BIG NEWS Part V: Escaping heat. The Three pipes theory and the RATS multiplier

David Evans has analyzed the black box system that is effectively  “Sunlight In, Temperature Out”, and found a notch, a delay, and a low pass filter. The problem then is to work out their order and to fill in any other bits needed by the model. This post then, doesn’t have big blockbuster moments (sorry), but these points need to be said.

Energy leaves Earth through a range of electromagnetic frequencies, but the bulk of them can be grouped into three main “pipes”. Radiation either comes directly off the land, oceans, ice and what-not on the ground, or it leaves via the atmosphere. Up in the air, carbon dioxide and water molecules do most of the work sending emissions of infra red to outer space.  In the atmosphere, the radiating “surface” is a virtual concept and is effectively at different heights for different greenhouse gases. This is all non-controversial stuff, but a little difficult to see in your head. The three pipes are from the ground, from CO2 and from H2O.

There are three main “pipes”  for heat to escape from Earth. A “pipe” is a group of electromagnetic frequencies which are radiated directly to space from the same emissions layer.

The next problem is that people have measured surface temperature (which is fair enough), and this is what the solar model is aiming to model. But it’s not the same temperature as the temperature of the complex “surface” that is radiating to space. The two layers are tied together in a sense. If the ground surface warms, the radiating surface will warm but not by quite as much. That means any model needs to understand the relationship between changes in the temperature of the radiating layers and the temperature on the ground (and on the seven seas). I’m sorry for anyone looking for a dog-fight here, but the multiplier in the Solar Model is boringly almost the same as the standard one used by mainstream climate scientists. We call it the RATS multiplier (Radiative Amplification To Surface) and its value is about 2.

Basically if it warms by 1 degree on the surface the RATS multiplier tells us it has warmed by about 0.5 degrees on the radiating “surface”. There were times when we thought it would be different, but it did indeed end up being about the same as the mainstream estimates.  This is non-controversial stuff, but it’s important, and we’ll be referring back to the RATS multiplier and more importantly to the Three Pipes.   – Jo

——————————————————————–

Modeling the Atmosphere

This post is the second of the three posts in which we build the solar model. We already assembled a notch filter, a delay filter, and a low pass filter in cascade in part III, and in part IV we took a diversion to physically interpret the notch and the delay.

The  output of the low pass filter is the record of  changes in the effective temperature at which the Earth radiates to space, the “radiating temperature”. We then consider how the model will compute the changes in surface temperature from the changes in radiating temperature. It turns out to require just a very simple model of the atmosphere.

Three Pipes

The output of the low pass filter is the temperature of the surface of the Earth that radiates directly to space. This “radiating surface” is a virtual surface, consisting of different physical surfaces at different electromagnetic frequencies of radiation.

At the electromagnetic frequencies that are absorbed and emitted by carbon dioxide, the surface of the Earth is at the “one optical depth” of the carbon dioxide, where an observer from space is looking through sufficient carbon dioxide that they cannot “see” below that layer, on average. The carbon dioxide emissions layer is about 8 km up in the atmosphere at the tropics. It is effectively where all emissions from Earth direct to space at the carbon dioxide frequencies occur, because, on average, emissions below this layer are absorbed by the carbon dioxide (space cannot see those emitting carbon dioxide molecules, so they cannot see space).

The electromagnetic frequencies of the “atmospheric window” are those that pass through the atmosphere unimpeded. At these frequencies, emissions direct to space come from the surface of the Earth.

At the emissions and absorption frequencies of water vapor (which is the main greenhouse gas), the emissions layer is on average about 10 km up in the atmosphere at the tropics.

There are also other emissions layers for other greenhouse gases, but in this simple analysis we’ll ignore them because their effect is small.

Nearly all the heat lost by Earth goes through one of these three “pipes” to space, a “pipe” being a group of electromagnetic frequencies with the same emissions layer. The amount of energy flowing to space through each pipe increases with the temperature of its emission layer.

The “radiating temperature” of the Earth is the effective temperature of the radiating surface, and is simply the temperature as computed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the emissions given off by the Earth. The temperature changes of the radiating surface are some sort of weighted  average of the temperatures changes of the main three emissions layers.

Figure 1: The “radiating surface” is the virtual surface that radiates directly to space. It consists of different physical layers at different electromagnetic frequencies. The climate system is like a vessel containing heat, with three pipes through which heat can escape to space. Not to scale.

The RATS (Radiative Amplification To Surface) Multiplier

The low pass filter computes the changes in the radiating temperature, that is, the temperature changes that determine how much heat is radiated to space. But the output of the solar model is not this temperature, but the temperature at the surface. So how can the model compute the changes in surface temperature from the changes in radiating temperature?

Changes in the temperature of the radiating surface are basically transmitted down through the atmosphere to the surface. At the frequencies of the atmospheric window the radiating surface is also the surface of the Earth so no transmission is required, but at the carbon dioxide and water vapor frequencies the transmission is literally down through the atmosphere.

As it happens, the solar radiation datasets we are using are all deseasonalized—because they measure the solar radiation at a constant distance from the Sun (of 1 AU, the average distance of the Earth from the Sun). Because our solar model is going to be driven by these datasets, it is oblivious to anything on a time scale of less than a year, such as seasons. The atmosphere acts and reacts relatively quickly—usually within days, always within weeks. So from the point of view of our solar model, the atmosphere acts instantly and therefore it can be modeled simply as a multiplier. So on the one hand our model is limited to timescales of a year or more, but on the other it sidesteps most of the complexity in the atmosphere.

The output of the low pass filter is a record of changes in the temperature of the radiating surface, which is around 255 K. The output of the solar model is a record of changes in the temperature at the surface of the Earth, which is around 288 K. The RATS (Radiative Amplification To Surface) multiplier connects them: the changes in (surface) temperature are equal to the changes in radiating temperature multiplied by the RATS multiplier, on the timescales of our model.

Later, fitting the notch-delay solar model to measured temperatures finds the RATS multiplier is most likely 2.1 (but definitely between 1 and 5). Mainstream climate science reckons the value is about two, so there is agreement there.

(The name “RATS” is coined here. The mainstream value is their value of the feedbacks for the sensitivity of climate to any exogenous forcings (note that this is after a Stefan-Boltzmann conversion from forcing to temperature, and that the value of the low pass filter for the long term (that is, at very low frequencies) is the value given by the Stefan Boltzmann equation). However the RATS multiplier does not apply to any reduction in outgoing heat in the CO2 pipe due to an increase in the CO2 concentration. We shall explain this in detail in a later post, but for now we are just focusing on building the solar model.)

In the next post we will finish off building the “notch-delay solar model”, as this solar model is called. [And then the fun will really begin says Jo]

8.7 out of 10 based on 85 ratings

212 comments to BIG NEWS Part V: Escaping heat. The Three pipes theory and the RATS multiplier

• #

Is it necessary to distinguish between the carbon dioxide and water vapour absorption frequencies ?

There are lots of other absorption frequencies such as from aerosols and many other GHGs. Even Oxygen and Nitrogen have some absoption frequencies albeit minimal.

Would it not be better to just take the absorption capability of the atmosphere as a whole ?

That leaves two pipes:

i) Radiation from the surface direct to space and

ii) Radiation from within the atmosphere to space.

My proposition elsewhere is that for radiative balance with space to be stable then any increase or decrease in one must be offset by an equal and opposite increase or decrease in the other.

Pursuant to that I have suggested that the rate or scale of convective overturning changes in order to effect the necessary adjustment.

The simplest description referring to GHGs is as follows:

i) More GHGs send more radiation out to space from within the atmosphere.

ii) That energy leakage to space weakens the descent phase of convective overturning which then returns less GPE to the surface as KE and potentially the surface cools but

iii) DWIR from the extra GHGs compensates for the weakening of convective overturning and leaves surface temperature as before.

Or, in reverse:

i) Less GHGs send less radiation out to space from within the atmosphere.

ii) That reduced energy leakage to space strengthens the descent phase of convective overturning which then returns more GPE to the surface as KE and potentially the surface warms but

iii) Reduced DWIR from less GHGs compensates for the strengthening of convective overturning and leaves the surface temperature as before.

AGW theory misses out the non radiative thermal effect of the descent phase of convective overturning and thus breaches the Laws of Conservation of Energy.

Applying the principle to solar variations rather than GHGs such variations in causing cloudiness changes mimic a change in TOA insolation and so can cause a rise in system temperature by altering the proportion of TOA insolation that is reflected.

GHGs cannot do that because they do not significantly affect reflectivity.

So, one can have warming from solar changes which alter overall albedo once the additional energy has filtered through the oceans (10 years or so) but you cannot have warming from GHGs because they do not significantly affect albedo.

In so far as GHGs do cause a minute change in overall reflectivity they just alter the air circulation to a miniscule extent which is imperceptible compared to the air circulation changes from solar and oceanic variability.

Basically, radiative capability within an atmosphere has little or no net thermal effect due to changes in convective overturning.

Solar induced albedo changes do have a net thermal effect (after an 11 year lag) because they significantly affect the proportion of TOA insolation that enters the system.

Within a single solar cycle only ENSO is affected hence the 3 year link because for that period most of the extra energy is locked in the oceans as a result of thermal inertia.

Beyond a single solar 11 year cycle when most of the energy starts to be released from the oceans there is an effect via the much larger Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation and the oscillations in all the other ocean basins as the solar changes cumulatively shift the balance between the El Nino and La Nina components of ENSO.

• #

“GHGs cannot do that because they do not significantly affect reflectivity.”
At the narrow bandwidth in which they do have an effect the effect may be counter productive. If cO2 effectively radiates outward from 8Km up then the radiating diameter of the sphere is larger. The W per M^2 is from a larger M^2.

• #
Philip Mulholland

Stephen.

This is where the work of Ferenc M. Miskolczi fits into the story:-

Since the world oceans are virtually unlimited sources and sinks of the
atmospheric water vapor (optical depth), the system – depending on the time
constant of the different energy reservoirs – has many ways to restore the
equilibrium situation and maintain the steady state global climate. For
example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O, then the
general circulation has to re-adjust itself to maintain the meridional energy
flow with less water vapor available. This could increase the global average
rain rate and speed up the global water cycle resulting in a more dynamical
climate, but still the energy balance equations do not allow the average surface
temperature to rise. The general circulation can not change the global radiative
balance although, changes in the meridional heat transfer may result in local or
zonal warming or cooling which again leads to a more dynamical climate.
Note that there are accumulating evidence of long term negative surface
pressure trends all over the southern hemisphere, (Hines et al., 2000), which
may be an indication of decreasing water vapor amount in the atmosphere.

• #

Yes Philip.

I’ve commented in another post below that if radiative energy leaks to space from within the atmosphere rather than all the energy in the atmosphere having to be returned to the surface first (a non GHG atmosphere) in the descent phase of convection then there will a reduction in the power of the descending phase of convective overturning.

That reduction in convective overturning will also lift less water vapour into the air in the next convective cycle and so I think the Miskolczi observation could be explained by that mechanism.

Miskolczi refers to a more dynamical climate with more GHGs but I part company with him there.

A more radiative atmosphere gives a less dynamical climate system due to the leakage of energy to space from a point above the surface.

If ALL the energy held in the atmosphere has to be returned to the surface first before it can be radiated to space then the atmosphere has to work harder to get more sensible energy back to the surface and so will be more dynamical with less GHGs.

• #

the bulk of them can be grouped into three main “pipes”.

The amount of energy although possibly much smaller that leaves the planet via other pipes would if known sharpen this model. Two more pipes would be the terrestrial gamma ray flashes and variations in the earths magnetic tail.

TGFs produce some of the largest amplitude VLF-LF radio pulses from thunderstorms

That stream of wind strengthens the magnetic field until it can’t store any more energy, at which point it releases the energy in a violent burst, like a short-circuit,

http://www.space.com/22951-northern-lights-space-earth-magnetic-field.html

We are suggesting the presence of a relatively strong electric field around the moon when it is inside the Earth’s magnetosphere, but the origin of this electric field remains a mystery

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2010/11/101118-science-space-full-moon-electric-charge/

• #
Mark

From what I understand of this…how do you differentiate emission wavelength separating co2 and H2O? H2O swamps out in mostly the same band of wavelengths. I know from previous comments Dr Rvans says two thirds to one third effectiveness. Considering how much extra vapour is any parcel of air. This always suggests to me that CO2 weight for weight is more of a GHG than vapour…which is wrong!

• #
Mark

Further to last post. continuing with my thought process. If H2O is a level at 10km, effectively 35000ft which is most of the weather and cloud tops. Is this saying that a satellite looking for these wavelengths will not see past the cloud tops?

• #
David Evans

Mark:

The humid part of the atmosphere goes up to about 10 km or more in the tropics, and less elsewhere. This is the part of the atmosphere with “weather” due to overturning, moist hot air rising, cool dry air falling, etc. Aircraft cruise usually just above the humid part of the atmosphere to avoid this turbulence (and cruise at mach 0.0 or 0.95 to avoid the energy expense and noise of exceeding the speed of sound — which is why they usually all cruise at 30,000+ feet at 900+ km/hr). Yes, satellites cannot see below the top of the humid part of the atmosphere on the water vapor frequencies. (There are dry areas, like over the Sahara desert, however.)

Yes, there is a fair bit of overlap between the H2O and CO2 frequencies. Makes it messy, but it doesn’t matter for the argument above and what will follow using the three pipes.

• #
the Griss

“and cruise at mach 0.0 ”

lol ! 🙂

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

They have to stop at some time, if only to let Griss’s get off 🙂

I think David meant mach 0.9.

• #
the Griss

I’m sure he did too.. but it was a funny typo, for those who bother reading and thinking 🙂

• #
the Griss

Reminds me of a guy I once sat near a guy who was feeling very air-sick, (and I suspect a tad inebriated)who asked if he could get off..

The (rather gorgeous) stewardess said.. “sorry, this is a no stopping zone”

• #
the Griss

Ignore my typos and wording……… a tad inebriated…

Signing off for now, is good idea, methinks !! 🙂

• #
PhilJourdan

@The Griss – she should have offered him a “wing” seat. 😉

• #

David,

I wonder whether you separate the CO2 and H2O pipes in order to deal with the Miskolczi observation that when CO2 increases H2O decreases. Such a process would tend to keep the total atmospheric pipe stable which would mean that less of an adjustment in the radiative pipe from the ground would be necessary.

That would still fit with my suggestion because the additional leakage of radiation to space from the CO2 pipe woould still weaken convective overturning and less convection would draw less H2O into the atmosphere so perhaps that could be a mechanism to account for the Miskolczi observation?

• #
David Evans

🙂 Several posts down the track.

• #
Jon

Normal cruising speed is determined by weight and flight level. Normal for a modern jet is around mach 0.85 and max is up to 0.89/0.90.(A380/B787)

• #

CO2 becomes the forth most prevalant gas in the tropopause, beating out water vapor that has been frozen out. The CO2 is still quite absorptive/emissive at 14.6 microns so from space we observe 14.6 micron energy radiating from a temperature of 210 Kelvin. Water radiates from a lower altitude, higher temperature of 260 Kelvin over all the rest of the IR from 2 microns to 200 microns. The earth is not a black body, it does not even have the same temperature at all wavelengths. The S-B equation is not applicable to the Earth with its radiatively active atmosphere.

• #

“The S-B equation is not applicable to the Earth with its radiatively active atmosphere.”

Will,
this is absolutely correct. Standard S-B equations cannot be applied to our moving radiative atmosphere or our transparent oceans.

I notice Will has been given a couple of thumbs down for his entirely correct comment. I expect the usual knee-jerk reaction from sceptics every time the idea of a net radiative GHE is challenged.

Just because a sceptic challenges the application of S-B radiative equations to climate does not mean they do not understand radiative physics.

Just because a sceptic challenges the application of S-B radiative equations to climate does not mean they do not understand that radiative gases both absorb and emit IR radiation.

Just because a sceptic challenges the application of S-B radiative equations to climate does not mean they do not understand that IR emitted from a cooler object can slow the cooling rate of a warmer object.

Just because a sceptic challenges the application of S-B radiative equations to climate does not mean they do not understand that Tmin over land is higher because of DWLWIR.

What many sceptics do not understand is that maths is not physics. Maths can be used to model physics but it can also be used to model the physically impossible. This is just what climastrologists have done. Radiative physics is fine, it has just been mis-applied in climate modelling.

A quick example –

Climastrologists claim that our oceans are a “near blackbody” and model radiative absorption and emission as if it were from the ocean surface. Our oceans are actually a UV/SW selective surface with an effective IR emissivity less than 0.8.

Using S-B equations to model ocean temps for a near blackbody ocean in absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR gives a figure of 255K or -18C.

Model the oceans correctly and the surface temperature without DWLWIR or atmospheric cooling the oceans is 353K or +80C.

Think a 98C error in the very foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis is too large to be plausible? Think again. The difference between modelled lunar surface temperatures and the empirical measurements from the Diviner mission was 90C.

• #
bobl

David, as Sliggy suggests, there are a lot more pipes than just radiant emission. Some energy is absorbed by chemical processes, some is lost to kinetic energy ( thermals ) which drag on the earths rotation and orbit, some becomes entropy, as in cracked and weathered rocks, and some becomes even sound and electromagnetic energy (lightning) or even the popping of your tin roof as it heats and cools. Even the sum total of every solar panel on the planet is part of that “pipe” Together I think these losses could be as much as 10%. It is likely to not be insignificant. I think you should add this pipe in for the engineers who are likely to say, nope, can’t be right because no system is 100% efficient. There are ALWAYS losses.

In short, the system you are discussing is not a perpertual motion machine, there are losses, I believe you must show a fourth pipe for the losses to energy conversions of one form or another.

• #

Thanks Bobl
Assuming a future part of this is about inward pipes then the combined effect of more in and out pipes is interesting as damping. The internal thermal time constant/frequency response of the filter is dependant upon the effective equivalent resistance of the system. If the system is compared this way to an RLC filter then time delays, attenuation, frequency responce and bandwidth all change more than you may expect.
I suggest the losses add up to enough to show a large part of the resonant filtering is external and or that the center frequency can be used to cross check the radiative balance point.

• #

Together I think these losses could be as much as 10%. It is likely to not be insignificant.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here?

• #
bobl

Not insignificant = significant, and I think 10 % is significant, so where is the contradiction?

• #
the Griss

Gees, Gee.. learn to read ……. and comprehend !!

• #

Agree with more pipes Bobl. One that seems to be overlooked is the radiation at the top of clouds from drops of liquid water and particles of ice. The cloud tops not only reflects but radiates and that is the mechanism that keep the tops in place. Note that a drop of water at the top of clouds radiates to space over more than 180 degrees and its emissivity is around 0.95.
Another thing many seem to get wrong is that the “radiation window” from the surface is actually around 66W/m2 (rather than 40W/m2 in some early estimations)Dr Trenberth admitted that in an email to Dr Noor Van Andel but still has not got around to correcting his misleading papers (I suggest because he knows that his Global Budget with backradiation is just plain nonsense)
Maybe there is a point (as suggested by Stephen Wilde) in just saying that there are two sources of outward radiation -1 the surface 2 the atmosphere. That goes along with the Miskolczi Theory which only a few seem to understand (Dr Van Andel wrote a paper (published in Energy & Environment) to explain it to KMNI)

• #
David Evans

All I am concerned about is radiation to space, because this is the only significant way the planet loses energy.

And nearly all the energy that is radiated to space goes through the three pipes described.

• #
Olaf Koenders

David, if the ERBE satellite is still running, I believe the energy outflow from the model can be cross checked against this if necessary. If not, it might be possible to use the old ERBE data to get a close match. Thanks for your hard work.

• #
bobl

It depends on what you call significant David, there are also small influxes of energy from geothermal and gravitational sources, some of that gravitationally induced wind, waves and crustal stress eg from the moons gravity must degrade to heat as well. Where does wave energy of 36kW per square meter – 30 times the energy of peak insolation end up? The point is that there is a eclectic mix of incoming energies and outgoing ones and personally I think the outflows into chemical and kinetic sinks are significant. Leaving them oùt tends to lend support to those other models that do the same. It’s time that the wrong idea that no heat is lost to other energy forms was busted up.

It may well be that the inputs to the system from other energy forms counterbalance the flows out from other forms, but until that is proved to be the case, I don’t think you can ignore them.

One more point on this, you say that you are looking at mechanisms, while the satellite evidence trivially says that outgoing radiant energy is slightly less than inbound radiant energy, that is not the same as the outbound energy being sourced from the inbound. Any fraction might be extracted and replaced by energy converted from another form. Not that I’m suggesting that happens to any huge degree, only that you need to allow for some inflow and outflow from other energy forms. If you later go on to say that the nett flows are close enough to neglect these flows, thats ok, but at least then the model acknowledges the simplification, and you then don’t get lost in arguing about where the little bit of difference comes from, pity Trenberth never did engineering.

Only trying to help David, it’s your model and you asked for critical discussion.

• #

David,
I believe the words of Sir George Simpson in his criticism of Callendars 1938 attempt to claim CO2 caused warming are still relevant today –

“..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”

My simple experiment to prove his point –
http://i48.tinypic.com/124fry8.jpg

You can achieve very different equilibrium temperatures in each gas column with exactly the same energy entering and exiting the gas. For fluids in a gravity field, the relative height of energy absorption and emission is critical to determining average temperature, temperature profile and circulation pattern.

Which column best represents a radiative atmosphere with cooling at altitude? Which column has strong convective circulation? What is the primary energy transport away from the surface of our planet?

Have you been naughty? Have you been applying standard S-B equations to a moving gas atmosphere over a deep transparent ocean?

• #

That is true! Ground temperature is controled by the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere which also a measure of the so called albedo and can add to the effects of albedo. However Dave’s is factor of two is fine since none yet know what “Force Lubos” is yet, or how it operates, a constant atmospheric function is appropriate.
Rather than some function multiplier, I would prefer something more like an “effective” surface of emissivity of 0.6, This amount can be modified by some components within the atmosphere, that also may be affected by “Force Lubos”
BTW effective surface is 0.6, and stays there because although the atmosphere never is in a state of radiative equilibrium, it acts like it is on even a daily basis as the atmosphere re-thermalises to the balance of all thermal “inputs and outputs” with a time constant of less than 10 minutes, such is the power of atmospheric exitance. see: http://www.shadowchaser.demon.co.uk/eclipse/2006/thermochron.gif

• #
Andrew McRae

bobl, Every loss you have mentioned must manifest as heat radiating to space eventually, with the exception of rock weathering. For this to be significant in diagnosing temperature trends, there would have to be significantly more cracking and weathering of rocks before 1950 than after 1950, such that after 1950 there was more energy showing as sensible heat instead of being diverted to dust entropy. Are you actually keen on splitting hairs (or rocks) at this stage of the game?
I mean, here is poor old David trying to establish a heliocentric model of climate change and you want him to account for all the erosion on the planet? Why not just assume that’s so insignificant compared to albedo/TSI changes that it is zero for geologically short term modelling purposes?

In that case, all the other losses manifest as part of the terrestrial radiation in either the direct pipe or one of the two atmospheric pipes.

Similarly, Earth’s core heat (the geothermal flux) is another source of OLR and yet nobody sane is complaining that this heat source has not been modelled by David’s theory so far, because that flux (0.085W/m²) is tiny compared to TSI/albedo (360W/m²) and CO2 (29W/m²).

• #
bobl

I disagree, some endothermic chemical reactions are irreversible, in many cases eg photosynthesis the decay products are still at a higher enthalphy state than the original elements. also kinetic energy on the whole does not universally degrade to heat, for the most part such tidal forces are expended in slowing the earths rotation ( change in the momentum of the earth ) or wobbling the earths orbit microscopically, these kinetic energies are therefore lost into the gravitational force binding the solar system.

In the absence of gravity if I jumped off the earth, the trajectory of the earth would change ever so slightly. Unfortunately due to gravity, it doesn’t stay that way and the gravity absorbs and overpowers the motion I imparted to the earth as I and the earth are drawn back together, where exactly does this energy turn to heat?

• #
bobl

Ps. I dont want him to account for every tiny loss, I want him to draw a big box and call it LOSSES, in big bold letters so that people know that the sum of the outbound energy does not need to equal the inbound energy, that’s all. Trenberth should have done this but didn’t the result being that we’ve been distracted for 10 years looking for a missing heat that isn’t missing.

• #

The Earths cold atmosphere collects all leftover energy from doing work, like hurricanes. This waste energy when divided by the temperature of the atmosphere is called entropy, which must increase, until thermal electromagnetic radiation can dissapate such entropy to cold space. There is no need for conservation of energy in an open system like the Earth. The second Law still works. No spontanious energy transfer to a higher potential.

• #
jim2

Can’t wait to see what’s next!

• #
PhilJourdan

On step at a time. And easy to digest.

• #
Mark D.

As a thick juicy steak maybe

• #
Lionell Griffith

I personally think this is a premature reduction to mechanism but David is following proper practice even here. He applies Occam’s razor to the many possibilities to be included in his very preliminary model.

Occam’s razor: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”

1. The atmospheric window is necessary because it has a very significant measured energy flux.

2. The water window is necessary because it too has a significant measured energy flux.

3. The CO2 window is not so necessary because of its miniscule energy flux and major overlap of the much larger flux of the water window. However, given nearly 3 decades angst about increasing CO2 is going to doom us all to be burned to a crisp, it is necessary that it be included in the analysis. If only to show it is not so important.

4. ALL the other so called GHG windows have not much more combined effect than a mouse hiccup compared to the first three windows. Hence, they are not necessary to be considered at this level of the analysis. In fact, their effect can be expected to be swamped by measurement error and system noise

• #
tom0mason

Lionell Griffith,
I believe that water and CO2 have to separated as water has the trick of changing state that excited CO2 can not do. This highlights the differences between the two substance when handling energy.

• #
Lionell Griffith

CO2 can change state too – any material can. From the respect of state change, the difference among gasses and liquids is only the temperature and pressure required to make the changes. So it is not the ability to change state that counts. It is the context of how much of what at what pressure and temperature that makes the difference. The impact of CO2 at this level of analysis is marginal at best.

• #
Mark

CO2crystals in our atmosphere? Wouldn’t the rising temps in the stratosphere put paid to co2 in its solid state?

• #
bobl

Except for energy conversion losses, losses of energy from the system via a change in the form of energy. Energy is never created or destroyed, it just changes from one form to another. We commonly consider heat to be the lowest form and so assume that everything will always degrade to heat, but clearly heat can and does convert to other forms, and there are several emission / storage mechanisms, that would see the energy off the planet or out of the system, through gravitation (mass kinetics) or non-IR emissions eg lightning and storage through chemistry and entropic pro cesses.

• #
Roy Hogue

However, given nearly 3 decades angst about increasing CO2 is going to doom us all to be burned to a crisp, it is necessary that it be included in the analysis. If only to show it is not so important.

I remember that at the beginning of this David said the split between the solar model and the CO2 model looked like about 80 – 20 with CO2 in the 20% part of the total, not the 80 (or Jo, hard to always tell). But I don’t think I would call 20% something to ignore even if there were not all those preceding decades of angst.

We shall soon see as there’s surely more to come. 🙂

• #

Didn’t David say that the CO2 was IN the 20% bit! not ALL of it. I assumed that all the other GHGs and CO2 were in this bit, so CO2 might just be a teeny weeny bit (that’s a technical term from a non expert who is, nevertheless, very excited and struggling to understand!)

• #
Roy Hogue

I thought the implication was that CO2 has about a 20% chance of being the cause and the sun has an 80% chance.

I’m personally skeptical that CO2 has any effect that can be measured. In other words, it’s noise level stuff. But I want to see what Jo and David have come up with. Maybe I’ll have to change my mind.

• #
Senex Bibax

I think it is important to separate the CO2 and water windows if only to clearly show how insignificant the CO2 window is in comparison. The major thrust of the alarmist industry is to focus on “carbon” emissions, “carbon” taxes, “carbon” trading, “carbon” footprints … ad nauseum.

• #

“due an increase in the CO2 concentration”

Sould it be due to an increase?
Picky I know but it proves that I was hanging on every word.

• #
David Evans

• #
Mikky

A few points I’m not quite following:

1. Are you sure that the effective radiating surface for the “window” frequencies is at the Earth’s surface?
I’ve read elsewhere that it is some way up in the troposphere, where the air temperature is around 255K.

2. How is the RATS factor related to lapse rate (rate of atmospheric temperature drop with height)?

• #
Mikky

In physics textbooks the derivation of lapse rates (degrees C per km) does not depend on surface temperature.
Which suggests to me that RATS = 1.

Those of a suspicious nature may think this RATS multiplier is going to end up as a fudge factor.

• #

> Basically if it warms by 1 degree on the surface the RATS multiplier tells us it has warmed by about 0.5 degrees on the radiating “surface”… about the same as the mainstream estimates.

Its not clear where you’ve got this from; or indeed, what height you think the “radiating surface” is at (indeed, its not clear why you’ve said “surface”, when you’re implying that WV and CO2 have difference surfaces, presumably at different heights). Obvs, considering CO2 & WV to have one “surface” each, adn to have to resort to massive time-averaging, is a gross simplification of something that the GCMs do far better.

But also, if you look at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html then its clear that the relation to sfc and upper atmospheric changes (looking at your pic, you care about stuff at about 10 km, ie ~100 hPa) varies rather strongly on what forcing you’re applying.

• #
farmerbraun

Looks like we need to label the ‘pic ‘ as diagram A.
“sfc” = surface?

• #
rogueelement451

Please form a rebuttal when you have all the info .until then go lurk under your troll bridge and wait for billy goat gruff to turn up.
Just wait for goodness sake

[Keep it civil please fellas. -Mod]

• #
Backslider

Oh lookee… William still believes in the hot spot….

Didn’t Trenberth tell you it’s now in the deep dark oceans where it cannot be found?

• #
Safetyguy66

“Didn’t Trenberth tell you it’s now in the deep dark oceans where it cannot be found?”

Are you sure your not thinking of HP Lovecraft?

• #

Was Gaia one of the Elder Gods too – would explain the fear amongst the true believers of AGW.

• #

Connolley is cross referencing IPCC crap hoping to find a gotcha.

• #
Rud Istvan

William, if you would fact check before posting ii would help your already very low credibility. The 250 hPA level is roughly 10 km. Benchmark it in your mind, please. All meteorologists and climatologists do, because it is the level where the fastest winds are found ( jet streams and all that). Airplanes either avoid it if headwinds, or seek it if tailwinds.
Point two. All the radiative transfer physics stuff in the literature talks about the effective optical depth of GHG. Below, ‘fog’. Above, ‘clear’ to radiate to space. Adding CO2 does not affect the ‘fog’, which is saturated. It lifts the altitude at which the fog ‘clears’. This has two consequences. The higher altitude is colder, so escaping IR is less energetic per the temperature lapse rate. Less heat escapes per unit area. But, by the Euclidean geometry of the surface of a sphere, the surface of the larger sphere is disproportionately greater, so there is more radiating area. The net result is the well known log function of CO2 concentration forcing. Your comment tends so suggest you do not comprehend the basic physics of greenhouse gases.
Best move along. You don’t belong here. Out of your depth.

• #

> The 250 hPA level is roughly 10 km

Yes, fair point (http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/book/export/html/174). Its been a while since I’ve cared. Having corrected that, we’re at:

But also, if you look at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html then its clear that the relation to sfc and upper atmospheric changes (looking at your pic, you care about stuff at about 10 km, ie ~250 hPa) varies rather strongly on what forcing you’re applying.

> effective optical depth of GHG.

Yes indeed, people talk about it.

> Below, ‘fog’. Above, ‘clear’ to radiate to space

No. That’s a simplification which people use for discussion. GCMs don’t use it, because they have no need for it.

> surface of the larger sphere is disproportionately greater

True, but trivial. Work it out; the interesting bits of the atmosphere are below 50 km; the radius of the sfc is 6,000 km. Or 6,378 km if you want more precision.

> The net result is the well known log function

No, that’s not where the log stuff comes from.
So my point remains.

• #
Backslider

But also, if you look at…blah blah blah

If you care to look yourself you will find it’s something which has been generated by a model. It is not a factual representation of reality (oh! look at the “hot spot”!!!) and has been thoroughly debunked by reality.

• #
Mattb

• #
Mark D.

It was free so my guess is it was over priced.

• #
Backslider

You moronic troll

• #
the Griss

Why would anyone in their right mind ever take your advice ? The road to abject failure in life.

• #
jim2

WC says ” GCMs don’t use it, because they have no need for it.”

GCMs don’t work. So who cares what they use?

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

It is interesting to me, that Mr Connolly has to refer back to the GCMs in trying to debunk a hypothesis that is questioning the approach used in the GCMs.

I do hope it doesn’t make him go blind.

• #
steven mosher

“The net result is the well known log function of CO2 concentration forcing.”

wrong.

Connelly is right

• #

Connolley is again wrong! Both you and he demonstrate your total lack of understanding about electromagnetic radiation through a dissapative medium.
If you use a statistical mechanic to fix your car, half the wheels must fall off!
Electromagnetic flux is completely deterministic. See Maxwell!

• #
Terry

Basically if it warms by 1 degree on the surface the RATS multiplier tells us it has warmed by about 0.5 degrees on the radiating “surface”… about the same as the mainstream estimates.
Its not clear where you’ve got this from

Good point and I suspect that the entire model will be highly senstive to the value. However David does say that “Later, fitting the notch-delay solar model to measured temperatures finds the RATS multiplier is most likely 2.1 (but definitely between 1 and 5). Mainstream climate science reckons the value is about two, so there is agreement there.”

So that will be interesting. My only concern is that the use of the multiplier might constitute a circular argument. I will stay tuned.

• #
crosspatch

I would be my intuition (and not any real knowledge) that would tell me that if you increase the amount of CO2 or water vapor in the system, you would also increase the height of the radiative layer for those wavelengths. Do the models take this change into account? Would it be significant? I ask this because it could be (or so my intuition would lead me to believe) significant in that it changes the apparent surface area of that radiative layer. It just “feels” like everything about our atmospheric system seems to be self-regulating in doing things in response to stuff that should increase the temperature to bring it back down again.

It also seems to me (again, intuitively) that any increase in water vapor in the system would lead to an increase in heat transport by our natural evaporative cooling system. At any given time one pole or the other is in darkness (it is cold). So if you attempt to heat the tropics, you should cause an increase in atmospheric transport of heat to the poles. This would manifest as more convection and precipitation (and release of heat at high altitude) in the winter hemisphere. Again, this is all intuitive and by “feel” more than by knowledge. Any attempt to heat the surface of the water should be met with an increase in evaporation which would act to try to cool it back down again. This heat would be transported to altitude above most of the atmospheric CO2 (and water vapor) where it would condense and release heat to space unimpeded by CO2.

If the CO2 emission surface is at 8km (a bit over 26,000 feet), any condensation occurring above that level is basically unimpeded by CO2. So water vapor can, in effect, allow surface warming to bypass the atmospheric CO2 by carrying the heat to above it. In fact, I would expect any lower tropospheric warming to ENHANCE that transport because it would impede condensation until the temperature cools which would be at a higher altitude and cause that release of latent heat to occur above even more of the atmospheric CO2. So again, any attempt at trying to warm the atmosphere by increasing the amount of CO2 (or even water vapor) seems to result in a negative feedback which would moderate that warming and cool things down.

• #

> Do the models take this change into account?

If you mean the GCMs then yes, of course. Except of course they don’t have a “height of the radiative layer for those wavelengths”. That’s a simplification used by mere humans who are trying to get a handle on what is going on. The GCMs just calculate radiative fluxes up and down in all their layers each model timestep, taking account of the temperature of the layer and the radiative constituents.

• #

Might be why they’re wrong.

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

Cumulative error, do you think? Definitely a possibility.

• #

Is that like cumalitive sentences for fraud?

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

Dunno – never tried it.

• #
crosspatch

“Except of course they don’t have a “height of the radiative layer for those wavelengths”. That’s a simplification used by mere humans who are trying to get a handle on what is going on.”

There is (or should) very much be an apparently radiative boundary when viewed from space. As CO2 absorbs radiation in certain bands (much of which overlaps with water), the atmosphere is opaque at those wavelengths and the Earth’s surface is invisible. While it might be a “fuzzy” boundary, there would certainly be one — much like looking at Titan or Venus in the optical wavelengths.

Having worked in servo systems for many years, I tend to be “spring loaded” to look for things that might result in feedbacks and cause instability or stability. That’s probably the source of my intuitive feel for things and my questions about them.

• #
Greg Cavanagh

So you’re saying that order of precedence matters, with regard to which radiation bands are absorbed by which material first. That makes sense.

• #
crosspatch

Well, sure. Because if water picks up latent heat from the ocean surface, carries it above the CO2 radiative barrier, the water condenses, releases the latent heat, that heat is no longer constrained by CO2 and is free to radiate in those wavelengths. There just isn’t enough CO2 above it to block the radiation. At that point water vapor alone would be the constraint. Any condensation above about 33,000 feet wouldn’t even be constrained to water vapor and would be free to radiate all of its heat directly into space (what radiation that doesn’t emit downwards). Clouds can top out at above 50,000 feet in severe thunderstorms and 50,000 feet or so in temperate regions is not an unusual altitude to find the top of convection (tropopause). So water vapor can transport a huge amount of heat and a thunderstorm or cyclonic storm can transport absolutely huge amounts of heat well beyond any effect of CO2 to block it. Look at the trail of cool water left behind a hurricane or typhoon. Where did that heat go? Outer space. It was transported by the storm to high altitude above much of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by our natural refrigerant — water vapor.

• #
bobl

Not to mention that the radiation from water, (condensed or vapour) at top of cloud height is not going to be impeded by CO2 except to the extent that the Water emission band overlaps the CO2.

People, stop thinking in absolutes, some energy (a small part) gets absorbed and Might cause heating, (unless it does something else like melting ice or, creating wind or creating static electricity), most of it just radiates outta there.

• #
the Griss

Wouldn’t hang too much on what the GCM’s do or say..

They are pretty much at the point where they need to be flushed down the WC.

The idea of a model is to validate it against reality…

… which is probably something the GCM’s could try some day.

An even bigger DIVERGENCE is coming !

• #
vic g gallus

William’s choice of an example of GCM and the result that it should spit out.

A railway engineer could do better.

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

I have said this before, but it is probably time to say it again:

Computer models are good, at identifying what it is that you do not know.

If you model an electronic circuit (say an amplifier) by taking the nominal values of each component; transistors, resistors, capacitors, etc. and their rated tolerance levels, you can get an idea of how that amplifier will perform in theory. Its theoretical ideal characteristics, if you will.

But when you build it, and measure the performance, it never achieves those theoretical ideal characteristics.

Studying the difference between the modelled performance, and the observed performance through a frequency analyser, can give you a few hints of what need to be studied further in order to improve the actual performance.

This to and fro between theoretical experimentation, and actual observation and measurement, is what modelling is really about.

Unfortunately, the climate modellers have yet to grasp the idea that the model can never truly represent reality because you cannot run verification trials on the climate.

Climate models are all theory folks, and they are only as good at the imaginations of the modellers But they are not testable under controlled conditions, which is the only validation technique that is worth anything.

William says, “the models take that into account”. I say, “Fine, but what do they leave out? What hasn’t been thought of in a modelling system that is not, and never has been, closely tied to reality”?

Time to go back to first principles, and I hope that is what David is doing. Looks to me, like he is.

• #
the Griss

Totally OT…. or maybe not cos its audio….

Theoretical amplifiers sometimes work well… sometimes not so well.

I use some old toob amps, and nothing I’ve ever tried to substitute them with does music like they do.

Why ?…. stuffed if I know. !!

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

Electrons moving through a vacuum – silent. Electrons moving through semiconductors bump into stuff – noise. Simples.

• #

Some of Lockheed airframe computer models are very good. They can design the whole thing from that! If you actually build it and, it falls from the sky first go around. That is called pilot error!

• #
Winston

William’s post is a typical warmist obfuscation. In order to avoid acknowledging that GCMs do not take into account such fluctuations as Crosspatch, and Stephen Wilde above, have raised, he suggests that GCMs are so “complex” that actually not accounting for such “simplistic” notions (a thinly disguised ad hominem) is a reflection of their sophistication, rather than the narrowness of their focus. The GCMs apparent lack of predictive accuracy doesn’t give our WC pause to think that perhaps he is projecting his own simplistic ideology onto Crosspatch.

The whiff of desperation is tangible, the stench of failure is only around the corner, with the time surely being nigh that he may have to flush his CAGW hypothesis when it becomes impossible for thinking individuals to continue to S-bend their disbelief any longer.

• #
Mark D.

There is a tangible desperation Winston, the fact that WC is here at all proves it. His lack of science credentials (nearly a high crime among the authority loving warmists) coupled with his abhorrent, despicable deplorable attitude, personality and demeanor, means that buzzards must be circling the decaying and festering warmist camp.

Really, should we be worried about a rapid depressurization of the corpse?

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

… he suggests that GCMs are so “complex” that actually not accounting for such “simplistic” notions (a thinly disguised ad hominem) is a reflection of their sophistication, rather than the narrowness of their focus.

That is true. His comment definitely has the whiff of propaganda, about it.

• #
the Griss

“whiff of propaganda”

You know what a WC smells like ! More than a “whiff”, more like a “stench”

• #

That’ll be Denmark, something always smells fishy in Denmark.

• #

Wait, Connolley’s not Danish, must be a yeast infection.

• #
the Griss

No, a green bile infection.

• #

Purveyor of Disinformation on Wikipedia,

You have far too much faith in GCM’s. GDM’s are fine for predicting weather over short intervals, but are woefully insufficient for long term climate modeling. Calculating average effects by running multiple runs and averaging the predicted chaos only serves to accentuate any intrinsic biases in the model and given that most of these models have countless knobs to tweak which are then tweaked by individuals expecting specific results, it becomes impossible to avoid intrinsic bias.

David’s approach of modeling the relationships between changes in various long term averages is a far more rational methodology for modeling long term change.

george

• #
bobl

On the other hand there are more CO2 molecules to radiate from, The emitting layer gets larger on a cube law as it gets higher, so more cooling can happen as CO2 concentration rises. The question is then, does convection in the lower atmosphere change to supply extra photons for cooling as the emission layer expands and gets more dense, the answer to that has to be yes, since that is what the satellites show. Ie the extra CO2 cools as it warms and the full 1.2 deg per doubling wont be experienced. It’s a negative feedback.

• #
crosspatch

“The question is then, does convection in the lower atmosphere change to supply extra photons for cooling as the emission layer expands and gets more dense, the answer to that has to be yes, since that is what the satellites show. ”

It is what my “gut” would tell me but I am old enough to know at this point to trust my “gut” only enough to point me in a general direction for further validation and not to trust it implicitly. It would be “hunch-worthy” but would need to be verified empirically.

• #
bobl

Conceded crosspatch.

Really it hinges on where the bottleneck is, if there are plenty of upwelling photons and emission is the bottleneck, then increasing CO2 should cool, if the availability of upwelling photons is limited by something other than CO2 then increasing CO2 might warm or have little effect.

My hunch is that emission is the limiting factor.

• #
Ken Stewart

Jo and David’s post- something worth waking up for the morning after last night’s Origin defeat… Soccer too I believe.

• #

[…] so long: propose your own coherent theory then. And so (starting with 1, but now we’re up to 5 and that’s not the lot) we have BIG NEWS: Historic development — New Solar climate model […]

• #
Peter C

1. The average surface temperature of the Earth is said to be 14 or 15C. How is then that the radiation spectrum of the Earth as seen from space is said to be -18C. What happened to all the surface radiation?

2. Atmospheric radiation is explained as coming from H20 and CO2. However the radiation spectrum of the Earth is dominated by absorption bands, not emission bands. If CO2 and H@O are emitting should we not see the relevant emission bands making up most of the out going radiation?

• #
Mikky

1. The atmosphere is opaque to infrared radiation up to a certain height (around 5 km), transparent above that height, approximately.
Hence, the radiation to space comes effectively from around 5 km, at which height the temperature is around -18C.
Radiation from the surface gets absorbed by and heats the atmosphere below 5 km, the radiation to space is from the heated atmosphere.
The atmosphere is also heated by convection and condensation.

2. The outgoing radiation comes from all air molecules.
Absorption is done mainly by CO2 and H2O molecules, but the resulting heat gets spread to and shared by all air molecules.
Frequencies in the absorption bands get absorbed much more readily, so can only escape to space from higher heights, lower temperatures,
hence lower levels in the spectrum.
Emission from CO2 and H2O molecules will slightly fill-in the absorption bands, but not by much, since those gases are at very low concentrations.

• #
bobl

Repeating yourself doesn’t make it true,

The atmosphere is only “foggy” in the absorbtion bands, for CO2 that’s a very small portion of the IR spectrum, most of the IR spectrum is clear and the surface can be seen from space, for example you can see the surface in IR satellite images can’t you? Even in the absorbtion band CO2 is only 85% saturated (opaque), which means 15 % of surface emission makes it out to space, the emission layer height is the height at which the fog is 50% opaque, its an average at which less outgoing IR is absorbed than makes it out to space, but it only applies in the absorbtion band of the CO2, same for water vapour.

Also if what you say was true then frost couldn’t happen, frost occurs on clear dry nights from the direct radiation of IR energy from the surface to space which makes the surface colder than the atmosphere. The absence of reduced frost in the world is the greatest evidence that CO2 forcing is insignificant.

• #

> The outgoing radiation comes from all air molecules.

No. Stuff that doesn’t absorb in the IR doesn’t emit their either. Try starting at http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

• #
the Griss

“Stuff that doesn’t absorb in the IR doesn’t emit their either”

Hmm.. I’ll remember that next time I use the hotplate.

• #

No. Stuff that doesn’t absorb in the IR doesn’t emit their either.

Yes, this is correct. Interestingly enough, Grant Perry, who literally wrote the book on atmospheric physics, asserts that the atmosphere is heated as the energy of a photon absorbed by a GHG molecule is directly converted into the translational motion of O2 and N2 molecules. My opposing position is that the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere is directly heated by the surface which is directly heated by the energy of the remaining photons in GHG absorption bands that did not escape the planet.

Grant’s view implies that little to none of the energy in GHG absorption bands would actually be emitted by the planet, most having been converted into kinetic energy of motion, yet when we look at the planets spectral emissions, the energy emitted in spectral bands which absorb 100% of surface emissions is about half of what it would be with no absorption at all, moreover; a plot of this spectrum is in his book! This measurement alone is proof positive that about half of the surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere makes its way out in to space (this includes that absorbed by clouds and GHG’s) and is what Grant was arguing to dispute. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/half-of-the-energy-is-flung-out-to-space-along-with-the-model-projections/

This is another example of why analysis in the frequency, wavelength, S and Z domains should be left to the EE’s who know how.

• #
Peter C

Interesting point. The CO2 and H2O absorption bands as seen in the outgoing spectrum are only half what they should be (if 100% is absorbed).

What happens to the other half?

• #

The other half is either returned to the surface or magically converted into wavelengths that are not absorbed by GHG’s. I vote for returned to the surface as I don’t believe in magic and the measured data supports me.

Consider that the Earth is on average 66% covered in clouds (from ISCCP), clouds have an average emissivity of about 0.8 (also from ISCCP) and GHG’s in the clear sky absorb about half of the power emitted by the surface (from line by line simulations of the standard atmosphere).

The total fraction of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds is (1-.66)*.5 for the clear sky, .66*.8 for the cloudy sky (100% of surface emissions that do not pass through clouds must be absorbed) and .66*(1-.8)*.5 for the surface power that passes through the clouds. Calculating the total fraction absorbed we get,

(1-.66)*.5 + .66*.8 +.66*(1-.8)*.5 = 0.764

Now, if half of this absorbed power is emitted to space and the surface emits an average of 385 W/m^2 at 287K, half of whats absorbed becomes 385*.764/2 = 147 W/m^2. Since .764 of surface emissions are absorbed, 1-.764 must pass, which is about 91 W/m^2. If we add the power that passes to half of whats absorbed, we get 147 + 91 = 238 W/m^2 which represents a temperature of about 255K. If we add the other half to the 239 W/m^2 of post albedo power, we get 239 + 147 = 386 W/m^2, which represents a temperature of 287K. Note that any fraction other than 1/2 does not produce the required output emissions or the required input power to the surface to offset what its emitting.

It is not a coincidence that the planet is in radiant balance when half of of the surface power absorbed by the atmosphere is emitted into space and the other half is returned to the surface as this is the same behavior demanded by macroscopic thermodynamics when you consider the atmosphere to act as a gray body.

• #
vic g gallus

All matter emits LWIR radiation to cool down. Even nitrogen and oxygen gas. What absorbs IR better will emit better but molecules without permanent dipole moments still have induced dipoles through interaction with other molecules and so do emit LWIR.

• #

Peter C June 19, 2014 at 8:10 am

There is little or no ourward thermal radiation from the surface. There needs be none. The atmospheric temperature is controled by convection and latent heat of evaporation from near the surface. All of this heat is radiated electromagneticaly but only in the direction of lower irradiance space, none returns to the surface. The variable water vapor in the atmosphere can radiate sufficient flux to keep the surface at any temperature between freezing and boiling. Perhaps David’s new work will shed some new light on just “how” the earth manages to control so accurately.

1.” The average surface temperature of the Earth is said to be 14 or 15C. How is then that the radiation spectrum of the Earth as seen from space is said to be -18C. What happened to all the surface radiation?”

Surface thermal radiation is less that 30 W/m^2, all of it in the 8-14 micron band. The opposing irradiance potential from water vapor within 20 meters of the atmosphere, Temperature 0.14 degeree lower than the surface limits the surface radiation to less than 100 milliWatts/m^2 in all other bands combined.

2.” Atmospheric radiation is explained as coming from H20 and CO2. However the radiation spectrum of the Earth is dominated by absorption bands, not emission bands. If CO2 and H2O are emitting should we not see the relevant emission bands making up most of the out going radiation?”

Since any absorption band from a higher temperature is also an emission band to the the low temperature space, that is exactly what is measured.

• #
Yonniestone

Will this answers much of my (layman) question below except for the one I was attempting to convey, does the notch in any way alter temporary or otherwise the interaction of the emission bands in their technique of separation thus allowing a change in their ability to transfer thermal energy?

• #

I do not think so. Remember the notch is a 11 year cycle! It is the adjustable water vapor in the atmosphere that controls both the Solar radiation to the surface, 68% cloud cover, and the radiative exitance from the planet+atmosphere more water vapor more exitance. This is adjusted on a minuite by minuite basis. Perhaps there is some prior knowledge from the notch. Newton’s first law is basically an anticipator!

• #

Will,

I don’t think water vapour does any radiating, hence LATENT heatwhich is a form of potential energy.

Radiating occurs only from the particulates created when condensaton occurs.

Much of the latent heat released in the process of condensation is conducted to non radiative molecules and so just contributes to increased uplift which converts that portion of the released latent heat to yet another form of potential energy namely gravitational potential energy (GPE).

All the GPE held by non radiating molecules is recovered as sensible energy during the descent phase of convection and can only leave the system AFTER that sensible energy has been returned to the ground for radiation to space or is passed via conduction to radiating molecules that can radiate to space from within the atmosphere.

Note that descending dry air warms at nearly twice the rate at which ascending humid air cools due to the difference between the dry and moist adiabatic lapse rates.

As a result of that difference the system returns all of the latent heat of evaporation to the ground on descent apart from the proportion that was radiated out to space by particulates following condensation.

Radiation to space can occur ONLY from the ground or from radiatively active material within the atmosphere hence my suggestion that if one method increases or decreases then the other method must change to an equal and opposite extent if the radiative exchange with space is to be kept balancedas per observations.

Convective overturning is the meachanism whereby the necessary adjustments between the two methods of radiative loss can be achieved.

However, in order to accept that proposition one must first accept that convective descent converting GPE to KE is the means of warming the surface above S-B and not DWIR.

That seems to be a step too far for many but it is so, nonetheless.

• #

What nonsense, only the Newtonian Kinetic energy, with momentum, is ever isentropically changed to gravitational potential energy. The lapse rate is but a thermostatic gradiant, as is the pressure gradiant created by the static gravitational field. Motion within is both adabatic and isentropic. No work is done even if mass actually changes position within that gravitational field. All is reversable. Latent heat is chemical heat and is position independent. Sensible heat can decrease on expansion (going up) this to is reversible, the sensible heat returns upon compression. Gravity is not involved unless the center of mass actually changes location in that gravitational field.

• #

Stephen,
while I may be one of those who claim there is no net radiative GHE effect on this ocean planet, I cannot agree that water vapour is not a radiative gas. True it is not ass effective as condensed water (clouds) but it does measurably emit IR.

I have an IR thermometer. I can measure IR emitted from the atmosphere in dry and humid conditions. “Clear” sky background can read -40C in dry conditions and as high as -20C in very humid conditions. Scanning from zenith to horizon you can see a dramatic increase in apparent emission as apparent IR emission increases.

Water vapour both absorbs and emits IR. It was in fact water vapour that confounded Tyndall’s earlier attempts in measuring CO2 attenuation of IR.

• #

I’ve conceded that point below.

My comments should be taken as relating to the latent heat load only. Water vapour cannot radiate the latent heat portion of its energy without condensation first and then the radiation comes from the condensate since the vapour ceases to exist.

Odd that you’ve been marked down for your comment. I suspect the arrival of a lurking militia of alarmists.

• #

Konrad June 20, 2014 at 2:24 pm
“I have an IR thermometer. I can measure IR emitted from the atmosphere in dry and humid conditions. “Clear” sky background can read -40C in dry conditions and as high as -20C in very humid conditions. Scanning from zenith to horizon you can see a dramatic increase in apparent emission as apparent IR emission increases.”

Konrad, Call it semantics, call it misused language,with intent to deceive! You cannot measure IR emitted in the direction of yout higher temperature instrument. Nice that you use apparant that is correct, it is apparent but only apparent not physical! Your instrument is measuring the opposing irradiance to the higher instrument irradiance. This is a limitation on radiative flux in the direction to 6.8 Kelvin space. The more the limitation of flux from your instrument, the more the atmosphere can radiate flux “to” 6.8 Kelvin space. Atmospheric water vapor is the only significant controller of radiative dissipation to space!

How dis planet do dat? anyone?

• #
bobl

Yes, but the idea that emission comes effectively from a height isn’t right. At different wavelengths the emission comes from different heights, inside the absorbtion bands it effectively comes from the atmosphere, outside it comes from the surface. You could average all of that to an effective height but that obscures the true situation. Real surface emission happens via a completely different mechanism to atmospheric emission. They are different.

In a discussion with Will Kinimonth ( sorry Will if I have the spelling wrong ) he explained to me that almost 4/5 of all radiant energy is emitted via the atmospheric window ( surface emission outside the absorbtion bands ) So the dominant cooling mechanism is likely to be, sun / atmosphere warms surface, surface emits to space – rather than surface heats atmosphere, atmosphere convects to troposphere, GHGs emit to space. Any radiation ( or conduction) that intersects the surface can be thermalised at the surface, (converted to heat) this effectively broadbands the energy, the heat is reradiated mostly out the IR window. This include of course that mysterious back radiation, any warming that causes, 4/5ths of it is imediately lost out the IR window as soon as it is thermalised at the surface.

If you want to contend that the surface doesn’t radiate to space then you will need a convincing new argument for the formation of frost

• #

All of the surface radiation is in the 8-14 micron band. 13 W/m^2 to space and 17 W/m^2 to the 68% colder cloud bottoms. If you lost that much heat, you would also frost over! A space blanket can stop that, as would being under any roof. With 60W metabolisam and a 1 m^2 surface area you still feel cold via convection.

• #
Roy Hogue

I was looking for it. How many times will it appear? 🙁

• #

Hopefully it will be stomped to extinction. It seems more rugged than a roach.

• #

i hope this is not a case of flies being attracted to the proverbial. Is this where these sorts of comments should be shunted where they will be on topic?

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/a-discussion-of-the-slaying-the-sky-dragon-science-is-the-greenhouse-effect-a-sky-dragon-myth/

• #
Peter C

Since any absorption band from a higher temperature is also an emission band to the the low temperature space, that is exactly what is measured.

Could you explain that a bit more Will?

• #

Sure, the absorption lines appear dark when viewing, when illuminated from a higher temperature source, indicating absorption. When viewing in a lower temperature background the same lines appear bright, indicating emission from that gas at that frequency. Most things in this climate clown biddness have been so turned around, especially on wikipedia by William Connolley, who now has beenn banned.
Gus Kirchhoff…, Emissivity equals absorptivity (a surface quality) at every frequency, and in every direction (antennas can both transmit and recieve). Neuevo physics interpretation, everything must emit what ever is absorbed, at every frequency and in every direction. Gus was writing of a “surface property”, Neuevo science claims what “action must take place”. Gus was very,very careful with his words!

• #

Gus wrote ay “each” frequency and in “each direction. not every sorry!

• #
Peter C

Thanks everyone for your thoughts, including Gee Aye. I will attempt a partial answer to my own question.

I think that it is strange that no consideration is given to CLOUDS. Clouds are not gas. Water droplets in clouds can absorb and radiate IR energy. I was alerted to this by the comments of Dr Wes Allen from the Slayers discussion. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/allen-wes/Slaying%20the%20Sky%20Dragon-3.pdf

He includes an infrared image of a cumulonimbus cloud and it is apparent that the cloud is radiating lots of IR radiation. I also purchased an IR thermometer on eBay and have pointed it at lots of clouds as well as the clear blue sky. Even though the instrument is a cheap one, it is apparent that clouds have temperature and that the temperature decreases with the height of the cloud.

Now substitute Cloud for CO2 gas in the discussion above by Jo and David. Clouds really are opaque to the outside observer from space. A cloud radiates with something that approximates a black body spectrum, which is what is in fact observed. Cloud tops are at a temperature which explains the temperature spectrum as seen from space. It seems that the term water vapour is used to include clouds, but it seems to me that they behave differently

• #

Water vapour (vapor) includes only the monomer gas molecule, much less dense than all other atmospheric molecules except hydrogen and helium. As a gas it appears transparent (no absorption) in most of the visable and the 3-5 micron and 8-14 micron IR wavelengths. As soon as this gas condenses into drizzle drops 0.25-0.5 micron diameter, all changes, you can see clouds or fog, they create rainbows from Sunlight, and transmission in the IR drops like a rock. The satellites cannot observe the surface in the visable or IR through clouds, they observe “clouds”. They can observe the surface at “some” microwave frequencys.

• #

[…] David Evans has analyzed the black box system that is effectively “Sunlight In, Temperature Out”, and found a notch, a delay, and a low pass filter. The problem then is to work out their order and to fill in any other bits needed by the model.  […]

• #
Yonniestone

David, just a question on the separation of atmospheric gases, are the techniques involved (Swing Adsorption Techniques) effected by the electromagnetic forcing’s directly or is some form of Cryogenic distillation or Membrane gas separation a part of the atmospheric equation?

• #
David Evans

No idea, sorry.

• #
Sonny

Can somebody please explain to me why I’ve never heard of anyone argue that fluctuations in the earths temperature (independent of solar radiation or atmospheric composition) could be a major driver in climate change?

The “geothermal gradient” is about 25 °C per km of depth, (according to Wikipedia) Which is staggering! “Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the Earth is estimated at 44.2 TW (4.42 × 1013 watts).[13] Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.[13]”

Now, if there is some cause for fluctuation in this geothermal heat output then we get climate change!

In fact a simple thought experiment considering the diameter of the earth and that you only need to go down to depth of 4km to find temperatures hotter than the hottest desert 55C – 60C in the Tua Toma mine. (Or 443K!) shows that the EARTH IS VERY VERY HOT compared to the absolute freeze of deep space.

Comparatively, any solar influence is relatively small, I.e we only have temperature fluctuations due to seasons / locations / day night cycles of roughly 80K at extremes.

My conclusion is that even minor changes in geothermal heat output is all that is required for climate change.

In a previous post I suggested that electro magnetic forces corresponding to 11 year solar cycles in the sun could be explanation for 11 year “earth cycles” here on earth. This could explain the correlation between volcanic and earthquake activity coinciding with these cycles.

What does Wikipedia have to say on this?

“There is no reputable science to suggest that any significant heat may be created by electromagnetic effects of the magnetic fields involved in Earth’s magnetic field, as suggested by some contemporary folk theories.”

Sounds suspicious doesn’t it, we all know what “reputable science” really means!

Anybody care to point out what is wrong with my analysis?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TauTona_Mine

• #
Sonny

In posts below it is suggested that the heat from the sun amounts 340W/m2.
Geothermal heating of the surface accounts for 80-90W/m2.

Is this correct? Is 1/4 of the heating of our atmosphere come from heat within the earths core that radiates outward eventually heating the ocean and air?

I so why is this no looked at as a potential cause for climate change?

• #
Wayne Job

In the greater scheme of things, you will find that geothermal activity of our world is also a result of the sun and it’s machinations.

• #
Andrew McRae

Is this correct?

No.

You’ve misread the units. The geothermal flux was given in milliwatts.
That’s 0.085W/m² for geothermal versus TSI ~360W/m² and CO2 ~29W/m².

• #

Your Geothermal is less than 0.1% of what the Sun puts in and the atrmosphere puts out continuously.
That is less than what earthlings do with electricity through blast furnaces.

• #
Sonny

Evidence?

• #
Andrew McRae

That cannot be true. The geothermal flux for the whole earth’s surface is estimated at 44.2TW.
The entire industrial electricity generation capacity (of which blast furnaces use a small fraction) is only 2.3TW.
So total geothermal flux is 19 times bigger than the combined output of every power station in the world.
The fact we have gotten as much as 5% of geothermal output is a pretty staggering accomplishment.
Obviously, blast furnaces are chump change compared to total geothermal.

• #

> what is wrong with my analysis?

You’ve failed to provide any reason to think that there are “even minor changes in geothermal heat output”.

> geothermal activity of our world is also a result of the sun

No.

• #
Sonny

“The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change -”. ― Heraclitus.

Fluctuations in earthquake intensity and volcanic activity is evidence. Did you read my post?

• #
Sonny

How is geothermal activity the result of the sun?

What causes solar cycles, reversals in the suns magnetic fields?

How do you know that the sun is not responding to a another force that also affects earth and other planets?

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Sonny #15

>”you only need to go down to depth of 4km”

Too deep for solar influence but go down to the subsoil and underground to 28m and you will see the temperature rising and falling in concert with the solar energy the surface “sees” annually and multidecadally (i.e. not the TOA solar “constant” or near-11 yr cycle).

See comment #40 on this.

• #
Truthseeker

Using the 288K value is fundamentally wrong. If you are going to model the Earth / Sun interaction, then do so from the point of reality. The Sun delivers around 1370 W/m2 at TOA at the zenith of the day side of the Earth. Radiative loss occurs on the whole planet, but the energy gain is only on half the planet. Using the 288K number means that you have to have a flat Earth and a sun twice as far away than it actually is. This is explained very succintly here in pictures for everyone to understand.

Our climate system is not an average of anything. Real energy flux, real time differentials, real water cycles dictate what happens. Averages don’t.

If you do not have a model based on reality, then all you have is a GCM …

• #
Yonniestone

Good questions, working on the concept of “generated lines” vs “true lines” when projecting and viewing a 3D object have these parameters been factored into the models data input?

• #
Daniel G.

The Sun does delivers around 1300 W/m2 (at some places), but it only illuminates half of the earth, and not equally. Even if the earth rotates, if you make an space-time average, you get 340 W/m2.

In a discussion of energy budget, averages are necessary, because short-term moments do not exactly show equilibrium, but longer-term do quite so.

• #
Yonniestone

So I realize now 1AU is the earths rotation as a reliable measurable constant that can be combined with averaging the length of incoming solar radiation over a spherical object, I also take it that any retained latent heat on the planets night cycle would be factored into the daytime cycle.

• #
bobl

I think you mean 255 is demonstrably wrong, the 288 (15C) is a measured value. I would agree that a sphere in 3d space should be used with a rate of energy uptake and a rate of energy loss, IIRC the average assumes that there is no thermal capacity, that heat is lost immediately the sun goes down, but that’s not so, and therefore an atmosphere free earth would have a temperature greater than the theoretical 255 deg, especially a watery earth!. Anyway let’s see where David goes with this.

• #

Dr.Evans,

Your idea of an atmospheric amplifier is fine as this planets atmosphere actcually can radiate to space better than the surface. I must take issue with statement:

“Changes in the temperature of the radiating surface are basically transmitted down through the atmosphere to the surface. At the frequencies of the atmospheric window the radiating surface is also the surface of the Earth so no transmission is required, but at the carbon dioxide and water vapor frequencies the transmission is literally down through the atmosphere.”

There is absolutely no thermal electromagnetic flux in any direction of a higher field strength at any frequency! None has ever been observed, detected, or measured. A higher temperature always has a higher field strengh. The field strength determines a pointing vector. the lower temperature field strength determines an opposing pointing vector. Summing the to vectors generates a poynting flux, the only flux ever measured.
The nonsense if everything radiating at its own field strength is in opposition of all Maxwell’s equations. “turnedoutnice” on your blog has pointed out this error several times and blaims that error on a 1960 paper by Carl Sagan. I certainly heard nothing of a two way flux prior to then. It is now taught in Universities, But not to EE’s. Your paragraph buys into the dreaded “back radiation” and be dismissed immediately by your friends!
The surface radiation in the 8-14 micron band of less than 30W/m^2 is fine but that is all the surface radiation outward to space or cold clouds.
All other wavelength exitance is powered by the sensible heat in the atmosphere and radiated outward at each temperature. This outward exitance keeps accumulating past an altitude of 200 km. the atmosphere gets its sensible heat from convection and the conversion of latent heat upon condensing.
For radiating from the atmosphere, an explanation of how the planet so cairfully controls the water vapor in the atmospere and radiation in and out would be very well received.

• #
Roy Hogue

I knew that had to come up somewhere in this thread. 🙁

• #
Yonniestone

Also the comment of giving a “RATS” about CO2, so I’ll be the first thank you.

• #

Yes, I hope that got the attention of David or Jo.

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

You are attempting to argue against one hypothesis simply by referring to another hypothesis. Such an approach gets us nowhere.

In fact, it looks to me like you are simply using diversionary tactics, rather than trying to understand what David Evans has to say.

• #

Rereke Whakaaro June 19, 2014 at 3:05 pm

“You are attempting to argue against one hypothesis simply by referring to another hypothesis. Such an approach gets us nowhere.”

What David is saying is demonstrable, as is my critique.

“In fact, it looks to me like you are simply using diversionary tactics, rather than trying to understand what David Evans has to say.”

Understanding this new concept is difficult. I was trying to point out an acceptance of some words from alarmists. Every concept, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, is a lie! Even the punctuation is suspect! This must be pristene!

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

In that case, I apologise. I misunderstood the point of your previous comment.

• #
David Evans

In terms of computation, the model computes the changes in radiating temperature from the changes in unreflected TSI (via the low pass filter), then computes the changes in surface temperature from the changes in radiating temperature (via the RATS multiplier).

This says nothing about the physical mechanisms involved. At this stage (model building) we only care that changes in surface temperature are a multiple (about 2 as it happens) of the changes in surface temperature.

• #

Thank you for your kind response. Please drop the references of “thermal electromagnetic radiation from cold to hot”. It is not needed! The surface sensible heat gets to the outward radiating atmosphere some how. Consider how much more latent heat would be needed if there were “no” radiative transfer from the surface outward. You clearly indicated a radiative flux to a higher temperature!. Drop it! It is not needed in your fine and careful explanation of “what is”. Please also Skip the “why what is” is! That comes later, from falsifying all the other whys! At this point you need only a reasonable conjecture of “why”. Your careful presentation if “what is” must drive all others to admit they know nothing of “what is”, let alone “WHY”!

• #
Roy Hogue

At this stage (model building) we only care that changes in surface temperature are a multiple (about 2 as it happens) of the changes in surface temperature.

David,

I think you must have meant something else when you typed this. It makes no sense the way it is.

• #
RoHa

Rats multiplying?

• #
RoHa

A three pipe problem?

• #
Peter C

Yes Sherlock

• #
Frederick Colbourne

My interest is in the effect on the climate system of the difference in heat capacity of the atmosphere and the world ocean both globally and between the northern and southern hemispheres.

This interest arises because the internal variability of the climate system is related to differences in heat capacity of the hemispheres, ocean and atmosphere.

Is this solar model constructed in a manner that would detect internal variability and separate the signal from solar forcing?

• #
David Evans

No. It’s just a 0-D model, with global surface average air temperature its only output.

• #

To quote Jo and david:

“David and I spent months wondering “what on Earth” could drive it. There were many possibilities though none of them seemed to be able to respond with the right timing: A resonant slop in ocean circulation could absorb extra energy, but it was difficult to see how the timing would be so tight with solar peaks. Likewise changes in ice or land cover. Then there are lunar cycles of 9 – 18 years, potentially generating atmospheric standing waves, but they were not synchronous with the sun.

Given that marine life can produce aerosol particles or carbonyl sulphide, we wondered if blue green algae or phytoplankton were the key. I particularly liked the idea that life on Earth would evolve to try to take advantage of the little extra energy arriving at regular intervals. But it’s unlikely, though not impossible, that microbiology would act after an 11 year delay. They could respond in weeks or months — but that type of response would not produce “a notch” in the transfer function. I spent most of 2013 spotting tantalizing 8 – 12 year cycles in papers on everything from arctic tundra to jet streams. All of which were interesting, but none of which would sit quietly for 10 years and then spring to life.”

Close maybe but missed it, sorry.

There are numerous published papers at e.g. looking for, and finding cyclic changes in e.g. oceanic photosynthetic primary productivity on timescales tightly aligned with the 11 year solar cycle. In fact I previously cited (Part III) the abstract of just such a paper which found 11 years cyclicity in well resolved, stable Arctic marine deposits of siliceous cyanobacteria (blue green algae). Such examples are not uncommon. There is a wealth of literature identifying delayed mitigative or adaptive responses on timescales from 11 years right up even to the order of 10 – 100,000 years after a major perturbing event e.g. after the Palocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum M boundary perturbation or after the opening of the Drake Channel around 40 million years ago (the latter giving the planet a circumpolar current – an event allowed even more powerful homeostatic responses to come into play BTW).

What most people seem to be missing here is that the whole climatic system is not a dumb thermodynamic engine or physical machine. For a very, very long time it has been a complex geo-bio-chemophysical system which has had not only a very long time to be born, but also to evolve, to adapt and YES to direct and re-direct. If we concentrate only on the physical and the thermodynamic, at the expense of the geological, chemical and biological, we just won’t ever ‘get it’.

One thing especially is for sure. If we want to factor in the effect of CO2 (required) we must understand it is a powerfully biological system too becaud that is what life does – it shuffles CO2 around. If we ignore the effect of the worlds living biomass – particularly the ~47% dominating the surface layers of the oceans on the global climate we surely won’t get it.

• #
Backslider

For a very, very long time it has been a complex geo-bio-chemophysical system which has had not only a very long time to be born, but also to evolve, to adapt and YES to direct and re-direct.

Here comes Gaia…. next it will have intelligence or whatever guff Flim Flammery was saying…..

• #
markx

Steve Short June 19, 2014 at 2:39 pm:

For a very, very long time it has been a complex geo-bio-chemophysical system which has had not only a very long time to be born, but also to evolve, to adapt…

Are you not just saying the same thing? ie, Exactly what Jo and David said? (Ignoring the continuation of “…. direct and re-direct”, that is, because I have no idea what that may mean.)

• #

Indeed! this Galaxy, Solar system, planet Earth, were definitely not designed nor constructed by earthlings. It appears that Earth, was constructed by skilful workmen given the task of creating something unknowable by some lesser God that could not stand being all powerful and all knowing. Workmen complained, “how can we know this is unknowable unless we know it is unknowable? The lesser God replied “I agree that is a problem, that is why I am paying the big bucks, Do it or I will create others that can do! Welcome to this wonderful planet!

• #
jollygreenwatchman

Haven’t had the chance to do more than skim at the moment but the three “pipes” being talked of. Are they in addition to the absorbtion / pass-through properties of the “Fraunhofer bands” the late John Daly detailed ?

• #
bananabender

The only plausible way heat can escape the Earth is convection to the upper atmosphere and by directly radiating energy into the vacuum of space. This method of cooling is extraordinarily inefficient and is a major problem in designing spacecraft.

Long wave IR from the surface cannot travel more than a few metres before being full absorbed by atmospheric water vapour.

Chemists (not physicists) are the experts in spectroscopy. They will tell you straight out that gases cannot be heated by radiation unless they are confined and that the GE contradicts just about every known law of chemistry.

• #

• #
bananabender

Thanks for the corection. My point is that the radiation that is measured is not coming directly from the sEarth’s urface.

• #

The level of discussion has been kicked up a few notches, with a lot less troll comments. Apparently readers are thinking more, or their brains fried. ( I am working on both.)

The method is very similar to analyzing the energy use in an existing building. You have to establish a control envelope, then look at energy in/out/stored. (Although a building has an operator who can make changes to the mechanical system operations.) similarly, most building models fall flat but that doesn’t get found out (much sooner than GCMs) until after spending a lot of money on supposed energy efficiency measures. And when that happens the model is never blamed, there is always some other reason run up the flagpole for everyone to see.

Keep up the good work, I am learning a lot!!!!

• #
Kenneth Mikaelsson

When you talk about CO2 emiting radiation have you taken this guy in consideration Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille?

• #
• #

Kenneth Mikaelsson June 19, 2014 at 5:52 pm

“When you talk about CO2 emiting radiation have you taken this guy in consideration Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille?”

Your Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille is good at emissions from a magnetically induced cavity resonator NMRI. He completely looses it when speaking of Thermal electromagnetic radiation from a non resonant black body cavity. He makes a mess out of every radiometric definition every time he opens his mouth and spouts nonsense. He complains of Maxwell, Kerchhoff, and Planck, never even trying to understand what they were discussing! To be ignored!

• #
Kenneth Mikaelsson

Well then i want to see you prove him wrong..

• #
Mark D.

I don’t know Will, Robitaille makes a compelling case that we must consider each material separately. How does this affect the argument of the Earth being a black body when 70% of the surface is covered with water (more if you consider water in the atmosphere)? Shouldn’t we at least look at the absorption emissivity characteristics of water and use that instead of a theoretical black body?

• #

“Shouldn’t we at least look at the absorption emissivity characteristics of water and use that instead of a theoretical black body?”

Why yes. Yes we should…

I have done just that via empirical experiment and found some very interesting things –

A. Liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool cannot be heated nor have its cooling rate slowed by incident LWIR. (LWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate for non evaporatively cooled materials)

B. Liquid water is a UV/SW selective surface not a “near blackbody”. Exposed to intermittent solar radiation it heats far more than a “near blackbody” will do. (DWLWIR is not required to keep the oceans from freezing)

C. The effective IR emissivity (not the apparent IR emissivity) of liquid water is less than 0.8.

Given that liquid water covers 71% of the planet’s surface, that pretty much wraps it up for the net radiative GHE hypothesis.

• #
Mark D.

To add to my comment, Will, just up thread you said this about water vapor condensing to droplets

and transmission in the IR drops like a rock.

This is interesting and causes me to wonder how it ties to something Robitaille mentioned (in the video) about polished metals having lower emissivity. Water is also “shiny”……. It also seems to bolster my notion that the earth can’t be considered a black body. It’s a wet body.

BTW, the lower emissivity of polished metal is quite easy to observe with a handheld IR thermometer. To get an accurate temperature reading from a polished metal object you have to paint or tape the surface.

• #
Ron Cook

Off Topic for this blog

Good Grief, you Gurus are certainly quick at this. I’m still struggling with Blog IV and the apparent disagreement between the phase of high sunspot numbers and the magnetic component compared to the many skeptical books I’ve read. Never-the-less this is all very exiting and interesting. Just need to be able to explain it to my non-technical, non-skeptical friends.

Ron Cook (not related to the infamous John)
R-COO- K+

• #

The peculiar thing, though, is that all diagrams of the IR spectrum from Earth to space show the radiation being emitted specifically NOT from the H2O, CO2, O3, CH4 and N2O (the so-called ‘GHG’) bands.

Read the caption. It seems to leave something out, doesn’t it? It says: “(…) this graph shows the wavelengths that are absorbed by atmospheric gases, causing gaps in the spectrum (…)” and “For the right curve, the impact that the major greenhouse gases have on the amount of IR that Earth emits to space is clear: carbon dioxide, ozone, and water vapor act together to absorb and re-emit radiation that stays trapped in the lower atmosphere (that is, the outgoing radiation from Earth is much less intense than expected from the temperature one would measure in space due to the effect of greenhouse gases).”

Strange, we don’t get to see the ‘reemitted’ radiation from these gases at all. The Earth’s surface apparently initially emits the full IR spectrum of a near black body at 288K upwards, but only those parts of it not being absorbed by the radiatively active gases (the ‘GHGs’) on the way out through the atmosphere ever manage to reach space.

And that’s seemingly it. So what atmospheric gases do actually emit Earth’s total flux to space? And it what spectral bands? The ‘GHGs’ are apparently only seen as spectral absorbers, not as spectral emitters.

What really happens, after all, is something else entirely. They mix up spectral (single molecule) reemission with thermal (bulk gas) emission. The different layers of the Earth system, from surface to the top of atmosphere, simply radiates at whatever TEMPERATURE they’re at. You see this in the WAVELENGTH/FREQUENCY distribution (‘brightness temperature’). You don’t see it in total flux (W/m2). That’s the mix-up. And that’s where ‘climate science’ goes wrong. They try to tie Earth’s measured mean total IR flux to space to a specific temperature (via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation). That’s not how it works. Doing this is a fun mathematical exercise at most. Because it bears no physical meaning. No, the Earth simply radiates a mean total flux to space of 239 W/m2 because that’s the mean flux it gets in from the Sun.

This is how they get tangled up in their fantasy explanations of how the atmosphere makes the surface warmer than at pure solar radiative equilibrium (the postulated ‘atmospheric radiative GHE’). They note that Earth’s surface holds a mean global temperature of 288K, but that the flux to space is only 239 W/m2. So they claim that the atmosphere is radiating this flux to space from an air layer at 255K and that the energy excess of the 288K surface flux over the 255K atmospheric flux is somehow ‘held forever captive’ (by the so-called ‘GHGs’, of course) within the intervening layers of air.

This is pure BS, of course. There is no connection whatsoever between Earth’s final, total radiative flux to space and a specific temperature found within the Earth system emitting it. The flux is what it is because it needs to be, because over a certain period of time it needs to balance the incoming from the Sun. The temperature of the Earth’s surface and the temperature distribution from it to the tropopause is set by entirely different processes. The thermal radiation, then, is a result of this temperature distribution, not its cause.

This is how the atmosphere really makes the surface warmer:

1) It has a mass and therefore a heat capacity. This means it is able to warm. It does so by being directly convectively coupled with the solar-heated surface below it. Whether or not that atmosphere contains radiatively active gases, it will warm – conductively>convectively. The atmosphere is able to warm. Space isn’t. Therefore the atmosphere sets up a temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface that has a finite (sub-max) steepness. Space doesn’t. The atmosphere thus INSULATES the surface. Energy is not able to escape the surface as fast as it’s coming in before it has warmed to a higher mean temperature level than before the atmosphere was put in place.

2) It has a mass and therefore a weight (it’s in a gravity field, after all). It therefore exerts a pressure on the solar-heated surface above 0. Unlike space. This pressure makes it harder for energy to escape the surface than without such pressure AT EQUAL TEMPERATURE in two ways: i) it suppresses the evaporation rate, and ii) it suppresses (upward) buoyant acceleration of heated surface air. (The second point here is more subtle and complex than the first one, because it also needs to take into account an atmospheric density distribution factor to work, but that’s for another day. It is still the main reason why the surface of Venus is so hot.)

• #
Stephen Wilde

Kristian,

I think we are pretty much on the same wavelength in this.

A couple of slight quibbles but nothing to change the basic principles.

Be careful of using the word ‘pressure’ though.

It isn’t pressure in itself that does any heating, rather it is density for which pressure is a mere proxy at a given strength of gravitational field. You seem to realize that.

The reason that density is so important is that for a gas the more densely packed the molecules the greater the proportion of incoming solar energy that can be conducted to those molecules.

Hence a higher surface temperature.

Convection then steps in due to density variations in the horizontal plane from uneven surface heating and the process of adiabatic uplift and descent commences.

Thereafter the necessary balance between the radiative exchange between surface and space and the conductive exchange between surface and air is maintained by variations in the convective circulation.

Any thermal effect from changes in the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere is therefore negated by convective and conductive changes. That must be so if the radiative exchange with space is to be kept in balance.

Then we must distinguish changes in radiative capability from changes in reflective capability. The latter alters the amount of solar energy entering the system in the first place. The former only alters internal energy transfers for energy accepted into the system.

That distinction is critical because it explains why the effect of radiative gases can be offset by changes within the system whereas the effect of reflectivity changes cannot.

Thus solar induced cloudiness changes will change global temperatures but GHG induced radiative changes will not.

Energy reflected out is lost to the system before it gets in and that has an effect similar to changing TOA insolation which does affect global temperatures.

Changing reflectivity is similar to moving the Earth closer to or further from the sun. You change both surface temperature AND the global air circulation.

Changing radiative characteristics within an atmosphere leaves surface temperature the same (on average) with a change in the global air circulation INSTEAD.

• #
bananabender

Sorry to be so negative but David seems to be offering another modified version of the same totally unscientific GE hypothesis.

The Earth is not some theoretical black body that quickly radiates most of the incoming energy straight back into space. It is a massive solid heat sink that has an almost infinite capacity to store incoming solar energy without substantially heating the atmosphere. Some of that energy is converted to work (thermal expansion, storms, precipitation, waves, ocean currents, rock weathering etc, etc, etc.) The rest is stored in the oceans and top few metres of crust. The energy that escapes Earth is radiative ‘leakage’ from the TOA rather than EM emissions from the surface.

It is claimed that the Earth has an energy input approximately 0.6W/m2. The oceans would be 3000m deep if average over the entire Earths surface. That gives a specific heat capacity of 23GJ/m2. So it would take somewhere near 2×10^9 seconds (63 years) to heat the oceans by a mere 1K if none of the excess energy was converted to work or lost. In reality virtually all the extra energy is likely to be converted to work or lost to space from TOA because radiation is proportional to T^4. Trenberth is partially right – the ‘missing’ heat is lurking in the ocean depth (where it always has been). However because the oceans have 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere it must be the oceans that heat the atmosphere by physical means (primarily by conduction/evaporation/condensation>.

It takes approximately 1000 years for the bottom of the ocean to heat by 1K. This suggests that the current atmospheric warming and subsequent increase of atmospheric is actually the result of warming during the MWP. Substantially greater changes in temperature (eg 10K) would literally take millions of years to occur.

We should be looking at climate cycles as ancient historical documents that represent conditions from hundreds, thousands or even millions of years ago rather than a direct result of recent conditions.

• #

bananabender June 19, 2014 at 7:38 pm

” Sorry to be so negative but David seems to be offering another modified version of the same totally unscientific GE hypothesis.”

What can you possibly mean by GE hypothesis?
The water vapor in the atmosphere can radiate to space more effectivly than can the surface. By varying the amount of water vapor this planet can radiate to space much more power or much less power than it receives from the Sun. The water vapor controls all. If solar in is more than atmosphere out the excess is stored in the ocean. Just waiting for the time when Solar in is less than atmosphere out. That excess out is powered by the excess sensible heat of the ocean! Welcome to this wonderfull planet. No “we should be”, go pet on a kitty cat and enjoy!

• #

Only the condensate radiates and the extent to which it can radiate is limited by the temperature of the height at which condensation occurs. At higher levels the radiating ability of the condensate is severely limited by the low temperatures.

When condensation occurs much of the latent heat released from the water vapour goes via conduction to surrounding non-radiative molecules.

It is then returned to the surface as sensible energy again in adiabatic descent at the dry adiabatic lapse rate which is nearly double the ascending moist rate.

• #

You’ve disappeared off into magic sky-dragon land. It will be a shame if this comment thread degenerates into yet another re-run of “there is no GHE”. Mods?

• #

Whoops.

Water vapour molecules do radiate but that does not affect the latent heat content unless the phase change occurs.

I’ll review accordingly.

• #

Well I never thought I’d find myself agreeing with the “Winston Smith” of wikipedia…

Stephen,
water vapour does absorb and emit IR. You can measure this with an instrument for less than \$100.

Wiki Weasel,
there is a radiative GHE on this planet, just not a net radiative GHE. Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans. And the atmosphere has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiation from the atmosphere. And the primary radiative coolant in our atmosphere? – H2O.

• #

Konrad says, June 20, 2014 at 3:01 pm:

“there is a radiative GHE on this planet”

In what way?

• #

As I said –

“there is a radiative GHE on this planet, just not a net radiative GHE”

note the word “net”.

Radiative gases do increase surface Tmin over land. However their net effect in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

• #

Should have said that water vapour doesn’t radiate its latent heat away. To get rid of the latent heat requires a phase change to condensation. My comments should be taken as referring to the latent heat load only.

• #

bananabender

An influence on recent warming via ocean waters from the MWP is a possibility that has been mentioned before by me and others but I don’t think we need to consider it here. We are currently seeking numerical evidence for a solar effect on SSTs and global air temperatures with a view to hopefully acquiring superior predictive skill to that derived from current GCMs.

As regards the oceans as a whole I don’t think they can change temperature significantly if TSI and atmospheric pressure remain the same because the amount of energy required for the phase change from liquid to vapour is determined by the weight of atmosphere pressing down on the surface.

The reduction of weight for the vapour at the surface (as compared to that of air) has to be sufficient to overcome the weight of the atmosphere above if water vapour induced uplift is to begin (above water you can’t get standard convective uplift because the water surface is always cooler than the air above).

The amount of energy required in the form of latent heat for the change of phase at 1bar (standard atmospheric pressure at the surface) is currently 5 to 1 i.e. evaporation soaks up 5 times more energy than is required to induce it and that 5 times as much energy ceases to be sensible heat by becoming a form of potential energy. Hence the cooler ocean ‘skin’.

More pressure on the oceans will require them to heat up such that the latent heat of evaporation moves to,say, 6:1.

Less pressure on the oceans will allow them to cool down such that the latent heat of evaporation moves to,say, 4:1.

If one removes the atmosphere altogether evaporation occurs instantly with no additional energy input required thus 1:1. In that case ALL incoming radiation goes straight to evaporation (or sublimation if the temperature is below freezing point) until the liquid (or solid) has gone.

In any event, the weight of the atmosphere determines the total energy content of the oceans at a given level of insolation subject only to variations about the mean caused by internal movement.

• #

It takes approximately 1000 years for the bottom of the ocean to heat by 1K.

Not true. It will never warm by any amount unless all of the surface ice has been melted. The temperate at the bottom of the ocean is close to 0C because of the temperature/density profile of water. As long as there is any frozen water on the planet, the bottom will remain close to 0C independent of whats happening on the surface. The surface of Venus is similar to the bottom of our ocean and the temperature at the surface is dictated by the PVT profile of a dense CO2 ‘ocean’ heated from above. For Venus, its not the surface that is in direct equilibrium with the Sun, but the top of its dense cloud layer. Whatever cloud top temperatures are dictated by this equilibrium sets the temperature at the surface. i.e. the GHG effect is irrelevant for Venus!

• #
bananabender

Typo in paragraph 2: It should read:

It is claimed that the Earth has an EXCESS energy input of approximately 0.6W/m2

• #
John M

Hi David

How well does you your notch and low pass filter model accomodate the short term (~2 year) volcanic forcing lag ?

• #
bill

There is a lot talked about the RATS. So if the surface warms by 1C radiating “surfaces” warm by 0.5C. Surely this increase would be insignificant with regards to radiation emitted, so why so much emphasis on it?

• #
David Evans

Because the temperature we want as the output for our model is the surface temperature, while the temperature calculated by the low pass filter is the radiating temperature. We will use the three pipes idea again soon.

• #

All very interesting! And my too limited knowledge of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics can’t keep up.

But I do tend to agree with some of the comments in this thread suggesting that a 3-pipe model for energy loss from earth is too simplistic.

I don’t properly understand the works of Qing-Bin Lu from the Dept of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Waterloo in Canada, but I do like the fact that his cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction (CRE) theory produces 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling. Also with remarkably good correlations between halocarbon concentrations in the stratosphere and a 9-year delay from surface based temperatures.

Is there a physical mechanism here that could fit in to David and Jo’s model?

The key paper is perhaps ‘Cosmic-ray-driven reaction and greenhouse effect of halogenated molecules: culprits for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change’, International Journal of Modern Physics B. Vol. 27, No.17 (38 pages).

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Jennifer #33 re Qing-Bin Lu

Yes, another fascinating climate tangent.

>”Is there a physical mechanism here that could fit in to David and Jo’s model?”

Whew! Too much to assimilate in my case.

• #

Hey Joanne,
Lotsa comments and few trolls! Are we having fun yet?

• #

Are we having fun yet?

Whew!

Viewing all this from the sidelines is just amazing, watching the Comments as they come in, and trying to wrap my head around it all makes me feel so damned insignificant.

In fact, if I may inject a little humour, I feel a lot like Charlie Brown in this classic, and sorry, it is a YouTube clip.

Charlie Brown – Clouds

Tony.

• #

Tony from the sidelines, Charlie Brown’s opinion plus your opinion may be the only things significant! Are we having fun yet?

• #
Frank

New paper maybe interesting for finding the impact of “X Force”: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL003764/full . It describes the local influences of the solar cycles to the temperatures in different hights.
best
Frank

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Frank #35

Re van Loon and Shea (2012), be good to have the abstract in view:

‘The global 11-year solar signal in July–August’

Harry van Loon and Dennis J. Shea (2012)

Abstract
During the past 41 years there has been an observable effect of the 11-year solar cycle on the temperatures and heights in the levels between the middle troposphere and 10 hPa (the highest level in the data) in July–August. Between 30°S and the North Pole the temperatures and heights were higher at peaks than in valleys of the solar cycle, between 30°S and 70°S they were lower in the peaks, and above Antarctica they were higher. This meridional pattern of differences and the fact that they decrease with decreasing elevation suggest that the solar signal observed below 10 hPa is imposed from above as an indirect, dynamic effect. The pattern of the temperature and height differences indicates that the solar cycle affects the southern winter and northern summer stratospheric vortices. At the earth’s surface an 11-year solar signal is not obvious in the zonally averaged temperatures and pressures in July–August.

Similarly:

‘Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms’

JIANSONG ZHOU AND KA-KIT TUNG (2012)

ABSTRACT
Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere. Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. A larger area of statistical significance than that in previous published work is obtained, due to the longer record and a better trend removal process. It reveals a spatial pattern consistent with a ‘‘bottom up’’ mechanism, involving evaporative feedback near the tropical ocean surface and tropical vertical convection, latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the polar regions. It provides an
alternative to the currently favored ‘‘top down’’ mechanism involving stratospheric ozone heating.

http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/Zhou_and_Tung_2013_solar.pdf

• #
Mer Pettersen

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JA019052/abstract

Cloud this be the force x ?

Hot flow from the Sun? Bow Shock? Interesting. Thanks for suggesting another candidate. – J

• #
dp

I wonder if it would be a good sidebar to discuss the nature of extinction range of SWR and LWR in the atmosphere. It may help understand the “pipe” concept of upwelling and downwelling IR (energy) between the surface and the unbound freedom of space. I presume the black box nature of your analysis accounts for upward convection transportation of some of this same low-altitude energy.

• #

Jennifer
Thanks for that reference. FYI the cyanobacterial (photosynthetic) primary productivity at the surface of the oceans responds to the 11 years cyclicity in near UV-visible light (450 – 700 nm range) flux. This is component of the TSI flux at the surface. It is is also proportional to SST. In turn that primary productivity (and related global species distribution) essentially dictates (amongst other things) the level of production of low cloud (sulfate based) nuclei, in turn controlling the density of low cloud and hence the albedo of the ocean and, in clear sky conditions, the aerosol optical depth (AOD). Other aspects of that productivity also effect the absorbance and reflectivity of the ocean surface under low wind speed conditions. Such effects have the ability to alter albedo on a regional basis and limit convective and latent heat transfer from the surface. These effects not only respond to the 11 years cyclicity of TSI (proven in literature base) but also the seasonal (and inclination) effect on albedo.

The input signals reside in the visible and near UV and the output signal resides in the IR. Importantly, this occurs all over the oceans (where the longer circulatory cycles like ENSO, AMO , PD etc., apply). There are also more complex equivalentas on the continents – see for example the now well established modern greening of the Sahara and the increase in outback vegetation across inland Australia. If this isn’t a powerful modulator of the atmospheric window ‘pipe’ on short timescales completely spanning the 11 cycle I’ll eat my hat.

• #
justjoshin

William Connolley is spending his days on JoNova’s site these days? Anyone would think he isn’t allowed to edit the climate section of wikipedia anymore.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

The following is relevant to Part II and I’ve just posted the same in that thread but probably worthwhile inserting in this current Part because it’s about solar energy the surface “sees” rather than the TOA solar “constant”.

Tatiana Barlyaeva says she sees a temperature wavelet spectra corresponding to a solar cycle of “about” 11 years in some specific stations around the globe over the latter quarter of the 20th C (odd for a start). Personally I don’t quite see what she is seeing.

‘New paper finds solar cycle changes Earth temperature’

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/new-paper-finds-solar-cycle-changes.html

‘Solar, volcanic and geomagnetic forcing on air–surface temperature: Geographical distribution of sensitive climate zones’,

Poster, Tatiana Barlyaeva

http://www.spaceclimate.fi/presentations/posters/Barlyaeva_Forcings_poster.pdf

‘External forcing on air–surface temperature: Geographical distribution of sensitive climate zones’

Tatiana V. Barlyaeva (2013) [Paper available as PDF via Google Scholar]

I don’t expect to see an 11 year signal in globally averaged datasets at the surface, the sensitivity has been lost when all the stations are lumped together. If if was apparent it would show up in localized data as Barlyaeva has analysed and only where the locality allows (forget CET for example), but I don’t think she has proved anything conclusive. And SC 23 peak to SC 24 peak was 12 years 2 months (Dec 2001 to Feb 2014), not 11 years.

I think Zhou and Tung’s look at the entire troposphere is the best approach (see paper posted in Part IV). But to see any relationship between solar activity and the temperature of the surface (land), the best place to look is underground. See:

LONG-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE AND SURFACE VERSUS UNDERGROUND TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS IN PARIS

F. PERRIER, J.-L. LE MOUEL, J.-P. POIRIER and M. G. SHNIRMAN (2005)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1211/pdf

See page 1629,

Figure 12. Underground temperature records (diamonds) below the Paris Observatory (depth 28 m) compared with sunspot number: (a) data from Cassini. (b) data from Arago using the Lavoisier thermometer

Annual subsoil temperature exhibits a similar profile, higher when energy input is higher (summer), lower when energy input is lower (winter). The “pulses” of energy at around 11 years are analogous to “pulses” of measured flux at the surface over a year or a month which monthly averaging smooths out but can be seen in monthly update graphs of solar activity i.e. the surface does not “see” a smooth flux curve but underground and subsoil does. See the period including the SC 24 peak (Feb 2014) for example of energy pulses seen by the surface (also posted in Part IV):

Solar Terrestrial Activity Report http://www.solen.info/solar/

The other obvious solar “pulse” is diurnal. The 24 hr temperature response at the surface is equally obvious but subsoil only “sees” an annual “pulse” and underground only “sees” a multidecadal “pulse” if there’s an elevated level of solar activity over that period as in Cassini above.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

“…if there’s an elevated level of solar activity over that period as in [Arago] above.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

>subsoil only “sees” an annual “pulse”

Natural smoothing and looks like a sine wave. Air exhibits the same profile when artificially smoothed. See for example:

‘Daily, seasonal, and annual relationships between air and subsurface
temperatures’

Smerdon, J. E., H. N. Pollack, V. Cermak, J. W. Enz, M. Kresl, J. Safanda, and J. F. Wehmiller (2006)

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/Smerdon_et_al_Journal_3.pdf

Subsurface temperature is measured down to 3m – 5m. Smoothing is by 21-day moving average filter.

• #
Richard C (NZ)

Re Smerdon et al (2006) #40.2

At Fargo (Figure 1), there’s a 5 – 6 month lag for June summer surface heat (25 C) to propagate down to 4.7m below the surface raising the temperature from 6 C to 9 C..

In January when it’s -5 C at the surface, it’s 7 C 4.7m down.

Similarly at Prague (Figure 2).

• #
Alexander K

JO: I and many others have long ago given up on Lubos, who demonstrates real intolerance for anything he does not immediately understand. I once thought him to be amusing, but he has regressed to a mere irritant. ‘Shooting from the lip’ may be okay for stand-up comedians but not for serious commenters on science.
While many of us are struggling to understand and assimilate the information you and David are
presenting us with, there is never a case for rudeness or boorish behaviour such as Lubos has indulged in.
More power to both of you!

Thank you Alexander. Noted :- ) — jo

• #

Alexander K June 24, 2014 at 1:49 pm · Reply

JO: I and many others have long ago given up on Lubos, who demonstrates real intolerance for anything he does not immediately understand. I once thought him to be amusing, but he has regressed to a mere irritant. ‘Shooting from the lip’ may be okay for stand-up comedians but not for serious commenters on science.

Do not ignore Lubos, even if he is dronk and spouting. His dronk spouting is still better than any the dronk spouting of you, David, or most others and me. Lubos correctly identified the problem of dividing an impulse frequency spectrum by any monochromatic spectrum, which must result in a notch at that frequency. David has explained around that asymptote for us mortals, not Lubos. Thank you David!

“While many of us are struggling to understand and assimilate the information you and David are presenting us with, there is never a case for rudeness or boorish behaviour such as Lubos has indulged in.”
Please explain the needed difference in behavior in God and earthlings?

• #
Alexander K

Sorry!
More power to both you and David.

• #