol a paper based upon the journal it was published in.
Can I assume you disagree with this statement? It comes from the journal Science. Does the journal determine the merit? Yes or no?
Did you read what Dr. Briggs wrote in addressing #2? Apparently not. Scientific papers published in journals get but a fraction of the views and attention that papers that reach the level of press releases and science blogs do. Briggs replied to the release of Mann’s paper within days. It would have taken probably a full year for a scientific paper to reach public consciousness, and by then the cogency is gone. It’s likely that his blog entry received 10-50 times the reads that a peer-reviewed scientific paper would have.
The chatbot’s lame claim falls mainly into disdain. (or, at least in a normal, it should)
When you post on the “Hockey Stick” (2 days ago in this thread), you post on Michael Mann.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1228533
Whatever
My other two posts in answer to Jack’s two on this topic are in twilight zone. I’ll comment here, as well, so maybe my response gets out in a timely manner.
Kack Dale claims he never wrote anything about Michael Mann, but was commenting on a different paper. Problem is, that paper was about Mann and his hockey stick, and a lot of other hockey sticks.
yonason and Kenneth Richards
Duh I defended a different paper.
From the introductory paragraph at the link Jack Dale was “defending.”
“Not only is that myth false but Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999″
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.ca/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
It WAS about Michael Mann. STOP LYING!
I was not defending Mann, 2016 to which Brigg referred. I was defending Mann, 1999 and dozens of replications that the “hockey stick.” Reproducibilty is one of the hallmarks of science.
If you weren’t defending Mann, 2016, why did you cite a paper that you claimed agreed with the conclusions of the Mann, 2016 paper? Isn’t citing another paper that claims to agree a means of defending the merits of a paper? And why aren’t you defending Mann, 2016? Is it because you acknowledge that it’s junk science, riddled with logical and statistical errors that someone got past Nature‘s peer-reviewers? How’d that happen?
Your “dozens of replications” basically consist of various temperature upticks since the depths of the Little Ice Age, the coldest 500-year period of the Holocene. Several of them start their record during the Little Ice Age. Those aren’t replications. MBH98/99 removed the Medieval Warm Period such that 1998 was 0.9 C warmer than 1000 C.E. No other NH reconstruction shows that. MBH98/99 also used “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures after 1960, as shown here:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Hide-the-Decline-Using-Mikes-Nature-Trick.jpg
Ljungqvist (2010), one of your claimed hockey stick “replications”, shows the Medieval Warm Period as similarly warm to modern:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-NH-Ljungqvist-2010.jpg
Briffa (2002) shows the proxies for NH temperatures actually cooled after 1960, with large warming and cooling amplitudes in the last 1000 years that exceed modern rates:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Briffa-2002-Divergence.jpg
Schneider et al., 2015 show the modern NH temperatures as no warmer than the 1000s and 1400s:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Schneider-2015.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Schneider-2015-Wilson-2016-Long.jpg
Stoffel et al., 2015 show the modern NH temperatures cooling after 1940 by as much as they had warmed since 1900, and no net increase in NH temperatures since the 1940s:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Stoffel-2015.jpg
Abrantes et al., 2017 show NH temperatures were slightly warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than now:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Abrantes-17.jpg
And here are over 300 non-hockey sticks from all over the world that do not replicate Mike’s “trick” to hide the decline:
https://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/
Mann’s own subsequent reconstructions (i.e., 2008) have not replicated MBH98/99. They have a Medieval Warm Period that is not -0.9 C colder. The temperature decline after 1960 has been hidden, which is what the internal conversations were about:
Kenneth, do you think the temperature record after 1960 is fake or do you think it is possible that tree ring proxies aren’t reliable all the time? What is the endgame when you try to argue that there is no hockey stick? That global warming isn’t happening? Is that it?
The instrumental record has a significant reliability problem.
Relative to when? The Little Ice Age?
Unfortunately, there exists no French version of my article. However, it should be mentioned that several French scientists such as Dulong and Petit number among the pioneers. Even the greenhouse-idea traces back to a French man (namely to Fourier). As a Swiss man, I can understand several languages (besides French particularly German) which is necessary to study the history of this theory, and to find the principal faults which were made already in the 19th century.
This is an excellent history of the theory. It is written and published by physicists
https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents
Isn’t the concern with trapping infrared radiation (long-wave radiation)with increased CO2 concentration in our atmosphere?
Dale,
no concern with trapping radiation. Why Dale thinks? Radiation trap only works when no emission. But heat goes elsewhere. It goes convection and advection and evaporation.
All climate people say emission and back-radiation. If that – no trap -no concern.
CO2 doesn’t trap anything,plus there is a logarithmic effect on increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere,to a point that by the 400 ppm level very little warm forcing left to dwell on.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
You just made yourself a subject of ridicule.
Unfortunately, trolls of Dale’s level do not realize how the language that they use reveals the inconvenient lack of basic understanding.
While the AGW conjecture can be disproved with simple empirical experiments, this is not one of them.
Dr. Thomas Allmendinger is attempting to show solar radiation (UV, SW, SWIR) heating various gases. His experiment is not showing this. What it is showing is solar heating of the interior surfaces of his tubes and conductive heating of the gases in contact with with the walls of the tubes. The differing limiting temperatures observed is due to the speed of conduction of the various gases, transferring energy to the cling film windows.
If this experiment were to be repeated with a coherent beam of light passing through the tube and not impinging on the walls, little or no heating of the gases by UV, SW or SWIR radiation would be observed.
Our atmosphere, just like the gases in Dr. Thomas Allmendinger’s tubes is primarily being heated by contact with solar illuminated surfaces. The key to disproving the AGW conjecture is to study how the sun heats those surfaces, primarily in solar illumination of the oceans.
These five rules have been derived from empirical experiments –
http://imgur.com/a/NXjB8
Because these five rules were ignored by climate scientists trying to determine the critical figure for “average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere”, they got the wrong answer. They have 255K as their figure instead of 312K. This leads to the erroneous belief that the atmosphere is warming the surface by 33K when instead it is cooling it by around 24K.
Tyndall was correct, CO2 and H2O can warm by absorbing LWIR and also cool by emitting LWIR. But Fourier before him was wrong. The sun could drive the surface materials of this planet far hotter than he supposed. Arrhenius, in trying to use Tyndall’s findings to support Fourier’s error also got it wrong.
CO2 scatters IR. It would be impossible for the light to not impinge on the walls. That would result in selectively heating the walls in the CO2 containing tube. At least the way he did it, any heat contribution from the walls was more likely to be uniform across the experiment.
Master Konrad you describes the ocean. This is a great solar collector. Why nobody from climate knows? There must be a paper written.
Yes, climastrologists ignore the fact that the sun heats the oceans from up to 200m below their surface. They also treat LWIR emissivity for water as near equal to its SW absorptivity. The reality is hemispherical LWIR emissivity for water is only 0.67 while its SW absorptivity is over 0.9.
However not all scientists are such fools. Many oceanographers know that depth of absorption has a critical role in ocean heat content. Sweeny et al. 2005 looks at the effect of differing turbidity effecting depth of absorption and thereby heat content.
Because climastrologists ignored how the sun actually heats the oceans, they missed how solar variance effects climate. TSI (total solar irradiance) only changes 0.1%. But the variance in solar spectral variance is far greater. Solar UV has increased 3.0% since the end of the LIA. UV penetrates the deepest, therefore variance in UV has the greatest effect on ocean heat content.
Precisely.
Konrad,
thank you soo much for confirming my suspicion.
I will read SweenY.
This is happy times.
Dale,
you need to drop your stupid Journal credibility argument since nothing in it is illegal,or you would have long ago pointed that out.
You wrote,
“Then why was the paper not published elsewhere in a journal with more academic credibility?”
You are making a big fool of yourself over an irrelevant claim.
yonason and Kenneth Richards
Duh I defended a different paper.
The “different paper” you were “defending” was a paper about Mann and his hockey stick. Here’s a quote from the intro paragraph.
” Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999. ”
You were talking about Mann. Stop lying.
Who said anything about illegal? Predatory journals are an questionable means of taking advantage of the publish or perish syndrome. They are the vanity press of academia.
The here cited publication refers to my basic publication
http://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS2016/article-full-text-pdf/E00ABBF60017
Therein, the development of the method is described in detail. An interaction with the tube walls by heat conduction can be excluded, not least since the temperature enhancement due to the irradiation occurs simultaneously at the three measuring points, and not delayed in time.
A comprising refutation of the greenhouse theory is given in
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-refutation-of-the-climate-greenhouse-theory-and-a-proposal-for-ahopeful-alternative.php?aid=88698
delivering more than 20 arguments against this theory. Therein, the measurements of Tyndall and of Arrhenius are described in detail. Similar to the later spectroscopic measurements, not the temperature enhancement of gases is has been measured, but solely the intensity loss or adsorption degree, respectively.
Moreover, in the customary greenhouse theory the fact is disregarded that the whole atmosphere should have to be co-warmed by the “greenhouse gases” such as carbon-dioxide, whose concentration is only 0.04 percent.
An overseeable depiction of my relevant contributions is given on my website http://allphyscon.ch (Part C). In particular, the commentary http://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/The-Real-Cause-Allmendinger-home.pdf
comprises the most important arguments.
Has it ever occurred to you that Sunlight is fundamentally different (SW radiation) from the light heat lamps (LW radiation) emit? Has it ever occurred to you that the Sun could be warming the interior of your styrofoam construction and it’s not the gas inside absorbing SW radiation?
Has it ever occurred to you that you might not understand what the greenhouse effect is? Sentences like “Moreover, a greenhouse needs a solid transparent roof which is absent in the case of the atmosphere.” as an argument against it make that very evident.
It is not only hard to believe, it is nuts. It’s almost as if you are deliberately ignoring how the greenhouse is supposed to work to argue against it.
Speaking of nuts, chatbot, which one are you?
https://nuts.com/images/auto/510×340/assets/0f73019f521e7d31.jpg
activist chatbot trolls – never objective, never constructive, never polite, never correct.
Slithering to the bottom of Graham’s hierarchy is usually a tactic admission of defeat.
The observation was addressing SebH’s rude, boorish, insulting and, as usual, unsubstantiated assertions. It didn’t merit anything more than what I gave it. You don’t use a silk shirt to mop up vomit.
SebH must explain how the greenhouse effect works. He not friendly.
He never says what it is so John has to guess.
Why not say how he thinks Greenhouse effect works?
You are not good enough Thomas.
You are looking for how the sun heats the atmosphere beyond 255K. This is your epic failure.
You should have looked at how hot the sun could drive the surface materials of this planet in absence of atmospheric cooling.
Then you should have looked for what atmospheric mechanisms were cooling them from an average of 312K to to 288K.
Thank you, Konrad, for that short but pointless diversion.
Pointless?
Good thing you don’t work on spacecraft thermal control. Surface properties are everything.
Climastrologists calculated solar heating of the surface our planet under the assumption it could be considered a “near blackbody”
To shoot me down, all you need to be is better at thermodynamics, radiative physics, and fluid dynamics than I am.
Thomas hasn’t made the grade. Think you’re better?
Explain this experiment design – https://imgur.com/a/kY5Bo
Bet you can’t.
I own you. Know it.
You may need to up your Zyprexa.
Apparently it hasn’t ever occurred to SebastianH that you’re talking about SW IR radiation and not SW radiation (i.e. visible light/UV).
SebH is funny. He says
“Fact is that we are influencing the climate and your attempts in trying to attribute the current warming to the same causes that affected previous warming are weird.”
John not understand nobody laughing. This is funny. SebH is a more funny than John.
Apparently several on this thread do not understand that dumping 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere raising levels to those not observed in 3-5 million years messed up natural l cycles that had existed for at least 800,000 years when CO2 levels never exceeded 300 ppm. During than time humans evolved and then domesticated their food crops that were suited to that atmosphere.
At 550 ppm several of our crops start to lose their nutritional value.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/elevated-carbon-dioxide-levels-rob-crops-nutrients
Ohhh, so THAT’S what wiped out the dinosaurs! //s//
https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
Jack Dale has some numbers.
John also knows numbers game.
https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/
Jaack Dale might want answer question what those number mean.
Some folks need to understand the role of trace substances. For comparison selenium is a trace substance required in the human diet. However at 400 ppm (by weight) it starts to become toxic. The trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the earth from being a ball of ice. Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C). Anthropogenic CO2 has increased atmospheric levels by 40%. Carbon isotope analysis attributes that increase to the burning of fossil fuels.
10,000 to 8,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range, the Pacific Ocean’s heat content was at least 2 degrees C (temperature) warmer than now, even though today CO2 concentrations are over 400 ppm.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-Rosenthal-13.jpg
If CO2 is what keeps the oceans warm, why was the ocean significantly warmer when CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range than it has been for the last 300 years, when CO2 levels rose from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm?
Water vapor is a far more abundant (10,000 to 40,000 ppm) and potent greenhouse gas than CO2. To what extent has an increase in the H20 been responsible for climate changes relative to CO2 since 1750?
LOL, Jack attempts to lecture the skeptics about trace gases. Where the ignorant arrogance of these alarmists comes from is a mystery, but here’s something for Dave and others to read:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
H2O is recognized by the IPCC and others as the most potent GHG.
From Remote Sensing Systems
As the Earth’s troposphere warms, it is able to “hold” more water vapor without the vapor condensing into clouds and then rain. Assuming the relative humidity remains constant, the amount of extra water vapor is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, and is about 7% more water vapor per degree Kelvin increase in temperature. The global increase in water vapor is easy to see in Figure 5, which shows the global mean time series of total column water vapor over the worlds oceans, expressed in percent change from average.
This increase can be formally attributed to human-induced climate change — see Santer et al, 2007.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate.html
BRW – who is Dave?
Correct. And since the IPCC acknowledges that H2O is significantly more important than CO2 within the greenhouse effect, and that humans generally don’t influence changes in the atmosphere’s H2O content…
IPCC: “Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”
…the question remains: To what extent has an increase in the H20 been responsible for climate changes relative to CO2 since 1750?
The other question that has not been addressed is this:
10,000 to 8,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range, the Pacific Ocean’s heat content was at least 2 degrees C (temperature) warmer than now, even though today CO2 concentrations are over 400 ppm.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-Rosenthal-13.jpg
If CO2 is what keeps the oceans warm, why was the ocean significantly warmer when CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range than it has been for the last 300 years, when CO2 levels rose from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm?
Pethefin
Some science on the relationship among Milankovitch cycles, CO2 increases and temperatures.
“To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
Jack, 8,200 years ago, temperatures plummeted by 1 to 3 degrees C across the globe in a matter of about 3 decades, which is several times the modern rate (0.05 C per decade since 1850). Then, after about 50 years of sustained cold temperatures, the Earth warmed up by 1 to 3 degrees in a span of about 7 decades. In all, this cooling-warming event took but 150 years to complete. And through it all, CO2 levels remained largely unchanged. None of this supports the conclusion that “only” CO2 can explain “the full extent” of temperature increases (or decreases).
Kenneth
This comment seems to suggest that the Rosenthal, 2013 does not provide evidence to support your assertion.
“Lead author of the study, Yair Rosenthal, told us this rapid rate of change is another piece of evidence showing that current climate change is unusual:
“This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming.”
The recent warming adds to the idea that oceans are taking up much of the extra heat trapped as a result of human activities.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/10000-year-record-shows-pacific-depths-warming-fast
Obviously it’s new information for you that in order to claim that the modern rate of change is “rapid” relative to the past 10,000 years, Rosenthal and co-authors engage in the statistically vapid practice of comparing an 8,000-year overall trend line to a 55-year trend line (1955-2010). What happens when we compare a “trend” (or, more precisely, an anomaly) that lasted for a few decades to a 1,000s-of-years-long trend? The same thing that we get when we compare a 1-year trend to a 35-year trend: the 1-year trend changes more abruptly…easily faster than the overall 35-year trend.
For 2016, for example, atmospheric temperatures plummeted at a rate of -4.0 C (four degrees) per decade. (The “trend” for 2016 was -0.4 C per year). On the other hand, when we use the entire trend line in the UAH record dating back to 1979, the temperature changes at a rate of “0.13C per decade“. Obviously, since a change of 4 degrees per decade is more rapid than a change of 0.13 of a degree per decade, the more recent “trend” would appear to be “unusual”. But the only reason it’s “unusual” is because we didn’t compare the same number of years for our trend – we compared a 12-month anomaly to a 450-month trend. That’s a prototypical example of the statistical malpractice that allows your side to claim that modern changes are unusual or unprecedented: you compare tiny short-term anomaly-length “trends” to the overall long-term trend line. And this stuff gets published in the journal Science without your side even aware of its speciousness.
From Rosenthal et al.: “Levitus et al. (2012) report a mean ocean warming of the 0-700 m ocean layer of 0.18°C between 1955 and 2010, corresponding to ~0.033°C per decade [55 years trend]. To obtain a first order comparison, we assume that our records represent the World Ocean and thus are comparable in volume with the current estimates (Levitus et al., 2012). Assuming the intermediate depth ocean (0-700 m) cooled between 10 and 2 Ka [10,000 and 2,000 years ago] by ~1.5 °C we calculate a cooling rate 0.002°C per decade [8,000 years trend].
Instead of 0.033 C per decade for 1955-2010, the IPCC reports that the 0-700 m layer only warmed by 0.015 C per decade since 1970.
Instead of 0.015 or 0.033 of a degree per decade, did you notice that the Holocene’s centennial-scale warming and cooling periods from this Rosenthal graph far exceed the amplitude and rate of the modern era?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Heat-Content-Rosenthal13-copy.jpg
Of course you didn’t notice that. All you did was retreat to your blogscience to find justification for your views.
Furthermore, Bova et al. (2016) found that ocean temperatures in the deeper 0-1000 m layer would warm (and cool) by more than “2.0°C within 200 years” during the Mid-Holocene (when CO2 levels were in the 270s ppm and stable throughout), which is more than 0.1 C per decade. 0.1 C per decade is 3 times more rapid than the 0.033 per decade for 1955-2010 and 7 times more rapid than the 0.015 C per decade since 1970. See what happens when we compare trends with more similar length, Jack (albeit still much longer for the past)? The “unusualness” of the modern rate disappears. And that’s exactly what your side ignores to prop up the alarmism.
By the way, Bova et al. (2016) even conclude that the warming in the last 200 years is so small as to be “below the detection limit“. And yet you’ll ignore this and cling to your blogscience anyway.
And finally, your blogscience-based response doesn’t even remotely address the question as to why the ocean heat content was multiple degrees warmer than now when CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range than when CO2 ranged from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (1700-2010). If CO2 is what warms the oceans, or keeps the Earth from becoming a “snowball”, why was the largest heat reservoir for the Earth warmer by more than 2 degrees while CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range?
For that matter, what was the forcing mechanism that cause ocean temperatures to plummet by -0.9 C, or -0.15 C per century, between 1000 C.E. and ~1700 C.E.? CO2 levels remained relatively constant during that period. So what was the forcing that caused 0.15 C/century changes in ocean heat content…since it wasn’t CO2? Be specific and try not to abscond from answering this question again.
Kenneth – here Rosenthal 2013
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yair_Rosenthal/publication/258215955_Pacific_Ocean_Heat_Content_During_the_Past_10000_Years/links/02e7e5293aaeb7b816000000/Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-During-the-Past-10-000-Years.pdf
Why are you editing the graphics? Please provide the entire graphic, in context, in the future – preferably with a link to the original source.
The blog reference from Carbon Brief I gave is a direct quote from Rosenthal. You should also be complaining about your usual suspects who post from joanneNnova, Heller, Briggs, micpohling, c3headlines (contextomy central), etc.
FYI – no climate scientist says CO2 is the only forcing. Even I (not a claiming to be a climate scientist) recognize the role of Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, industrial aerosols, other GHGs, and a slight impact from solar activity – among others.
Shocking. You didn’t answer the question yet again. Why is it so hard to answer such fundamental questions as to why the oceans were so much warmer while CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range? Shouldn’t this be basic? Shouldn’t you be able to answer what forcing mechanism caused the OHC to plummet by 0.9 C from 1000 C.E. to 1700 C.E. – which is 3 to 6 times faster rate than the modern change (since 1955 or 1970)?
Do you now understand why the claim that today’s warming rates are “rapid” and “unprecedented” are an example of statistical malfeasance that should never been allowed to stand upon peer-review, or is this still unclear to you? Probably. A similar illogical argument about the “unusual” rapidity and amplitude of modern temperatures is made by Mann et al. (2016), a Nature paper which you have yet to renounce despite its statistical malfeasance. And just the other day you claimed that Antarctic sea ice is in decline. Why did you claim that? Because of a one month anomaly (March, 2016) that you apparently believe overrides the 1979-present Southern Hemisphere trend. (By the way, the “record low” anomaly for 3/2016 has been attributed to a natural forcing (the Southern Annual Mode), not human CO2 emissions.)
Of course. Rosenthal is a true believer. He likely had to claim that modern rates are “unprecedented” to get published in Science. You obviously don’t mind that he has to perform a easily debunked statistical stunt (comparing an 8,000 year long trend to a 55-year anomaly) to be able to claim today’s rates are unusual. Deception is OK…as long as it supports the cause. Right? If you continue to defend this conclusion (that modern rates are unusually fast) despite having been shown how this specious conclusion was reached, what does this say about your own integrity and objectivity, Jack? SebastianH refuses to acknowledge the statistical malpractice here too…even after being informed about it.
I annotated the graph for a recent article so as to accentuate the far more pronounced natural warming vs. modern warming. Here are the graphs of the ocean from Rosenthal et al. (2013) and Rosenthal et al. (2017). See if you can detect the anthropogenic fingerprint in these graphs. Then finally answer my questions. Or can’t you?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Northeastern-Atlantic-OHC-Rosenthal-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Western-Pacific-Warm-Pool-OHC-2.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Eastern-Pacific-SSTs-Rosenthal-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Holocene-Cooling-Equatorial-Atlantic-0-700-m-OHC-Rosenthal-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Holocene-Cooling-Western-Pacific-Warm-Pool-Rosenthal-17-.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Holocene-Cooling-Equatorial-Atlantic-SST-Rosenthal-17.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Pacific-Ocean-Rosenthal-2013.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-Rosenthal-13.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Timor-South-China-Phillipines-Seas-Makassar-Strait-Flores-Rosenthal-2013.jpg
Kenneth
“None of this supports the conclusion that “only” CO2 can explain “the full extent” of temperature increases (or decreases).”
Strawman – no climate scientist says that.
None of this supports the conclusion that “only” CO2 can explain “the full extent” of temperature increases (or decreases).
Jack: Do you not even read your own copy/pastes? I was quoting the copy/paste from your “newscientist” link:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
“And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.”
Did you forget? Or have you just changed your mind in the last few hours?
Kenneth – AGW is a an extremely recent phenomenon. Your graphs of 10 of thousands of years “hide the incline”.
So you’re suggesting that the scientists are hiding the increase rather than the decline? Can you substantiate this charge? Because the results of their reconstructions show that the decline was covered up by tacking highly adjusted instrumental data onto declining temperatures, like this:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Hide-the-Decline-Using-Mikes-Nature-Trick.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Briffa-2002-Divergence.jpg
The 320 non-hockey stick graphs of the Holocene available here (which are growing by the week) include the recent several decades, and they show that the hockey stick shaped incline that you believe should be there is not. And there are hundreds of such graphs, so the idea that each of these peer-reviewed scientific papers can all be dismissed is dubious at best. But you go right on ahead and cover your eyes and plug your ears. It’s not as if your mind is open anyway. You’re content to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit your presuppositions.
Kenneth – “the hand of man”
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Marcott.png
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png/image_preview
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/models/Mheel_Attribution-72-1200w.jpg/image_preview
Welcome to the Anthropocene.
I was wondering when you’d be breaking out the Marcott et al. (2013). It’s the last resort by those on your side after all other attempts have failed, it seems.
The problem is, Marcott himself acknowledges that the 20th century vertical hockey stick is effectively worthless when it comes to drawing conclusions:
“Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
Why do you keep on running away from my questions? Here, I’ll ask them again (in case you forgot).
Why was ocean heat content multiple degrees warmer when CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range than when CO2 ranged from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (1700-2010)? If CO2 is what warms the oceans, or keeps the Earth from becoming a “snowball”, why was the largest heat reservoir for the Earth warmer by more than 2 degrees while CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range?
For that matter, what was the forcing mechanism that cause ocean temperatures to plummet by -0.9 C, or -0.15 C per century, between 1000 C.E. and ~1700 C.E.? CO2 levels remained relatively constant during that period. So what was the forcing that caused 0.15 C/century changes in ocean heat content…since it wasn’t CO2?
Kenneth – so you concede that temperature can follow CO2 increases.
““And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.”
Well, of course there are times when CO2 changes occur before and after temperature changes. But don’t you think it’s rather a leap (actually a logical fallacy) to assume that CO2 changes are the cause of temperature changes…because one occurred before the other?
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: “after this, therefore because of this”) is a logical fallacy that states “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.” … Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to suggest causality.“
Kenneth – The decline that was hidden was in tree ring densities, not temperatures.
You include Rosenthal as the first non-hockey stick. Get serious. You told he he was believer.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/media/243696/intermediate-water-temperatures.jpg
Look at the uptick at the end. Most hockey sticks deal with past 2000 years.
But you go right on ahead and cover your eyes and plug your ears. It’s not as if your mind is open anyway. You’re content to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit your presuppositions.
Not one single academy of science in any country on the planet supports your views. None, Nada, Zilch.
There are individuals on your side, but none represent the views of their professional associations.
Sigh. The density variations are used as a proxy for temperature variations…until they don’t match the modeled expectations. At that point, they’re discarded and replaced.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/OHC-Rosenthal-2013-close.jpg
Oh yes, let’s do take a look at that uptick. Notice that nearly all of the temperature increase during the modern era occurred in the 1700s, when CO2 levels steadily hovered around 275 ppm. There is no connection between CO2 changes and OHC changes.
And why do you think that is? Because that way they can avoid depicting the Holocene Thermal Maximum, when global temperatures were about 4 to 6 degrees warmer than they are now…while CO2 levels hovered around 265 ppm. How did it get so warm while CO2 levels were so low, Jack? Can you answer that?
We know when someone has reached the end of the argument when he (1) breaks out Marcott et al. (2013), and (2) attempts to marginalize his opponent by grasping for the argument from authority (logical fallacy).
Jack, “my views” are very likely not what you think they are. I do not disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, human emissions have contributed to the atmospheric concentration increase, and humans can and do have at least some impact on climate. I just haven’t found any compelling evidence that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 variations is anywhere close to significant.
And that’s what it comes down to: climate sensitivity. You believe that the climate is VERY sensitive to 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations. I have yet to find any compelling evidence that the climate – and especially ocean temperatures – are sensitive to 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations such that detecting an anthropogenic signal amidst the large amplitudes of natural variability is exceedingly difficult.
I’m also not convinced that CO2 concentrations determine sea ice extent and thickness, sea level rise, hurricane intensities, etc. You probably agree that over a million species will go extinct within the next 33 years because of “global warming”. After all, it says so in the journal Nature. Therefore, because Nature isn’t a predatory journal, it must be true. Right?
The peer-reviewed scientific literature is teeming with insightful evidence that CO2 is not the climate’s “control knob”. I choose to look for it and highlight it here for others to consider. You choose to remain satisfied that the “consensus” is right, the science is settled, and thus there is no need to consider any alternative to your views. Therefore, when someone presents evidence that doesn’t support what you believe to be true, you fall back to your comfort zone (blogscience), close your eyes, and cover your ears. I would urge you to at least consider that the science isn’t settled, you don’t know all there is to know about how the Sun impacts the climate (neither do I), and perhaps the people who you refer to as “deniers” or “denialists” aren’t as ill-informed as you had thought.
@Jack Dale
“The trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.”
This claim is not supported by the empirical evidence. Climastrolgists have claimed the oceans would freeze without the presence of radiative gases in our atmosphere, but the “Snow Line” in our solar system is out in the further reaches of the asteroid belt. Only after that point can worlds like Ceres and Europa with frozen oceans exist.
“Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C)”
Wrong again. 255K (-18C) is the temperature calculation for a near blackbody receiving 240 w/m2 of solar radiation. However 71% of the surface of this planet is ocean, an extreme short wave selective surface. For 240 w/m2 of sunlight received in a diurnal cycle peaking around 1000 w/m2, the surface of this planet would average 312K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere. Our current average is only 288K, therefore the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures is 24K of cooling not 33K of warming.
Is there a source that can be referenced for this? I’d like to learn more about this.
Me too, how can an object get a hotter surface than a blackbody from incoming radiation?
Sebastian, the answer to that is easy.
All that is required is a material that has a higher SW absorptivity than LWIR emissivity. (A SW selective surface). This is why matt sputtered black nickel is used in modern flat panel solar water heaters. It has a very good SW absorptivity, but very poor LWIR emissivity.
This is why titanium oxide paints are used on space vehicles. High reflectivity of sunlight but very good emissivity in the LWIR. Average on orbit temperatures of less than 0C despite full solar exposure for over 45 minutes.
Kirchhoffs law is right. A material must have equal absorptivity as emissivity at a given frequency. But no known materials have equal absorptivity and emissivity at differing frequencies. But it gets worse. Take a material like water. SW is absorbed at depth but LWIR emission only occurs at the surface. Now speed of conduction and convection are factors. Now the S-B equation cannot possibly work. But that’s just the equation the inane climastrologists used to calculate the critical “Surface Tav without radiative atmosphere” figure. 80C error for 71% of the planet’s surface. That’s a fist-biter.
Our planet is a giant spacecraft. In spacecraft thermal control, surface properties are everything. Treating the surface of our planet as a “near Blackbody” was a critical mistake.
Here’s spacecraft thermal control 101 – http://www.tak2000.com/data/Satellite_TC.pdf
Slide 25 is put there so engineering students can laugh at climastrologists. Slide 53 is where you learn the reality. (but only for opaque materials).
Sebastian, now take a material that has a SW absorptivity of 0.9, a LWIR emissivity of 0.67. It absorbs solar radiation up to 200m deep. It is intermittently illuminated in a 24 hour diurnal cycle peaking at over 1000 w/m2. It has poor conductivity and a slow speed of convection and can only cool form its upper surface. Think the S-B equation can solve for that?
Only empirical experiment or CFD calculation can solve for solar gain for 71% of this planet’s surface. The permanent Internet record shows climastrologists used neither.
Every engineering reference I have seen for the last 40 years, both in paper form and on-line, puts the LWIR absorptivity/emissivity of water in the 0.95 – 0.96 range.
My simple kitchen IR thermometer, which just assumes a LWIR emissivity of 0.95 in calculating the temperature of objects, provides very accurate readings of water, cross-checked against other measurement methods. (It’s lousy for aluminum foil.)
Do you have any reference for your claim of water LWIR emissivity of 0.67?
Ed Bo:
I had asked you this previously, but didn’t get a response. So I’ll try again.
Just 1% of the Earth’s heat resides in the atmosphere. Nearly all the rest of the Earth’s heat is contained in the oceans (90+ percent). Therefore, any discussions of the extent to which LWIR emissivity or greenhouse gases affect the Earth’s temperature must consider the oceans’ heat capacity as the predominant constituent.
You have written that H2O in its gaseous form is the Earth’s greenhouse control knob for the Earth’s ocean temperatures (“the GHE effect on earth, which is mostly from H2O“). So if the Earth’s ocean heat content increases, to what extent is a change in the Earth’s water vapor concentration responsible relative to a change in other factors that modulate Earth’s temperature?
So what is the physically measured effect of CO2 emission on water temperatures? How much warming or cooling does +/- 0.00001 (10 ppm) changes in atmospheric CO2 alone cause in water bodies? How much warming or cooling do changes in H2O gas cause in water bodies? What are the cause-effect measurements from a controlled real-world experiment using CO2 change and water temperature change as the variables?
To what extent do you believe CO2 does control the Earth’s temperature? <5%? <25%? What source are you using to calculate this attribution percentage?
Konrad,
it’s impossible for an object to absorb more energy than it emits without in warming up. That warming up will eventually lead to the object emitting exactly what it is absorbing.
And since Earth can’t absorb more than what the Sun provides, the average surface temperature (without an atmosphere) can’t be higher than what S-B results in.
It doesn’t matter how deep SW radiation penetrates and that LW radiation is only emitted from the ocean surface. The amount of both must be equal or the heat content changes.
“It doesn’t matter how deep SW radiation penetrates and that LW radiation is only emitted from the ocean surface. The amount of both must be equal or the heat content changes.”
Sebastian, you don’t get it and nor does Ed.
Yes, radiative balance must be obtained. The question is what is the average surface temperature of the surface materials of this planet when radiative balance for 240 w/m2 received in a diurnal cycle peaking over 1000 w/m2 is obtained?
Ed thinks 0.95 is a reasonable figure for the emissivity of water. Ed is wrong. That is only true near zenith. Hemispherical emissivity must be considered. Empirical experiment shows LWIR emissivity for water falls of a cliff after 55 degrees from vertical.
You are not good enough Sebastian. You can’t defeat me with “cut and past” or links to other’s work you don’t understand. To defeat me, you must be as better at empirical experiment as I am. You are not.
If you knew that the corollary to Kirchoffs law was that LWIR absorptivity / emissivity was the corollary of reflectivity you would have reached for the infinitely tunable quantum cascade LWIR laser. But you didn’t.
Did you even look at the linked pdf? Have you any ability to understand slide 53?
Defeat you? Why this aggressive language?
The linked PDF uses Comic Sans … who ever made those slides is clearly insane. Doesn’t matter what it contains or that there is an ESA logo on there 😉
I get what you want to show, but as you wrote “radiative balance must be obtained”. When the oceans receive 240 W/m² from the Sun on average and the surface has a temperature higher than 255 K (without an atmosphere), then the surface of the ocean is emitting more energy towards space than it receives and thus the heat content of the ocean must be decreasing. There is no way around that.
The only way to obtain higher surface temperatures than what the incoming radiation allows is by adding insulation layers on top of that surface. Preferably layers that are transparent to SW radiation and absorb lots of LW radiation. That’s what the greenhouse effect does (somewhat similar to what is explained on slide 54 in your linked PDF).
Kenneth:
You ask about the effect of the oceans’ very high thermal capacitance (I believe that is what you mean by “heat” contained) compared to that of the atmosphere. In true steady-state conditions the capacitance would not matter at all, although it does affect how fast the system approaches steady state. This is one of the first things you learn in an introductory thermodynamics course, and why you virtually always analyze the steady-state case of a system first (if only as a sanity check).
Now, the earth’s oceans are not in true steady-state conditions, but they are pretty close — they do not change temperature much in the diurnal cycle. And they do emit MUCH more energy over the daily cycle than the sun provides. Something must explain this GROSS difference, and the radiative GHE is the only realistic contender.
(Amusingly, Konrad believes that a century of measurements of water’s LWIR emissivity by scientists and engineers working on practical systems — nothing to do with climate science — have been dramatically off, overstating the emissivity by a half [0.95 versus 0.67]. But somehow, a century’s worth of thermal systems based on these high values have worked as predicted. He argues that the radiant intensity falls off as the angle increases from vertical [zenith], but fails to understand that this is true of the ideal blackbody radiation as well — these are “Lambertian” radiatiors, where the intensity falls off as the cosine of the angle from zenith. And yes, the people who made these measurements understood that.)
You say: “You have written that H2O in its gaseous form is the Earth’s greenhouse control knob for the Earth’s ocean temperatures.”
No, I have not! What I did say (“the GHE effect on earth, which is mostly from H2O“) is very different. You keep conflating the amount of an effect with its derivative (the “sensitivity”) as I have pointed out to you several times. My statement was based on actual spectral measurements of DWLWIR radiation at the earth’s surface, in which the largest power is in the emission bands of water vapor. This power amount MUST be taken into account as an input to the surface energy balance (along with many other factors).
How this changes with small changes in water vapor concentration, given any knock-on effects (“feedbacks”) and other changes is a very different, and much more difficult, question. My short answer to your question “to what extent is a change in the Earth’s water vapor concentration responsible” for changes in ocean heat content is that we really don’t know. I believe that the claims from the climate science establishment about CO2’s dominant role in climate sensitivity are greatly overconfident and likely wrong.
You keep asking about “the physically measured effect of CO2 emission on water temperatures”. We keep pointing out that, in the laboratory, we can “synthetically” modulate the amount of LWIR we direct at water very precisely and notice that the temperature increases with increasing LWIR. And we know from real measurements that increasing CO2 concentration means increasing LWIR. So the idea at least must be taken seriously, and not dismissed out of hand.
But these are all questions about the derivative of the effect about its present point. You keep citing approvingly (or at least without any criticism) papers that claim that there is no radiative GHE at all. And none of these papers advance any physically plausible substitute effect that can make up for the huge energy imbalance at the surface between what the surface outputs and what it receives from the sun. (As several of us keep pointing out, anyone who understands first-year physics knows that the static pressure advanced as a cause by the “atmospheric pressure effect” fans cannot possibly contribute anything.)
I believe that the issues of climate sensitivity to types of changes about our present point, given various types of changes and various system responses to these changes, are still poorly understood and far from settled. This is where the interesting work is now. But when you uncritically cite papers that try to explain current temperature LEVELS without the radiative GHE, and don’t provide any remotely plausible substitute, you are just showing to any knowledgeable observer than you don’t understand the basic principles at all.
The first 2 meters of the ocean can warm by as much as 2 K within a matter of 12 daylight hours. I think that’s more than “not much”.
Furthermore, the first 1000 meters of the oceans can heat up and cool down by more than 2 degrees C within just 200 years, or more than 1 degree per century…without any changes in CO2 concentrations (Bova et al., 2016). In contrast, since the 1600-1800 period (Little Ice Age), the 0-700 m layer has only heated up by 0.25 C…or less than 0.1 C per century, despite an increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the Earth’s CO2 concentration. What does that say about the effect of CO2 concentration variations on the Earth’s heat (which is the equivalence of its ocean heat)…if the Earth’s heat can change by 1.0 C per century without CO2 variations, but just 0.1 C per century with dramatic changes in the Earth’s CO2 concentrations?
So if you believe that CO2’s climate sensitivity dominance is “likely wrong” when it comes to heating the Earth’s oceans, and that you and scientists “really don’t know” to what extent water vapor – which you say is “mostly responsible” for the Earth’s GHE – can or even does heat the oceans, why are you nonetheless so certain that it is water vapor and CO2 that are significantly determinative of the Earth’s heat retention, or its ultimate planetary temperature? That makes no sense that you can on the one hand acknowledge that we really don’t know how much water vapor or CO2 heats the oceans, but yet you are convinced that their influence on the Earth’s ocean temperature is significant anyway. If you don’t know how much, and you think the popular CO2 estimates are wrong, why on Earth do you feel entitled to belittle those who also question the extent to which water vapor or CO2 can or do heat the Earth/oceans? Do you fail to see the blatant contradiction here?
That’s all well and good. I’m specifically asking you for the physical measurements of water heat changes that are elicited by CO2 changes in particular, not LWIR in general. And, very consistently, you are unable to identify what these physical measurements are. I find this to be an enormous problem. I’m asked to just agree that “synthetic” lab experiments with LWIR are enough. They aren’t. I’m asking for the results from ppm changes in CO2 as a controlled variable. Do you have any? No, you don’t. So why not just admit that you don’t have any physical measurements verifying how much heating and cooling is elicited by ppmv changes in CO2 concentrations over water bodies instead of continuing to bluster on and on how answering such questions is unnecessary…we know what we need to know. We do not have enough information. If the effect of increasing CO2 is negligible rather than significant, then wouldn’t that be important to know when it comes to determining the planetary heating effects of CO2? If you don’t think that’s important, why don’t you?
By how much? And to what extent does the increase in LWIR from CO2 concentration change the oceans’ heat content? Do you have an answer? No, you don’t. So why is not having an answer to this question not a problem? Why so much certainty that the increase in LWIR from CO2 is significant or at least not negligible if you don’t even have physical measurements from a real-world experiment that determines what the real-world effect is? Why are presuppositions (Well, increasing LWIR causes warming, and increasing CO2 causes increasing LWIR, so…) good enough for you?
But if the radiative GHE’s influence on Earth’s ocean temperatures for water vapor and CO2 is, in your own words, “not really known” and “likely wrong” (respectively), why is the GHE explanation for net changes in the Earth’s ocean heat content considered to be confirmed scientifically…such that you feel you are entitled to scorn those who dare question your certainty with regard to the CO2/water vapor radiative heating of the oceans?
I can only answer for myself here. I have no problem with skeptics that claim that climate sensitivity might be lower than we think. I have a problem with skeptics disregarding the laws of physics and proposing competing theories without ever explaining the physical mechanism by which they would work. Question all you want, but don’t invent nonsense trying to explain things so they match your conviction.
Kenneth:
You continue to be absolutely incapable of distinguishing between the level of an effect, and the derivative of that effect. Let’s go back to basics.
Each square meter of the earth’s surface emits, averaged over time and area, about 500 watts. Each square meter of the earth (and its atmosphere), again averaged over time and area, absorbs about 240 watts. These numbers are known, through measurements, to within a few percent.
No one, not even the most frantic alarmist, thinks that the earth’s surface is out of balance by more than about 1 W/m2, averaged over time and area. So we have to close a gap of over 250 W/m2 to explain present conditions.
You ask: “why on Earth do you feel entitled to belittle those who also question the extent to which water vapor or CO2 can or do heat the Earth/oceans?”
I question their fundamental capabilities because THERE IS NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE!
I repeat: THERE IS NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE!
And I have looked for alternative explanations at length, and never found one that is remotely plausible.
We can do precision measurements of the magnitude and spectrum of downwelling longwave infrared radiation. The magnitude is sufficient to close the gap of surface power inputs and outputs, and the spectrum of this IR radiation overwhelmingly comes from the absorption/emission bands of H2O and CO2. For example, there is virtually none in the “atmospheric window” range of 10 to 14 microns wavelength.
We know that the DWLWIR in the H2O bands is significantly less in conditions of low humidity than high humidity. Haven’t you ever noticed that things cool off faster after sunset in low humidity conditions than high humidity?
We know through controlled repeatable laboratory measurements that water and most land-based surfaces absorb the vast majority of downwelling LWIR radiation You keep objecting that these measurements do not simply vary the concentration of these gases to vary the LWIR intensity. Seriously? Do you think that somehow the LWIR from CO2 is neutered so it cannot transmit energy? Do you not understand basic thermodynamics?
You uncritically cite papers that claim that the pressure of the atmosphere alone can provide the missing 250 W/m2 input to the surface, when anyone who understands the basics of first-year physics knows that static pressure can provide no energy transfer at all. You casually throw out the idea that maybe its the thermal capacitance of the atmosphere could do this, again without any underlying physical basis whatsoever.
In short, you are asking for an experiment that would require a second earth as a control, and stating that without that, we cannot possibly infer anything. We might as well say that it’s just magic from the gods.
You say: “But if the radiative GHE’s influence on Earth’s ocean temperatures for water vapor and CO2 is, in your own words, “not really known” and “likely wrong” (respectively)…”
Are you deliberately misquoting me, or are you just fundamentally incapable of distinguishing (as I am pointing out for the Nth time) between the level of an effect and its present sensitivity? I was very obviously talking about the sensitivity here, how much small changes in LWIR (on the order of 1 W/m2 or less) cause temperature changes given all the other things going on.
Let’s be clear: the large majority ofan additional small increment of DWLWIR will definitely be absorbed by the surface, at least temporarily increasing its energy level. But there are lots of other effects on this order: changing cloud cover, changing snow cover, land use changes, ocean circulation changes, atmospheric circulation changes, to name a few. That is why we cannot be sure of the present sensitivity.
But none of these effects come remotely close to closing the full 250 W/m2 gap between surface power output and absorbed solar input. That is the difference you can’t understand. I have pushed you to present a physically plausible alternative, and you have not remotely done so.
You say: “If the increase in LWIR is negligible from increasing CO2 (and we don’t know whether it is or not since we don’t have those physical measurements)…”
But you are wrong here — we do have “those physical measurements”, both from laboratory spectroscopic measurements, and the extensive US Air Force atmospheric measurements.
I could go on and on, but there is no point — you obviously do not have the technical background to deal competently with these issues.
You ask: “why on Earth do you feel entitled to belittle those who also question the extent to which water vapor or CO2 can or do heat the Earth/oceans?”
Once again, your response has little to do with my actual question. This seems to be a repetitive pattern. I ask very specific questions about the physically measured quantity or degree or extent to which CO2 affects the Earth’s heat value, and you, yet again, revert back to making it out like I’m asking you if there’s a plausible alternative to the greenhouse effect explanation. To you, it’s either you accept the greenhouse effect explanation, or you’re wrong (because no other alternative exists). That isn’t what this is, or has been, about.
To shout back at you: I HAVE NOT REJECTED THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, AND H20/CO2 GHGs, ARE A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR CLOSING THE INPUT/OUTPUT GAP. What I have been trying to get you to answer – and you abscond every time I ask the question – is THE EXTENT OF THE INFLUENCE that CO2 has on determining the ocean’s heating. Notice that this is significantly different than the question of whether CO2 heats the ocean at all. And every time I ask you about the extent, or degree, or percentage of the influence for CO2 on heat changes in water, you turn it around and pretend that I’m asking you whether or not LWIR in general, and not CO2 in particular, affects ocean temperatures at all.
Of course, I understand the reason that you do this. It’s because you fully recognize that you are incapable of answering my question…because you don’t know the answer. But instead of acknowledging your lack of omniscience, you twist my questions around so you can once again inform me that THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE to the greenhouse effect.
That’s nice. But I’ve asked you for real-world physical measurements detailing how much/the extent to which/the degree that ppmv changes in airborne CO2 concentrations change the temperature of water bodies. You haven’t answered this fundamental question…ever. You evade it. And because you can’t answer it, this goes to show that we do not know whether or not the CO2 is significant or insignificant…or the extent to which water vapor or cloud cover changes may override the CO2 effect. And if we don’t know this, why so much adamant certainty on your part?
No, but this begs the question (that you won’t answer): To what extent does the transmission of energy from CO2 heat the oceans when its airborne concentration is increased (or decreased) by __ ppm? Again you’re trying to concoct either/or dichotomies where they don’t exist, and that way you can ignore the real how little/how much questions that are cogent and necessary to know.
No, a second Earth is not necessary to conduct an experiment testing the thermal effects of CO2 ppmv variations on water bodies so as to divine the significance or insignificance of the measured effect.
Take two identical empty glass greenhouses, side-by-side in an open area. Inside each greenhouse put an identical container filled with identical __ liters of water. Next, use a CO2 generator (used for greenhouses routinely) to pump in 100 ppm more CO2 in one greenhouse than the other. Precisely measure the temperature of the water for each container to see if there is a difference. If one greenhouse had 500 ppm in it, and the other had 400 ppm in it, how much cooler would the 400 ppm greenhouse’s water get? From the looks of your behavior here (evading answer this question each time it’s asked), it would appear you have no idea how much warmer or cooler temperatures the 100 ppm extra CO2 difference elicits in a real-world experiment.
All you would likely say is that the 500 ppm greenhouse would be warmer. How much warmer? I ask. Your response would likely be that because increasing CO2 increases LWIR, and increasing LWIR raises temperatures, therefore the 500 ppm greenhouse’s water temperature would be…warmer.
Me: How much warmer? +0.00001 K? +0.0001 K? +0.001 K? What?
You: It would be warmer…because there is no plausible alternative. If you disagree, you’re wrong.
Me. How much warmer? What are the values?
You: It would be warmer…because we have LWIR measurements from the Air Force.
And on and on it goes. Why not just admit you don’t know rather than claiming you know but then failing to produce again and again?
Why is this important? Because what if there is no statistically significant thermal difference between having 100 ppm more CO2 over a body of water than another? Then what? Would that not affect our assumptions about the extent to which CO2 influences ocean heat…and thus its planetary temperature as a whole?
You say: “If the increase in LWIR is negligible from increasing CO2 (and we don’t know whether it is or not since we don’t have those physical measurements)…”
For the ___nth time, those aren’t measurements of how much heating/cooling is elicited in water bodies by varying CO2 concentrations up or down in the air above them. THAT is what is being asked here. The LWIR measurements from the Air Force DO NOT PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH WARMING IS CAUSED IN WATER BODIES BY RAISING OR LOWERING CO2 CONCENTRATIONS IN VOLUMES OF PPM ABOVE THEM. How many more times are you going to pretend that you have an answer to this question by saying we have atmospheric LWIR measurements? How many more times do I need to inform you that THAT is not what is being asked here?
Ed Bo, “Each square meter of the earth’s surface emits, averaged over time and area, about 500 watts. Each square meter of the earth (and its atmosphere), again averaged over time and area, absorbs about 240 watts. These numbers are known, through measurements, to within a few percent.”
Presumably each square metre of the Earth’s surface would be MEASURED to absorb, averaged over time and area, 500 watts. If not, there would be a severe violation of conservation of energy going on. I’m guessing what you mean is that 240 watts, averaged over time and area, is what is received by the surface directly from the sun, and so to make it up to the 500 watts you need to take downwelling infrared radiation into account.
Well, to briefly commit the cardinal sin of going on topic, the paper claims to show for the first time that air will warm from the SW IR the sun provides, directly, until it reaches a limiting temperature whereby the amount it’s absorbing is offset by the amount the air is radiating. This radiation from the air would appear from the Earth’s surface, once it’s reached it, to have come from the absorption/emission bands of CO2/H2O since these are the radiatively active gases present in the air.
So, this would mean that from the surface POV it’s possible that the budget discrepancy of greater than 250 watts is closed by the downwelling radiation from the air (that has been warmed by this newly discovered thermal effect of SW IR directly from the sun) rather than what we have previously mistaken to be “back radiation”.
Well, to briefly commit the cardinal sin of going on topic, the paper claims to show for the first time that air will warm from the SW IR the sun provides, directly, until it reaches a limiting temperature whereby the amount it’s absorbing is offset by the amount the air is radiating. This radiation from the air would appear from the Earth’s surface, once it’s reached it, to have come from the absorption/emission bands of CO2/H2O since these are the radiatively active gases present in the air.
So, this would mean that from the surface POV it’s possible that the budget discrepancy of greater than 250 watts is closed by the downwelling radiation from the air (that has been warmed by this newly discovered thermal effect of SW IR directly from the sun) rather than what we have previously mistaken to be “back radiation”.
+1
Kenneth, how can you acknowledge that “H20/CO2 GHGs, ARE A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR CLOSING THE INPUT/OUTPUT GAP” and then grasp every straw that could lead to CO2 and other GHGs not being able to warm the oceans despite the overwhelming evidence and measurements?
Just because we can’t really perform the measurement that would be sufficient to convince you because we have no second Earth?
Your experiment design that follows this quoted sentence doesn’t measure the greenhouse effect. Why would you take the results of such an experiment as confirmation that concentration changes lead to forcing changes which lead to temperature and heat content changes? It’s almost as if you don’t understand the physical mechanisms …
If you want to know how much of a change a certain amount of CO2 concentration change results in then you can look up the ranges given by the IPCC reports. The exact value isn’t certain yet, but that doesn’t mean it is insignificant.
While it’s nice that you try to give “the other side” little assignments, why don’t you start learning about how the greenhouse effect really works and how CO2 absorption/emissions from the ocean are depending on the temperature and the partial pressure differences? And while you are at it, some basic math to get to know the difference between a value and its derivative (you make that mistake every time we discuss how humans cause the CO2 concentration increase).
Uh, the error ranges in the estimates are 10 times greater than the total accumulated forcing attributed to CO2 in the last 265 years.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Uncertainty-Error-LW-Radiation-IPCC-AR4.jpg
IPCC (2007): “Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre [20+ W m-2] for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.”
IPCC (2013): “The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean for each term is expected to be in the range 10 to 20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2 (Pierce et al., 2006).”
Frank, 2008
“It turns out that uncertainties in the energetic responses of Earth climate systems are more than 10 times larger than the entire energetic effect of increased CO2.”
If the exact value isn’t certain, and the errors and uncertainty associated with the responses of the Earth’s climate system to forcing from CO2 are 10 times greater than the entire forcing value alleged for CO2 since 1750, then you have no idea if the value is significant or insignificant. All you have are (biased) guesses that the value is significant.
Speaking of errors, will you be addressing this error you keep on making at some point?
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1229220
SebastianH: “A paper where the author confuses SW radiation with LW radiation”.
No. For the third time, the author does no such thing. YOU confuse SW radiation with SW IR radiation. It really is a very simple mistake you’re making which basically shows you have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’re STILL here embarrassing yourself.
SW IR = is longwave radiation, because it’s infrared. It’s just that it is a categorisation of infrared in which the wavelength is shorter than the other forms of infrared. Hence “shortwave IR”.
EdBo writes about heating allegedly caused by CO2 (and water vapor) that “…THERE IS NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE!”
Never mind that when CO2 has correlated with temperature, it has been in response to, not the cause of, temperature change. And when it isn’t correlated, as in over the long term paleo record, they completely ignore that data.
Sorry, EdBo, but at least with CO2, and probably with water vapor as well, THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE! …because what they are advocating has been shown to be not only implausible, but impossible.
Kenneth:
I am forced to conclude that you are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between a quantity and its derivative. You uncritically cite papers that question the very existence of the radiative greenhouse effect without offering any scientifically plausible alternative that could possibly close the huge “power gap” at the earth’s surface; I object to these papers that cannot explain this huge gap; then you, without dealing in any form with my argument, demand evidence about the sensitivity (derivative) at the present point.
I’m afraid your proposed experiment would not tell us anything more meaningful about the sensitivity in the real world to small CO2 increases than my LWIR laser experiment. Your proposal shows that you do not really understand the details of rGHE theory and its possible issues, even enough to refute them. The theory in question involves increased CO2 levels all the way up to the upper troposphere, with special emphasis on the altitudes where there is no significant water vapor. The theory posits that increased CO2 levels raise the “effective radiation level” in at least the CO2 absorption/emission bands to a higher altitude, resulting in higher surface temperatures.
There are MANY possible challenges to this theory of enhanced rGHE, but your experiment would identify none of them. By enclosing the experiment inside a physical greenhouse, you inhibit both convection and evaporation, while having only a few meters height of enhanced CO2, rather than many kilometers.
GW:
You are correct that I left out “from the sun” when I said that “Each square meter of the earth … absorbs about 240 watts.” You are also correct that “to make it up to the 500 watts you need to take downwelling infrared radiation into account.”
But when you say that “from the surface POV it’s possible that the budget discrepancy of greater than 250 watts is closed by the downwelling radiation from the air … rather than what we have previously mistaken to be ‘back radiaion'”, I’m afraid you go off the rails.
The downwelling radiation from the air IS what is commonly called “back radiation”. They are one in the same! And an atmosphere without gases that can radiate in the thermal infrared (and N2, O2, and Ar cannot) cannot provide downwelling radiation to close the gap, so the surface would need to be much colder to be in balance. This is a key point of the radiative GHE!!
Oh, and the experiment described in the OP does nothing to test this idea that downwelling LONGWAVE infrared from the atmosphere increases surface temperatures.
yonason:
You talk about the poor correlation of CO2 to temperatures over some time spans. Fair enough. There are many other effects comparable to, or larger than the few W/m2 posited for varying CO2 concentrations. But none of these come close to closing the ~250 W/m2 gap in the surface power balance without downwelling LWIR.
Your argument is akin to saying that because there is a poor correlation between height and age for children between 12 and 13 years old, we cannot say that children between 12 and 13 years old will be significantly taller than those between 2 and 3 years old.
I have long ago concluded that you are unwilling to/incapable of considering that we don’t know enough about how effectively CO2 actually works in its atmospheric context to draw anything other than highly uncertain conclusions with wide error ranges about its planetary heating effects. You seem to think the science is settled on this, and my refusal to accept that the science is settled, or my tendencies to question not only CO2 climate sensitivity values, but the fundamentals of the proposed theoretical greenhouse effect (with regard to CO2 in particular, and less so water vapor), is a weakness. Unlike you, I don’t consider the theoretical greenhouse effect settled science — especially because we have no hard evidence that shows varying ppm CO2 concentrations over a body of water causes significant heat changes in water bodies – significant enough to override changes in absorbed SW radiation accomplished by albedo fluctuations (i.e., cloud cover). And since Earth is a water planet, and 90+ percent to the Earth’s heat resides in the oceans, IR/greenhouse gases must necessarily be clearly shown to be a dominant cause of net ocean heat content changes if they are to be responsible for global warming/climate change…not to mention the 33 K difference between 288 and 255 K.
What you seemingly fail to appreciate is that errors and uncertainty in our radiative greenhouse effect forcing estimates are more than 10 times greater than the total forcing theoretically attributed to CO2 changes since 1750 (<2 W m-2). With such large error and uncertainty ranges, and without the requisite observational evidence, how is it that you can be so certain that the science is settled on the CO2-heats-the-oceans hypothesis? Shouldn't the errors and uncertainty be much smaller, and the observational evidence direct (not proxy-only), if we are to conclude that the fundamentals of the greenhouse-gases-heat-the-oceans explanation is settled?
IPCC's Uncertainty/Error Range For LWIR (20 W m-2)
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Uncertainty-Error-LW-Radiation-IPCC-AR4.jpg
–
IPCC (2007): “Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre [20+ W m-2] for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.”
–
IPCC (2013): “The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean for each term is expected to be in the range 10 to 20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2 (Pierce et al., 2006).”
-
Frank, 2008
“It turns out that uncertainties in the energetic responses of Earth climate systems are more than 10 times larger than the entire energetic effect of increased CO2.”
–
And since the theoretical greenhouse effect explanation is not settled science, and since several scientists have found that the theory violates physical laws (e.g., Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009), your claim that a plausible alternative to an unsettled, high uncertainty/large error range/poorly observed theory must be posited and confirmed for the greenhouse theory to even be called into question…is a logical fallacy.
Uh, no. Your LWIR laser experiment doesn’t isolate CO2 as a variable, which is what I keep on trying to inform you is necessary to establish the efficacy of CO2 in particular, and not LWIR in general. That’s why your we have all the information we need from the AF LWIR measurements argument is specious. LWIR is not the equivalent of CO2. The experiment I’ve suggested does isolate CO2 as a variable. How much warmer would the water be in a transparent enclosed space outdoors with 500 ppm in it than an identical nearby structure with 400 ppm in it? Take a stab at it, Ed? Do you have any idea how much warmer that water would be? If not, why not? Is this not fundamental?
So can we assume that you agree that there is no real-world scientific experiment (that could be conducted in a high school science lab – or anywhere) that shows what CO2 actually does in the atmosphere, and thus our assumptions about CO2’s efficacy in its atmospheric context is thus hypothetical and theoretical?
By the way, at the poles there is already “no significant water vapor” – so we don’t need to travel to extremely high altitudes. So CO2 doesn’t have to compete with water vapor at the poles like it does in the tropics. Isn’t it interesting, then, that the polar Arctic has only undergone an oscillation in temperatures in the last 80 years, with temperatures in the 1920s-1940s just as warm or warmer than they are now…even though CO2 concentrations hovered around 310 ppm during the former period, but over 400 ppm in recent times. Why do you think the CO2 concentration wasn’t a factor in the Arctic climate, Ed? For that matter, why was Antarctica much warmer than now for nearly all of the last 10,000 years, when CO2 levels were in the 255 to 280 ppm range? Why does the paleoclimate record contradict the greenhouse gas hypothesis you defend so vehemently?
Since you won’t answer my other questions, can you answer this one?
Ed Bo: you seem to have cleverly missed the point completely. No need to repeat myself, my original comment was clear enough.
EdBo’s analogies are as bad as SebH’s. Obviously neither understands the processes he is trying to “explain.”
This is getting really weird now …
1) @GW:
That’s nonsense and impossible. The Sun provides amount X W/m², but the surface balance requires X+Y W/m². A “filter” that blocks/absorbs sunlight (SWIR) and re-emits it towards the surface will decrease X because the emission will be in all directions. You’ll end up with X-Z W/m² at the surface and not X+Y W/m².
2) @Kenneth:
Don’t you love uncertainty, always a reliable candidate to discredit other values, isn’t it?
Let’s say you can’t be very certain about the heat the radiator in your bathroom is providing to the room, but you decide to switch on your 1000 W hair dryer. Do you think the uncertainty of that radiator value influences how much heat the heat dryer is providing to the room?
3) @Kenneth:
I replied to that comment and the one from you above that, but it disappeared in the spam bin. I don’t really want to repeat myself, but the author of the paper is comparing solar radiation with the radiation from a heat lamp and somehow determines that it’s SWIR that is being absorbed by the gas instead of the containers absorbing SW radiation in case of the sun faced experiment and LW radiation in the other case. Should have probably used a FLIR camera or something …
4) @Kenneth:
We do know enough and we do know the laws of physics that all the alternatives you try to present fail to obey. If you would know how the radiative greenhouse effect works you wouldn’t fall so easily for papers like the one in this blog post. So please, start learning how it works, the mechanisms, the equation, etc
That’s what you need to do, especially after reading your reply to Ed Bo above.
And please learn how to distinguish derivatives from the values (Ed Bo’s comment). You make that error every time when you say that CO2 concentration increased despite human emission being flat … a preventable error if you cared to check the units of those values.
“That’s nonsense and impossible. The Sun provides amount X W/m², but the surface balance requires X+Y W/m². A “filter” that blocks/absorbs sunlight (SWIR) and re-emits it towards the surface will decrease X because the emission will be in all directions. You’ll end up with X-Z W/m² at the surface and not X+Y W/m²”
So you didn’t read the paper. The SWIR from the sun warming the air (not CO2 or H2O specifically but ALL the molecules of the air) is not detectable spectroscopically. Thus there is no decrease in X. The effect of the SWIR on the air molecules is intermolecular. The emission of photons from the GHGs in the air is an intramolecular process. Read the paper to learn more.
I see, magic energy from nothing.
Rather telling that you have decided to dismiss the massive uncertainty and error ranges in the rough estimates of LWIR/CO2 forcing by pivoting to an obscenely irrelevant analogy about bathroom radiators. Dismissing uncertainty and error ranges is apparently what believers must do to maintain their “rightness”. Close your eyes and cover your ears…and concoct gratuitous analogies that have nothing to do with anything.
What you apparently fail to appreciate is that there are large numbers of engineers, physicists, chemists, heat transfer experts…who all agree that the greenhouse theory you so diligently defend violates multiple physical laws itself. There are fundamental problems with the whole of the theory, not the least of which is the lack of available observational evidence and the gross incompatibility with the paleoclimate record. That’s why you obviously must dismiss and ignore the uncertainty and large error ranges…and belittle those who are willing to consider the uncertainty and large error ranges for their non-belief.
No, not magic:
“the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of articial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon-dioxide, and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low”.
X – Z + A = X + Y
Where A = the down-welling LW radiation from the GHGs in the warmed air.
And you trust those engineers, physicists, chemists, and heat transfer experts more than the large majority of professionals in these fields? Why? What laws of physics are violated? Not a single one! I bet you a student with a bachelor degree in physics can show you why any paper, book or blog post you could dig up on this topic is flawed. Maybe even basic high school knowledge could be enough.
No and no. And yes, the greenhouse effect exists on other planets too.
Reinhart, 2017 (article here)
We conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. We emphasize that our simplifying assumptions are by no means trying to minimize the absorption potential of CO2. To the contrary, they lead to overestimating the limiting values. The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.
—-
Hertzberg et al., 2017 (article here)
This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.
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.
—-
Gerhard and Tscheuschner, 2009
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. 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.
—-
Kramm and Dlugi, 2011
[I]t is indispensable to assess these assumptions and the result of T[emperature of Earth sans atmosphere =] 254.9 K which is based on
them:
1) Only a planetary radiation budget of the Earth in the absence of an atmosphere is considered, i.e., any heat storage in the oceans (if at all existing in such a case) and land masses is neglected.
2) The assumption of a uniform surface temperature for the entire globe is rather inadequate. As shown by Kramm and Dlugi [21] this assumption is required by the application of the power law of Stefan [66] and Boltzmann [67] because, as mentioned before, this power law is determined a) by integrating Planck’s [29] blackbody radiation law, for instance, over all wavelengths ranging from zero to infinity and b) by integrating the isotropic emission of radiant energy by a small spot of the surface into the adjacent half space (e.g., [15,68]). Thus, applying the Stefan-Boltzmann power law to a statistical quantity like Tns [Earth’s temperature, 288 K] cannot be justified by physical and mathematical reasons.
1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W·MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energyflux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.
@GW:
Saying “and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low” is the same a saying it is magic. So there is some kind of undetectable radiation coming the Sun that is so insignificant that we can’t measure it? And yet it enables the atmosphere to supply hundreds of W/m² of downwelling LW radiation … suuuuuuure 😉
These kind of claims are the ones that conflict with the laws of physics, not the greenhouse theory, Kenneth.
So then why is it common to find scientists reporting that the greenhouse theory violates the laws of physics? Don’t you think you probably need to get your preferred assumptions to align with physical laws before claiming that other explanations are in violation (too)?
–
Reinhart, 2017 (article here)
We conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. We emphasize that our simplifying assumptions are by no means trying to minimize the absorption potential of CO2. To the contrary, they lead to overestimating the limiting values. The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.
—-
Hertzberg et al., 2017 (article here)
This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.
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.
—-
Gerhard and Tscheuschner, 2009
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. 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.
—-
Kramm and Dlugi, 2011
[I]t is indispensable to assess these assumptions and the result of T[emperature of Earth sans atmosphere =] 254.9 K which is based on
them:
1) Only a planetary radiation budget of the Earth in the absence of an atmosphere is considered, i.e., any heat storage in the oceans (if at all existing in such a case) and land masses is neglected.
2) The assumption of a uniform surface temperature for the entire globe is rather inadequate. As shown by Kramm and Dlugi [21] this assumption is required by the application of the power law of Stefan [66] and Boltzmann [67] because, as mentioned before, this power law is determined a) by integrating Planck’s [29] blackbody radiation law, for instance, over all wavelengths ranging from zero to infinity and b) by integrating the isotropic emission of radiant energy by a small spot of the surface into the adjacent half space (e.g., [15,68]). Thus, applying the Stefan-Boltzmann power law to a statistical quantity like Tns [Earth’s temperature, 288 K] cannot be justified by physical and mathematical reasons.
1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W·MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energyflux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.
That’s not common at all and the list you just double posted … what kind of “scientists” are those authors? Why don’t they know the laws of physics and claim such nonsense? Seriously, if you don’t trust a random guy on the internet, go to a nearby school and find a physics teacher and then show this to him/her. You will be surprised.
What an excellent rebuttal, SebastianH. This is exactly the kind of response that pushed me away from the AGW activists about the time ClimateGate was churning through the public consciousness in the late 2000s. Putting the word scientists in quotes (btw, they’re Ph.D professors, physicists and chemists), immediately calling their challenges to the theory’s tenets “nonsense”, retreating to the argument from authority… Your responses here are the opposite of convincing.
I know two physics teachers. Neither are believers that humans exert a dominant control on the Earth’s temperatures. But even if both were believers, it doesn’t take more than one single violation of the laws of physics to undermine a theoretical construct or hypothesis. The few of many available papers I provided here (for the sake of brevity) outline some of the physics laws violations/incompatibilities. You haven’t written anything to undo their analyses.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” -Einstein
Ha ha, yes, it is almost as ridiculous as the greenhouse effect, only there is experimental evidence into the thermal effect.
Me: You cannot close the surface power gap of ~250 W/m2 without the downwelling longwave infrared radiation from “greenhouse gases.”
Kenneth: But some say the uncertainties could be as large as 20 W/m2!
Ed, you’re digging yourself an even deeper hole, here.
The total accumulated forcing from CO2 is alleged to be 1.8 W m-2 since 1750. The uncertainty/error range for LWIR forcing is therefore more than 10 times larger than the alleged forcing from the entire CO2 increase from the last 265 years. How does this help your ALL CAPS case in claiming that the GHE explanation is effectively the only “right” one? Shouldn’t there be quite a bit less uncertainty/error if making such a claim?
–
IPCC (2013): “The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean for each term is expected to be in the range 10 to 20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2 (Pierce et al., 2006).”
———————————–
1. So how much of the ~250 W m-2 gap is filled by water vapor…since the CO2 forcing value is so tiny? What are the radiative values for each (water vapor/CO2) in bridging the ~250 W m-2 gap? What observational evidence is used to determine these values? What were the water vapor vs. CO2 forcing values when the Earth is in glacial conditions (i.e., 90,000 to 15,000 years ago) according to measurements? Do you know? Or do you have no idea?
———————————-
2. During the Holocene, Earth’s ocean temperatures were multiple degrees warmer than they are now. In fact, according to accepted CO2 values from ice cores, the lowest CO2 concentrations occurred between about 9,000 and 6,000 years ago, when Pacific Ocean heat content was at its highest. The ocean is significantly colder now (-0.65 C) than it was even 1,000 years ago, even though CO2 levels have risen sharply since then. Can you explain the stark inconsistencies between the ocean heat content and the CO2 values using the greenhouse theory and its ~250 W m-2 LWIR forcing value on planetary temperatures given the opposite sign for the Earth’s heat with lower vs. higher CO2 values? Upon answering that, explain why the ocean heat plummeted by -0.9 C between 1000 C.E. and 1600-1800 C.E. as the CO2 levels remained essentially constant in light of the ~250 LWIR value. Did the water vapor concentration plummet, then? If so, by what forcing value?
———————————-
3. Ed Bo: “The theory in question involves increased CO2 levels all the way up to the upper troposphere, with special emphasis on the altitudes where there is no significant water vapor.”
So can we assume that you agree that there is no real-world scientific experiment (that could be conducted in a high school science lab – or anywhere) that shows what CO2 actually does in the atmosphere, and thus our assumptions about CO2’s efficacy in its atmospheric context is thus hypothetical and theoretical? If you don’t agree, and think that there are real-world experiments that simulate what occurs in the upper troposphere, please identify that real-world observational evidence that move the greenhouse gas effect on planetary temperatures from the level of assumption/hypothesis/theory to confirmed/certain reality. At what point was the GHE theory proved?
———————————-
4. Do you agree or disagree that the following CO2 effects “have never been observed”?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf
“Global climatologists claim that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33◦C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. About 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind of ‘superinsulation’ violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.”
Kenneth,
I don’t need to convince you or undo their analyses for you. I am just a random internet person you won’t trust anyway. I am asking you to learn the principles and understand the mechanisms. Ask your physics teachers what they think about the violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If they are any good they will laugh at what those papers are saying.
Do you think they can’t make mistakes and could be blindly following their convictions? Apparently, climate change has become some religious topic, where “fans” of either side argue with each other “just because”. “No, my favorite team is the best despite losing all the time” nonsense.
Keep that in mind and demonstrate that single experiment that proves AGW wrong. As of yet, you have failed. Why? Because you don’t understand the mechanisms enough to come up with something substantial. Instead you cherry pick from papers trying to support your opinion/conviction while those papers often are supporting AGW (that part gets ignored) or you post papers that are true junk science papers with very clear violations of the laws of physics (ask your teacher friends).
Apparently you didn’t understand the analogy with the hairdryer. What has the uncertainty of measuring the LWIR to do with a forcing measurement? You know how much power your hair dryer is outputting despite being uncertain how much heat is added to your bathroom by both the radiator and the hair dryer.
The total accumulated forcing from CO2 is alleged to be 1.8 W m-2 since 1750. The uncertainty/error range for LWIR forcing is therefore more than 10 times larger than the alleged forcing from the entire CO2 increase from the last 265 years.
No words.
“So there is some kind of undetectable radiation coming the Sun that is so insignificant that we can’t measure it?”
No, nobody is saying this. The SWIR radiation (his estimated wavelength is 1.9 um) from the sun is detectable, and significant. The absorption of this SWIR by the air is what is not detectable spectroscopically, because the absorption coefficient is too low. His argument is that nobody has checked the thermal effects, only spectroscopic ones, to date, hence why this has been missed previously.
With that acknowledged you should finally be up to speed with what the paper is saying, and can begin to critique it. Notice that at no point have I been telling you that the paper is correct, all I’ve been doing is trying to fill you in on what it says, so that you’re not attacking straw men. Like saying that the author doesn’t know the difference between SW and LW radiation, and is mixing up the two.
+1 (again)
Ok, a different one then.
You drive 100 km/h with your car. There are other cars on the road and you estimate them to drive at an average speed of 90 km/h with some error range. How does that error range affect the knowledge that you are driving a certain speed?
Kenneth:
Thank you for proving my point that you don’t understand the difference between the sensitivity of the rGHE and the level of it.
The fact that there are uncertainties of up to 20 W/m2 in some of our measurements that can obscure the ~2 W/m2 purported forcing of increased CO2 DOES NOT mean that there are uncertainties of 2500 W/m2 in the closing of the 250 W/m2 “power gap” at the surface.
No, it means that while the uncertainties may be an order of magnitude larger than the supposed enhanced effect, they are over an order of magnitude SMALLER than the overall effect. Big difference!
You ask: ” So how much of the ~250 W m-2 gap is filled by water vapor…since the CO2 forcing value is so tiny?”
Once again, you prove my point about your utter inability to distinguish between the amount of something and its derivative. The ~2 W/m2 posited change since 1900 you quote is a derivative, not a total amount.
The best observational evidence comes from satellite spectrometers like the Nimbus-4 IRIS that show a huge “bite” in the Planck spectrum of upward thermal infrared radiation in the CO2 absorption band centered on 15um wavelength. Readings from over the tropical Pacific show that the radiation in the “atmospheric window” of ~10-13um comes from the surface at almost 300K, but the radiation from the CO2 absorption/emission band comes from an altitude where the temperature is only 210K. In the H2O absorption/emission band less than 8um, it’s from ~250K.
The peak wavelength of surface radiation is at about 17um, so the CO2 “bite” close to this frequency is important. Most estimates based on observations like this are that the contribution of CO2 to the total LEVEL of the rGHE is about 20%. I emphasize that this is very different from any sensitivity estimates.
You ask about proxy measurements that show the oceans have cooled 0.65K over the last 1000 years. Let’s run some math on this.
The specific heat of water is 4.18 kJ/kg/K. With 1000 kg/m3 of water, and 1000 J/kJ, we get 4.18×10^6 J/m3/K.
So for a 1 m2 column of water 1000m tall, it would take 4.18×10^9 J to raise the temperature 1K.
There are 3.15×10^7 seconds in a year, so 3.15×10^10 seconds in 1000 years. So the power imbalance for cooling this column 0.65K in a millennium is less than 0.1 W/m2. There are lots of things that could cause this imbalance (but don’t come close to explaining an ongoing 250 W/m2 imbalance.
The G&T paper you cite, and especially the quote you bolded, is complete nonsense. They don’t even understand the fundamental argument the way a starting student would. They spend the first 5 pages of their analysis analyzing thermal conductivity issues and how they could change with CO2 concentration, when the issue IS NOT THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY at all! The issue is RADIATIVE TRANSPARENCY!
So it WOULD NOT “show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly.” But it would show up in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a radiative transparency anomaly. It’s an easy experiment to do. You can do it yourself with a simple FLIR camera or even a kitchen infrared thermometer.
You’ve done it again, Ed Bo. I have repeatedly pointed out to you that LWIR is not the equivalent of the greenhouse effect derived from CO2 in particular; they are not one in the same, and therefore they should not be referred to as such. And yet every single time I ask you questions about the CO2 greenhouse effect in particular, you retreat to discussing the alleged total W m-2 for LWIR as a whole. You just cannot bring yourself to admit that even the IPCC-accepted CO2 radiative forcing contribution to the total “~250 W m-2” LWIR is but a tiny fraction of the total alleged forcing.
Case in point: Instead of comparing the error range/uncertainty of total LWIR (~20 W m-2) to the estimated total greenhouse forcing effect from CO2, which is also about 15-20 W m-2, or less than 10% of the total ~250 W m-2, you have tendentiously compared the error range/uncertainty of total LWIR (~20 W m-2) to the total alleged forcing from LWIR (~250 W m-2) in “closing the power gap”.
No. The alleged GHE forcing from CO2 for the globe is about 15-20 W m-2, as shown in Smithusen et al. (2015). (Notice, by the way, that in that graph increasing CO2 at the poles causes little to no LWIR radiative forcing, and even a regional negative greenhouse effect “for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system“.) So it therefore can be said that the uncertainty/error range for total LWIR, ~20 W m-2, is equal to or slightly larger than the LWIR from CO2 in particular, not “an order of magnitude SMALLER” as you state.
This is great! Let’s see if you’ll dodge the questions yet again (which is highly likely).
So in the last 1000 years, CO2 concentrations have increased by 130 ppm, allegedly causing a positive radiative forcing of close to 2.0 W m-2 (derivative). And yet during this same 1000 years of +2 W m-2 of forcing from CO2 increases, the Earth’s* total heat content (*the oceans store 93% of the Earth’s heat vs. the atmosphere’s 1%) has declined by the temperature equivalent of -0.65 C. So, if just 0.1 W m-2 radiative imbalance can force a -0.65 C temperature change, that means that you’re going to need to identify a physical mechanism that caused a negative forcing of at least -2.1 W m-2 during the last 1000 years to explain the temperature trends. Since you write…
…please go ahead and specifically identify the “lots of things” that caused the -2.1 W m-2 imbalance that led to the temperature drop of -0.65 C (and overcame the +2 W m-2 positive forcing from CO2 increases). Will you do it? Or will you dodge the mechanism question like SebastianH always does?
I find it rather amusing that your immediate response is to call this paper “nonsense”…and then you turn around and claim that…
Ed, those laboratory experiments don’t demonstrate the radiative effects of CO2, nor do they simulate the proposed atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect.
—————————-
Wagoner et al., 2010
http://emerald.tufts.edu/~rtobin/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf
A clear and compelling classroom demonstration of the basic physics by which atmospheric gases can change the steady-state temperature of the Earth’s surface would be a powerful tool. Several such demonstrations have been described. All involve comparing the temperature rise in a container filled with air with that of the same or a similar container filled with carbon dioxide when exposed to radiation from the Sun or a heat lamp. Typically, a larger temperature rise is observed with carbon dioxide and the difference is attributed, explicitly or implicitly, to the physical phenomena responsible for the climate change. We argue here that […] the results [of classroom CO2 “greenhouse effect” experiments that show increased warming in CO2-filled containers exposed to light] arise primarily from processes related to convective heat transport that plays no role in climate change.
The abrupt transition from gradual warming to rapid cooling in our experiment at about 1200 s provides hints as to the actual nonradiative processes responsible for the temperature rise when either Ar or CO2 is added. … The observations that CO2 and Ar gave almost identical results rule out a primarily radiative mechanism and strongly implicate convection. In addition to being consistent with these observations, our model shows that radiative effects are small and easily dominated by changes in convection, making it difficult to devise a convincing and authentic classroom demonstration of the radiative greenhouse effect.
The curve labeled “Ar” in Fig. 2 shows the response when the second container was filled with argon. The temperature rose by approximately the same amount and at the same rate as for CO2. Because Ar does not absorb infrared radiation, the temperature rise when Ar is added must be due to suppression of the convective heat transfer rather than to radiative effects, just as in the case of real greenhouses. We conclude that the experiment is a demonstration of a “greenhouse effect,” but not of the radiative phenomena responsible for climate change. A simple quantitative model shows that a temperature rise as large as we have observed when CO2 is added cannot be accounted for by CO2’s infrared absorption, but can be readily explained by a suppression of convection.
—————————–
Do you really believe that what happens in a high school science classroom is remotely similar to what happens to Earth’s ocean heat content when CO2 molecules are spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely than they were 100 years ago (300 ppm to 400 ppm) in the atmosphere? If so, why do you believe that, Ed? At what point has the CO2 greenhouse effect been proven to cause net heat changes in water bodies? What are the measurements from a real world experiment? Why won’t/can’t you ever answer these questions specifically? Will you admit that it’s because you do not know? Or would it require too much humility to acknowledge a lack of omniscience?
It is kind of impressive how stubborn you are, Kenneth. You continue to confuse derivatives and totals as in most other discussions with you.
Secondly, why does it matter how big the error is in determining the total LWIR? You say that’s because the percentage of the direct CO2 GHE is in the same order of magnitude. Somehow implying that this would make any forcing from a CO2 concentration change less likely to be of any effect? How does that work in your world of weird math?
Serious question: do you know what a forcing is? And why do you think it would be 15-20 W/m²? Have you read the paper that you link to?
Do you fully understand why that is the case? Or are you just cherry-picking quotes from papers again without understanding the rest?
Even if that were the case, it doesn’t matter. You know you are driving 100 km/h, it doesn’t matter that you have a rather large error rate determining how fast all the cars next to you are driving. That doesn’t change how fast you drive.
No words …
You and your little assignments to deflect from yourself …
Kenneth, you can easily measure the radiative properties of CO2 in a laboratory. This has nothing to do with the school experiment.
I wonder why all those papers about this kind of experiments don’t just use thermal imaging to confirm their conclusions. It should be easy to do and has become quite inexpensive these days.
What other greenhouse effect is causing the heat content of the oceans to be as high as they are so they aren’t completely covered with ice? If you are referring to just the forcing from human emissions, you are right. You can’t attribute any change of the heat content to any specific forcing. But you can of course calculate how much of a forcing would neccessary for a heat content change and see if the decrease/increase of any forcing matches the amount. So if you need 0.5 W/m² to cause the modern OHC change and the (human) CO2 forcing was on average 0.5 W/m² during that time, then you have your cause. Same as with showing who is responsible for the CO2 concentration increase. But then again, you live in a another dimension, where math is somewhat different, right?
Is that what you want to hear/read? An AGW proponent saying/writing that we don’t know everything? Why not start yourself and admit, that your understanding of the phyiscal mechanisms is very limited?
Those school experiments are routinely claimed to simulate how the CO2 greenhouse effect works. They don’t, as the CO2-filled containers aren’t radiatively warmed. The CO2 molecules in the containers also do operatively match what occurs in the atmosphere.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ed, since you’ll (of course) dodge it too. After all, it involves identifying mechanisms.
In the last 1000 years, the 0-700 m ocean temperatures (Pacific) have declined by -0.65 C overall. During this time, CO2 radiative forcing in particular has been claimed to have increased by about +1.8 W m-2. Ed claims that just 0.1 W m-2 of forcing is needed to lower ocean temperatures by -0.65 C. So what is/are the mechanism(s) that caused the 0-700 m ocean temperatures to decline by -0.65 C since the +1.8 W m-2 of positive forcing from CO2 has to be overridden to have caused this cooling?
Kenneth:
YOU are the one who has been uncritically posting papers that deny the very existence of the radiative greenhouse effect from all constituents. When several of us object to this, pointing out that this leaves a power imbalance at the surface of ~250 W/m2, you immediately switch subjects to that of possible small increases in that effect due to one constituent. We repeatedly point out the difference, and you bluster on. I can only conclude that you are completely disingenuous or completely ignorant.
Sebastian has already skillfully refuted most of your latest claims, but I must touch on a few.
Your confusion about radiative transfer compared to othe modes extends to your uncritical citing of the G&T paper, and your inability to distinguish between my claims of using simple radiative sensors to detect absorption changes and those silly proposed experiments, which do not.
You quote the IPCC as saying: “In the case of the latent heat flux term, this [uncertainty] corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2.” Incredibly, you use this to claim that the uncertainty in the LWIR is 20W m-2. Do you really not understand the difference between latent heat flux and radiant flux? Seriously?
You cite dropping ocean temperatures over the last millennium, misleadingly citing CO2 increases of the last 150 years as contemporaneous with the full 1000 years. The measurements you cite show virtually all the cooling occurring before any significant CO2 increases. And measurements show ocean heat content increasing during the 20th century along with CO2 concentrations.
You challenge me to provide examples of other effects that can cause imbalances of around a W/m2. Let’s see: changes in cloud cover, however caused, changes in air circulation, changes in thunderstorm patterns, changes in ocean circulation, both horizontal and vertical, changes in land use albedo, changes in orbital precession leading to different times of peak insolation (this was one of the factors behind the 1970s global cooling scare).
OK, I’ve provided multiple plausible explanations that could explain ~1 W/m2 imbalances. When are you going to provide any plausible explanations that could explain the underlying 250 W/m2 imbalance?
I won’t hold my breath.
Actually, no, while I do occasionally offer papers for consideration that question or renounce the entirety of the greenhouse effect and all its constituents, it’s generally the CO2 greenhouse effect, and not the “greenhouse effect from all constituents” (i.e., water vapor, clouds) that has inspired a majority of the articles exposing the many incompatibilities and flaws in the current zeitgeist. The CO2 greenhouse effect has many gaping holes in it, especially when viewed in the light of the paleoclimate (0-1000 m ocean temperatures rose and fell by 1.0 C per century – 10 times faster than modern – in the absence of any CO2 flux), and the fact that we have no real world physical evidence that spacing CO2 molecules together 1/10,000ths more closely (+100 ppm) than baseline causes net heat changes in water bodies. It’s all conjecture and speculation…which means the greenhouse hypothesis for water vapor and CO2 has no more verifiable standing than competing viewpoints that challenge the hypothesis for violating physical laws. That’s the main difference here. You’ve wholly accepted the hypothesis that 0.000001 variations in CO2 heat water bodies. For you, the CO2/water vapor-heats-the-oceans hypothesis is settled science. For me, it’s never settled…especially when we lack real world observational evidence.
Here are three articles from recent peer-reviewed scientific papers that challenge the efficacy of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Explain why these scientists are wrong, and why CO2 is the dominant source of climate change for the Earth system.
–
https://notrickszone.com/2017/07/31/new-paper-co2-has-negligible-influence-on-earths-temperature/
–
https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/
(Notice the supporting papers at the bottom of the article.)
–
https://notrickszone.com/2017/07/17/swiss-physicist-concludes-ipcc-assumptions-violate-reality-co2-a-very-weak-greenhouse-gas/
–
Uh, yeah, because that “one constituent” happens to be the trace gas that is alleged to be so consequential by NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC to have allowed humans to cause 110% of the climate changes since 1950. Do you find this conclusion has merit?
Oooh. Detecting absorption changes in an experiment. Surely you don’t think that provides supporting evidence for how 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused nearly all of the net warming in the oceans since 1950, as SebastianH believes? Yes, you probably do think that. After all, every time I ask you for physical measurements from a real world experiment isolating CO2’s effect on water temperatures, you cannot answer, but offer that, well, the Air Force has LWIR measurements. That’s nice. There is no experimental verification for your claims that CO2 concentrations (and water vapor) have the radiative capacity to significantly bridge the alleged ~250 W m-2 “power gap” to heat the oceans and thus the Earth. It’s all supposition.
According to this IPCC graph (below link), “…errors in outgoing longwave radiation [~20 W m-2], Figure S8.7, are similarly large…” Why do you find error bars of LW forcing that are as large or larger than the entire alleged radiative effect of CO2 to not be problematic? Shouldn’t the errors be smaller than the alleged effect to have confidence in CO2’s efficacy? Why do you dismiss uncertainty and error as inconsequential, Ed? Do you consider yourself a skeptic? I ask because you are wholly behaving like a believer here.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Uncertainty-Error-LW-Radiation-IPCC-AR4.jpg
According Rosenthal et al. (2013 and 2017), ocean heat content (0-700 m) changed by -0.9 C between 1000 C.E. and 1600-1800 C.E., or about -0.125 C per century. Since then (~1700 C.E.), ocean temps have risen by merely 0.25 C, which is a warming rate of about 0.1 C per 100 years. The overall millennial-scale change, as you had noted (and I repeated), is -0.65 C.
Interestingly, during the Holocene, when CO2 concentrations were steady and rarely changed by more than 1 ppm per century, ocean temperatures rose and fell in the 0-1000 m layer at rates of 1.0 C per century (“>2 °C within 200 years“), which is 10 times greater than the modern rate. For an illustration of these contrasts, see here.
Some other mechanism besides CO2 concentration changes must have been responsible for the order of magnitude larger heat changes in the Earth. You, of course, because of your presuppositions about the unsubstantiated power of 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 to change ocean temperatures and bridge the reputed ~250 W m-2 “power gap”, believe that CO2 can significantly explain the 1600-1800 to 2010 warming of a whopping +0.25 C (Ed Bo: “all the cooling occurring before any significant CO2 increases”). And yet in your list of “potential” non-CO2 factors that could explain the -0.65 C cooling from 1000 C.E. to today, or the -0.9 C cooling from 1000 C.E. to ~1700 C.E. — which you claimed could be forced by just a 0.1 W m-2 radiative imbalance — I noticed that you listed factors that we have no measurements of. We don’t have cloud cover measurements prior to recent decades, for example. Thunderstorm patterns, same. Vertical and horizontal changes in ocean circulation, same. Isn’t it odd, then, that you and SebastianH have decided that it is nonetheless CO2 that has predominantly caused the <0.1 C per century changes in OHC since the 1700s, and not these other unmeasured factors? Where else in science is it acceptable to rule out contributive factors just because we have no measurements for them? It's only in climate science, apparently. And religion.
On the other hand, we do have some measurements of solar activity and volcanic activity for the last several hundred years - and cloud cover changes for about the last 4 decades - that could easily explain the change in ocean temperatures far better than CO2 can. There have already been 100 papers published in 2017 linking colder temperatures to low solar activity (Sporer, Maunder, Dalton minima/Little Ice Age), and high temperatures to high solar activity (Medieval Maximum and Modern Grand Maximum). So at what point did you decide that CO2 variations override changes in solar activity, or that solar activity has been all but ruled out as a factor in causing such large variations in ocean temperatures…especially since a radiative imbalance of just 0.1 W m-2 can cause -0.65 C of cooling, and we may have had +5 W m-2 of solar forcing during the first 5 decades of the 20th century, and the second half of the 20th Century achieved a rare Grand Maximum?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
We obtained a large historical solar forcing between the Maunder minimum and the present, as well as a significant increase in solar irradiance in the first half of the twentieth-century. Our TSI reconstructions give a value of ∼1 W/m2 per decade for the period 1900–1950.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Total-Solar-Irradiance-1700-2013-Yndestad-and-Solheim-2017.jpg
Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity vs. spectral Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Total-Solar-Irradiance-NH-Temperatures-1200-Years-Correlation-Xing-2016.jpg
For that matter, I notice you didn’t mention volcanism, which is obviously a solar forcing of climate via changes in albedo. In addition to noticing the solar activity correlation (top) in the above graph, notice the temperature correlation with volcanism: much higher volcanic activity during the Little Ice Age vs. the last century. Have you ruled this out too as a factor, Ed? If so, why?
Why do you believe that so much of the Earth’s climate, due to changes in ocean heat content, has been derived by a 1/10,000ths of a percentage point change in the atmosphere’s CO2 composition? From where comes your confidence that nearly all the ocean warming/climate changes since last century have been caused by humans, as SebastianH believes? Especially since you have repeatedly shown that you cannot even provide a single direct measurement identifying how much cooling or warming is caused by parts per million variations in CO2, and CO2 alone, above water bodies?
The endless repetition continues …
Not a single whole or contradiction. That’s all imagined by skeptics who don’t understand the mechanisms involved and are bad at math.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
You are kidding, right? There is no violation of physical laws and as the analysis of the paper I linked to above is correct, most skeptic papers are incorrect. About those papers:
You write:
Still no idea how that’s possible? 😉
That’s no belief. You are the one who is following some weird belief that the back radiation from CO2 is special and has no effect. Sometimes you mention an experiment that claims that evaporation takes care of increased back radiation. That’s something you could actually measure. Has that been confirmed? No. You have nothing, but a strong conviction that AGW can’t be real … whatever the reason for that might be.
You don’t seem to understand this either. The forcing of the change in CO2 concentration is known because we know the radiative properties. The error in measuring the downwelling LW radiation has nothing to do with that. It’s just making the actual detection more difficult, but of course, there are papers to have done just that.
Surprise surprise! Nobody is saying that human or natural CO2 is the cause of every climate change. It’s a very recent phenomenon.
Have you actually read the IPCC reports? What are the ruling out exactly?
What you still don’t get – and it reminds me of our discussion about the natural variability in CO2 emissions/absorption – is, that those things didn’t just stop. They continue to affect climate, but on top of that, the increased CO2 forcing is doing its thing. It could very well be that the climate cools, it is still warmer than it would have been without human CO2 emissions.
With your attempts to show that past variations are similar to today’s, you want to paint a picture that what we observe today might not (all) be caused by humans, right? So where is the evidence that the exact same thing as in the past is happening right now instead of the very well known CO2 forcing causing the additional heat at the surface level? Why bring up competing theories that are so clearly flawed to replace a perfectly fine, known physical mechanism, just because you can’t bring it over you to accept that humans cause climate changes?
My advice for you:
1) learn how the ocean/atmosphere interface regarding the exchange of CO2 works
2) learn about the radiative properties of greenhouse gases and how the greenhouse effect actually works
3) try to understand the difference between energy and temperature and maybe finally understand that the additionally trapped energy is going somewhere. If it is not going into the oceans, then it is going somewhere else? Where? The heat content of something on this planet is increasing otherwise the laws of thermodynamics are indeed violated.
Over and out … this will likely go on forever because of your stubbornness. So I am out 😉
Kenneth:
This is pointless. You make some posts with papers that claim that there is no radiative greenhouse effect at all. Several of us object, pointing out that there really is no physically plausible alternative explanation, and challenging you to provide one. You continually change the subject to the sensitivity to small changes in one atmospheric constituent.
If any of us writes in support of the effect itself, you accuse us of believing that CO2 is the “control knob” for the earth’s temperature. No matter how many times we write that there are multiple other effects of the magnitude of CO2 concentration changes, you accuse us of ignoring those effects. (The presence of these other effects does NOT imply that “the CO2 greenhouse effect has many gaping holes in it”, as you assert — it just says that this effect is one of many of this magnitude.)
When you claim ” the greenhouse hypothesis for water vapor and CO2 has no more verifiable standing than competing viewpoints that challenge the hypothesis for violating physical laws”, you just show yourself as a scientific naif who is completely out of his league.
As Sebastian suggests, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you would do well to take formal thermodynamics, heat transfer, radiative physics, and spectroscopy courses. Then you would be able to see some of these papers for the farces they are. Until that point, you just make people like Gavin Schmidt look good by comparison and allow them to dismiss you as scientific know-nothings.
Over and out.
Ed,
Based on your responses, I unfortunately can only conclude that you are as disingenuous/dishonest as SebastianH is when it comes to purposely mischaracterizing the positions of those with whom you disagree. I assume that you do this just so that you can (a) avoid answering inconvenient questions (like you have done once again here), and (b) so that you can justify the hurling sophomoric insults rather than engaging in an honest debate. Coming from someone who claims to be an educator, I find this rather disappointing.
As I have pointed out to you several times, and again in my most recent response, my own personal skepticism with regard to the greenhouse effect hypothesis mainly targets CO2 and its highly questionable capacity to heat water bodies – which has never been demonstrated or observed in a real-world, controlled scientific experiment. Many inconsistencies with the paleoclimate record, as well as the apparent incapacity to supersede the effects of tiny changes in cloud cover, for example, further dampen my (and many others’) currently-maintained conclusions regarding the efficacy of CO2 to radiatively produce anything above the negligible within the greenhouse effect.
This skepticism regarding the efficacy of CO2 in particular is not the equivalent of rejecting the entirety of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis altogether. And yet, despite clarifying this distinction several times, you continue to (disingenuously) mischaracterize where I stand or what my viewpoints are anyway. This way, you can feel free to engage in the (a) and (b) behaviors identified above, behaviors that are unbecoming of an educator with self-appointed high standing.
Again, the reason why I focus my skepticism on CO2 in particular is because we live in a world where it is the prevailing belief (and that’s what it is) that we humans are capable of catastrophically melting ice sheets and glaciers, raising sea levels by meters, causing stronger and deadlier hurricanes and droughts and floods, and, of course, unprecedentedly heating up the oceans…with our CO2 emissions. This is why I ask you the questions I do. But instead of addressing these very germane questions regarding the efficacy of CO2 in particular, you routinely evade them by facilely retreating to the argument from authority and argument from ignorance (i.e., if you can’t name a better explanation, then my explanation is the only right one) – both logical fallacies. I would be much more impressed if you were willing to actually engage in a real debate rather than appealing to logical fallacies in response to real and fundamental questions.
You had an opportunity here to defend your position on the prominence of CO2 within the greenhouse effect. You had an opportunity to be persuasive. And you squandered this opportunity so that you could perhaps notch up a “win” (in your own mind).
A skeptic you are not.
Kenneth:
OK, you goaded me into one more:
You say: “You had an opportunity here to defend your position on the prominence of CO2 within the greenhouse effect.”
I stated NO position on this matter, especially not on the incremental prominence of added CO2. I kept trying to bring back the discussion back to the overall greenhouse effect, and emphasizing the profound difference between the two issues.
I have emphasized from the start the profound difference between the overall level of the greenhouse effect (where no one has proferred a plausible alternative) and the present sensitivity (where I have repeatedly stated there are many other effects of this magnitude). YOU are the one who keeps conflating these issues.
You claim that I have just been arguing from “authority” and “ignorance”. Is stating that we have very good measurements of the downwelling LWIR radiation power density that nicely close the ~250W/m2 surface power gap “arguing from authority”? Is repeatedly asking people if they have any other remotely plausible mechanisms to close the gap “arguing from ignorance”? (I do note that no one offered another explanation, and there really are only a limited number of possibilities — and I emphasize here again, because you keep conflating separate issues — that I am talking about the overall, not incremental, effect.)
You say: “Coming from someone who claims to be an educator, I find this rather disappointing.” It is precisely because I have been an educator that I feel compelled to correct gross misconceptions. When you uncritically post papers that claim that static pressure can transfer energy, or that radiant energy from colder body cannot under any circumstances be absorbed by a warmer body, I remember my determination not to let my students leave the class with fundamental misconceptions about the subject matter.
When you post stuff like that, you start getting dismissed by serious people who understand the fundamentals. I hate to see that happen, because you post a lot of valuable things as well.
“You had an opportunity here to defend your position on the prominence of CO2 within the greenhouse effect.”
I don’t see how you could possibly say you have stated NO position on this matter if you have claimed that we indeed do have physical measurements of the CO2 impact on the temperature changes in water bodies (even though that’s not true – we don’t), and obviously you believe that these (non-measured) impacts are not only not negligible, but significant – because if you believed they were negligible, you wouldn’t defend the CO2 effect on water temperatures as vociferously as you do. You don’t dare admit that (a) you don’t know how much, or how significant vs. negligible the CO2 impact on water temperatures is (and you don’t know, of course), and (b) you don’t dare address the climate sensitivity issue because then you would potentially have to admit that it calls into question the human impact on climate altogether. Can’t do that. You must not take a public position on climate sensitivity. It wouldn’t be good for your standing. So what do you do? Refuse to respond to every question that asks you to defend a position on the efficacy of CO2, such as the questions as to what mechanism caused the HTM to have 0-700 m ocean temperatures 2 C warmer than now, when CO2 was 265 ppm, or what mechanism(s) caused the MWP to LIA cooling.
The CO2 greenhouse effect has a problem. And the problem is this: “the atmosphere can’t warm until the oceans do”. It’s the water that retains and stores nearly all of the Earth’s heat energy (93%), not the atmosphere (1%). Therefore, for a greenhouse gas like CO2 to be a primary player in the Earth’s heating, as the advocates of dangerous AGW insist, CO2 is going to need to be a primary player in heating the Earth’s water bodies. And, as I have pointed out and you have refused to acknowledge, this CO2-heats-or-cools-water-when-ppm-concentrations-are-raised-or-lowered hypothesis has never been empirically demonstrated to occur in the real world. Not having empirical evidence is, for you, not a problem. Who needs real-world evidence or physical measurements demonstrating how much atmospheric CO2 ppm concentrations can actually change water temperatures anyway? We have Air Force measurements of total LWIR. Therefore, CO2 variations can be said to be the 110% cause of heat changes in the oceans. That’s the leap that Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC makes. And you defend Gavin Schmidt. And then you say you have NOT taken a position on the matter. What?!
Instead of continuing to run away from the challenges posed to you re: the efficacy of CO2 and heating the Earth (which is…the oceans), why not actually respond to them? Why do you find that retreating to your shaming of those who dare question the CO2 greenhouse effect is an effective tactic? Does it make you feel superior? I would guess that it does. I have so much less respect for someone who pretends that he knows the answers when he doesn’t, or who belittles his challenger with ad homs and points out just how much more knowledgeable he is than for someone who will take on the challenges head-on rather than bob and weave through them.
According to Kiehl and Trenbreth (1997), the downwelling LW value is 75 W m-2 for water vapor, 30 W m-2 for clouds, and “the second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m−2 in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) but differing from Kandel’s (1993) estimate of 50 W m−2.” According to Smithusen et al. (2015), the measured LW value for CO2 can be no more than about 15-20 W m-2 for the globe.
So not only do we have a 50 W m-2 modeled estimate for CO2, a 32 W m-2 modeled estimate for CO2, and a 15-20 W m-2 estimate for CO2 from different “measurements”, we have a total LW forcing from water vapor+clouds+CO2 that doesn’t seem to bridge the ~250 W m-2 “power gap”. If these “very good measurements” yield such vastly different results for the CO2 values, from whence comes your certainty that the CO2 value that you prefer to be the “right” one is actually accurate? (By the way, which estimate do you believe is the right one? And why do you believe this value is righter than the others?)
And to answer your question, Ed, yes, settling on LWIR values you consider to be “right” is definitely an example of the argument from authority (logical fallacy) that you are in up to your knees defending. Once a numerical forcing value is determined, confirmation bias leads us to the causal results we have presupposed to exist. Nowhere in the 1,400-citation K & T (1997) paper is the value of 250 W m-2 mentioned. From where did you get that value?
And considering the total radiative forcing from all the CO2 concentration increases in the last 265 years is alleged to be about 1.8 W m-2 CO2, why would you have any confidence in the real-world efficacy of the “measured” absolute global value for CO2 if it varies by about 18 W m-2 (an order of magnitude) from one estimate to the next? I’ve asked you before: Why are you so certain about these things? Why do you dismiss error ranges as unimportant? Is it because you cannot admit that we perhaps don’t know enough? Would that be too humbling for you to acknowledge? Apparently so.
With regard to the argument from ignorance (logical fallacy) that you employ so readily (i.e., If you can’t name a more plausible bridge than CO2 and water vapor for the ~250 W m-2 power gap, then the CO2 and H2O GHE must be the true bridge), I am quite content to say that I do not have enough information to make anything close to a certain proclamation about the capacity of greenhouse gases to heat the oceans (the Earth). Unlike some scientists (such as Dr. Clark below), I refuse to say that CO2 ppm variations absolutely cannot heat the oceans — or that they absolutely can and do heat the oceans. I don’t know either way, as we don’t have measurements from real-world, controlled experiments to go on. So, because this is unsettled science and still up for debate (contrary to your point of view that we have the measurements we need and it’s settled science how much CO2 heats the oceans), I will continue to highlight papers that challenge the efficacy of CO2 as a primary agent of climate change, as this Dr. Allmendinger paper does. Sometimes I might even highlight a paper that questions the greenhouse effect theory/paradigm altogether. I am not the least bit concerned that the swollen-head class defending the orthodoxy objects to this, as I don’t regard the CO2 greenhouse effect, or the substantial human impact on the climate of the Earth, to be settled science. You do, obviously. Hence the need to shame those who dare post scientific papers that don’t align with “consensus” science.
I have always respected someone like Dr. Judy Curry for her willingness to allow a diversity of posters to make contributions on her blog. For example, she allowed someone to post an article about how CO2 heats the oceans on her website. It’s a model, of course, and relies on a series of assumptions (as usual), but it was a good effort nonetheless. I enjoy reading these attempts to figure out how the Earth system works. That’s also why I enjoyed reading Dr. Allmendinger’s paper(s). Or Dr. Viterito’s papers. The greenhouse gas (ppm variations in CO2 and water vapor) explanation for heating the oceans (Earth) is not satisfactory to me. I have not rejected it, as I don’t have enough evidence to do that, but it would appear to be more plausible that direct SW forcing modified by cloud and aerosol flux is enough to heat the oceans, and thus the atmosphere, due especially to the capacity of the oceans to retain heat relative to airborne trace gases. Am I certain about the direction I lean? Absolutely not. But I will not be caught writing like you do in all caps ([paraphrasing] THERE IS NO OTHER PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION THAN THE GHE HEATING OF THE OCEANS TO BRIDGE THE 250 W m-2 POWER GAP!). I’m still searching for answers. And in searching, I’ll actually consider rather than dismiss scientific papers with explanations for planetary heating that don’t assume CO2 is a significant heat contributor to the Earth system. And you’ll continue doing what you do: operating on presupposition and confirmation bias in insisting that the science is settled because we have enough information already.
Can you explain why this paper is wrong, Ed?
Clark, 2010
“It is also straightforward to show that a 1.7 W.m-2 increase in downward LWIR flux at the ocean surface cannot change ocean temperatures. Water is almost completely opaque to LWIR radiation.18 The LWIR absorption/emission depth is less than 1 mm, so the interaction volume is at most 10 cm3. An increase in downward LWIR flux at the ocean surface of 1.7 W.m-2 heats the surface layer at a rate of at least 2.4 C per minute. The ocean responds by rapidly increasing the surface evaporation rate by 1.7 W.m-2, or 2.7 g.hr-1 of water for ideal ‘clear sky’ conditions. This corresponds to a 2.4 cm.yr-1 increase in evaporation rate since 1800, with 1.7 cm.yr-1 of this increase occurring over the last 50 years. Global estimates of ocean evaporation rates show that between 1977 and 2003 the global ocean evaporation rate has increased from 103 to 114 cm.yr-1 with an uncertainty of ±2.72 cm.yr-1. This was caused by a 0.1 m.s-1 increase in average wind speed. The ‘clear sky’ upper limit for the CO2 induced increase in evaporation is below the measurement uncertainty bounds. Long term averages of surface air temperatures are ~2 C below the corresponding ocean surface temperatures. This means that there is usually no direct heating of the ocean by the atmosphere, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latent heat of evaporation is not released until the water condenses, which is generally at an altitude above 1 km. It is therefore impossible for an increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux of 1.7 W.m-2 to heat the ocean. The increase in flux is converted by the ocean surface into an insignificant change in evaporation rate. This is buried in the noise of wind induced fluctuations in evaporation and changes in LWIR flux caused by variations in aerosols, clouds and near surface humidity.”
Kenneth:
You ask where I get my ~250 W/m2 surface power imbalance figure from. Let’s look at the K&T paper you just linked to — Figure 7 has the best summary. (You are quoting components that go into that summary.) Of course, these are averages over time and area, but you can multiply these values by the surface area of the earth to get total power flows.
The diagram shows 342 W/m2 of solar power reaching the earth, with 107 W/m2 instantly reflected, for a total of 235 W/m2 absorbed by the earth and its atmosphere. That is the “input” to the system.
The same diagram shows 492 W/m2 power flux leaving the surface (390 from radiation, 78 from evaporation, 24 from conductive/convective).
These numbers are from good repeatable measurements, known to within a few percent. (The uncertainty of a few percent is where things get interesting, but does not begin to close the gap here.)
Now, no one, not even the worst alarmist, believes the earth’ s surface is out of power balance by more than 1 W/m2 overall. (Again, the interesting arguments are whether the real value is closer to 0 or to 1 W/m2, and the answer is probably beyond the accuracy of our current measurements.
But the surface is outputting 492 – 235 = 256 W/m2 more than the earth system receives from the sun. This is the “gap” I am referring to. This gap must be closed somehow to explain the (very near) overall energy balance of the surface. (Again, I emphasize that this is averaged over area and time.) Uncertainties of 20 W/m2 or even larger don’t come close to closing the gap.
What are possible explanations?
Geothermal heating is less than 0.1 W/m2, so that’s a non-starter.
Some propose the static pressure of the atmosphere (as you cited in a recent post). But basic understanding of first-year physics tells us that pressure without movement does not transfer any energy, so this fails completely.
You say: ” it would appear to be more plausible that direct SW forcing modified by cloud and aerosol flux is enough to heat the oceans, and thus the atmosphere…”
Of course, variations in clouds and aerosols could provide several W/m2 change (possibly overwhelming any changes from changes in CO2 levels) and conceivably by tens of W/m2. But even if all reflection of solar radiation ceased (no clouds, no snow/ice), this would only close about 40% of the gap (107 of 256), and it would be far more extreme than anyone thinks is possible. So I’m afraid that while this is a serious candidate for small variations, it cannot possibly be “enough to heat the oceans, and thus the atmosphere” to present levels.
But we do have actual measurements of another power flow to the surface, that of downwelling longwave infrared radiation. The spectral measurements of this DWLWIR show that it comes overwhelmingly from the absorption/emission bands of H2O and CO2 (including where these overlap, which make separating out the individual contributions of the two gases difficult).
K&T compute the average intensity of this radiation as 324 W/m2. This 342 minus the 67 W/m2 of solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere, resulting in 257 W/m2, closes the gap very nicely.
So anyone advocating for a different explanation must pull off a double trick. First, they must find some other source of at least 250 W/m2 (ongoing and continuous) into the surface. I have asked people for years as to what this source could be, and never gotten any responses that make any sense at all.
Second, they must explain away the measured power in the DWLWIR. We know that water and most other surface substances absorb about 95% of the incident radiation in these wavelengths, so 1st Law conservation of energy calculations tell us that this must (at least temporarily — we’ll get into knock-on effects shortly) increase the energy of the surface.
This is why I am adamant that there is no other plausible explanation.
There are two primary objections to the idea that this DWLWIR radiation can “heat” the surface, particularly the water. (Some of this comes from the imprecision of common language — exactly what does “heat” as a verb mean.)
The first objection is that this DWLWIR radiation comes from gas that is colder than the surface (which is true more often than not, but not true in a temperature inversion), and that “heat can only flow from hot to cold”. This comes from a complete misunderstanding of the mechanism of radiative heat transfer.
Open any textbook, physics or engineering, on radiative heat transfer, and it will introduce the mechanism as that of radiative exchange, with radiant power transferred in both directions. If you work through the math, it is obvious that more power is transferred from hot to cold than in the other direction, so the NET is from hot to cold.
This has been well understood for over 150 years, ever since the “caloric” theory of heat transfer was discarded. Clausius himself call the cold-to-hot transfer the “ascending transmission of heat” (“ascending” in the temperature sense). So when I see papers, as with several you have cited recently, that claim that any cold-to-hot transmission would violate the 2nd Law, I realize that the authors don’t understand the topic at the most fundamental level.
The second issue is more subtle. The argument you present is summarized by the statement “the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do.” You can easily send yourself down the wrong path if you are not careful with this argument.
The oceans can transfer energy to the atmosphere three ways: conduction, radiation, and evaporation. The K&T diagram shows for the earth’s surface as a whole conduction at 24 W/m2, (net) radiation at 350 – 324 = 26 W/m2, and evaporation at 78 W/m2. So evaporation is the primary mechanism for transferring energy from the surface to the atmosphere, and the difference would be even greater over the ocean.
The argument is that since the DWLWIR radiation is absorbed in the very top surface layer, most of the energy just goes to evaporating water, so the temperature does not increase, or increase much. Without the temperature increase, it cannot then transfer energy to the atmosphere.
But think carefully what this argument is saying. It really is claiming that the ocean cannot transfer energy to the atmosphere from this mechanism because it has ALREADY transferred energy to the atmosphere. The argument fundamentally does not make sense.
I encourage you to keep searching for better information. I do it too — that’s why I read this blog. And if you find another physically plausible explanation that can close the 250 W/m2 gap, I’m all ears.
But until you have a good conceptual technical foundation in math, physics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer to evaluate arguments, you will probably just be wasting your time.
I’ve probably made this point to you a dozen times already, but I will try one more time. You MUST distinguish in your analysis between the level of something and its rate of change. Just because I claim high confidence that the rGHE explains the present energy balance of the earth (level of the effect) does NOT mean that I believe that the earth is highly sensitive to small changes in radiative values from CO2 changes (rate of change of the effect). No matter how many times I try to keep these issues separate, you completely conflate them here.
Yes, using the word “believes” here is absolutely correct. It’s a belief that we can or have determined what the W m-2 radiative balance for any particular year or span of years to be. It’s nothing more than speculation, a guess, or, indeed, a belief.
For example, Stephens et al. (2012) estimated the imbalance to be +0.6 W m-2 for 2000-2010, a period of time when the Earth cooled slightly. What was the uncertainty range on that radiative imbalance value? 17 W m-2. Yes, the uncertainty in the power balance estimate is almost 30 times greater than the alleged imbalance itself, which is also highly inconsistent with the change of temperature — a +0.6 W m-2 imbalance should have yielded a substantial warming during 2000-2010, but no warming occurred. What confidence we should have in these values, right?
Not only that, but as Song et al. (2016) have indicated, the greenhouse effect went on hiatus during the 23 years between 1992-2014 mostly because the reduction in cloud cover on a global scale meant that shortwave forcing from clouds superseded the longwave forcing from clouds , and the longwave forcing from clouds easily cancels out the alleged LW forcing from CO2 (and water vapor), meaning that even though CO2 concentrations increased by about 45 ppm during 1992-2014, the alleged forcing from CO2 for the period (~0.5 W m-2) was overwhelmed by SW cloud radiative forcing. This resulted in a hiatus in the greenhouse effect – something that a CO2-forcing-is-significant believers (like you – even though you try to deny you believe that) would claim should not happen. Right? If your belief that says 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations heat the 0-2000 m layers of the world ocean due to the alleged power of the CO2 greenhouse effect, why would a +45 ppm increase in CO2 get so easily cancelled out by slight variations in decadal-scale cloud cover? Will you answer this question? Of course you won’t. Like every other challenge to your belief about the power of CO2 to heat the ocean (we have LWIR measurements from the Air Force!), you’ll just pass over it and pretend it was never asked. And then you’ll say you have taken NO position on the extent to which CO2 heats the oceans. Because stating your position/beliefs will mean you’ll have to defend them, or cite evidence, and you know you can’t do that. You might actually have to admit that your beliefs are just that – beliefs. So it’s best to continue to lean on the argument from authority, and to belittle those who dare ask you to defend the reasons why you are so certain and unskeptical. Right, Ed?
You claim we have very precise measurements of CO2 forcing. Why, then, do the estimates of global CO2 forcing vary from 50 W m-2 to 32 W m-2 to 15-20 W m-2 from one estimate to the next? If the measurements are as precise as you imagine/claim them to be, why is the error/uncertainty so large? And since it is believed that a 1.8 W m-2 change (CO2) over the last 265 years can be 100% responsible (per Gavin Schmidt and the IPCC) for warming up the 0-2000 m ocean since 1950, why would an 18 W m-2 error/uncertainty range from one estimate to the next for the absolute value matter so little to you such that you feel justified in dismissing it?
As will be pointed out by atmospheric physicists in another upcoming article (Monday), the 33 K greenhouse effect (288 K – 255 K) assumption is calculated entirely without considering the ocean and its heat capacity — even though 93% of the Earth’s heat energy resides in the oceans, not the atmosphere. It’s all based on a thought experiment of a planet (Earth) without an atmosphere. It’s like measuring the temperature of someone’s spit to calculate his body temperature. At what point did you begin regarding thought experiments as hard physical science, Ed? Do you really not appreciate the extent to which the ~250 W m-2 LWIR is speculative, unverified, and rooted in post hoc confirmation bias (calculating a value, then working backwards to fill in the contributors according to one’s presuppositions)? Obviously you don’t. You can’t even allow yourself to acknowledge the uncertainties in the radiative imbalance are too large to dismiss.
How is it that you are so certain that LWIR values you believe in are the correct and true values (with negligible uncertainty/error bars) when the entire 288-255 = 33 K greenhouse effect calculation does not take ocean heat content into account, Ed?
1. Why is it acceptable to you to exclude 93% of the Earth’s heat energy from a calculation that claims to take this entire planet’s heat energy (K) into account?
2. What physical mechanism caused the oceans’ temperatures to plummet by -0.9 C between 1000 C.E. and 1700 C.E. (Rosenthal et al., 2013, 2017)? (I realize this is a climate sensitivity question; I’d like to read your answer nonetheless.)
At what point will you stop avoiding answering questions such as these, Ed?
I guess he and I will start to take you and your questions seriously once you show signs that you understand the physical mechanisms and some basic math.
As your replies in this thread show you are stuck in a certain way of thinking. Greetings from a small island heated by the Sun, but which wouldn’t be as hot if it weren’t for the greenhouse effect.
Kenneth:
Why do you keep ascribing arguments to me that I have never made, and explicitly state that I am not making?
Why do you “believe” that I must agree with anyone else who disagrees with you?
Why do you “believe” you can read my mind and state that you know what I really am thinking despite my explicit statements to the contrary?
Why do you repeatedly counter my arguments about the 250 W/m2 surface “power gap” with arguments about disagreements in the 1 or 10 W/m2 range?
Why do you continue to confuse levels with rates of change? Did you sleep through calculus class?
Why are you so desperate as to try to ascribe a sense to the word “believe” that is obviously different from the one I used? Is that really the best you have?
When I say “no one … believes the earth’s surface is out of power balance by more than 1 W/m2 overall”, it is very obvious that I mean that no one provides physical evidence (e.g. changes in ocean heat content) that shows a greater disparity than this.
I find it very amusing that you try to counter my statement by citing a study that claims a +0.6 W/m2 imbalance. I also find it very amusing that, when you keep citing the huge thermal capacitance of the ocean compared to the atmosphere, you try to counter that positive imbalance claim with data about small atmospheric temperature trends? If you understood the ramifications of your own arguments, you wouldn’t do this — you would be looking at ocean heat content data instead. (Have you even looked?)
Regardless, you are arguing about uncertainties on the order of 1.0 W/m2. I have repeatedly stated that there are many uncertainties of this magnitude, and larger. But these do not even begin to close the overall “power gap”.
You cite the Song study that argues that forcing changes in cloud cover have balanced out incremental CO2 forcing. I have repeatedly stated that effects like this could easily balance out the effects of increased CO2, but you assert that I must have been lying.
You ask: “If your belief that says 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations heat the 0-2000 m layers of the world ocean due to the alleged power of the CO2 greenhouse effect, why would a +45 ppm increase in CO2 get so easily cancelled out by slight variations in decadal-scale cloud cover? Will you answer this question?”
In your confusion, you don’t realize that I have answered this question multiple times already. The fraction of a W/m2 additional DWLWIR coming from the increased CO2 concentration can easily be overwhelmed by the change from a 1% difference in cloud cover, which is multiple W/m2.
You say: “You claim we have very precise measurements of CO2 forcing.”
What I actually said is that we have good measurements of the magnitude and spectra of DWLWIR (which when it suits your case, you argue is a very different thing). I also said that since there is overlap between the emission bands of CO2 and H2O, it is difficult to ascribe precise percentages to the different components.
You go on to describe the “33K” greenhouse effect argument and taunt me with the question:
“At what point did you begin regarding thought experiments as hard physical science, Ed?”
When did I even cite that argument at all, let alone “regard it as hard science”? (Waiting…)
A major reason I frame my argument around a “power gap” is that it avoids the “imaginary alternative world” issue of the “33K” argument. (It is also more rigorous thermodynamically, since temperature is not an extensive thermodynamic property. There is no thought experiment in my argument, no imaginary alternative world.
You cite Kramm’s self-published paper to say that in this thought experiment, “any heat storage in the oceans (if at all existing in such a case) and land masses is neglected.”
Au contraire! That thought experiment assumes HUGE thermal capacitance (and very low thermal resistance) to get a uniform temperature over time and area in their imaginary world — another reason I don’t use this thought experiment. The fact that Kramm and you don’t understand this does not speak well for either of you.
So when you demand that I answer the question: “Why is it acceptable to you to exclude 93% of the Earth’s heat energy from a calculation that claims to take this entire planet’s heat energy (K) into account?”, you are using a doubly false premise. First you are assuming that I accept that calculation as relevant in the first place, and second, that calculation does not “exclude” this heat energy at all, and in fact exaggerates it!
You ask: “Do you really not appreciate the extent to which the ~250 W m-2 LWIR is speculative, unverified, and rooted in post hoc confirmation bias?”
No, these are based on tens of thousands (probably a lot more) of real world measurements. I have said that there could be a few percent uncertainty in integrating these measurements over area and time, but that in no way means that these real-world measurements are “speculative, unverified, and rooted in post hoc confirmation bias”.
I don’t “believe” that. Nor have I written that.
I don’t “believe” I can read your mind. I have not stated that I know what you really are thinking. Those are made-up accusations, which is ironic considering you are here attempting to claim that I have put words in your mouth.
You have obviously claimed that the “power gap” can be, and is, bridged by CO2 (among other GHGs, of course). This means that you believe that the LWIR forcing effect of CO2 concentrations on water temperatures is not negligible. (I don’t know of any other interpretation than this, even though you seem to try to avoid saying this explicitly.) You have written affirmative comments supporting what SebastianH and Gavin Schmidt have written; I have never seen you write anything that contradicts their views, and both are of the belief that CO2 is the predominant/exclusive cause of the increase in OHC since the 1950s. You have also written that the increase in ocean heat content since the 1800s can be associated with (attributed to?) the rise in CO2 concentrations (among other factors). I take this to mean that you believe that 0.000001 variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are capable of heating/cooling water bodies to a measurable (non-negligible) degree — a claim that you cannot substantiate with real-world evidence and physical measurements. These are the “positions” I’ve read that I have to go on. Your actual words…and my interpretations of what they suggest about your stances on AGW. You have been intentionally cryptic when I have asked you to identify where you stand on climate sensitivity, how much CO2 concentration variations can influence ocean temperatures, and the proportion of the GHE that can be ascribed to CO2 vs. water vapor/clouds, and to what extent net changes in OHC can be ascribed to GHGs. I would assume that the reason why you choose to be cryptic is because you’d rather not acknowledge your true positions on CO2 climate sensitivity. If so, why is that?
If, with today’s technology and measurement capabilities, we can’t even accurately measure radiative balance without uncertainty ranges that swell to levels 30 times greater than the imbalance value itself, why are you so certain and unskeptical about a ~250 W m-2 “power gap”? We can’t even find a consistent global forcing value for CO2. Which do you believe, Ed? Is it 50 W m-2? 32 W m-2? Or 15-20 W m-2? I’ve asked you this question twice now so as to ascertain your position on the “correct” CO2 value, and you continue to avoid answering it. Why?
I focus on factors that directly apply to the climate/ocean temperature sensitivity to CO2 because that’s what the entire AGW debate is about. Why do you continue to evade when questions are asked regarding CO2 climate sensitivity and CO2’s impact on water temperatures, Ed?
Ed, we have no real-world physical evidence (or measurements) that show the extent to which 0.000001 variations in CO2 affect water temperatures. You believe 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations cause heat changes in water (as evidenced by the assumption that the ~250 W m-2 “power gap” is non-negligibly bridged by CO2 concentrations). I have challenged you to support this belief. You have not. That’s why I’ll continue to call it a belief. Sorry that you find that so objectionable. Everyone has beliefs. I do too. If I can be shown that there is a measurably significant change in water temperatures that occurs when CO2 concentrations are varied by +/- 0.000001 above that body of water, I’ll become a believer too. Until then, I remain skeptical/agnostic.
Ed, the reason why “no one provides physical evidence” of a greater disparity than this (1 W m-2) is because it is assumed/presupposed that Earth’s radiation budget is mostly in balance already. The assumption/presupposition determines the imbalance value. The “measurements” do not, which is why the uncertainty range in the measurements is 17 W m-2 (Stephens et al., 2012), whereas the wild guess assumption/presupposition for the Earth’s energy imbalance is 0.6 W m-2 (for 2000-’10). The reason why “no one provides physical evidence” is because we don’t have precise enough measurements to state with any confidence what the imbalance value is. The ARGO measurement data is riddled with error bars and uncertainty too — 10-50 times greater than the “physical evidence” you claim can be provided:
Hadfield et al. (2007): “…the Argo project provides temperature data at a spatial and temporal resolution that results in a sampling uncertainty in mixed layer heat storage of order 10 – 20 Wm-2 . … [T]he expected sampling error increases to more than 50 Wm−2 in the Gulf Stream region and north of 40°N, limiting the use of Argo in these areas.”
As just shown above, the ocean heat content data contain larger errors than the “power imbalance” too — for ARGO data. And, of course, the pre-ARGO data errors/uncertainty are even larger. Phil Jones even admitted that the SH SST data are “mostly made up” in the ClimateGate e-mails. No matter, right? As long as you believe in the ~250 W m-2 “power gap”, all’s good. You don’t need to worry about measurement errors in the 10-50 W m-2 range.
Um, no. The uncertainties are quite a bit larger than that.
So if you are you here acknowledging that cloud radiative forcing “easily” supersedes any alleged forcing from CO2 within the greenhouse effect, how does this position co-exist with your belief that the radiative forcing associated with an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the range of 200 ppm to 280 ppm (Pleistocene to 1850 C.E.) is capable of being non-negligible player in bridging the ~250 W m-2 “power gap”? By the way, how much of the “power gap” do you believe is bridged by CO2? Based on your comments here, I’ve assumed you believe CO2 forcing is not negligible, but significant. Do you believe that? Define significant, then, please. Be specific.
So if you agree that cloud variations of even 1% can and do override the increases in CO2 concentrations that have accrued since 1850 — and cloud cover changes can, of course, vary by even more than 1% — does this mean that your position is that humans have had and will continue to have a minimal to negligible influence on the Earth’s temperatures? What, specifically, is your estimate of the extent to which humans can influence changes in ocean temperatures, Ed? And if it can be assumed that you believe CO2 climate sensitivity is very low for increases in the range of +50 ppm (since 1990), +100 ppm (since 1900), from whence comes your confidence/certainty that the radiative forcing values associated with a 200 to 280 ppm CO2 concentration (pre-industrial) can be significantly (or at least non-negligibly) responsible for bridging the ~250 W m-2 “power gap”?
No, what you actually wrote was that we have “very precise measurements of the increase in emissivity of LWIR from small increases in CO2” from the US Air Force. Did you write that by mistake? Or have you changed your mind, and we don’t have “very precise” CO2 measurements? If we do, specifically identify which value you believe is the right one for CO2, Ed. I’ll continue asking this question until you finally answer. What’s the right W m-2 value, and why do you believe that’s the right value and the others are wrong?
I have made the wrong assumption, then. I assumed you agree with the “consensus” of the thought experiment of the Earth without an atmosphere and the calculated temperatures therewith. After all, you have cited the Trenberth radiative values as if they were accurate…and he believes in the 288 – 255 = 33 K equation. So what else is Trenberth and the IPCC wrong about when it comes to Earth’s temperatures?
Do you agree that the centennial-scale reductions in solar activity and the increase in volcanism (both solar explanations, of course) during the 1,000 to 1700 C.E. cooling, and the Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity and reduction in volcanism could explain the temperature changes? If so, does this mean you believe solar factors largely explain Earth’s net ocean temperature changes, and that CO2 concentrations are non-determinative by comparison?
What you fail to understand is that if the uncertainties are so demonstrably large in the sensitivity measurements, then our confidence that our larger measurements are correct are even more suspect — no matter how much you desperately wish to dismiss the uncertainty and error bars. If I ask you what the forcing value associated with the “equilibrium” CO2 concentrations during the last 800K years — the “baseline” of 200 to 280 ppm — you cannot provide such values. You can’t calculate to what extent the 2 to 3 C warmer oceans during the HTM were due to the CO2 concentration. You can guess. You can speculate. But you really don’t know. And yet you believe that because we have precise measurements of CO2 forcing values from the Air Force (what are they, Ed?), that makes the greenhouse effect for CO2 sufficiently true such that it should remain unquestioned until a better mechanism is identified (“THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE!”). Sorry, I remain highly unpersuaded. And I don’t view your beliefs to have any more merit than the atmospheric scientists who question the efficacy of CO2 as a significant factor in planetary heating.
[This last part did not paste in properly.]
You also ask: “What physical mechanism caused the oceans’ temperatures to plummet by -0.9 C between 1000 C.E. and 1700 C.E.?”
I have calculated for you that this would only require a small fraction of a W/m2 power imbalance, and I have said repeatedly that there are many mechanisms that could cause this. The short answer is that we do not know with any confidence, and it is probably from a confluence of multiple causes. I would not be surprised if there was a slight increase in cloud cover over that period, but that is “speculative” and “unverified”.
After all this back and forth, you still cannot grasp the fundamental fact that while the uncertainties are large relative to possible changes (sensitivity) in the rGHE, they are small relative to the overall (level) rGHE. You have presented absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
Kenneth:
This is ridiculous. You said: “This resulted in a hiatus in the greenhouse effect – something that a CO2-forcing-is-significant believers (like you – even though you try to deny you believe that) would claim should not happen.”
I call you on this unprincipled accusation, and you say: ” I have not stated that I know what you really are thinking.”
You said: “At what point did you begin regarding thought experiments as hard physical science, Ed?”, referring to the “33K” explanation that I have never cited (and carefully avoided).
I call you on this unprincipled accusation, and you say: “I don’t “believe” that. Nor have I written that.” and backed it up with the same type of accusation: ” You have written affirmative comments supporting what SebastianH and Gavin Schmidt have written; I have never seen you write anything that contradicts their views, and both are of the belief that CO2 is the predominant/exclusive cause of the increase in OHC since the 1950s. ” Do you never learn?
You obviously are completely unfamiliar with the physics of atmospheric radiation. I suggest you invest in a textbook or two. I suggest:
Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Goody & Yung, Oxford University Press (2nd ed. 1989)
A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Grant W. Petty, Sundog Publishing (2nd ed. 2006)
You will see how startlingly close calculated values are to measured values for DWLWIR (and for UWLWIR). The uncertainties are tiny here.
You also need to familiarize yourself with the HITRAN database, which is the source of these calculations that do agree very well with measurements.
You say: “If, with today’s technology and measurement capabilities, we can’t even accurately measure radiative balance without uncertainty ranges that swell to levels 30 times greater than the imbalance value itself, why are you so certain and unskeptical about a ~250 W m-2 “power gap”? ”
OK, you demonstrate that you have no clue whatsoever as to how uncertainties work. Many families like to measure their kids’ growth by having them stand against the kitchen wall, putting a book on top of their head, and making a pencil mark on the wall.
That method has very high uncertainties as to discerning how much your kid has grown in the last few months, but by your logic, this would mean that the uncertainties could mask the overall growth of the kid from toddler to adulthood.
There’s no point in going further with someone who doesn’t understand such a basic point.
I find it ironic that here you are complaining that I have claimed I could “read your mind” about how significant you believe CO2 is as a factor in climate change and climate sensitivity and ocean heating, and yet every time I ask you to define where you stand on climate sensitivity and the efficacy of CO2 forcing in relation to heating/cooling water bodies, you refuse to answer or answer cryptically/non-specifically. So I have to guess what you believe based on your comments, and the guess here is that you likely do think that CO2 forcing is significant. Why? Especially because you believe that the ~250 W m-2 “power gap” is bridged by CO2 and water vapor, and that CO2 and water vapor are indeed responsible for heating the oceans, I have made the assumption that you believe the forcing from CO2 is significant, and not negligible. If not, what do you believe, then? I’ve been trying to figure out where you stand throughout these conversations, and because you won’t answer questions directly, I have to “read between the lines”. That’s what’s been happening here.
You have claimed that we have “very precise measurements” of the CO2 W m-2 values in LWIR, I have asked you to identify which values you believe are the “correct” ones. Do you believe in the 50 W m-2 value? The 32 W m-2 value? The 15-20 W m-2 value? Since they vary from measurement to measurement by 15-18 W m-2, which is it that you believe, Ed? For the most recent evasion of this question, you have decided to claim that you never said we have precise measurements of CO2 forcing, only LWIR in aggregate. But, originally, you didn’t write that. You wrote that the Air Force has…
So, naturally, I asked you to identify what those very precise measurements are. And you have repeatedly refused to answer. So you’ve made a claim that you cannot (or refuse to) substantiate, and you don’t like to be called on it. And then you whine that I think I can read your mind when I am only trying to interpret what you likely believe based on the cryptic evasions of the specific questions I have asked you.
I will ask you again… Since different measurements yield vastly different forcing values for CO2, which forcing value is the one that you believe in? Is it 50 W m-2? 32 W m-2? Or 15-20 W m-2? All three values have been “measured”, and yet all three values are quite different. So which do you believe is the right one?
Just to call you out on your blatantly dishonest characterization, my statement that “I don’t ‘believe’ that. Nor have I written that” was ironically written in direct response to your made-up accusation…
I didn’t write “I don’t ‘believe’ that. Nor have I written that” in response to your statements about the 33 K thought experiment. You’ve just been caught making a false accusation, Ed. And this was after you put words in my mouth by falsely claiming that I have written that you must agree with anyone else who disagrees with me. That’s what I never wrote — and that’s what you made up. Fabrications like these aren’t helping your case, Ed.
I see you have once again successfully avoided answering the questions I posed to you. I assume this is quite intentional, considering the long-term pattern. I’ll ask the same questions again.
1. I (wrongly) assumed you agree with the “consensus” of the thought experiment of the Earth without an atmosphere and the calculated temperatures therewith. After all, you have cited the Trenberth radiative values as if they were accurate…and he believes in the 288 – 255 = 33 K equation. So what else is Trenberth and the IPCC wrong about when it comes to Earth’s temperatures, or is the 288 – 255 = 33 K thought experiment the only one they got wrong in that 1997 paper?
2. So if you acknowledge that cloud radiative forcing “easily” supersedes any alleged forcing from CO2 within the greenhouse effect, how does this position co-exist with your belief that the radiative forcing associated with an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the range of 200 ppm to 280 ppm (Pleistocene to 1850 C.E.) is capable of being non-negligible player in bridging the ~250 W m-2 “power gap”? How much of the “power gap” do you believe is bridged by CO2? Based on your comments here, I’ve assumed you believe CO2 forcing is not negligible, but significant. Do you believe that? Define significant, then, please. Be specific.
3. Do you agree that the centennial-scale reductions in solar activity and the increase in volcanism (both solar explanations, of course) during the 1,000 to 1700 C.E. cooling, and the Modern Grand Maximum of solar activity and reduction in volcanism could explain the temperature changes? If so, does this mean you believe solar factors largely explain Earth’s net ocean temperature changes, and that CO2 concentration changes are non-determinative by comparison?
4. So if you agree that cloud variations of even 1% can and do override the increases in CO2 concentrations that have accrued since 1850 — and cloud cover changes can, of course, vary by even more than 1% — does this mean that your position is that humans have had and will continue to have a minimal to negligible influence on the Earth’s temperatures? What, specifically, is your estimate of the extent to which humans can influence changes in ocean temperatures, Ed? And if it can be assumed that you believe CO2 climate sensitivity is very low for increases in the range of +50 ppm (since 1990), +100 ppm (since 1900), from whence comes your confidence/certainty that the radiative forcing values associated with a 200 to 280 ppm CO2 concentration (pre-industrial) can be significantly (or at least non-negligibly) responsible for bridging the ~250 W m-2 “power gap”?
SebastianH, the Sun determines the temperature, and the temperature determines the water vapor concentration. In the tropics where temperatures average ~30 degrees C year-round, water vapor concentrations reach 40,000 ppm . At the poles, where temperatures average -30 C year-round (approximately), water vapor concentrations hover around 1,000 ppm. What is the reason why the tropics are warmer and the poles are colder, SebastianH? Is there a mechanism determining the temperature differences? If so, what would that be?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117714000945
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It plays a major role in the dynamics of atmospheric circulation, radiation exchange within the atmosphere, and climate variability. … The results revealed a clear seasonal cycle of PWV with a maximum during the summer months (June–August) and a minimum during the winter (December–February). This variation follows the mean monthly variation of air temperature.
The results showed that the annual [precipitable water vapor] PWV values are anticorrelated with solar activity, represented by sunspot number, during solar cycles 22 and 23.
—
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614001357
Increased Earth surface heating during solar maxima regulates integrated water vapor, cloud liquid water content, and rainfall.
Highlights
•Solar control on [Indian Summer Monsoon] ISM rainfall, [cloud liquid water content] LWC and [integrated water vapor] IWV is observed over India during 1977–2012.
•Sun influences the formation clouds and rainfall activity through GCR [Galactic Cosmic Ray] mediation.
•Increased Earth surface heating during solar maxima regulates IWV, LWC and rainfall.
•SSN [Sunspot Number] shows both positive and negative correlation with LWC and ISM rainfall.
•Wavelet analyses also indicate a solar control on ISM rainfall, LWC & IWV over India.
312K is my estimate based on combining 335K for average ocean temperature without atmospheric cooling (71% of the surface) and using the old 255K figure for the land (29% of the surface). (255K for land especially vegetation is likely wrong as well, but the error for the oceans is so large that this becomes irrelevant).
So where does the 335K for the oceans in absence of atmosphere come from?
This is a long story, but if you can find a copy of this old paper it would be a good place to start –
Harris, W. B., Davison, R. R., and Hood, D. W. (1965) ‘Design and operating characteristics of an experimental solar water heater’ Solar Energy, 9(4), pp. 193-196.
This was a paper on an experiment into a type of convecting freshwater solar pond such as this –
https://imgur.com/a/lo3JY
Harris et. al. tried to improve the solar heating by making layer 2 black. They found something strange. While just as much sunlight was being absorbed, only a thin layer of water below the black plastic heated and overall the average temperature of the pond fell below that of a pond with layer 2 transparent and layer 3 black. This provides a critical message – for solar heating of water, depth of absorption of solar radiation is critical. Absorption at the surface causes far less thermal gain than absorption below the surface.
Our oceans absorb solar radiation at depths up to 200m. However by using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to derive their ludicrous 255K figure, climastrologists effectively treated the oceans as completely opaque to sunlight, constantly illuminated by a 1/4 power sun, infinitely conductive and non-convecting. But the reality is that without all atmospheric effects (excepting pressure) our oceans would become an intermittently illuminated convecting solar pond that could only cool by direct radiations to space at an emissivity of 0.67. Calculating solar gain in this situation cannot be done using a instantaneous radiative balance equation like S-B, empirical experiment or CFD (computational fluid dynamics) calculation must be used.
Deep Black Sea https://imgur.com/a/D3JZf (depth of absorption is critical)
Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzammic Vinegar https://imgur.com/a/XKXv8 (The S-B equation can’t solve for solar illumination of SW translucent surfaces)
SW into water https://imgur.com/a/oU5qj (335K for average ocean surface temperature without atmospheric cooling)
You too can be the source Kenneth. Do the experiments.
The problem is that unless and until this is written in a scientific paper and published in a journal, there’s no there there.
Big mistake on your part Kenneth. Pal-review is not part of the scientific method.
Science is not an institution. Science is not a body of knowledge. Science is a method.
Some folks have seized on my work and published peer reviewed papers. I have helped their destruction through “retraction watch”.
Yes, I am a “complete bastard”. But I have my reasons, and I think they are very good reasons.
Pal-review and the academic score-keeping / gate-keeping of pal-review got us into this mess. Ending the Lysenkoisim of the AGW hoax is not enough. We need to inoculate against any further outbreaks of pseudo-scientific inanity in the future. The correct answer with supporting empirical experiments must be a matter of permanent Internet record well before it ever appears in a “scientific journal”.
If you are not prepared to replicate empirical experiments, then you are part of the problem, not part of solution.
Tell me I’ll forget. Show me I’ll understand. Let me do it I will know.
Do you know Kenneth?
I would have assumed you understood – and optimistically still assume – that when I wrote…
The problem is that unless and until this is written in a scientific paper and published in a journal, there’s no there there.
…the “problem” exists for those who read evidence that contradicts the “consensus”. It’s the way they validate.
I wonder if you, Kenneth, see the kind of skepticism displayed by Konrad as nuts or not? Aren’t you all on the same side and nothing should be too far fetched to “prove” that AGW isn’t real? 😉
Sorry, but I even refuse to dismiss the claim as “nuts” such as the one you espouse: that CO2 molecules spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely now than they were in 1900 are the cause of the net heat changes in the global oceans to depths of 1,000s of meters. Even though that position of yours seems very implausible, I will not characterize this claim as “nuts”. I don’t think it’s an appropriate way to debate to just dismiss others’ arguments as “insane”, or to call Ph.D. scientists “nutters”, as you routinely do.
Though I fail sometimes, I generally try to treat people with dignity, or the way I would like to be treated. Obviously you do not share this ethical compunction.
BLOCKQUOTE>Aren’t you all on the same side and nothing should be too far fetched to “prove” that AGW isn’t real? – SebH
Another strawman argument.
That would be the warmists who think EVERYTHING bad is the result of AGCC.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
As to screwballs, I don’t think we could have done without them.
http://www.mysteryofmatter.net/alchemy.html
It’s when they want to force their opinions on everyone, regardless of the cost, that they become “WRONG,” even sometimes when they may be technically “correct.” When they extort money from my so they can jet to resort areas to plan how to tweak the temperature by 0.001 Deg C, and how to extort more money from me and impose draconian controls over my life, …that’s what upsets me. Well, that and lying to me, accusing me of believing things I don’t believe and accusing me of saying things I never said, and repeating the lies even when shown to be false.
So, it’s not what you believe that bothers me. It’s what you want to force me to believe by hook or by crook that I have every right to object to, and in the strongest terms.
P.S. – Before someone gives me grief about that list being on a conspiracy theory website, it isn’t their list.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
See also here for a shorter starter list.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/21/thedcnfs-definitive-list-of-things-liberals-blame-on-global-warming/
Why belittle the CO2 increase by constantly describing it as “1/10000ths something”? An increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is a 43% increase.
Because you never try to understand or learn the mechanism. You just read something (like the paper in the blog post) and find a quotable section in it that you can use for your argumentation. A basic understanding of the physical mechanisms and the difference between values and their derivatives would be really helpful in filtering out nonsense from your list of papers.
Do you think it is appropriate to give nonsense a platform?
Because that’s what it is. 100 parts per million is 1 extra part out of 10,000 parts. Putting it another way, if a football field is made up of 10,000 postage stamp sized parts, there were 3 of those postage stamps that were CO2 in 1900. Today there are 4. So in 115 years, the atmospheric CO2 concentration changed by 1/10,000ths (0.01). CO2 molecules are spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely than they were in 1900, and 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990 (353 ppm). It is this very volume difference that you claim is responsible for heating up the oceans to depths of thousands of meters. Accepting that spacing CO2 molecules together 1/10,000ths more closely than they were 115 years ago is what heats up the oceans – especially since the heat from CO2 cannot even penetrate past the 0.1-1 mm “thick” skin layer – requires an extraordinary amount of affirming evidence. And we don’t have that.
By itself, it’s 43% increase. In the atmosphere, where it’s claimed to heat up the ocean depths, it’s an increase of 1/10,000ths of a percentage point. Since it’s in its atmospheric context, and not by itself, that CO2 is claimed to heat up the oceans, why do you insist on using the “by itself” percentage?
No, that’s not it. We have no real-world scientific evidence or controlled experiment with physical measurements that indicates how much cooling is caused by reducing CO2 over a body of water in, say, 0.00001 (-10 ppm) increments, or how much warming is caused in a body of water by increasing CO2 concentrations in increments of 0.00001 (+10 ppm). Therefore, your claim about human CO2 emissions heating and cooling the oceans is theoretical…or hypothetical. If it wasn’t only theoretical or hypothetical, we’d have actual physical measurements demonstrating the real-world effect of CO2 concentration changes on water. We don’t have them. So, because all you have are assumptions and presuppositions, and no real-world physical measurements, your beliefs are not entitled to any special “status” any more so than any other proposed explanation for what mechanism – instead of human CO2 emissions – warms the Earth’s oceans.
The only reason you feel entitled to sit on your pedestal and claim that any explanation other than human CO2 emissions is what heats the Earth’s oceans is “nonsense” and “insane” is because you have the argument from authority to haughtily lean on. I’m not impressed by the argument from authority. I don’t think it entitles you to snub your nose at any other explanation for heating and cooling the oceans other than by raising or lowering human CO2 emissions.
I don’t think that citing a scientific paper that provides experimental information about the thermal effects of CO2 vs. Ar or air should be dismissed as “insane”…any more than I the high school lab experiments that claim to show how the greenhouse effect works should be dismissed as “insane”. Sorry, but you haven’t made the case for dismissing scientific papers that don’t happen to meld with your presuppositions.
Great, then we can do that for every other value change as well that needs to look smaller than it is? You do that to belittle the change, which is massive in itself. It’s your rhetorical “trick” to “hide the increase”.
And that is where you are wrong. What we don’t have is an experiment that would confirm what we know, because that would be next to impossible. Just as measuring gravitational forces everywhere … yet we know that it follows the laws of physics.
And why do you still come up with that “heat from CO2 cannot even penetrate” thing? That’s not how the warming from the GHE works and this has been explained to you lots of times and is even written down in scientific papers you link to. Why this nonsense argument?
Because we have a substance that has an effect. The amount changes and so does the effect (logarithmically). When you gain weight you would also find that you are 50% heavier now and not that your weight increased by 1/x-th of the percentage of your mass compared to the mass of the Earth or universe, would you? You could do that do play down the increase, of course.
One more time. We know how CO2 behaves, we know how stuff warms, we know the energy fluxes and you claim that because we can’t directly perform an experiment that varies CO2 concentration in the atmosphere the greenhouse effect (over water) might not be real? That’s the same as claiming we might not understand how gravity works because we didn’t measure it in person at some spot in the universe.
It’s not a belief, any other explanation needs to describe the physical mechanism as well and they all fail to do that. When you violate the laws of physics your theory is no good. And even worse, some of those opposing the GHE are claiming that it would violate energy conservation and what not … which says a lot about their understanding of physics and why they believe any straw that “scientists” are offering them.
Is it really a scientific paper? Or is that just a backyard experiment with wrong conclusions (SW absorption of gases?) of some skeptic who doesn’t understand the greenhouse effect (from his own words/chain of arguments)? Question is, can anyone repeat that experiment and get the same results? And how many other scientists would arrive at the same conclusion as the author of the paper in your article?
That’s not why you should dismiss this paper. I wrote a list somewhere here in the comments. A paper where the author confuses SW radiation with LW radiation and can’t correctly describe the greenhouse effect while using arguments like “in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof” and contains so many spelling and grammar mistakes should be dismissed just because it would never have survived a proper peer review.
Uh, go ahead, SebastianH. Feel free to use the really, really big numbers. After all, writing the words parts per million (ppm) sounds a lot more impressive – like Hiroshima bombs – than does writing 0.000001…even though they’re the same thing. A million is indeed “massive”, after all.
Then you’re not confirming what you “know”, but you’re making an (unsuccessful) attempt to confirm what you believe to be true. Nothing has been confirmed as what is “known” without having physical measurements from a real world experiment that shows how much (negligible or substantial?) a water body is cooled by removing one part or ten parts per million from the airborne CO2 concentration above it. The cooling of the water forced by removing -0.000001 or -0.00001 from the CO2 concentration above it could be -0.000000001 K, -0.00001 K, -0.0001 K….no one really knows what the measurement would be. But if removing 0.00001 from the atmospheric CO2 concentration only changes the heat by -0.000001 K – and we don’t know if it doesn’t or does, since we have no measurements – would you find an effect of -0.000001 K to be substantial enough to allow CO2 to be the dominant agent delivering net OHC changes? Do you think a change of 0.000001 K elicited by a 10 parts per million change in CO2 is “massive”? If not, how much of a heating or cooling effect on water temperatures do you think would be significant or “massive” if forced by a 10 parts per million change in CO2? 0.0001 K? 0.001 K?
Because the inability for IR to penetrate past the skin layer significantly reduces CO2’s impact on water temperatures relative to changes in the amount of absorbed solar radiation heating the ocean via albedo changes (i.e., shortwave cloud forcing). CO2’s impact can be easily overridden by changes in cloud cover, for example. That’s why it’s said that: “Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. ..The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.”
why do you insist on using the “by itself” percentage?
Methane is a substance that has an effect. And yet I don’t see you claiming that methane is a key player in the Earth’s GHE. Why is that?
And, of course, the question must be asked: How much of an effect? Answer: we don’t know. It could be negligible or it could be significant. But since you believe it’s probably significant, and not negligible, therefore, for those who believe it is significant and not negligible. I think it is likely negligible. What data real-world experiment do I have to back that up? I have nothing. So we’re both in the same spot: you believe, without real-world evidence or physical measurements, that the oceans’ sensitivity to CO2 concentration changes is quite significant, even dominant; I believe that neither is likely true. Neither of us has verification. So why do you feel entitled to declare your presuppositions are right?
I need more than just CO2 has an effect on water temperatures. I need to know how much of an effect to determine whether it’s significant or negligible. You’re quite satisfied with just “knowing” it has an effect without needing to have any sort of quantified value confirming its significance.
“A paper where the author confuses SW radiation with LW radiation”.
No. For the third time, the author does no such thing. YOU confuse SW radiation with SW IR radiation. It really is a very simple mistake you’re making which basically shows you have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’re STILL here embarrassing yourself.
SW IR = is longwave radiation, because it’s infrared. It’s just that it is a categorisation of infrared in which the wavelength is shorter than the other forms of infrared. Hence “shortwave IR”.
[…] Link: https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theor… […]
Jack Dale,post this howler.
“The trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prevents the earth from being a ball of ice.”
Actually if you subtract the entire CO2 warm forcing effect out of the “heat budget”,it would only be one K cooler.
Based on the Trenberth 1997 and 2008 models models….
What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?
“This total energy transfer is consistent with the daily temperature cycle that exists in the atmosphere. I can provide more details on that if anyone is interested.
Since the accepted value of the total GHE is 33 °C, I used each proportion of energy to the 33 °C. The result was as follows:
Evaporation: 22.0 °C
Water vapor (GHG): 5.0 °C
Convection: 4.7 °C
CO2 (GHG): 0.9 °C
Ozone (GHG): 0.3 °C
Other (GHG): 0.2 °C
If CO2 were removed, the change in energy transfer would be 3.3 W/m^2 which is 2.75% of the total. That change corresponds to a total change to the GHE of 0.9 °C which I will consider 1 °C as the ozone transfer really takes place in the stratosphere.
Since the Earth’s temperature is ~287K, the temperature of the Earth without CO2 would be ~286K.”
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/what-would-the-temperature-of-the-earth-be-without-co2-in-the-atmosphere/
Your claim is even sillier when we had an Ice Age right in the middle of a time when CO2 levels were between 2,000-4,000 ppm, in the atmosphere.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
That is one silly quotation. Do you need an explanation why this calculation is wrong or can you find that out on your own?
SebH might want to explain what the calculation is wrong.
Jaack Dale used a strange comparison for the effect of CO2. He compares with Selenium. Very much stupid. He thinks physical process is not by quantity but quality. He wrong. Quality effect is chemical.
Konrad explains well about oceans. SebH needs to learn oceans are important.
The Calculation is based on what Dr. Trenberth published.
In a very, very weird way. From the 396 W/m² of surface radiation, they subtracted the radiation emitted to space through the atmospheric window and the back radiation, resulting in just 23 W/m² of surface radiation. They then split that amount up between the relevant GHGs and their effect. The result is what you linked to … nonsense.
Nonsense because why on Earth would someone attribute the surface radiation to the greenhouse effect? The GHE is happening in the atmosphere and the result is the back radiation in the Trenberth diagram. You’d need to take those 333 W/m² and could split those up between the relevant GHGs. But if you reduce the amount of any GHGs this would also reduce the surface radiation and that would decrease back radiation in turn. Sounds circular, but you can easily solve for it. Another problem would be that changed surface radiation means the surface temperature changed and that neither evaporation nor thermals (convection) would likely stay the same.
It’s a complex system and not as simple as the author of your quoted website makes it appear.
Enough of an explanation or are you going to reply that I didn’t quote anything and therefore it must all be wrong again? 😉
Seb, you didn’t point out what is incorrect,as it based on what uber warmist Dr. Trenberth published.
John stated:
” I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.
I then broke down each transfer mechanism. Here is the end result as shown in my book.
Evaporation: 80.0 W/m^2
Water vapor (GHG): 18.1 W/m^2
Convection: 17.0 W/m^2
CO2 (GHG): 3.3 W/m^2
Ozone (GHG): 1.0 W/m^2
Other (GHG): 0.7 W/m^2″
I have the book where he make clear it is based on DR. Trenberth’s energy transfer science.
you going to dispute this?
“CO2 (GHG): 3.3 W/m^2”
You are all wind and babble.
I did exactly point out what is incorrect. According to Trenberth the surface receives 161 W/m² and emits slightly less towards space. 40 W/m² go directly to space and roughly 120 W/m² is transferred to the atmosphere. That part is correct. It’s also correct that evaporation transfers 80 W/m² and convection/thermals 17 W/m² towards the atmosphere. However, GHGs don’t transfer energy from the surface towards the atmosphere. They absorb surface radiation (356 W/m²) and re-emit it in all directions and that includes the direction of the surface (333 W/m²). And that’s what the greenhouse effect is and is very clearly seen in the Trenberth diagram: https://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg
It’s silly nonsense what you are posting here and your inability to see that and your reply “You are all wind and babble.” are willing to believe nonsense just like that and dismiss anything contradicting your belief … and to top that guys like you ironically claim that it’s actually the other side that is believing something that isn’t real. Very weird.
3 words for the chatbots
“CONSERVATION OF ENERGY”
This diagram SebH posts…
https://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg
…shows 341 (W/m*m) coming in from the sun. That is ALL the “income” we have available for deposit. But they tell us that (internal) withdrawals equal 396+80+17=493. Withdrawals therefore exceed deposits by 152. SORRY! Check returned for insufficient funds.
And no, it doesn’t help that they have the same amount leaving earth as arriving, because even internally energy conservation cannot be violated the way they picture it. Energy can’t be locally created and destroyed at the whim of magical thinking warmists, in order to warm the planet. This is Classical, not Quantum physics.
What you could (actually do) have is an oscillation, resulting from alternating accumulation and dissipation of heat. But then outgoing would be less than incoming during some portions of the day, and greater for some portions of the night. But that’s not what that simplistic cartoon shows.
Now, how about dealing with the issue in detail, if you are able. Stop pretending that just because you have a silly misleading diagram that you understand the process. Go ahead and explain it to us, as Kenneth Richard has been asking for ever. We’re STILL waiting.
yonason, thank you for showing us that you have no idea how energy budgets work and what conservation of energy means.
I suggest you study how insulation works and how it “violates the laws of thermodynamics” if you think that is impossible to have higher temperatures (and heat fluxes) internally, then what an observer would measure from the outside.
There is no energy that just magically appears in this diagram.
The diagram shows an average over the whole surface and long time periods. It’s different for the day/night cycle and varying latitudes.
I have been trying to do that in the first months I was commenting on this blog. Now it’s just pointing out where you guys are wrong. But if you insist …
Why do you think it is correct to attribute the difference between outgoing radiation and back radiation to greenhouse gases? That makes no sense but is what the author at your link writes.
A good starting point to understanding the greenhouse effect is – surprise – the Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Mechanism
Or do you think that the explanation of the mechanism is also fake or a lie?
One comment lost to spam filter?
tl;dr was: please go back to school and learn about conservation of energy before you write nonsense like this. This effect is not creating energy out of nothing. Look up how insulation works and how a heat source can generate higher internal temperatures the better the insulation is. Or do you think you kitchen oven violates the laws of thermodynamics too?
BAIT AND SWITCH?
first – I never said anything about “greenhouse gasses.” I’m not attributing it to anything. I’m just taking the numbers at face value, without regard for how they were arrived at, and I’m asking YOU how they got the results they did. According to the cartoon (YOUR CARTOON, not mine) there is more energy leaving the earth’s surface than is arriving from the sun.
Arriving from sun = 341 (THAT’S TOTAL INCOME)
———————————————
Leaving earth’s surface…
a. 396 (radiation)
b. 80 (evap transp)
c. 17 (thermal updrafts)
Total outflow from earth’s surface = 493
493 > 341
That’s a total of 341 arriving, and a total of 493 leaving. What I’m asking you is how that’s possible. And you obviously have no answer.
What I want you to explain is why you have more energy available internally than is supplied from without, and you have failed.
SECOND – I repeat… What do you mean “the author of your link.?”????? That was YOUR link I was addressing, not mine!
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1229188
But instead of explaining it, you pull a bait and switch to a wiki-pee cartoon in which the problem has been erased, and then act like I’m the one who’s making things up, when it’s you.
Man-up and defend the one you posted, or apologize for it. If you picked the wrong cartoon to illustrate what you wanted to, just say so. But do not blame your mistake on me.
UPDATE
Sorry, SebH. I just found this by someone who agrees with me that the basis of that cartoon is “divine intervention.”
That critic there adds up the flows slightly differently from me, but gets the same result. That “energy balance” isn’t “balanced.”
Also, I repeat:
1. It’s YOUR link, and…
2. I wrote nothing about GHG’s. Why would I? That’s your schtick.
1) sorry for confusing you with sunsettommmy. He was the one who posted that nonsense above and with all the discussions going on in parallel .. well, sorry.
2) there is nothing out of balance in this “cartoon”: https://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg
341 W/m² incoming radiation from the Sun and 161 W/m² reach the surface. 17 W/m² and 80 W/m² leave the surface by thermals and evaporation, the “net absorbed” is 0.9 W/m², leaving around 63 W/m² for radiation emitted. And surprise that is exactly the difference of the surface radiation (396 W/m²) and the back radiation (333 W/m²).
There is no energy magically appearing in this “cartoon” and everything balances out. Your “divine intervention” uses slightly different numbers, but it adds up as well (see the two equations at the bottom). The part in the center that is marked as “divine intervention” is also perfectly in balance. 169+350 W/m² going in and 165+30+324 W/m² going out of the atmosphere. Where do you see the problem with that?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/09/hadcru-power-and-temperature/
Poor SebH, has no friends. Is afraid to ask a physics teacher, afraid to be surprised. Has he not read Kenneth. he explain where SebH not knows.
He says no need to convince, only stranger he says. Why he posts?
Kenneth explains very good.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1229419
John not know how to link.
SebH really is not listening. He not logic. If John ask physics teacher and what if teacher wrong? SebH thinks scientist can wrong. But what if teacher is wrong. He would ask teacher and thinks he wrong because not hear what he wants?
Poor SebH. Not understand that CO2 not effect much.
Oceans are effect. Konrad says and explains very good.
Peaking over the shoulder of someone taking their PhD climate activist exam we see…
https://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/standarizedthought.jpg
(sssshhh. Don’t distract him. It’s a very difficult test.)
😉
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here: notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/ […]
Kenneth,
do you agree or disagree that there is a power gap between incoming radiation (to the surface) and outgoing energy transfers (by radiation, evaporation, conduction)?
If you agree, you have to explain that gap somehow. Everything you suggested so far by posting weird “science” papers doesn’t do the job. Uncertainty doesn’t do the job. I guess you don’t even understand the problem from reading your replies.
We can actually measure the downwelling longwave radiation. Do you think that is a hoax? Some part of that radiation is from CO2 in the atmosphere. And you seem to believe that this part of the radiation does nothing to surface temperatures? Or just small variations do nothing?
Learn the how the mechanisms work, Kenneth and you’ll see that there aren’t huge gaps in this theory.
Oh,and you don’t seem to understand that the current CO2 concentration has only begun to influence the climate. A forcing doesn’t translate into instant temperature changes. It’s also beyond me why you think that CO2 would be responsible for OHC changes in the past, when the levels didn’t change much. Pardon, you don’t think that, but you think we do. Why?
Natural variations will always be there. What you don’t seem to understand is that this doesn’t cancel what an increased CO2 Level does. It might overwhelm it, true. But it’s not gone because of some change in cloud layers.
There is not single thing causing climate change. It’s the sum of everything. But if one of those variables is influenced by us you can subtract it from that side of the equation. Is that so hard to understand?