JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

New Science 19b: A Synopsis

We’ve had a lot of requests for a single document to summarize the blog posts so far. Some people like to print and read all in one place (that’s me). I hope this helps. Skeptics on threads are busy cracking away at getting a rerouting mechanism fleshed out. The quest…  thanks to everyone who is supporting this project in so many ways, whether it be via email, sharing with others, or through donations. We really do appreciate it. We’re going to figure this out. :- ) — Jo

Dr David Evans, 15 November 2015, David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Intro, Previous.

I’ve prepared a synopsis of the 19 posts in this series. It’s a standalone document of 20 pages that explains the important points, some from a different point of view than the blog series. The summary and introduction at the front are non-technical and suitable for politicians and journalists. The synopsis is light on for equations — there are some, but you can pretty much ignore them because it mostly reads fine without them.

If you wanted to show someone the series, this is the document to use. It is downloadable from the project home page, which is the url to give someone if you only give them one link to his work/series.

I’ve also written three introductory essays, which will soon be downloadable from there also.

Here is the synopsis: download.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (70 votes cast)
New Science 19b: A Synopsis, 8.8 out of 10 based on 70 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/qj9h98y

149 comments to New Science 19b: A Synopsis

  • #
    Scott

    Thanks David and Jo really enjoying this series. Appreciate all the hard work and effort you have put into this.

    191

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    Thanks Jo and David. I have just downloaded a copy to read in detail

    81

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    An enormous amount of work went into this analysis.

    Thank you David and Jo.

    KK

    131

  • #
    Mark Stoval

    This is a wonderful PDF. It is so very professional and well done. I was expecting just a little summery. Thanks for all your work.

    121

  • #
    richard verney

    Very useful. Good to have this in an easily readable and reviewable form.

    61

  • #
    Robk

    Looks good. Works for me. It’s amazing that the conventional model survived so long with a non intuitive response to CO2. The other refinements reinforce the model. Lets hope the establishment gives the concepts a fair hearing and extends to modifing the political landscape.

    71

    • #
      Gary Meyers

      You can’t turn a battleship on a dime. Too damned much momentum! A fair hearing is highly unlikely. These people are not going to shut off their money supply.

      81

      • #

        We can be the iceberg that sank the Titanic.

        I’ve supplied the cutting edge; now we need skeptics to point it out and make it heard in places of power and influence.

        297

        • #
          Gary Meyers

          You’re right of course. I’ve read that the longest journey starts off with a single step.

          51

        • #
          Jack

          I fully agree, you can.

          10

        • #
          Jack

          The problem is however that your essential points coincide with those of climate liars, I mean the “greenhouse effect” in the first place. You can not even claim stupid, since it has been explained to you that the “”greenhouse effect” violates the Law of Conservation of Energy. A warmer surface than the Sun can possibly do would be equivalent to more energy radiated away than is received from the Sun. It is so obvious on the notorious “earth energy budget” cartoons the official climate science is full of.

          214

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            “A warmer surface than the Sun can possibly do would be equivalent to more energy radiated away than is received from the Sun. It is so obvious on the notorious “earth energy budget” cartoons the official climate science is full of.”

            The highest temperature the Sun can possibly do is the temperature of the Sun itself!

            20

            • #
              JohnS

              On Earth, Will??? Considering the distance? Never heard of the solar constant?

              00

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                As long as the Earth’s temperature is determined by external EMR flux, the Earth’s temperature is limited by:
                1.(Upper) The temperature (radiance) of the primary supplying the thermal radiant power!
                2.(Lower) The temperature (radiance) of the lowest directional radiance from the Earth.
                Depending strictly on the geometrical directional emissivity/reflectivity, the temperature can be anywhere between those limits.
                A well designed Solar collector can melt steel. Jack was writing “than the Sun can possibly do”! Does JohnS have different limits? Whatever can they be?

                00

          • #

            Jack,

            A good point.

            Quite some time ago on another blog I suggested that a higher surface temperature would send more energy out to space than is received from space so that the atmosphere would slowly deflate and fall to the ground.

            A lower surface temperature would send less energy out to space than is received from space and the atmosphere would slowly inflate until it were lost to space.

            At that time I resolved the problem by proposing changes in the balance of KE and PE within the vertical column so as to apply the necessary negative system response to enable the atmosphere to be retained.

            That would imply changes in lapse rate slopes and thus heating off the surface rather than at the surface just as in David’s corrected architecture and it would involve treating the thermal effects of GHG differently to the effects of absorbed solar radiation at the surface just as David now points out.

            That old article can be found here:

            http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/

            December 2012

            712

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Interesting Stephen.

              So the Earth’s atmosphere is a self correcting system limited by the triple point of water and the Latent Heat of Fusion of ice and the Latent heat of Vaporisation of water.

              The other limiting factors are the energy obtained by the air from contact with the Earth’s surface when pressed

              against that surface by the weight of air above and the capacity to carry that energy aloft to finally radiate heat/energy out into space.

              KK

              00

              • #

                “The other limiting factors are the energy obtained by the air from contact with the Earth’s surface when pressed against that surface by the weight of air above”

                Please! pressed by gravitational attraction of the atmospheric mass above (pressure), a scalar, not a vector! This atmosphere expresses no ‘weight’. Are you writing of surface to air conductive heat transfer, or the proper atmospheric sensible heat distribution as maintained by gravity (somehow) at the speed of sound?

                “and the capacity to carry that energy aloft to finally radiate heat/energy out into space. KK”

                Stephen maintains that sensible heat is distributed ‘only’ by thermally induced convection! But he cannot explain the 6 minute time constant for re-thermalization of the whole tropospheric column! Stephen also maintains that ‘atmosphere’ at altitude has the property of gravitational potential energy, even though Keplerian potential is completely subsumed in the tropospheric lapse!
                All the best! -will-

                05

            • #

              Yes, KK, but water isn’t essential, it just makes it easier for the system to maintain stability. Without it convective overturning would have to be more violent in order to get PE back to the surface fast enough to match energy in with energy out at 288k surface temperature.
              That 288k is determined by mass, gravity and absorbed solar radiation alone.

              25

              • #

                Do you have any physical demonstration of your alleged atmospheric PE? Consider sweeping junk off the roof. You must also sweep off some atmosphere. The junk falls accelerated by gravity. The atmosphere does not fall and is not accelerated. Where is your atmospheric PE?

                05

              • #
              • #

                Rollo November 17, 2015 at 3:15 pm

                (“JohnS says: The answer is the data used is change in the electrical circuits caused by a warmer thing (detector) radiating to the colder thing (target). No radiation from cold to hot is in play”

                “Ok, but how does the hot thing know how much energy to radiate to the colder, without some back radiation(hate that expression!).”

                Complete brainwashing in action!! Any surface that exists in this physical has absolutely no concept of the earthling stupid fantasy of temperature, heat, power, energy or anything else! Earthlings think that they can demand that the physical,with some fantasy temperature, must obey such demand!
                Your meter measures what it does radiate in the direction of lower radiance then calculates what that lower must be to limit that outgoing flux to that value! From this the remote temperature can be estimated. the accuracy of such limited by assumptions of emissivity.

                “The circuits in my IR thermometer know how much energy is emanating from my freezer. This knowledge has to get from the ice to my Digitech QM7215. What else is there apart from quanta/photons to convey this data?”

                What brainless non thinking!! There is no thermal radiant ‘energy’ ever emanating! There exists a radiant potential called radiance that involves no power flux. This opposing radiance. Limits the magnitude of flux from your meter. This means that the remote temperature can be approximated.

                The whole process is detailed in the instruction pamphlet that came with your QM7215. Perhaps your Mommy can read! Please ask her to explain it to you. :-(

                18

              • #

                Stephen Wilde Nov 18, 2015 at 10:02 am

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_available_potential_energy

                In meteorology, convective available potential energy (CAPE),[1] sometimes, simply, available potential energy (APE), is the amount of energy a parcel of air would have if lifted a certain distance vertically through the atmosphere.

                Thank you Stephen, for the step on your tongue. A great example of why your meteorology is in such disgrace!!
                If your fantasy air parcel were contained within a fixed volume the work required to lift the contained mass to some altitude above the surface as weight (force) times distance could by considered the abstract potential energy PE. That is bottled air, not an atmosphere. Tis part of the junk swept from the roof, and falls! Why does the atmosphere not fall! Hint: the atmosphere has no potential energy anywhere! Relocation of any atmosphere to anywhere within the atmosphere requires no work. The illusionary vertical change in sensible heat, and density is established by the gravitational thermostatic lapse, not by some fake meteorological process!

                18

              • #
                Rollo

                Will said:

                The whole process is detailed in the instruction pamphlet that came with your QM7215. Perhaps your Mommy can read!…………………..There is no thermal radiant ‘energy’ ever emanating! There exists a radiant potential called radiance that involves no power flux. This opposing radiance. Limits the magnitude of flux from your meter. This means that the remote temperature can be approximated.

                OK Will I asked mum to read the instruction manual and she said to tell you that the units optics sense emitted, reflected and transmitted energy which is collected and focussed on a detector. Mum said to tell you that this “energy” refers to quanta or photons.

                Can you explain to mum and me what you mean by “opposing radiance” and “power flux” ?

                The QM7215 has determined the opposing radiance as you say, therefore information has passed from the cold to the hot body. So if it wasn’t done by photons what conveyed the data?

                30

              • #

                Rollo November 18, 2015 at 3:48 pm

                “OK Will I asked mum to read the instruction manual and she said to tell you that the units optics sense emitted, reflected and transmitted energy which is collected and focussed on a detector. Mum said to tell you that this “energy” refers to quanta or photons.”

                Did she read the part that explained that when the surface under measurement is at a lower temperature than the detector, the energy transfer (flux) is only in a direction outward, toward the lower temperature surface?

                “Can you explain to mum and me what you mean by “opposing radiance” and “power flux”?

                Power flux is actual measurable Watts/m² transfered from location to a different location. Radiance is normalized EM field strength Watts/(m²·sr). Notice the (sr) in the denominator. This changes the expression from a scalar to a vector. A particular EM field strength from a particular direction. Such field strength prevents more than a limited power flux to be dispatched from the observer of such potential in that direction.
                You seem to have no problem with the conductive heat flux being limited both by the thermal conductivity of the copper wire and the temperature at the other end of the wire. The source of the ‘conductive’ heat transfer does not transfer to absolute zero and get some flux back from the lower temperature; artificially creating some fake net flux. There is only a unidirectional flux (a property of the macroscopic word ‘flux’).
                The CCC have brainwashed you into thinking that EMR flux is by-directional just because the difference in potential is highly non-linear with respect to temperature.

                “The QM7215 has determined the opposing radiance as you say, therefore information has passed from the cold to the hot body. So if it wasn’t done by photons what conveyed the data?”

                That information is contained in the limitation of outward flux by the surface under measurement. More than that cannot be dispatched in that direction. This is in keeping with the whole S-B equation and Maxwell’ equations!
                Only the CCC wants you to believe that radiant energy is emitted as a function only of the emitters temperature. Such belief by us peons, is essential to the radiative CAGW scam, with ‘back radiation’.
                If you need more: please ask! :-)

                14

            • #
              Rollo

              Will said:

              “Did she read the part that explained that when the surface under measurement is at a lower temperature than the detector, the energy transfer (flux) is only in a direction outward, toward the lower temperature surface?That information is contained in the limitation of outward flux by the surface under measurement.”

              No mum rechecked the manual and there is no special case for objects colder than than the detector. As we seem to be getting nowhere I think I’ll surrender and concentrate on trying to understand the maths in David’s excellent synopsis. We should both visit the tip jar for being off topic :-)

              30

        • #
          Manfred

          The red thumb signifies you’re on the way. They betray themselves at every turn.
          Congratulations on your opus magnus. As Einstein remarked, only one paper was required to rebut his General Theory of Relativity, a point made when confronted with the news in 1939 that the incumbent academy of science in Germany had a hundred ‘scientists’ who disagreed with his thesis.

          1112

  • #
    Richard111

    Thank you David. An excellent reference.

    101

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    In the summary there is this:
    Increasing carbon dioxide reduces the heat radiated to space by carbon dioxide …

    This sounds wrong or odd. The problem, for me, is that it stops me from continuing to read as I ponder the apparent issue. This distraction – again, maybe it is just me – could be avoided.

    Otherwise, carry on. When my lotto win happens, you 2 are on the list to share.

    72

    • #
      NeedleFactory

      Think of it this way, John: Increasing carbon dioxide increases the heat radiated back to earth (the “greenhouse effect”), and therefore must decrease the heat radiated out to space.

      Carbon dioxide is not itself a source of heat — it merely absorbs and re-radiates existing energy.

      1112

      • #
        James Bradley

        Needles,

        Your statement makes no sense – the heat comes from the sun in the first place and if CO2 increases radiated heat then it would also be absorbed and re-radiated back into space.

        510

        • #
          NeedleFactory

          James, I do not understand your objection to my statement.
          I did not say “CO2 increases radiated heat”, I said “increasing CO2 increases the heat radiated back [down] to earth.”

          I agree that your inaccurate re-statement of what I said makes no sense.

          133

          • #
            James Bradley

            Geez, Needles,

            When you wrote “carbon dioxide increases the heat radiated”

            It read very like “CO2 increases radiated heat”.

            30

        • #

          James, you really need to do a course on absorption and emission spectroscopy. It is not a weird voodoo branch of science that arose out of a single arcane and never to be repeated experiment – it is done routinely by quite sane chemists and even geologists for practical and sometimes life saving applications.

          142

      • #

        The molecular mass of CO2 gas can radiate or absorb mostly at 14µ-16µ at atmospheric temperatures. Such thermal electromagnetic radiative flux from a ‘mass that has radiance’ is only dispatched in directions of lower radiance at each waveband and in each direction and only in an amount proportional to the difference in radiance. From directions of higher radiance the atmospheric mass can only absorb such thermal electromagnetic radiative flux. If the two opposing directions have equal radiances (temperatures) there is no flux generated in either direction. Dr Kirchhoff Law of thermal radiation. That Law forbids thermal electromagnetic radiative flux in opposing directions in the same waveband. This is why the S-B equation has the required parenthesis containing two temperatures each raised to the forth power.
        If your CCC claim otherwise, they must be willing to demonstrate such a claim. They cannot demonstrate this as such is a contradiction of Dr Maxwell’s equations. Such undemonstrative claims are but part of the intentionally deceptive fantasy promoted by the CCC, and more generally by all of meteorology!
        All the best! -will-

        1214

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Will

          This is a very important post of yours because so many hold the concept that radiation can go in both directions.

          Energy, in all of its’ forms, can only flow away from the point of highest energy output.

          Put another way, energy can only move down the energy temperature gradient.

          This ultimately means that ALL ground origin IR must move towards that great heat sink in the sky at 1.6 C deg above absolute zero.

          The temperature gradient is about 288 K down to1.6 K a delta of 286.4 K deg.

          I’m glad I am only exposed to a delta of 20 or 30 K deg or so.

          KK

          711

          • #
            Jack

            Some climate liars even claim that you can measure the radiation from cold to warm by an IR-Thermometer. Does the name Roy Spencer ring the bell?

            315

            • #
              average joe

              Jack – I just did it with mine. Reads 21 C room temperature pointing it at the wall. 5C pointing it in the fridge. -15 C in the freezer. These are all correct it works like a champ. Let me give you a clue. Radiation energy from cold to warm is a negative value. And you bet your a$$ you can read it with an IR thermometer.

              181

              • #
                JohnS

                Hi average! You know, things are not always what they appear to be. In this particular case, when pointing the wonderful IR thermometer at a colder target, it is not the radiation from the colder target to the warmer detector that is measured or absorbed etc. You need to learn how the device really works before you jump to conclusions. It is exactly the other way round, the warmer detector radiates to the colder target and that is the basis for the calculation of the temperature of the target. Hence, average, the fact that the temperature of a colder target can be measured by an IR thermometer at least does not prove that cold radiates to warm.

                17

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                JohnS – You need to read more carefully, before bursting into type. Average Joe said that radiation energy from cold to warm was a negative value. Which is exactly the point that you made (in different words). Nowhere did Average Jo claim that cold radiates to warm. Comprehension should always preceed elucidation.

                70

          • #
            Rollo

            KK and others

            Net energy flow (flux?) is from a hot place to a colder one, but surely individual photons are free to go anywhere? I have seen IR thermometers mentioned frequently on this site and others. Can someone please explain to this physics challenged person what an IR thermometer is using for data when pointed into a freezer from a warm room?

            41

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Rollo

              I have only used an IR thermometer once about 48 years ago.

              I suspect that lot of calibration is always needed when using such devices otherwise you may end up measuring a fantasy.

              Measuring a freezer for example, is the door open and allowing other radiation in?

              As for photons; there is no such animal as a photon. That term is just a concept developed to help work things out.

              In other circumstances the concept of an electromagnetic wave is used.

              From my old physics photons and EMR are the same actual physical entity and only have different labels to help develop ways of

              quantifying and understanding their behaviour.

              This is all subject to confirmation. I know many people on here have immediate experience with IR meters so may be able to help more.

              :)

              KK

              29

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                There is only electromagnitic radiation. Different frequencies are percieved by humans as different phenomina. If we keep this discussion going long enough, we will end up with string theory and arguing whether there is an eleventh dimension, or not.

                11

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Rollo

              Think of a small pond.

              A rock is dropped into the centre.

              What happens to the ripples?

              They aren’t free to go anywhere.

              They go where they were pushed and bounce off the sides and other reflected waves.

              21

            • #
              JohnS

              Good question. The answer is the data used is change in the electrical circuits caused by a warmer thing (detector) radiating to the colder thing (target). No radiation from cold to hot is in play, it is just what some people claim, some of them honestly, because they do not have the knowledge, and others dishonestly despite it had been explained to them numerous times.

              26

              • #
                Rollo

                JohnS says:

                The answer is the data used is change in the electrical circuits caused by a warmer thing (detector) radiating to the colder thing (target). No radiation from cold to hot is in play

                Ok, but how does the hot thing know how much energy to radiate to the colder, without some back radiation(hate that expression!). The circuits in my IR thermometer know how much energy is emanating from my freezer. This knowledge has to get from the ice to my Digitech QM7215. What else is there apart from quanta/photons to convey this data?

                30

              • #
                JohnS

                No, nothing knows anything. Just read carefully what I wrote. The way the detector radiates to a colder target depends on the difference in temperature, so the difference in temperature can be determined. Then it is subtracted from the actual temperature of the detector which yields the temperature of the colder target.

                25

              • #
                Rollo

                JohnS says:

                The way the detector radiates to a colder target depends on the difference in temperature,

                Sorry John, I can’t see your point. The detector knows the temperature of the target, as you say, and the knowledge was conveyed somehow.

                70

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Third law of thermodynamics. Heat cannot of itself pass, from a colder body to a hotter body.

                Except that heat can pass from a colder body to a hotter body, if it is considered to be negative, for computational purposes. Computer models of aviation fuel (typically 1 or 2 deg C, or less), being injected into a jet engine, often use this trick. It makes the math much easier.

                14

              • #
                Rollo

                Rereke says:

                There is only electromagnitic radiation. Different frequencies are percieved by humans as different phenomina…………………. string theory and arguing whether there is an eleventh dimension …………………….. Except that heat can pass from a colder body to a hotter body, if it is considered to be negative, for computational purposes.

                Max Planck told us that if we multiply a particular frequency by the constant named after him we get an amount of energy contained in one photon. (There is no call for extra dimensions and string theory Rereke).

                When a hot and a cold body are in proximity. photons will radiate in every direction from each body.Heat flow, which represents the summation of energy(quanta) flow will be from hot to cold, we all seem to agree on this point. You can deem the flow from cold to hot to be negative and this is OK if you get the right answer, but photons are not constrained by any classic definition of heat flow . My IR thermometer still interprets the photons (quanta) coming from a colder place and my case rests here (until someone comes up with a better story). :-)

                50

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Rollo,

                I was actually agreeing with you, and trying to point out the limitations of JohnS’s arguement from authority.

                Perhaps I got to clever for my own boots?

                10

              • #
                Rollo

                Apologies Rereke for not reading your comments more carefully. Got carried away in my zeal and thought you were lumping Max Planck in with today’s astrology-physicists!

                00

          • #

            KK

            Radiative flows in opposing directions can result in a net flow in one direction can’t they?

            That is why a nearby cooler object can reduce the rate of cooling of a warmer object if the relevant heat sink is colder than both (i.e. space).

            150

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Hi Stephen

              What I said was that energy/heat FLOW is proportional to the Difference in temperatures between the two locations.

              There are not two separate flows; just one nett flow, as you say, in one direction.

              KK

              110

            • #
              Brett Keane

              Stephen, I suspect putting another object (cooler) nearby changes the case to a two-body problem, or one of increased mass. The idea is used by warmists, but may be inappropriate. Will J, where are you?
              Anyway, radiation to space would be at a combined rate, according to aspect angles sort of. Might not reduce anything. Where is the experimental proof? Brett

              00

          • #

            KinkyKeith November 16, 2015 at 10:21 am

            “Put another way, energy can only move down the energy temperature gradient.”

            Thanks for your kind words Keith! ;-)

            I am not so sure! Temperature is but an indicator of something else that has to do with sensible heat (please forget the so called internal energy nonsense). In a gas, molecular velocity is only 2/3 of temperature. The other 1/3 comes from gas density. IOW the atmospheric mass has a energy density that is expressed as a temperature lapse.
            I am quite sure that energy does not spontaneously distribute in a direction of higher total potential (anti-equilibrium)! The atmosphere in relation to any part of the atmosphere appears to be an isopotential just as Maxwell and Boltzmann claimed.
            With or without any claimed adiabatic, the “change in location” of any part of the atmosphere within the atmosphere remains “isentropic” (no work, no entropy generation). Disclamer: the changing of location may involve mass accelerations, decelerations which are always work! The atmospheric continuum dynamics minimize such work by dis-allowing starting, stopping, or taking a left at the next intersection!
            All the best!-will-

            04

        • #
          Jack

          Sorry, who is CCC?

          10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Needles, CO2 does not re-radiate below about 15km.

        What you say is a load of hogwash.

        212

        • #
          NeedleFactory

          My understanding, hogwash or not:

          If a molecule of CO2 has an electron in an “excited” state (i.e., above its ground state energy), then at any time (quantum mechanics is probabilistic) that electron may “fall” to a lower orbital, releasing energy and emitting a photon. This is how the molecule “behaves”, and is independent of where the molecule happens to be;– if a molecule underground has an excited electron, then such radiation will happen underground!

          There is no magic boundary near 15km.

          20

      • #
        Duster

        The entire “back radiation” bit is a distraction and confusing. What CO2 does is increase the length of the probable optical path a photon (that can be absorbed by CO2 – i.e. a LWIR photon) will take back to space. For the purposes of mass effects, CO2 acts as a resistor, slowing the transfer of energy in all directions. In effect it is an insulator – not a “green house” gas. The term “green house effect” is another distraction because the action of CO2, and much more importantly, water vapor are in no way remotely like a green house.

        912

    • #

      John, immediately after your quote, says

      (the “thicker blanket”)

      That phrase was put there specifically for people with concerns like yours.

      What, you think the statement is wrong? Try going the other way: would decreasing carbon dioxide reduce the heat emitted by carbon dioxide? What would happen if all the carbon dioxide was removed?

      41

      • #
        Jack

        Would reducing the thickness of a mirror make it less of a mirror? Isn’t it obvious? This would be the right analogy, not the blanket. And a mirror of course does not make the source of light brighter, for the same reason the “greenhouse effect” does not exist.

        215

        • #

          Jack,

          There is no convection within a mirror or a blanket so neither are a perfect analogy for the underlying mechanism.

          There is a greenhouse effect but it is related to atmospheric mass and not radiative capability of atmospheric constituents.

          714

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            “There is a greenhouse effect but it is related to atmospheric mass and not radiative capability of atmospheric constituents.”

            There is no greenhouse effect! There has been an atmospheric temperature lapse. that is not affected by atmospheric constituents!

            512

            • #

              The lapse rate is the mass induced greenhouse effect in operation.

              It marks out the changing balance between the probability of energy transfer by collisions rather than by photon emission as one descends deeper into the increasingly dense mass of an atmosphere.

              The more likely is energy transfer by collisions the higher the temperature rises and the rate of photon emission becomes lower for a given temperature. That is why one cannot realistically apply the S-B equation to a surface below the conducting and convecting mass of a gaseous atmosphere.

              515

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        How much CO2 in the oceans?

        30

    • #

      John,

      It is a matter of densities.

      As density increases at lower levels the heat absorbed by CO2 becomes more likely to be passed on by collisions instead of being lost to space by photon emission.

      As density decreases with height the opposite occurs.

      Below the centre of mass of an atmosphere / point of hydrostatic balance the warming effect is cumulative with height such that the lapse rate is progressively distorted more and more towards the warm side but above the centre of mass the effect starts to dissipate as photon emission slowly increases relative to collisional energy transfers.

      See the inflection points in the vertical columns here in the diagrams here:

      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/

      614

  • #
    Bill

    Thanks, David. I am downloading now and look forward to a comprehensive read all in one go. You’ve put a lot of work into this, muchly appreciated!

    71

  • #
    Dave in the states

    Thank you so much for this. This will be very helpful for communicating this new, more coherent, science on the issue to others in a more coherent way.

    31

  • #
    Paul Beckwith

    David

    this series is a tour de force. Congratulations and thank you.

    Do you have any plans to try and have this accepted by any journals etc.

    41

    • #

      Paul, from the introductory post:

      In its complete form this work has evolved into two scientific papers, one about the modelling and mathematical errors in the conventional basic climate model and fixing them (carbon dioxide isn’t the culprit), and another for the revamped notch-delay solar theory (it’s the Sun). Both are currently undergoing peer review. These posts are useful in airing the ideas for comments, and testing the papers for errors.

      100

  • #
    average joe

    I like it. Here is my interpretation in a nutshell:

    Water vapor is a positive feedback for change in solar radiation, due to the wavelengths of solar radiaton causing more surface warming and less upper atmospheric warming, which causes an increasing lapse rate, which causes stronger convection, which causes WVEL to rise, which causes a cooler WVEL, which causes it to radiate less energy to space, thus causing positive feedback. The standard model treats CO2 reflected LWIR as incoming solar and thus assigns the same positive water vapor feedback.

    The alternate model takes into account that the reflected LWIR due to CO2 is not the same wavelength as incoming solar, therefore reflected LWIR will tend to heat the upper atmosphere which intercepts it before it makes it to the ground. This in turn decreases the lapse rate to the upper atmosphere, which causes weaker convection, which causes the WVEL to lower instead of raise, which causes a warmer WVEL, which causes it to radiate more energy to space, thus causing negative feedback. This negative feedback provides additional cooling that nearly offsets the additional warming from the CO2 greenhouse effect.

    Elegent hypothesis. Have you submitted it to any journals?

    11

    • #
      Robk

      In earlier posts David has mentioned it has been submitted for peer review.

      [See Comment 11.1. - DE]

      10

    • #

      average joe,

      Generally right but not quite.

      It isn’t a matter of wavelength per se but rather the absorption capabilities of CO2 which are mainly around the 15u band.

      Those absorption capabilities mostly warm the lower tropopause so as to reduce convection from the surface below.

      Note that this idea is supplementary to David’s hypothesis which did not initially seek to define the mechanism involved. This mechanism arose naturally from the article of mine which showed the lapse rate structure necessary to completely negate surface warming from GHGs.

      David is still open minded as to whether the net outcome is zero surface warming or a small surface warming but my proposal is that it must net out to zero when the effects below both rising and falling columns of air are taken into account.

      912

      • #
        average joe

        Stephan thanks for the suggestion. A basic two paragraph explanation that an electrical engineer like myself can make sense of may go a long way to convincing the public that there is something of interest here. Is this version closer to being correct?

        Water vapor is a positive feedback for change in solar radiation, due to solar radiation warming the surface more than the upper atmosphere, which causes an increased lapse rate, which causes stronger convection, which causes WVEL to rise, which causes a cooler WVEL, which causes it to radiate less energy to space, thus causing positive feedback. The basic model treats CO2-warmed tropopause as incoming solar and thus assigns the same increase to lapse rate causing positive water vapor feedback. The problem here is that CO2-warmed tropopause does not increase the lapse rate, rather it decreases it.

        The alternate model takes into account that the CO2-warmed tropopause is not equivalent to surface warming from increased solar radiation. Increased CO2 warms the tropopause more than the surface, thereby decreasing the lapse rate to the upper atmosphere instead of increasing it, which causes weaker convection, which causes the WVEL to lower instead of raise, which causes a warmer WVEL, which causes it to radiate more energy to space, thus causing negative feedback. This negative feedback provides additional cooling that nearly offsets the additional warming from the increased CO2.

        11

        • #

          Yes, that is pretty much correct save that IMHO all the surface warming in the ascending columns is offset by cooling in descending columns. Slower convection warms the surface beneath ascending columns by slowing down decompression but also slows down compression beneath descending columns so that there is less warming beneath them.

          It is amazing how simple it seems in hindsight.

          312

  • #

    David, you say:

    There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts. The predictions are entirely based on calculations with models.

    Allow me to correct this: “There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise (or have raised) the temperature of the Earth’s surface at all. Period. Any such claims are entirely model-based.”

    This epitomises the difference between lukewarmers and observational empiricists (‘real sceptics’). Lukewarmers, just like the warmists do, take as a given that there will be global surface warming from an increase in atmospheric CO2. Based on nothing but hypothetical speculations, on conjectures, on notebook scribblings. Fully detached from the reality of our Earth system.

    1716

  • #

    Thanks Jo and David, for the synopsis which I just downloaded. I am looking forward to the new three introductory essays also when they appear. Great Work!

    30

  • #
    Neville

    It’s a bit concerning that this time the bit hitters have stayed away. Lucia has done a bit of silly drive by shooting from her own blog, but Willis, Leif etc seem to have given it a miss up until now.
    But thanks to David and Jo for their efforts, I just hope you can soon gain a wider audience. At least Miranda Devine has given some earlier coverage in the OZ. Perhaps Judy Curry may give you some coverage at her Climate etc blog or perhaps Climate Depot?
    And I understand that Bishop Hill blog wasn’t too kind either.

    20

    • #
      Ross

      ” And I understand that Bishop Hill blog wasn’t too kind either.”

      Neville , they all jumped in too early , had just read “the headlines” and not the earlier posts. Basically they let their egos get in front of their brains.

      54

    • #

      Neville, I know some of them are emailing the synopsis among themselves (I got cc’ed on one of them).

      Beware. As I mentioned in the introductory post:

      The findings here are unlikely to be popular with the establishment, and maybe nor with some established skeptics. Rebuilding paradigms is always painful. As J.K. Galbraith said in The Affluent Society, “We face here the greatest of vested interests, those of the mind.” Some old dogs will resent learning the new tricks. Career skeptics have their theories, their track records and preferences, and not all of them are compatible with this new material, though most are. If they expend hours examining or put their credibility on the line endorsing someone else’s ideas, what’s in it for them? Nothing really. The usual quid pro quo of the academic scientific world does not apply. Some will be annoyed they didn’t think of it (and didn’t we see shades of that last year, when the notch-delay solar theory was introduced?). All contributions will be carefully acknowledged and credited. We’d rather do this as a team than battle alone.

      We expect the usual brickbats al la Alinsky. We are used to it. The last thing we expect in the big wide world is polite, curious conversation. But we live in hope. Perhaps this time some skeptics will have the discipline to disagree with the ideas without also loading in emotional ad hominem or fact-free attacks?

      121

  • #
    Scott Scarborough

    You do seem to sound like this is just a simple error. But the alarmist’s dogged insistence that warming is bad in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary belies their true motives (along with many other pieces of evidence). It’s true that towards the upper end of their projections there could be as much harm as good but most of the alarmists act like any warming at all is self evidently bad.

    81

  • #

    I wonder whether this thread should be 19a on the basis that the usual sequence would be 19, 19a, 19b etc.

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    And in spite of whether this should be 19a or 19b — All this was presented out in the open with no background withheld, no data withheld, no calculation withheld and no fear of being asked tough questions.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it you climate alarmists.

    None of this CRU nonsense where they said they wouldn’t give out the information because the requester only wanted to find fault with it (yes, I remember).

    Bravo!

    I look forward to the remaining parts that make this complete.

    91

  • #
    Transport by Zeppelin

    Hi David & Jo;

    thought I would show you a reply from Roy Spencer, on his blog, to a commentors suggestion Roy look at David’s model.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/spencer-points-out-hypocrisy-blogosphere-twitterverse-explodes/#comment-201692

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
    November 15, 2015 at 12:35 PM
    I looked at it. I don’t see anything that isn’t already in the models. Of course, if CO2 increases lower atmospheric temperature, all other IR radiators (like water vapor) are going to be emitting more IR, because they are at a higher temperature. The models already include that. I really don’t know what David is advocating here.

    end.

    how closely has Spencer actually look at the model?

    Perhaps David might post a comment at Roy’s blog

    120

    • #

      Transport by Zeppelin

      AFAIK the models start from the global average lapse rate of 6.5k per km and allow for the variations around that for seasons and latitude but do not add any further lapse rate adjustment for the effects of CO2 in the vertical column since they place all the warming effect at the surface.

      Roy seems to have grasped the basic principle but not that the change in the lapse rate slope can have the required effect on emissions to space from all IR radiators without involving a rise in surface temperature overall once one takes account of the effect on surface temperature beneath both rising and falling columns.

      By reducing the speed of convective overturning the change in the lapse rate slope warms the surface a little below rising columns by reducing the rate of cooling by decompression but cools the surface a little below falling columns by reducing the rate of warming by compression as well so that both net out to zero overall.

      512

    • #

      One can but ask Roy to look again, perhaps at the synopsis. I emailed him to suggest he look at post 18, but he didn’t reply. Perhaps he only looked at that post.

      50

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Jo & David,
    At comment #8 I was asking if there might be a better way of writing.
    I did not mean to question the physics, although it seems others thought I needed it explained. I was questioning the wordsmithing.

    20

  • #
    pat

    have been posting some comments on “Unthreaded” including this one, but will post a shorter excerpt here as well:

    16 Nov: BBC: Roger Harrabin: Society ‘set for climate change woe’
    Human societies will soon start to experience adverse effects from manmade climate change, a prominent economist has warned.
    Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C – which has nearly been reached already.
    ***Prof Tol is regarded by many campaigners as a climate “sceptic”…
    (Changing Climate is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 20:00 on Monday, 16 November)
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34800829

    btw comments at Unthreaded are not posting in chronological order it seems. I’ve posted a couple about ABC’s faux religion prog sunday nites, with Robert Manne etc., but it is not at the end of the comments.

    11

  • #
  • #
    Ray Boorman

    David, I have a query about the following quote from the PDF.

    “6.2 When the WVEL Ascends
    Surface warming causes more evaporation (70% of the surface is ocean), and the greater volume
    of water vapor in the atmosphere is presumed to push up the WVEL. This causes the
    WVEL to cool and emit less OLR, so the other emitters must emit more than otherwise to
    compensate, including the surface.”

    My thinking is that since the WVEL rises to a higher altitude due to the greater volume of water vapour, then it will have a much larger surface area from which the OLR is emitted to space. Thus, the OLR from each square metre of the larger WVEL must be less than previously so that it still emits the same total quantity of OLR to space. The end result is no compensating increase in the OLR by the other emitters to compensate.

    Am I barking up the wrong tree here?

    00

    • #

      Ray, the radius of the Earth s 6,400 km. The WVEL would move by less than kilometer, maybe much less (in reality t has probably moved less than 50m).

      The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi r^3 / 3, so a sphere of radius 6401 km has a larger surface area than one of 6,400 km of just 0.05%. Wrong tree I’m afraid Ray.

      [Should be area, not volume. 0.03%. See Comment below. - DE]

      20

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        David Evans November 16, 2015 at 5:49 pm

        “Ray, the radius of the Earth s 6,400 km. The WVEL would move by less than kilometer, maybe much less (in reality t has probably moved less than 50m).”

        David,
        Ray has a valid geometrical question! It is not the slight increase in projected surface that is important for an atmosphere! The atmosphere simply is not a surface, another reason the S-B equation never applies! This atmosphere is a radiant volume containing many radiant structures such as clouds!
        A surface radiator is limited to an effective radiant solid angle of PI steradians into a 2 PI steradian hemisphere. An isotropic radiator (matte sphere) of given cross-sectional area from an altitude of 45,000 ft, provides an effective (measurable) radiant exitance to space of almost 5 steradians. We tried to get the puppy to do the proper 2 PI steradians of cold (low radiance space), no joy!! The thing refuses to emit laterally,in a direction of same temperature atmosphere at that altitude. The radiator was maintained at as slightly higher temperature than the surround as was a similar polished sphere with the same thermodynamic heat transfer as the “blackbody”,(tongue in cheek)! :-(
        This really does not affect your current series.
        Just a heads up that your CACAC folk are well aware of all this, but hide such, from all that question the scam!
        All the best! -will-

        13

        • #

          Exactly Will. Which is why I was careful in post 8 to only apply the SB equation to the Earth as seen from space as if it had a solid isothermal surface — to get the “radiating temperature”, a benchmark temperature (255 K).

          We often see people trying to literally trying to apply the SB equation to the Earth or the Earth’s surface, which is just nuts.

          11

          • #
            Rick Will

            Applying the S-B relationship to the earth’s surface is no nuttier than contemplating “greenhouse gasses” that warm the earth’s surface.

            Consider the possibility of the oceans being covered in an optical clear sludge that prevented evaporation – maybe some form of phytoplankton. What temperature would the oceans reach? How is that temperature calculated?

            00

  • #
    Richard111

    My hangup. Consider any small parcel of air. The molecules in that parcel will be battering each other at an average kinetic speed appropriate to the temperature of the parcel. The CO2 molecules are also being battered. They will be absorbing kinetic/translational energy and radiating energy away over the 13-17 micron bands. How can they absorb energy over those bands if they are already so warm that they are radiating over those bands??? If a CO2 molecule does absorb a photon of energy why must it be only from the surface???

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      CO2 gets the energy first.

      Along with water of course.

      Then CO2 and H2O bang into lots of N2 and O2 and equilibrate.

      KK

      20

    • #
      NeedleFactory

      Richard: You ask “How can [a CO2 molecule] absorb energy over [13-17 micron] bands if they are already so warm that they are radiating over those bands???”

      The temperature of anything is a measure of the average kinetic energy of its contained particles. Thus, as you imply, a parcel of air has a temperature; but a molecule does not have a temperature — rather, it has kinetic energy (also potential energy, see below). Thus your idea that a molecule is “already so warm” is, I think, the source of your question. Molecules may be “fast or slow”, but they cannot be “hot or cold or warm”.

      I think that the temperature of the air in which a CO2 molecule finds itself does not much effect the ability of the molecule to absorb or radiate energy (although the temperature of the air can effect the liklihood of the molecule to absorb energy).

      Roughly speaking, the ability of a molecule to radiate energy (emit a photon) depends on the potential energy and structure of the molecule’s electronic state. The electronic structure of a molecule is more complicated than that of an atom, but the principles are much the same. An electron in a “higher” (“outer”) shell has a tendency to “fall” to a “lower” (‘inner”) shell (unless the lower shell is already “complete”). The process of “falling” emits a photon.

      The point of all this is that the ability of a molecule to radiate energy depends on its internal state, not on its kinetic energy. In a gas at some given temperature, some molecules move at less than average speed and other molecules move at more than average speed. I think a molecule’s speed does not, at first approximation, effect its ability to absorb or emit photons. Of course, the higher the speed, the more kinetic energy it has available to impart to another molecule via collision.

      This is my understanding; I hope it helps.

      20

      • #

        “Roughly speaking, the ability of a molecule to radiate energy (emit a photon) depends on the potential energy and structure of the molecule’s electronic state.”

        Do you have any physical evidence of any molecule emitting a photon? Is this but more post modern academic Bovine excrement from folk that cannot locate own gluteal muscles with one or more upper appendages?

        “The electronic structure of a molecule is more complicated than that of an atom, but the principles are much the same. An electron in a “higher” (“outer”) shell has a tendency to “fall” to a “lower” (‘inner”) shell (unless the lower shell is already “complete”). The process of “falling” emits a photon.”

        You seem to imply that thermal radiant flux generation is some sort of coherent transition of states of a single molecule! Do you have any physical evidence of such ever repeatably being observed?

        “The point of all this is that the ability of a molecule to radiate energy depends on its internal state, not on its kinetic energy.”

        You seem to be intent on ruining any meaningful discussion of how an atmosphere may possibly work!
        You claim a gas molecule has no temperature! That is only from your inability to define chemical temperature! From the ideal gas law (an approximation) Each and every gas molecule has a thermal noise power (Watts equal to Boltzmann’s kT/t)! This is never sensible heat energy (some fantasy accumulation of power by mass over time),and has no need for conservation of anything. The instantaneous expression of atmospheric continuum!! — If you know the power associated with that molecule within the time interval of the current collision with else, the precise temperature of that molecule at that time is indeed known!

        “In a gas at some given temperature, some molecules move at less than average speed and other molecules move at more than average speed. I think a molecule’s speed does not, at first approximation, effect its ability to absorb or emit photons. Of course, the higher the speed, the more kinetic energy it has available to impart to another molecule via collision. This is my understanding; I hope it helps.”

        OK I can accept that in the vernacular Do you have any possible physical definition of what you may may mean by your use of the word ‘photon’?

        The point of all this is that each atmospheric molecule in this atmosphere in concert with all innumerable molecular neighbors, dispatch to space via EMR (somehow but unknown), all of the entropy generated by this world’s quite exciting weather!

        NeedleFactory,
        You express good retention of the writings in books written and created by arrogant academics, that have way less intelligence than you! Perhaps you will undertake some experience, that does not dispatch you to space as entropy (survival of your own mistooks). Here we need many more that with all dignity and personal integrity admit, beats the shit out of me! THE START OF LEARNING
        All the best!-will-

        06

  • #
    Jo Sivertsen

    Typo: The surface area of a sphere is 4pir^2, not 4/3pir^3. Doesn´t matter for your point though. The surface will only increase with 0.03%.

    Jo

    20

    • #

      Oops. Thanks Jo, you are quite right.

      30

      • #

        David Evans November 16, 2015 at 8:20 pm

        “Oops. Thanks Jo, you are quite right.”

        See! rate of mistooks is a measure of effort, integrity, and dignity all somehow combined. I often put the PI on the bottom rather than on the top. All my cohorts just giggle then seriously claim that I are up for the next round!!

        Joanne’s site needs a long post on how cohorts (only meaning ridicule) actually keep things from breaking; and many creachers, critters, and varmints alive, to observe the next OS always shaking head sideways, never up and down, while still alive!

        02

  • #
    ianl8888

    I’ve had time to read the synopsis now

    Useful enough for me, but of no use whatsoever to the general populace. Their eyes are glazed over after the first few pages. I don’t have any intention of suggesting my grown children read it, for example – they remain in their confusion of MSM disinformation contrasted with my gentle questioning of why they think the way they do

    I greatly appreciate the effort put in but I fear the audience is vanishingly small and inconsequential

    A startling prediction that actually measures out empirically is needed

    60

    • #
      David Cosserat

      Ian8888,

      You say: I greatly appreciate the effort put in but I fear the audience is vanishingly small and inconsequential. A startling prediction that actually measures out empirically is needed.

      The startling empirical prediction is obtained simply by plotting the long term trend of the HadCRUT world mean temperature data since 1850. The slope of the trend line is a mere 0.5degC per century. To any sane scientist, this demonstrates clearly that there is no cause for alarm whatsoever.

      The strange thing is that, despite that irrefutable fact, the world at large thinks there is a serious problem needing urgent fixing. It’s a perfect case of the “emperors new clothes”, methinks.

      00

    • #

      Ian, there are shorter descriptions going from tweets to the “Short and Sweet” on the webpage, to a one page media release, essays posted soon, to a 13 page Summary, 22 page Synopsis, and annotated links to 20 blog posts.

      See http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html.

      And see http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html for a prediction whic we will be explaining soon.

      00

  • #
    Lance Wallace

    Is your comment re Figure 8 correct?

    “The more reliable data only goes to 400 hPa, but above 500 hPa the trend is one of drying.”

    From the graph, the curves between 500 and 1000 hPa all seem to be moistening.

    Also, when you say the more reliable data “only goes to” 400 hPa, do you mean only goes DOWN to or only goes UP to 400 hPa. Must be the former, because the graph itself shows that the 300 hPA curve is considered unreliable.

    00

    • #

      Lance, the pressure drops as altitude increases. So “above 500 hPa” in this context means at 400 hPa, 300 hPa, 200 hPa, etc.

      Yes, the data for pressures less than 400 hPa is not reliable.

      00

  • #
    James Reid

    This may sound like a dumb question but maybe someone can answer (I imagine this is a fundamental question that has been asked and answered in the course of the climate science literature over the years however I have not read the literature);

    My understanding is that EM radiation is absorbed by matter on earth and in the atmosphere and when it is re-radiated it is generally at a lower frequency. For example visible light might be re-radiated as infra-red.

    My question is; How much re-radiation to space is composed of all the frequencies below IR (from 300Ghz down through the radio spectrum)and to what degree might this loss of energy to space contribute to the cooling of the earths atmosphere?

    This came to mind as I was reading David’s synopsis… a great read which I am encouraging others to read.
    It seems I am witnessing science in action!!

    Thank you David and Joanne.

    00

    • #

      “My question is; How much re-radiation to space is composed of all the frequencies below IR (from 300Ghz down through the radio spectrum)and to what degree might this loss of energy to space contribute to the cooling of the earths atmosphere?”

      For a 300K black surface max = 51 W/m²
      For a 200K black surface max = 24 W/m²
      For a 200K atmosphere with cloud structures 24-38 W/m² ;-)

      11

  • #

    [...] Science 19b: A Synopsis By Jo Nova and David Evans, Her blog, Nov 15, 2015http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/ne…Pre-Judging Paris By Bjorn Lomborg, visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School and [...]

    00

  • #
    Martin Mason

    Jo/David

    You’ve completely lost momentum now.

    00

  • #
    J T

    star comment
    David and Jo and all contributors to this model,

    Thank you for a great summary that clarifies things even further.

    You build your case on the omnipresence of the basic model in the climate science establishment. You point out two major flaws: no differentiation of responses between different “forcings”, and only feedbacks from surface warming. You claim that these problems are not addressed.

    So I checked AR5 – The Physical Science Basis (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/) as I think that’s the first place to look to get some idea what the climate science establishment really say about these things. I haven’t read every chapter thoroughly but just searched for statements that corroborate or refute your narrative.

    In IPPC’s AR5 Chapter 7 on Clouds and Aerosols they clearly acknowledge a differentiation between surface warming feedbacks (from CO2 or other forcings) and other feedback loops via “rapid adjustments” in the atmosphere on WV and clouds from CO2 radiation changes. This is clearly illustrated in fig 7.1 (p 577) and spelled out in e.g. 7.2.5 in AR5 (p 587, my bold):

    Moreover, it is now recognized that some of the cloud changes are induced directly by the atmospheric radiative effects of CO2 independently of surface warming, and are therefore rapid adjustments rather than feedbacks (Section 7.2.5.6).

    I’m not quite sure these “rapid adjustment” are equivalent to your driver specific mechanisms but clearly they know that feedbacks from surface warming isn’t the only thing going on. They don’t however seem to give these “rapid adjustments” much weight and they don’t seem to consider and evaluate anything resembling your suggested rerouting mechanism.
    They conclude in chapter 7 that both WV and clouds are ascending based on models and data. I don’t find any mentioning of a missing hotspot nor of any descending VW or clouds from observations but rather they somehow manage to conclude the opposite that models fairly well agree with observations on these matters.

    In section 10.3.1.1.3 Attribution of observed global-scale temperature changes where they provide the arguments that we are the main cause of GW I don’t find any reference to any basic model in the lengthy assessment. Only in the (in)famous conclusion they refer to basic physics (p 884, my bold):

    In conclusion, although some inconsistencies in the forced responses of individual models and observations have been identified, the detection of the global temperature response to GHG increases using average responses from multiple models is robust to observational uncertainty and methodological choices. It is supported by basic physical arguments. We conclude, consistent with Hegerl et al. (2007b), that more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations.

    It is however unclear exactly what they mean here by “basic physical arguments”.

    Further in box 12.2 on evidence on the CO2 sensitivity there is no reference to any basic model until the concluding remark on ECS (p1111):

    Based on the combined evidence from observed climate change including the observed 20th century warming, climate models, feedback analysis and paleoclimate, ECS is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C with high confidence. […]
    Even though this assessed range is similar to previous reports (Charney, 1979; IPCC, 2001), confidence today is much higher as a result of high quality and longer observational records with a clearer anthropogenic signal, better process understanding, more and better understood evidence from paleoclimate reconstructions, and better climate models with higher resolution that capture many more processes more realistically. Box 12.2 Figure 1 illustrates that all these lines of evidence individually support the assessed likely range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C.

    So they claim that the ECS of 1.5°C to 4.5°C mainly relies on other models and empirical evidence, which btw. confirm the basics by a brief reference to Charney. I don’t find any mentioning of calibrating/training/constraining of GCM or other models based on the basic model.

    Maybe you have references that more clearly support your claims but reading AR5 gives me a somewhat different story than what you present. They don’t mention any direct application or references to the basic model; only in a “by-the-way” sense a few times in a 1500+ pages report.

    The climate science establishment understands contrary to your claims that a CO2 conc. change causes direct atmospheric changes, “rapid adjustments”, that affect the surface temperature, i.e. not only via surface warming feedbacks, and such mechanisms are present in climate models. There is no discussion of these mechanisms in relation to any basic model though. However they conclude, somewhat obscurely in the fine print but clearly differently than you, that models and data fairly well matches observations and that these mechanisms makes little difference to the ECS.

    So it’s your word against theirs. If you are wrong then IPCC provides an apparently coherent picture that covers many of the issues you bring up. But, if your claims are accurate and your alternative model is right with the calculated low ECS close to the truth, and given the wording in AR5, I can only conclude that IPCC suffers from anything in the range from ignorant confirmation bias to pure corruption. It seems incredulous that everyone in the established climate science for decades have been unaware of the simplifications and of the basic model architecture and problems with its mismatch with observations. Maybe at least some AR5 authors are aware of the problems and are careful not seem to rely too heavily on it and they go to great lengths to provide other lines of evidence. And, apparently, not one a word of doubt of the basic model seem to have slipped into the AR5. It remains unchallenged as you claim. The basic model has for decades provided both a scientific and politically useful benchmark, a foundation for the whole AGW. Why try to cut down the branch you are sitting on?

    So, if you are right, in a sense it even worse than you describe it since IPCC is aware of at least some of the problems but sweep it under the carpet. If you can back up your claims of the omnipresence of the basic model, provide clear evidence that the GCMs and other models are indeed calibrated to it and that this invalidates any attempt to model other differentiated feedback mechanisms than via ΔTS, and clearly point out where IPCC cherry-picks and draws the wrong conclusions from data, you have a very strong case to debunk the whole AGW.

    All the best!

    10

    • #

      JT: Good comment and well researched! I’ll split the reply into several parts, but this comment applies to all the replies.

      In this series we have been analyzing basic models — the conventional and the alternative. I have mentioned the GCMs in passing, but have not analyzed them. The situation is clear and simple for the conventional basic climate model (CBCM) — it is well-defined and small. OTOH, the GCMs are a collection of moderately diverse, fairly opaque computer models, so generalizing about them is difficult. So let’s deal with the CBCM first. I intend to deal with the GCMs in later blog posts (not in this series).

      That said, the GCMs are tailored to give roughly the same sensitivity to CO2 as the CBCM. The GCMs are bottom up models that try to produce observable macro trends by modelling masses of minor details. A lot of details are not known exactly, so some scaling and tweaking has gone on. The tailoring is indirect, as follows:

      1. The CBCM estimates the ECS as ~2.5 °C. But this is an overestimate: fixing the faulty architecture shows that the ECS is less than 0.5 °C.

      2. An ECS of ~2.5 °C roughly accounts for observed warming since 1910. To believers in the CBCM, this implies that increasing CO2 alone can explain 20th century warming. (Ignore similar prior warmings and coolings.)

      3. So the GCMs use increasing CO2 as the dominant driver to reproduce 20th century warming. GCMs that do not succeed in this task are not published (see p.32 here).

      In these replies I’ll discuss GCMs.

      You say: AR5 is “the first place to look to get some idea what the climate science establishment really say about these things”. True, but I’d add “currently” — it’s pretty important.

      Since the Charney Report of 1979 (I think of it as AR0, because it is authoritative and ushered in the current period of concern over CO2) there has been an awful lot of scientific capital and effort spent (and awesome political capital spent as well). As it happens, the ECS range in the Charney Report from its application of the CBCM is almost identical to the range in AR5. So what progress has been made for all that effort? The authors of AR5, who are well paid as part of that scientific effort, might be a touch sensitive about this, and not stress that it could have all been done with the CBCM on the back of envelope 34 years earlier.

      In fairness to AR5, if the “basic physics” was applied correctly in the CBCM, they could have expected to see some real progress by now, a narrowing of the range of the ECS, some better collaborative evidence. Instead it is all turning to mush; they must be getting a tad frustrated. Just don’t expect them to go touting the CBCM in AR5 (or earlier Assessment Reports).

      10

      • #

        David Evans December 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm

        “JT: Good comment and well researched! I’ll split the reply into several parts, but this comment applies to all the replies.”

        “In this series we have been analyzing basic models — the conventional and the alternative. I have mentioned the GCMs in passing, but have not analyzed them. The situation is clear and simple for the conventional basic climate model (CBCM) — it is well-defined and small.”

        David,
        Here is where you are are obviously correct and why you are being attacked! Your “The situation is clear and simple for the conventional basic climate model (CBCM) — it is well-defined and small.”, needs even better definition to truly demonstrate how this concept has nothing at all to do with how this planet and its atmosphere operate. It is nothing but political fantasy!
        Only then can you demonstrate that this same ‘political fantasy’ (with no science at all), underlies each and every GCM ever attempted!!
        I truly admire your dedication to your personal integrity. Do not let my picking of nits get in your way.
        All the best! -will-

        11

    • #

      JT: Yes, GCMs are increasingly turning to driver-specific feedbacks, though due to their architectural heritage they have a long way to go.

      Climate science is tangled in a linguistic swamp of its own creation because they misused the word “feedback” to mean only a response to surface warming for ages (presumably because they so believed the basic model was the literal truth). I use it in the wider sense in which it is used by the rest of the world (engineering has far more experience with feedbacks), as something that feeds back to affect what caused it. Part of the labored text in chapter 7 of AR5 is just trying to pull themselves out of their swamp, trying to define terms without invalidating previous literature by changing their meaning of “feedback”.

      In addition to your quote, consider from p. 576 of AR5:

      In this report, following an emerging consensus in the literature, the traditional concept of radiative forcing (RF, defined as the instantaneous radiative forcing with stratospheric adjustment only) is de-emphasized in favour of an absolute measure of the radiative effects of all responses triggered by the forcing agent that are independent of surface temperature change (see also Section 8.1). This new measure of the forcing includes rapid adjustments and the net forcing with these adjustments included is termed the effective radiative forcing (ERF).

      The ERF is the forcing after the driver-specific feedbacks are applied, as per Fig.1 of post 5. That this is so is confirmed on p. 577:

      This framework brings most efficacies close to unity although they are not necessarily exactly 1.

      The “efficacy” of a driver is how close its sensitivity (in degrees C of surface warming per W/m2 of forcing) is to the solar response (to the sensitivity of increased absorbed sunlight or ASR). In the CBCM, all efficacies are one — which is why all drivers are interchangeable.

      For example, rerouting is a feedback to CO2 forcing but not to surface warming. Most of the heat blocked by increasing CO2 is simply rerouted to space from the WVEL and cloud tops, without affecting the surface, so the ERF of increasing CO2 (less than 0.8 W/m2) is much lower than its RF (radiative forcing, or 3.7 W/m2 per doubling).

      The GCMs could be retrofitted with driver-specific feedbacks and it would go a long way to fixing them. If a rerouting feedback was installed in a GCM (perhaps by fixing the meteorological response to upper tropospheric heating), and the non-ascending WVEL and cloud tops taken into account (essentially in parallel to post 18), it would emerge that the ERF of a CO2 doubling was around 0.8 W/m2 or less. But then increasing CO2 would not account for 20th century warming — only 20% or less of it — so another driver is needed to explain it! Major problems for GCMs — they don’t include a driver for externally-driven albedo (EDA) that caused it (post 10), and the remit of the IPCC and the general politics make it difficult. See solar part of this blog series, ongoing.

      Yes, “rapid adjustments” are some of the driver-specific feedbacks. There could be others that are not rapid.

      10

      • #

        David Evans December 2, 2015 at 4:56 pm

        “Yes, “rapid adjustments” are some of the driverpressure -specific feedbacks. There could be others that are not rapid.”

        Try ‘not a feedback, nor ‘forcing”. The semi-rapid columnar maintenance of atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature lapse, by gravity, at near the speed of sound, is obvious and measurable! Such “is” is never considered by academic meteorologists, or other supporters of the CCC!

        02

        • #
          Rollo

          Hi Will, can you please explain, in terms that a physics challenged person can understand, what you mean by the following?

          The semi-rapid columnar maintenance of atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature lapse, by gravity, at near the speed of sound, is obvious and measurable!

          00

    • #

      JT: You say:

      They conclude in chapter 7 that both WV and clouds are ascending based on models and data. I don’t find any mentioning of a missing hotspot nor of any descending VW or clouds from observations but rather they somehow manage to conclude the opposite that models fairly well agree with observations on these matters.

      They have to. After all, everyone knows the WVEL and cloud tops are ascending — its just basic physics. And it is — in response to a surface warming. Trouble is, their application of “basic physics”, the CBCM, applies this solar response (or response to surface warming) to all climate drivers. But increasing CO2 heats the upper troposphere, not the surface.

      The resolution to this problem is the alternative architecture, where a specifically Co2 response pushes the WVEL and cloud tops down (the rerouting feedback does it), countering the surface warming that pushes them up — see post 17. Fits the observations, as well as the theory.

      However, in their theory, if the WVEL and cloud tops aren’t rising then their theory is wrong. No way can they explain 20t century warming without the water vapor amplification that causes the WVEL and cloud tops to ascend.

      From p. 587 of AR5:

      In summary, there is increased evidence for a strong, positive feedback (measured in the traditional
      framework) from the combination of water vapour and lapse rate changes since AR4, with no reliable contradictory evidence.

      “Reliable”. Ha, that’s gloriously tautological. Any evidence that contradicts the basic physics (i.e. the CBCM) is by definition “unreliable”.

      From p. 587 of AR5:

      Progress has been made since the AR4 in understanding the reasons for positive feedbacks in models and providing a stronger theoretical and observational basis for some mechanisms contributing to them.

      This implies they numerically tweaked the models to get the result in line with the basic model, that the 20th century warming was all due to CO2, and later came back to figure out what the tweaking meant. Hilarious.

      00

      • #

        David Evans December 2, 2015 at 5:13 pm

        “But increasing CO2 heats the upper troposphere, not the surface.”

        Why such a ridiculous claim? Does increasing atmospheric CO2 increase either the sensible heat or the temperature of the ‘upper troposphere’? Where is any evidence of such fantasy?

        20

    • #

      JT: Well done on finding any reference to the conventional basic climate model in AR5! Normally that is so buried, because it is not in line with the narrative of “amazingly complex climate science” etc. The conventional basic climate model (CBCM) was used in the Charney Report (1979), and its use there gives an almost identical ECS range to AR5. What progress! They are hardly going to advertise that they have made no essential progress over a paper and pencil model (with three lines of working) and “basic physics”, with all that effort and resources spent!

      I have found that when the words “basic” and “physics” come together in a context about how much warming there will be due to increased CO2, and they can be traced back, they always mean the conventional basic climate model. Yes, I reckon that’s what they mean in your quote (AR5,p. 884).

      See the first reply on how the GCMs are tailored to the CBCM and why AR5′s authors might be too eager to mention the CBCM explicitly.

      The CBCM underlies all of climate science, and it can be constructed just from what “everyone knows”, almost implicit. It is explicit in various papers, textbooks, etc. AR5 explicitly gives all its parameters used in the CBCM.

      10

    • #

      JT: You say: “The climate science establishment understands contrary to your claims that a CO2 conc. change causes direct atmospheric changes, “rapid adjustments”, that affect the surface temperature, i.e. not only via surface warming feedbacks, and such mechanisms are present in climate models.”

      No, I never claimed that. I claimed that the CBCM omits driver-specific feedbacks (see post 5). I have already mentioned several times in comments that GCMs allow minor driver-specific feedbacks, and we have mentioned efficacies in comments. Note again that this series of blog posts is about basic models, not GCMs

      You say: “There is no discussion of these mechanisms in relation to any basic model though.” Actually there is, implicitly — all the parameter values in the CBCM are given in AR5 (see post 2 and post 3).

      You say: “However they conclude, somewhat obscurely in the fine print but clearly differently than you, that models and data fairly well matches observations and that these mechanisms makes little difference to the ECS.” Exactly, illustrating yet again the centrality of the missing hotspot to the cliamte debate. I presented the evidence in post 17. I reckon it’s pretty conclusive; they say it is “unreliable” — because it contradicts basic physics, and everyone knows basic physics cannot be wrong (and actually it isn’t wrong in this case, it was just their 1896 application of it that was wrong).

      10

    • #

      JT: You say: “So it’s your word against theirs.”. Nonsense. There are scads of references to the CBCM in the climate literature, starting with the leading textbook. Ask anyone in climate science, they all know it perfectly well, it’s baby stuff, taught in introductory climate science. Once you know to look for it, you will often come across references to it. As for the tailoring that went on, its perfectly obvious once you know that the CBCM is their unshakable touchstone of truth. I’ll leave it to others to forensically go through the paper trail over the decades, but once you are aware of it JT you will see a lot of clues around.

      “ignorant confirmation bias to pure corruption”. Well I didn’t say that, but it is pretty clear that it is true. I think the nicest way to say it is that the CBCM is based on a poor assumption (treat CO2 forcing like extra absorbed sunlight) because there wasn’t enough data to estimate the CO2 sensitivity otherwise in 1896, and that the CBCM became so much part of the fabric of climate science in the century since that the climate scientists cannot really see it anymore, like a fish might not be aware of water. Perhaps it takes outsiders with fresh eyes to spot it.

      You say: ” It seems incredulous that everyone in the established climate science for decades have been unaware of the simplifications and of the basic model architecture and problems with its mismatch with observations.” Well that’s the point. Many commentators have pointed to the corruption on the mismatch of model predictions and observations since 1995. Skeptics are skeptics because they follow the empirical evidence and ignore the CBCM. But if you do a PhD in climate science you have the CBCM drilled into you and accepted by everyone around you for 8+ years.

      You say: “Maybe at least some AR5 authors are aware of the problems and are careful not seem to rely too heavily on it and they go to great lengths to provide other lines of evidence.” Yes, and increasing use of driver-specific feedbacks is a hopeful sign.

      You say: “And, apparently, not one a word of doubt of the basic model seem to have slipped into the AR5.” It’s just an estimate of ECS; the GCMs are the serious game here. Thing is, they believe because of the CBCM; who would believe some huge opaque computer model?

      You say: “…IPCC is aware of at least some of the problems but sweep it under the carpet”. The pause is bringing out lots of excuses and the establishment guys are doubting. If the pause turns out to be a “plateau” (as predicted by the notch-delay solar theory), the carpet won’t be big enough. The political paymasters might want answers — ones that don’t make them look too stupid.

      The whole scientific movement is based on the CBCM, which in turn is based on a poor assumption made in 1896 and not re-examined. There is enormous buy-in from the political establishment. The fate of the planet is not at stake, but scientifically and politically it doesn’t get much larger. An awful lot of people do not want to hear the message of this blog series.

      Yes thanks JT, this blog series does indeed have the potential to “debunk the whole of AGW”. Tell people about it, please.

      20

      • #

        David Evans December 2, 2015 at 6:07 pm

        “Yes thanks JT, this blog series does indeed have the potential to “debunk the whole AGW”. Tell people about it, please.”

        Indeed! AGW was never ‘bunked’ in the first place!
        AGW is very very profitable for some! Ignore the Greenies. Beware those whose profit you decrease!
        All the best! -will-

        11

  • #
    J T

    Thank you for taking your time to answer so thoroughly. I really appreciate it.

    I’m confident that you have solid arguments for your claims and I understand it’s a matter of choice on how much details to present in a blog series. I’m just playing a bit of devil’s advocate to explain how your presentation comes across and if possible help out in pointing out what are possible weak spots.

    It is truly a tragedy how so much resources have been spent on climate science without much progress and how it’s hijacked by political agendas. I’d hate to see strawman attacks on you that would stall the potential impact it has on the science and eventually on general understanding of the masses.

    For the masses convinced of AGW, ignorant scientists, politicians, parents and individuals demonstrating in the streets, they “know” there aren’t any serious scientist questioning the CAGW-meme so you must just be one of the very few renegade scientists who has lost touch with reality. Their worldview tells them you are either insane, corrupt or both and you cannot possibly be right. They won’t pay attention to you and will consider you neutralised even with the slightest argument against you. For all they know the IPCC is getting more and more confident of the dangers of CO2 emissions. They “know” there is no debate and are not aware of or interested in hearing any details of linguistic swamps in the science. They cannot fathom that IPCC could have fooled the world including themselves for decades.

    I’m no climate scientist, and I don’t know exactly where to look for evidence that
    “the GCMs are tailored to give roughly the same sensitivity to CO2 as the CBCM” or
    “The basic model is ubiquitous in climate science, embedded in the conversation. Its ideas underlie all of establishment climate science; it’s the basic mental model, so pervasive that one might over-look it because it is everywhere”.
    You say there is bucketloads of such evidence and not hard to find. Maybe with your level of knowledge you see the link implicitly everywhere. But to easily counter this argument it would be nice with a few quotes making this link explicitly clear. It would sharpen the message to the masses as your whole narrative stands on this fact.

    I didn’t find it in AR5 which is as far as most non-climate scientists would go and believe they have done a sufficient research on the issue. Rather I found that it looks like the opposite that the CBCM isn’t used at all. Journalists, NGOs, political advisors, non-climate scientists will continue to refer to IPCC as the best assessment and summary of knowledge on climate science. They won’t be reading AR5 with your glasses e.g. translating “unreliable” to “contradicting CBCM” but rather conclude that if there is no link in IPCCs reports the link isn’t there, period. This is a strawman, clearly, but it will stall any serious acceptance of your model and impact of it on political action.

    As I really see it your true weak-spot is the lack of good data that prove your point that the whole AGW science is built on a large overestimation of ECS. Yes, the few data that exists to date do prove your point but it has problems of short timeframes etc. The data are so bad that with a portion of creativity IPCC manages to use some of the same data as you but come to quite different conclusions of what has been observed.

    Regarding feedback specific mechanisms I admit I hadn’t read all comments and your answers. But to anyone only reading the blog posts and maybe only the summary and comparing that with IPCC it may be perceived as IPCC does indeed consider such mechanisms and (again due to lack of references) are not at all depending on the CBCM.

    So this is why I wrote “It’s your word against theirs”. This is how it could come across to those not familiar with climate modelling and in particular to the masses who thinks by common sense anyone questioning the consensus is an idiot and would only be interested in finding problems in your narrative.

    To me, since long a CAGW sceptic, you bring very convincing arguments and I’ve only pointed out the issues I found. When I spread the word about your model I want to be armed with clear arguments towards any such doubts. You bring extraordinary claims which requires extraordinary evidence.

    Again I’m truly grateful for all your work I look forward to upcoming revelations.

    10

    • #
      J T

      This was meant as a reply to David’s comment #31.6 above.

      00

    • #
      Rick Will

      JT
      The most influential meteorologist in the development of GCMs is Syukuro Manaba. His work spans 5 decades. You will find a documented interview with him here:

      He made the following statement in that interview:
      “SM: One of the most challenging tasks of climate science is to determine the sensitivity of climate. It is often defined as the response of the global mean surface temperature to the doubling of atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, given sufficient time. Unfortunately, there is a large spread among the sensitivity of climate models. The spread is attributable in no small part to the parameterisation of cloud process that has become increasingly detailed, introducing many parameters that are difficult to determine either theoretically or observationally. In order to solve this problem, it is desirable to constrain the parameterisation of cloud macroscopically, using satellite observation of the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere. I have been working on this problem.”

      This link, to his paper on his recent work, is provided in the text:
      http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568.abstract
      If you read the paper you will see how the various GCMs vary with respect to measured data on this important aspect.

      There are countless papers written on parameter tuning for GCMs. Here is an example:
      http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/3579/2015/gmd-8-3579-2015.html
      The more parameters in a model the easier it is to fit to an historical record. However fitting the historical record is of no value with regard to prediction if the basic relationships do not cover all key factors.

      00

    • #

      J T: Suppose the CBCM is a myth, doesn’t exist, and somehow computerized GCMs are all there is and all there ever was, and that scientists and the world believe in the danger of CO2 only because of simulations by million line programs that no one fully understands. And we only study AR5.

      From looking at AR5 we find:
      – In the glossary, that “feedbacks” are only in response to surface warming. They are estimated in ch9 to increase the radiation imbalance by 1.7 W/m2 per degC of surface warming.
      – We find that the radiation imbalance (forcing) produced by increasing CO2 is 3.7 W/m2 per doubling.
      – We find that the “Planck feedback” is 3.2 W/m2 per degC, but sadly it is not defined in AR5. A literature search soon shows from any number of papers that the Planck feedback is the increase in OLR per degC of surface warming when all other factors are held constant — i.e. how much warming in increase in OLR and thus ASR (absorbed sunlight) causes, i.e. how much resolving a radiation imbalance warms the surface (bringing back into balance, where ASR equals OLR).

      Increasing ASR also causes a radiation imbalance. From this and the above we deduce that all radiation imbalances heat the planet, amplified by feedbacks. So we can figure simply how much increasing CO2 heats the surface.

      Therefore there exists a rough approximation to the GCMs (for the purpose of estimating the ECS), which we shall call the CBCM, as per fig. 2 of post 3. It estimates the ECS about the same as the suite of GCMs, as per Eq. (18) of that post.

      Now we find that said CBCM has faulty architecture (omits feedbacks other than to surface warming, treats all radiation imbalances as interchangeable), and that when these problems are fixed (the alternative BCM) and the data fitted to evaluate the effect of the CO2-specific feedback, the ECS turns out to be an order of magnitude less than as estimated by the CBCM. So we have a simple method of estimating the ECS, and it is much lower than using the faulty method implied by AR5.

      That alone tells us that the official ECS is wrong. If the official models are equivalent to a simple calculation implied by AR5 (the CBCM), which greatly overestimates the ECS, then the ECS is wrong.

      So, the historical importance of the CBCM is not required to prove the case, nor is the assertion that the majority of scientific believers believe because of the CBCM.

      The critical data, of course, is whether the WVEL and cloud tops have been ascending or descending. I know the warmists hide the data, change the topic, and try to baffle people with bodgy satellite data that is neither suitable nor shows the existence of the hotspot, but the evidence is pretty clear: see post 17.

      Yes, there is no getting away from the centrality of the hotspot data. If the WVEL and cloud tips were ascending quickly in response to increased CO2, in line with all current conventional climate models, then CO2 would be driving global warming, it would be a danger, and I’d be an alarmist. But it’s not.

      If there really was any evidence that rising CO2 caused the global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it? Instead the public has heard a deafening silence about the missing hotspot. The public don’t even know there should be a hotspot, or that it is crucial and central to the alarm—-whereas if it was present, everyone would be told every glorious detail, as the story is no more complex than the draw at Wimbledon.

      It’s not my word against theirs; it’s the data on the WVEL and cloud tops versus their models.

      30

  • #

    “It’s not my word against theirs; it’s the data on the WVEL and cloud tops versus their models.”

    Quite so.

    Any attempt to counter the new architecture must first find another means whereby the observational data can be accounted for.

    Established climatology has manifestly failed.

    02