New Science 16: Building the alternative model and why it solves so many major problems

In typical style I looked at this draft and told David that the second half of his post should be at the top (that’s where he discusses how his model solves so many problems). He replied that the equations were the most important part, and he wasn’t going to flip them around. So, for readers who don’t speak mathematica-lingua, all I can say, is don’t miss the second half below.

Also in typical style, David prefers this picture he’s just drawn in his diagramming software, to my cartoon in the intro to post 11:

In this post, David combines the two smaller models to make one basic climate model (that’s the sum-of-warmings and the OLR models). Unlike the mainstream conventional basic model that underlies the entire establishment culture and philosophy, the alternative model uses more empirical data (and from the real world too, not just the lab). It’s also less reliant on hypothetical partial derivatives. Plus, in the alternate model, different forcings can cause different responses. In the conventional model, the architecture assumes the climate responds to to all forcings the same way.

CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere, rather than just on the surface, and architecturally-speaking, this extra energy could be rerouted and escape through a different path (like water flowing through a different pipe). In the conventional basic model, remember, the only type of feedbacks allowed are responses to surface warming. The climate’s response is supposedly the same regardless of whether the Sun provides extra incoming energy or the atmosphere blocks a part of the outgoing flow. What was CO2 emissions shifts to become water vapor emissions. If the outgoing flow just redistributes from one wavelength to another , the conventional models are up a creek full of manure, so to speak.

The rerouting of outgoing energy is potentially a massive negative feedback, but in Certified Climate Model Speak we can’t even say that, since the term “negative feedback” is defined as negative feedbacks to surface warming, not atmospheric warming. In the blind language of standard models there is no term to describe this. No wonder they can’t get out of the rut they are stuck in.

To reduce problems with partial derivatives, David switches from using the Plank sensitivity to the Stefan Boltzmann sensitivity. The Planck variant relies on holding “everything else constant”, which allows the tropospheric temperatures to change (in unison) but keeps the stratospheric temperature constant. It’s different (slightly) from the Stefan Boltzmann sensitivity (which applies under all circumstances) principally because much of the CO2 and ozone emission layers are in the stratosphere.

We can do better than in 1896 — apparently Arrhenius used something akin to the conventional basic model, but with of course no climate data to work with.

— Jo

16. The Alternative Model

Dr David Evans, 29 October 2015, David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature.

As discussed in post 11 on strategy, the alternative model is a combination of the sum-of-warmings model in post 13 and the OLR model in post 15. In this post we join them.

Some of the equations appear complicated, but they are simple — there are just a lot of factors.

Joining the Sum-of-Warmings and OLR Models

We start with the sum-of-warmings model in Fig. 1  of post 13. However  we only consider the solar and CO2 drivers, because more drivers introduce too many unknowns — so we omit the drivers marked “Other” in that figure. The analysis is between steady states, so the transitory effects of influences such as volcanoes may be ignored.

Adding the temperature perturbations due to ASR and CO2 in the sum-of-warmings model,

Applying energy balance (Eq. (1) of post 2),

Now join the models by using the OLR model, Eq. (14) of post 15, to replace ΔR:

A bit of re-arranging gives us the alternative model:

Equation (4) is called the joint-model equation (JME). It gives the surface warming in terms of the increases in the emission layer heights, the lapse rate, the cloud fraction, and the CO2 concentration. However it does so in terms of the CO2 sensitivity λC, which is still unknown at this stage.

Estimating the CO2 Sensitivity

For a period between two steady states over which we have observations of the relevant climate variables, the JME estimates the CO2 sensitivity as

When λC, is known, the model is complete.

Estimating the Fraction of Warming Caused by CO2, and the ECS

The fraction of global warming due to extra CO2 over the period between two steady states is estimated by the complete model to be

where ΔTS,C is the surface warming due to CO2. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)  is estimated as

Diagram

There isn’t one, even though both constituent models have diagrams — Fig. 1  of post 13 and Fig. 2  of post 15 — because it is not possible to produce a single diagram such as those. In the sum-of-warmings model the CO2 influence DR,2XΔL cannot add to the ASR going into the solar response SB. But in the OLR model, DR,2XΔL  must add (negatively) to the OLR, which by energy balance is also the ASR.

Comparisons with the Conventional Model

The alternative model here solves the problems of the conventional model described in post 5 and post 9:

• The sum-of-warmings approach allows for separate feedbacks for each individual driver. For example it allows for a CO2 sensitivity λC that includes feedbacks that only apply to the influence of CO2, such as the rerouting feedback. The conventional model applies the same response to each driver, so it is structurally unable to accommodate influence-specific feedbacks such as the rerouting feedback.
• In the sum-of-warmings model the drivers are not interchangeable. For example, it applies a different response to surface warming due to increased ASR than it does to decreased OLR from carbon dioxide molecules in the upper atmosphere due to CO2 enrichment. This undermines the notion or utility of forcing, because in the sum-of-warmings model the same forcing (radiation imbalance) from different drivers can cause very different surface warmings.

The alternative model ameliorates the problem withe conventional model described in post 4, because it has less reliance on partial derivatives and “holding everything else constant”:

• The sum-of-warmings architecture relies only on linearity to independently compute the warming due to each driver and to then add them, with no partial derivatives involved. In contrast, the radiation-balance architecture of the conventional model inherently depends on partial derivatives — the radiation that balances the forcings is computed by the Planck sensitivity, which relies on the Planck conditions (tropospheric temperatures change uniformly but everything else except OLR is held constant).
• The OLR model uses partial derivatives to account for the main factors that affect OLR. For example, it computes the change in OLR in the CO2 pipe by separately considering the effect of changing either the CO2 concentration, lapse rate, or surface warming while holding the other two factors constant. However the alternative model is less dependent on the value of the partial derivatives, and less vulnerable to errors in any one partial derivative, than the conventional model — because the conventional ECS is proportional to the Planck sensitivity λ0, a partial derivative.
• The sum-of-warmings model employs the Stefan-Boltzmann sensitivity, which applies under all conditions. The heart of the conventional model is the Planck sensitivity, which only applies under the Planck conditions.

An advantage of the sum-of-warmings approach is that, with enough data gathered over enough time, it should be possible to statistically disentangle the warmings due to various drivers. In principle, the feedbacks and sensitivity to each driver could be verified by real-world data. In contrast, partial derivative estimates are intrinsically hypothetical and never empirically verifiable.

Massive Negative Feedback Omitted from the Conventional Model?

Many who suspect that the ECS is substantially less than 3°C currently accept the conventional analysis for calculating the ECS (Fig. 2 of post 3). In the conventional basic climate model the only way the ECS can be dramatically lower than 3°C is if the total feedback f is much less positive than claimed in AR5, so that the feedbacks do not amplify the effect of a given forcing so much. Those critics have therefore searched for a massive missing negative feedback in response to surface warming. However the theoretical case for net-positive feedback to surface warming seems strong, based as it is largely on the properties of moist air, and after thirty years of searching it is getting unlikely that a massive negative feedback in response to surface warming has been overlooked.

The sum-of-warmings model (Fig. 1 of post 13) provides a possible answer for those critics: do not apply the solar sensitivity and feedbacks to the influence of CO2, but instead apply a separate CO2 sensitivity and feedbacks. Solar input heats the bottom of the atmosphere, changes occur in days, and it increases OLR, while CO2 enrichment affects outgoing energy from the higher atmosphere and changes apply over decades and it merely redistributes OLR between wavelengths and emitters (ignoring the minor albedo feedbacks to surface warming) — so might not they have different responses?

Although the rerouting feedback is not a “negative feedback” as that term is understood in the conventional model (because it is not a response to surface warming), if the CO2 sensitivity λC is much lower than the solar sensitivity SB then it would have the same effect on ECS estimates as if a massively negative feedback had been omitted from the conventional model.

9.2 out of 10 based on 78 ratings

234 comments to New Science 16: Building the alternative model and why it solves so many major problems

• #

Good summary.

Warming within the vertical column which causes changes in the lapse rate slope can be neutralised by convective adjustments whereas surface warming cannot. Surface warming requires a shift of the entire lapse rate slope from a new, warmer starting point whereas warming within the vertical column can leave the overall average surface temperature unchanged

AGW theory relies on surface warming in every instance of a change in radiative capability within an atmosphere and completely neglects warming within the vertical column together with the convective adjustments that then neutralise its thermal effects for the system as a whole.

Surface warming must involve a change in the total thermal energy content of the whole system whereas warming only in the vertical column can leave total thermal energy the same once the necessary convective adjustments have been implemented.

• #
bobl

This has also been my point.

If it’s radiative gasses (water) that lowers the lapse rate from 9.8 to 6.5 and CO2 has some sort of water feedback then that extra CO2 and water must affect (lower) the moist lapse rate which increases OLR for a given surface temperature but moderating that flow by preventing surface OLR.

EG The extra water closes the sluice gate in the river (lowers ASR) while makes the WV and cloud top pipe much bigger and the CO2 / surface radiation much smaller. There does not then need to be a huge surface temperature change in order to counter any amount of ASR, (The Sluice gate handles that)

However the theoretical case for net-positive feedback to surface warming seems strong, based as it is largely on the properties of moist air,

In an email exchange with Will Kinnimonth he said once to me that he knows some places at the same latitude have the save “Average” temperature, but he didn’t know whether his knowledge was the rule or the exception. That stuck with me. Think about it: If true this implies that Water vapour in a latitude band just narrows the range of temperature (moderates it) without changing the average (for the latitude). We know for example that in the hottest band on earth (the equator) that the temperature range on islands is narrow from about 23 – 33.

Also, no natural system has Positive feedback without a saturation mode – Mouse plagues are a good example, in response to good times mouse populations can breed up to astounding levels, until they saturate the food supply, and then starve themselves out to nothing, its an overshoot-undershoot response to food step changes. With mice it’s food, with climate it is storms and cloud reducing the ASR. This is an ultimate non-linear negative feedback cap on temperature that can expand and contract geographically as temperature changes. Without such a saturation mode – IE an ultimate temperature dependent negative feedback the earth would be uninhabitable, so it’s NOT accurate to say that the climate is Nett positive – it’s possible it “Might be” at this point but at any other point all bets are off.

PS can you fix the diagram and put in the sluice gate – controlled by things like Orbit, cloud, water haze, surface vegetation, particulates, Smog, Ozone, Ionisation (Aurora), Sox and only god knows what else.

and after thirty years of searching it is getting unlikely that a massive negative feedback in response to surface warming has been overlooked.

I disagree here, the climate scientists are just looking in the wrong place, the need for feedback is predicated on the OLR=ASR (R=A) assumption which we know isn’t true. There are massive losses and gains from non radiative sources. For example slow changes have time to penetrate the earths crust, the slope of temperature from the surface to the equipotential point (where upwelling heat = downwelling heat) has to change.

I’m looking at writing an article on the topic of non-radiative climate drivers.

Stephen, what is the lapse rate within a cyclone?

• #
KinkyKeith

“climate scientists are just looking in the wrong place”

Deliberately.

• #
Roy Hogue

Remember, once someone takes a position publicly, it’s nearly impossible to get up the nerve to admit you were mistaken and change your mind. Too much is already at stake before all the unknowns can be searched for and explored. This is the very real danger of announcing that the decision is in, there’s no more to know and no debate is possible so early in the game, not to mention at anytime during the game.

So, “Deliberately,” is more like, “Deliberately^2.”

• #

bobl,

Things get untidy within a cyclone because the rotation causes convective cells with large lapse rate distortions to circulate around a centre with smaller lapse rate distortions which is why the centre is often less cloudy.

In extremis the centre can become cloud free with descending adiabatically warming air helping to fuel the continuing updraughts around it which is why tornados and waterspouts are observed to descend towards the surface.

• #

bobl said:

“With mice it’s food, with climate it is storms and cloud reducing the ASR”

Not quite right.

If one reduces ASR (Absorbed Solar Radiation) then that does affect surface temperature rather than just altering lapse rate slopes.

David points out that the system responses to GHGs sich as CO2 are different to responses to changes in ASR.

Furthermore, we need a solution that works even in a waterless world.

To deal with those issues one needs the mechanism proposed in my earlier article which described the way that vertical displacement of upper air which flows laterally between low and high pressure cells with no change in temperature as that air moves along the distorted tropopause reduces adiabatic compression in descent exactly as much as GHGs increased adiabatic decompression in ascent.

That is the only way to keep the system thermally stable without ASR changing. That is why atmospheres can be retained on worlds without water and regardless of the proportion of the atmosphere that is comprised of GHGs

GHGs cause increased turbulence at and above the top boundary of the convecting layer (in Earth’s case the tropopause), using up kinetic energy in the process since all movement requires energy, instead of raising surface temperatures or adding to the total kinetic energy of the system.

In effect, any ‘surplus’ energy from GHGs leaks into the stratosphere whilst upper air is transferring across from the top of ascending columns to the top of descending columns.

If there were no atmospheric layers then there would be additional turbulence at the boundary with space and the surplus energy in GHGs would leak out to space radiatively from there.

That process is not incorporated into any current climate models as far as I know.

Those models incorrectly assume that the energy carried by GHGs gets back to the surface via downward radiation so as to mimic the effect of increased ASR which would raise surface temperature and add to the total kinetic energy in the system. That is the most fundamental error as David points out.

In practice, the presence of the variable water vapour pipe assists the process so that there is less turbulence at the tropopause than would otherwise occur.

On Earth most of the energy absorbed by GHGs is indeed dealt with by the water vapour pipe, and other pipes, but my proposition is that even if none of those other pipes were available there is still that proposed mechanism to provide a failsafe system to maintain stability.

If only the surface pipe existed then there would be lots more and deeper turbulence at the top boundary layer so as to get kinetic energy back to the surface fast enough to match radiation from the surface with radiation in from space. The increased speed of convective overturning would involve larger lapse rate distortions to the warm side in ascending columns and correspondingly large distortions to the cold side in descending columns but it would all net out to the same surface temperature and the same total kinetic energy in the atmosphere.

So, I agree entirely with David about his new architecture but I have tried to describe the mechanical process that underlies it since it is the density variations involved in convective adjustments that redistribute kinetic energy between the available pipes and if the only available pipe is the surface then all radiation goes out to space from that surface.

• #

Actually, there is an error in the above.

If there were only the surface pipe available there would be no distortions in the lapse rate slope because tha DALR would apply in both ascent and descent but there would be larger vertical undulations at the top boundary representing accelerated convective overturning.

Air transferring across from the top of an ascending column would not leak energy to space since there would be no radiative capability.

Therefore, decompression in ascent would be the same as compression in descent and the radiating surface would be of uniform temperature with little or no difference between the temperatures at the base of ascending and descending columns.

On such a hypothetical world, average decompression of rising air on the sunlit side would exactly match average compression of descending air on the unlit side with an even radiation from surface to space from both sides. Of course rotation or an uneven surface would jumble it all up but that is a seperate issue.

• #

I really shouldn’t try to do this stuff in the early hours of UK time.

In a non GHG atmosphere there would not need to be larger vertical undulations as a result of accelerated convective overturning. Instead, in the absence of lapse rate distortions the overturning process would simply run more smoothly, efficiently and faster with less vertical undulations.

• #

Nope, sorry. Still haven’t got it. ECS to rising CO2 is Negative.

There is no way forward without correctly calculating “Average surface temperature without radiatively cooled atmosphere”.

Let’s sort the wheat from the chaff.

A clear and direct question for David –
“Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?”

Warming or cooling David? One word is all that is required. No need for flappy hands. No need for “but, but, we don’t need to calculate this!”. Excepting 1 bar pressure, what is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures on this ocean planet? Warming or cooling?

You are a mathematician David. I am an empiricist. I work in design and engineering. I conduct many empirical experiments in radiative physics and fluid dynamics. I work to answer what existing maths cannot. My message is this – maths can model both the physically possible and the physically impossible. Empirical experiment can only ever model the physically possible.

If you are modelling radiative gases in our atmosphere causing surface warming, then you are modelling the physically impossible.

Again my clear and direct question for David –
“Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?”

• #
KinkyKeith

I would extend your request to ask when we are going to see the real deal from the IPCCCCC.

I am of course talking about the model which specifically isolates the Temperature Effect of HUMAN ORIGIN CO2 against the

relevant temperature reading AFTER having removed all other major effects.

When oh when is THAT going to be modeled??

The issue has ALWAYS been the Temperature Effect of HUMAN ORIGIN CO2 but we continue to deal with models which contain the effects of all

inputs and including Natural Origin CO2.

We need a lightning bolt of REALITY.

KK

• #

Konrad, this series is about basic climate models, which calculate surface warming due to incremental changes from current conditions. Your question is not about that sort of situation.

As stated at the beginning of the series, we are accepting the IPCC parameter values, including how much OLR from CO2 molecules is blocked by increasing C02, and seeing what happens when the architectural flaws in the conventional basic climate model are remedied.

Konrad I find questions about hypothetical atmospheres pointless. The arguments go on forever, because they cannot be empirically proven.

• #

Thanks for the screen-shot David.

I own you. Now and forever.

You dissed the guy who got it right. Now a matter of permanent Internet record. Enjoy!

• #

Hey punk,
You got it right. David may get it more right and more effective!
The gravitationally induced thermostatic lapse, really, really screws with any academic S-B solution to a non-surface!
You struggle so hard to get mor red thumbs. y’all still payn 😉

• #

”You struggle so hard to get mor red thumbs.

Ha!

“What a day! What a lovely day!”

• #

If you get an outfit; you can be a cowboy too! 😉

• #

You’re not being dissed Konrad. It’s just not the time and place for that conversation.

• #

David,You are so nice to everyone! Please take me down several notches; you need the practice. You now have gathered enemies! I promise to point but not shoot at you! maybe a (BANG BANG for fun and entertainment for spectators). I need that from someone competent like you!
I preach to kitten, she listens attentively, but finally back leg goes up and I have lost my whole audience, so sad. I thought something was understanding! OH WoHa ARE WE!
All the best! -will-

• #
AndyG55

Wow.. Whatever substance you are taking.. no thanks !

• #
Roy Hogue

If you want to go on in this fashion, Will, I can’t stop you. But frankly, you are making an ass of yourself. I hope you’re enjoying it because you’re probably the only one who is.

I don’t spend my time here just to see a pissing contest. Shame on you! 🙁

• #
Roy Hogue

No matter what you think of Konrad’s comments you owe the rest of us a better demeanor and some common old courtesy to everyone.

• #

Andy & Roy,
Will is just having fun. He was involved in radiative physics probably before you were ever born. His work formed the basis for the MODTRAN line by line calc. Perhaps you should read more at Talkshop?

I have empirically replicated some of Will’s earlier work into hemispherical LWIR emissivity/reflectivity of liquid water. Will is right, hemispherical emissivity for water is far less than the figures over 0.9 claimed by climastrologists.

Will is also correct about when field theory or “two stream approximation” is applicable to radiative physics problems. You don’t use “two stream approximation” for radiation translucent radiating volumes. This is exactly why I shoot David up for his “layers” game.

If I use cryo-cooled hohlrumns and bolometers or design experiments using quantum cascade lasers*, I too am just having fun. Dancing on old person Will’s lawn, while he yells and waves his walking stick from the porch 😉

*(Will wishes he had a QCL back in his day. But that was way back when spiky lizards ruled the earth.)

• #
Roy Hogue

Thanks for the clarification but please understand — it isn’t what will does or doesn’t know. It’s his “having fun” in such an obnoxious way that is frankly, quite offensive, especially when he keeps it up.

No one is questioning what he knows.

• #
Roy Hogue

PS:

I was born in 1939. Been around a while myself. 🙂

• #

Jus lokat your new red thumbs vs mine punk!!
You gots mor to sell? Or is yous still byin RED thumbs?

• #

This is all about using the IPCC position to prove errors in the IPCC models.

• #

right on. Thank you!
science v.s. stupidity. Why the hell are you even betting?

• #

James,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchly already tried this approach. The result was fail.

If you play in their sand-pit, if you accept their assumptions, you will fail. Just as David will fail.

Anthony Watts, of WUWT, held a “Chatham House Rules” discussion with warmists and sceptics in the UK. He was trying to engineer a “warming but less than we thought” Realpolitik soft-landing for the hoax.

Monckton, Watts and Evans are wrong. This is science not politics. Luke warmers, like alarmists, are complicit in the greatest assault on science, reason, freedom and democracy in human history.

Science before side. Go hard or go home.

• #

Gosh Konrad, we haven’t even got to the part where I show how to calculate the ECS properly.

• #

”Gosh Konrad, we haven’t even got to the part where I show how to calculate the ECS properly”

There is a line for ECS at 0.0 degrees. On one side is science, on the other politics. “Warming but 10 times less than we thought” is still on the politics side.

You can’t get to the right side of the line by calculating absorption/emission from layers instead of volumes. That is playing in the IPCC sandpit.

• #
KinkyKeith

I must admit that I agree with the content of your comment and have probably expressed similar sentiments myself although I hope,

in a more understanding way.

David has plainly adopted a particular method of approach and has done an extraordinary amount of work on it.

What I don’t concur with is the manner of your disagreement which tends to make an unnecessary and unproductive clash.

In a number of past posts I have made comment on the extraordinarily low capacity of Human Origin CO2 to make any impact on world

“temperatures” because its’ effect is swamped by that of Natural Origin CO2 and the big one: Water.

The Climate “Models” are little more than a joke to anyone who has some experience of modeling real situations but the problem is

: how do we bring those “models” into the disrepute they deserve.

You and I would rant about the absolute stupidity of a model which excludes many relevant factors but includes an accelerating

factor whereby water is made to do “extra duty” because it can be activated by CO2 and create run away “global Warming”.

The media would immediately dismiss our rants; back to the drawing board.

David has set up to deconstruct the current accepted models and illustrate incontrovertible faults within them.

Once the media is gently engaged it may then be possible to bring in other factors which have more chance of being accepted.

This CAGW meme has been building since the 1980s and it will certainly not fold and collapse without a well planned assault.

Team Crush the CAGW Meme ; Working Together.

KK

• #

Keith,
I understand David’s approach. Viscount Monckton, also a very good mathematician, already tried it. It doesn’t work.

Worse than not working, it helps reinforce incorrect science. Either the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface warming or surface cooling. Black or white, right or wrong. The “warming but less than we thought” is locking in the wrong answer. Sceptics need to get over their fears and cross the 0.0 degree ECS barrier.

Warmists are so desperate that this barrier not be crossed they even set up a “false flag operation” to discredit any sceptic who challenged it. There is one assumption above all they demand be accepted – that the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere is surface warming. In accepting this assumption, David is playing by their rules.

As to the “gently, gently” approach to the media, it will do no good. They already know they are wrong but are hoping the hoax is “too big to fail”. They won’t accept any soft-landing offer from sceptics, as demonstrated by their rejection of Lomborg. Tony Abbott tried the Sun Tzu approach – “build your enemy a golden bridge to retreat over”. The lame scream meeja blew that bridge up.

I do believe in the power of sceptics. We have managed to fight a incredibly asymmetric battle against billions of dollars, governments, activists, most of the media and fought them into a corner. But we did not do that with collectivist thought or “team sceptic”. Our diversity is our strength. This is the first major information war in the age of the Internet. It can only be won by science not politics.

Keep your eyes on the prize and don’t just assault, but assault through. The prize? All the activists, journalists and politicians who supported this hoax permanently discredited. Global warming was a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.

The warmists are now at the “teenage girl” stage of the argument – she knows she’s wrong, but if she just screams loud enough the parents may just back down to avoid an ugly fight. Time to be tough. “You are not going out wearing that pseudo-science and no back-chat young lady!” David’s approach, quibbling about the make-up, is not tough enough.

• #

Konrad says, October 30, 2015 at 7:34 pm:

If you play in their sand-pit, if you accept their assumptions, you will fail. Just as David will fail.

I wholeheartedly agree with Konrad. Why start by assuming the IPCC is correct in their basic assumptions on how the climate system works??? That the models are right, only a bit too harsh in their predictions. Where is that gonna take you? You’re just playing yourselves right into their hands …

• #

Kristian: As far as I can see, the IPCC has the physics mainly correct, but have misapplied it slightly to climate to arrive at a quite erroneous result (see post 7 and post 13 for example). Most (though not all) of the basic physics they rely upon is backed by replicated lab experiments.

Skeptics have been barking up the wrong tree arguing with parameter values, IMHO, when the bigger problem is in the application of those values to the climate. In any case, in this series we are accepting the basic physics but arguing with its application.

• #

David Evans says, October 31, 2015 at 3:01 pm:

Kristian: As far as I can see, the IPCC has the physics mainly correct (…)

What physics? The ‘physics’ of the “radiative greenhouse effect”? Or the physics saying that CO2 and H2O absorb (and emit) IR within certain bands of the EM spectrum?

You see, by assuming that the latter automatically leads to the former, you have performed a leap of faith, not a sound logical, scientific assessment of how the climate system actually works. You have simplistically chosen one physical mechanism out of a whole bunch in simultaneous operation within the Earth system and simply decided that it is ultimately the one that causes the elevated mean temps of our planet’s global surface. That’s a choice based on a biased, a priori theoretical interpretation of how things might be, not one based on actual empirical observations from the real Earth system.

IR as heat loss is an effect of temperature, not a cause of it …

• #

Both, Kristian. The aim of this series is to question and fix the architecture of the conventional basic climate model, not dispute the parameter values.

• #

David Evans November 1, 2015 at 12:47 am

“Both, Kristian. The aim of this series is to question and fix the architecture of the conventional basic climate model, not dispute the parameter values.”

If you think it can be fixed fine. As far as I can tell; nothing ever needed fixing. The gravitationally induced lapse rate thermostatically sets the surface temperature above any effective combo atmospheric temperature. There is no need for any surface EMR exitance whatsoever! Surface temperature need never appear in the models of this Earth. I hope you get to that.
All the best! -will-

• #

Will, the so-called surface OLR we’ve been including to date is probably mostly from the water vapor continuum — from my reading of establishment literature, no one seems quite sure how much comes from the actual surface and how much comes from the water vapor continuum. So there might be a very small contribution from the true surface. However the water vapor continuum near the surface is near the surface and so presumably undergoes the same temperature changes as the surface, which presumably influence the amount of OLR from the water vapor continuum in a similar way — which is why we’ve just lumped it in with the surface OLR.

• #
StefanL

Kristian et al,
You can have all the pieces of something right, but if they are put together incorrectly (i.e. the architecture is wrong) then the end result is wrong.

For a real-life example, look at the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse of 1981. A change in the connections between two structural elements fatally weakened the whole thing, killing 114 and injuring a further 216.

David is exposing the incorrect connections that fatally weaken the conventional climate models, in a way that is more accessible to the general public than the complex physics of the individual pieces.

• #

David Evans November 1, 2015 at 12:25 pm

“Will, the so-called surface OLR we’ve been including to date is probably mostly from the water vapor continuum — from my reading of establishment literature, no one seems quite sure how much comes from the actual surface and how much comes from the water vapor continuum. So there might be a very small contribution from the true surface. However the water vapor continuum near the surface is near the surface and so presumably undergoes the same temperature changes as the surface, which presumably influence the amount of OLR from the water vapor continuum in a similar way — which is why we’ve just lumped it in with the surface OLR.”

The near surface WV continuum plays no part in
your OLR nor does the near surface CO2. You must consider EMR exitance from where it originates from only the POV of space. All else is strictly internal. Less than 20% of possible exitance can be from the surface. All of that in the 8-13 micron ‘window’ 90% of that is blocked by cloud cover thus originates to space from cloud tops, tropical ones at up to 15km. I know you use 63% for cloud cover. The CCC refuse to even look at the sky in that waveband. They point the cheap radiometers, get the radiance/temperature from less than 8 microns, call this cloud bottom temperature, then proceed to calculate without even considering ‘any’ cloud effect. To the meteorologists,the surface must radiate independent of any opposition, and if that goes up it is gone man!! From space 90% of measuring nadir can never measure the surface in any waveband above 3 microns.

• #

Will: “Less than 20% of possible exitance can be from the surface.”

Huh? The establishment case is that only 45 W/m2 comes form the surface (including the WV continuum) (post 14), which is 19% of 239 W/m2.

• #

David Evans November 1, 2015 at 12:25 pm

Read above The thing self published while I was not even at the computer!
To correct and continue.

They point the cheap radiometers, get the radiance/temperature from less than 8 microns, call this cloud bottom temperature, then proceed to calculate without even considering ‘any’ cloud effect. To the meteorologists,the surface must radiate independent of any opposition, and if that goes up it is gone man!! From space 90% of measuring nadir can never measure the surface in any waveband above 3 microns. Some CO2 exitance comes from the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere. All of this exitance is from direct insolation of O2, O3, N2, Nox, and CO2 at that altitude! None came from a lower altitude. The major part of 13-18 micron CO2 exitance comes from the optically thick tropopause with some below H2O flux from lower altitudes filling the ‘wings’ of the quite sparse CO2 spectrum at 10kPa 200K tropopause. Most all WV continuum flux originates above 5km with an estimated radiative temperature of 245 K and emissivity of 1.5 optical depth or 78%. Cloud top exit flux originates from the temperature of very highest 100 meters of each cloud especially the very high clouds, and completely replaces any 8-13 micron exitance to space. I hope this gives a different POV about this atmosphere.
All the best! -will-

• #

David Evans November 1, 2015 at 2:06 pm

(Will: “Less than 20% of possible exitance can be from the surface.”)

“Huh? The establishment case is that only 45 W/m2 comes form the surface (including the WV continuum) (post 14), which is 19% of 239 W/m2.”

That is the claim, but is not the case. The higher altitude WV and clouds preclude this from reaching space. The exact same atmospheric phenomena have been in existence for a very long time. There is no evidence that CO2 affects such.:-)

• #
RJ

Excellent post. Agree 100%

I guess the alarmists are giving the thumbs down.

• #
cohenite

One of the things I take from this is that by using alarmism’s own values it can be shown their conclusions are wrong as a matter of methodological defect. This happens time after time.

I especially like that not all forcings are the same in effect. The primary fingerprint of alarmism, the THS, as shown in figure 9.1, AR4, is determined allegedly by extra CO2 but is not there.

• #

”Konrad I find questions about hypothetical atmospheres pointless. The arguments go on forever, because they cannot be empirically proven.”

Delicious David. Now and forever 😉

I am an empiricist. You are a mathematician. You just claimed on the permanent public record that my empirical experiments cannot be replicated. Was that smart, sunshine?

• #

Konrad quotes David, October 30, 2015 at 8:10 pm:

”Konrad I find questions about hypothetical atmospheres pointless. The arguments go on forever, because they cannot be empirically proven.”

Hehe, isn’t the idea of the rGHE itself founded on a thought experiment featuring a completely hypothetical atmosphere (that is, one that could never actually exist/survive in the real Universe) without any radiative properties whatsoever?

• #

David Evans says, October 29, 2015 at 8:04 pm:

Konrad I find questions about hypothetical atmospheres pointless. The arguments go on forever, because they cannot be empirically proven.

David, isn’t the idea of the rGHE itself founded on a thought experiment featuring a completely hypothetical atmosphere (that is, one that could never actually exist/survive in the real Universe), one without any radiative properties whatsoever?

• #

No, not as far as I know Kristian. On the contrary, it’s based on our current atmosphere. See post 6.

• #

David Evans says, October 31, 2015 at 3:03 pm:

No, not as far as I know Kristian. On the contrary, it’s based on our current atmosphere.

No. There is no way you can just look at our current Earth system and say: “There’s the warming effect on the global surface due to the “radiative greenhouse effect”!”

You will have to engage in a thought experiment where the atmosphere has hypothetically lost all of its radiative abilities in order to ‘see’ it, the ‘warming effect’.

The idea is that if this were so, Earth’s effective radiating level to space would be situated at the actual, solid surface, and so, in order for our planet to maintain a dynamic energy balance with its heat source, the Sun, then the surface would need to be no warmer than 255K, emitting an average flux of 240 W/m2, equalling the incoming. With a radiatively active atmosphere, however, this effective radiating level is – by interpretation – stated as lying rather aloft inside the atmosphere, and so now this is the layer that needs to be on average 255K, emitting 240 W/m2 to space. Because of the lapse rate, then, this means that the actual, solid surface would now naturally be warmer than this, by ~33K. And voilà! There’s your rGH EFFECT.

But it’s all based on a purely hypothetical construct, David.

• #

Kristian, you say

There is no way you can just look at our current Earth system and say: “There’s the warming effect on the global surface due to the “radiative greenhouse effect”!

I disagree. See post 6.

• #

David Evans
November 1, 2015 at 12:03 pm · Reply

“Kristian, you say,”
(“There is no way you can just look at our current Earth system and say: “There’s the warming effect on the global surface due to the “radiative greenhouse effect”!”)

“I disagree. See post 6.”

I agree with both Kristain and Konrad. Your post 6 is only an affirmation of the meteorology and CCC claims of:

1) Everything with a temperature must spontaneously electromagnetically radiate,independent of surround temperature.
2)Every atmospheric gas with emissivity must absorb EMR flux incident upon it in some physical measurable way (your blanket)!
3) Every measurable “radiance” is physically identical to EMR flux in the direction of the measuring instrument.
4) Atmospheric convection is a requirement for atmospheric lapse rate.
5) The 1/2 expression of the S-B equation is in any way valid; and applies to this Earth and its atmosphere.

None of these claims have ever been demonstrated as valid even once! All are contrived fantasy with intent to deceive! Not only do the models have serious defects; the very premise for even the most basic of models has no validity what so ever! You are playing in their sand box,perhaps for very good reason, but still in their sand box! You tread in very dangerous sand boxes!
You accept these fantasies at the risk of becoming just another WUWT! Please at the top and bottom of each article state your clear reason for accepting such fantasy, even temporarily!
Repeating:
There is no way you can just look at our current Earth system and say: “There’s the warming effect on the global surface due to the “radiative greenhouse effect”
All the best! -will-

• #

Will, that may be so.

However, the purpose of this series is to examine the effects of architectural mistakes on the conventional climate modeling, and for that purpose we accept the establishment’s parameter values (right out of AR5) and their explanations of how the greenhouse effect works. As you point out, I am representing their case as they see it 😉

• #
Robk

Konrad, given that previous posts by David acknowledged that models can be useful but don’t necessarily describe to real world, your question is unfair. I understand David’s efforts are to demonstrate a more concise model of energy flow within the system. It seems to me that you may have missed some background in the earlier posts.
On a lighter note; nice diagram, should cause less food for the pedants.
I like the concepts of the new model and am amazed how unrealistic the functionality of the basic model is.

• #
Leonard Lane

Agree Robak. And I add that it is one thing for climate skeptics to point out differences between Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming model (CAGW) projections and measured data, find errors in the CAGW models and criticize them without offering alternatives.
However, what David has done is meticulously 1)go through the conventional CAGW model, point out its flaws, 2) develop and offer an alternative model correcting some of the shortcomings of the CAGW models, and 3) put all the assumptions and equations of the alternative model up for public scrutiny.
Logical analyses, alternative representation of the processes, presentation of details and equations of the alternative model along with its assumptions and limitations. This is the kind of transparency needed for all climate models.
I commend you David for your great amounts of thinking, developing, explaining, etc. of the conventional and alternative models. This is good work and will result in many extensions, modifications, questions, etc. that will improve our understanding–thank you.
David, I expect those feeding on taxpayers’ hard earned money to be sharpening their long knives right now. Also, expect a few skeptics who didn’t think of doing your work to attack it. But, good and hard honest work will prevail.

• #

Thanks Leonard!

• #
Tel

Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?

If I understand the question correctly, you are asking how the world with an atmosphere compares to a hypothetical Earth without any atmosphere. The answer seems obvious to me: the primary effect of the atmosphere is to transport heat laterally away from the tropics (where most sunshine come into the system) and towards the temperate regions. So the effect of the atmosphere is to cool the tropics and warm the areas outside the tropics, thus creating a much larger region suitable for habitation.

A secondary effect of the atmosphere is to increase the surface area of radiation into space, partly because of the additional radius and partly because the lateral transport of heat distributes that heat over a wider area. The Earth with no atmosphere will have a small, hot radiator, while the Earth with an atmosphere has a larger, cooler radiator.

Seems pretty simple.

• #

“A secondary effect of the atmosphere is to increase the surface area of radiation into space, partly because of the additional radius and partly because the lateral transport of heat distributes that heat over a wider area. The Earth with no atmosphere will have a small, hot radiator, while the Earth with an atmosphere has a larger, cooler radiator.”

Have you even tried to do the numbers? This the Earth does not have a 2D surface suitable for any S-B solution!! The atmosphere with cloud structure is even greater than 3D! Where are your numbers? Suitable for immediate stomping upon! 🙁

• #
Bobl

Will, I think you will find some agreement to that but David’s approach challenging the architecture of the standard model is a pretty good first step. For example it doesn’t seem too difficult to add in non radiative forcing / sinks in his alternative model.

I think the biggest vulnerability of the models is the assumption that ASR must equal OLR.

I am trying to quantify a few things at the moment and one is the effective evaporative surface area. A tree for example is a much more efficient evaporator because it has a much greater surface area. Plants consume CO2, absorb short wave energy reducing ASR and evaporatively cool the environment simultaneously!

Obviously water in clouds can also be ‘re-evaporated without involving the surface and as a 3D structure like a plant will be a very effective cooling mechanism. Indeed even man’s devices use misting as a very efficient way to cool air

• #
DonG

Which moves more heat from equator to poles, atmospheric circulation or ocean circulation?

• #

DonG October 30, 2015 at 4:53 am

“Which moves more heat from equator to poles, atmospheric circulation or ocean circulation?”
No one knows and those that claim to know have no measurements they have only \$\$\$/second computer outputs that should have been flushed before printing to save several CO2 gobbling trees!

• #
AndyG55

“Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?”

YES. Either.. regulated by the pressure gradient.

• #

AndyG55 October 29, 2015 at 9:06 pm

(“Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?””

“YES. Either.. regulated by the pressure gradient.”

Do you have any possible understanding of what you just claimed? 🙁

• #
AndyG55

You seem to be high on either alcohol or some sort of other substance , Will.

• #

Do you have a point?

• #
AndyG55

As relevant as yours.

• #

to what?? this can get down to only periods …. done dat so wat

• #
AndyG55

Well that comment makes sense… Not !

• #
KinkyKeith

If you look closely and really hard there is sometimes a message coming through that Will has a very good background in this stuff and knows what he is talking about.

Other than that not drunk; some of us are angry, some confused (Will ain’t confused) but some are driven with the throttle full open.

You should see some of the stuff I’ve posted. Sometimes unintelligible.

KK

• #
Roy Hogue

…Will has a very good background in this stuff and knows what he is talking about.

Now if he could come across as something better than an egotistical bastard when he replies to someone he disagrees with…

• #

Just what is wrong with an egotistical bastard that survives?

• #
AndyG55

• #
KinkyKeith

Roy

We might be talking word salad here.

Will?

Sometimes we just have to accept people for what they are. A lot of people do that for me.

Will’s intentions seem to be on the right side of things.

KK

• #

BTW Konrads, insufferable bastard puts the blame on the proper end. I ‘do not know’ and I have nothing to sell. Please stop reading whatever you do not like. 😉

• #
Roy Hogue

Just what is wrong with an egotistical bastard that survives?

I’ll let you be a survivor and if ego is helpful in doing that, fine with me.

But I object to having to read your comments in this thread. Jo has some standards so no one is subjected to what you’ve posted here. Like I said, I don’t come here to see a pissing contest.

I’m surprised that you haven’t ended up in moderation and not been let out by the moderators.

• #

Hey punk,
Please gets DRONK and fine som’one y’all like!!!
Are you still trying for understanding for yourself and others; or for the proper Intergovernmental Panel of Clueless Arrogant Climate Academic Clowns (IPCACAC); Fear Uncertainty Doubt (FUD)? BTW the CACAC in both Latin and Cyrillic symbols is still pronounced ‘kaka’ as appropriate! I still gots mor red thumbs than you punk! 😉

• #
AndyG55

Sober up before you keep posting.

A week in re-hab maybe?

• #

You payin meetcha der!

• #
AndyG55

Who’s paying for your re-hab? The government probably.

It comes under the mental health act.

• #

00

#
AndyG55
October 30, 2015 at 7:08 am · Reply

Who’s paying for your re-hab? The government probably.

It comes under the mental health act.

Why oh why ancha der?

• #
AndyG55

You der one needs help !

• #
Ron Cook

“Interesting”

These sorts of rambling, nonsensical, statements like Will’s (but on other topics), are what I hear on the Australian Citizens Band radio (CB, chuck band, charlie baker call it what you like). Same sort of trivial, ridiculous, meaningless drivel. Compared to Amateur (Ham) radio where for the most part are discussions are more civilized (I did say for the most part).

Seems these kinds of people are found in all areas. I thought real science just might have been different. But you live and learn.

• #

(I did say for the most part). The navy radio operators are the most laid back! yust type whatever squaks. That is the latest crypto. Some old TV run backward is really a hoot!

• #

Sorry folks,
When it comes to radiative physics, I am better than David.

When it comes to radiative physics, Will is better than me.

Will is an insufferable monster. So am I.
The truth hurts. Always.

• #
KinkyKeith

Science.

In search of the truth.

🙂

• #
handjive

“Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?”

The surface air temperature is projected to rise under all scenarios examined by the IPCC.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak

• #

“Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?”
Given a 0.1 degree c rise in temperature will the average sea level atmosperic pressure go up or down? Will it change for other reasons? Assuming a constant 1 bar is far far to theoretical.

• #

too theoretical.
Like the idea of a solar constant turned out to be wrong and so did a constant rate of radiactive decay.

• #

“A clear and direct question for David –
“Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?””

I’m not David! But the direct answer is could be either!! If the only exitance is via surface EMR and the insolation were constant than anything interfering with that surface exitance MUST increase surface temperature until equilibrium is re-established. No back radiation is ever needed or allowed. In such a case there can no longer be a single EMR flux to space through the one 377 ohm impedance of space. The simplest example is Williard’s somple steel greenhouse with no back radiation an opaque shell a say 5km would have the same surface area (damn near) and thus with the same external emissivity achieve a surface temperature very near that that was (used to be)the Earth’s surface temperature. At the same time the Earth could not emit any flux whatso ever as in the actual S-B equation (with the two functions of temperature in parenthesis) the contents of the required parenthesis would evaluate to zero and no flux shall emit in either direction! To achieve the proper external flux from the shell the actual Earth surface temperature must increase to a minium of 2^(1/4) (root 1.414) its previous value. And now two 377 impedences in series to space. However this Earth works nothing at all like that.
One possible alternate would be conductive or convective heat transfer to the shell with only a minor increase to surface temperature. The nice way that the Lockheed and JPL engineers actually did this is was to demand from the atmosphere and gravity a 6.6°C/km lapse to that 5km shell. his forces the surface to be 33°C higher than the radiating shell and all can get back to merrily geting DRONK to celebrate such fine police work there Lou! 😉 Actually it is much more complicated than that, but part of the contract was that no one could possibly know how the Earth does this. Your CCC will never know either!
All the best! -will-

• #
ExWarmist

A comprehensive and clear expression of your new model.

All we need now is the mainstream to notice it and engage with it. Do you have a plan for that?

• #

Sort of. Might take a while ;). Wait until you see the next two posts.

• #
ExWarmist

Thanks David,

Looking forward to them. I also remember that you mentioned that you were preparing “papers” to be published in the Journals.

That should be interesting to see what happens.

Cheers ExWarmist

• #

Puh. No easy reading (too much unfamiliar abbrevations and no experience in reading formula), but now I have a hunch how it works.

You have combined the Sum-of warming model and the OLR model into one new big joint-model equation. So far OK.

But now my question:

How do you apply it to the practise?

I imagine somehow like this: To a certain real point in time (year) you have all the data to fill in for computing and you do the calculation. You will get Delta or Difference of Surface temperature, because the difference in CO2 concentration is also a part of the fourmula. Now you know how much temp change according to a CO2 change, but all the other factors remain the same.

Does it mean that you have to know (or guess) all other factors for a future point of time?

How to project into the future?
As we have learned, there a lot of factors, which are interdepending. But how to know how they are changing? Do you make a computing of many real-world situation to get a picture how it will be at another time/situation?

• #
KinkyKeith

Johannes

I like your idea of taking temperature and CO2 readings for a whole year, presumably from one spot on Earth.

Of course you could take the same from many spots and average the results for each environment: ocean, land , desert , tropical , polar etc

An interesting idea!

This still leaves us with the question of which came first; the chicken(Delta T) or the egg (delta CO2).

KK

• #
Greg Cavanagh

It looks like there are only 5 world wide.
http://co2now.org/Know-CO2/CO2-Monitoring/co2-measuring-stations.html

CO2 Measuring Stations

Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (NOAA)
Tutuila, American Samoa (NOAA)
South Pole, Antarctica (NOAA)

Carbon cycle observation sites worldwide (NOAA)
Map of worldwide observation sites (Scripps)
Data from worldwide observation sites (Scripps)

I’m guessing the last 3 are aggregate and reporting sites.

We definitely need more science and more data in this field.

• #
KinkyKeith

I remember seeing a 24 hour cycle in the vicinity of a field crop.

The CO2 levels were taken every hour for the day. The variation was amazing.

Johannes comment suggested to me that a daily measurement over a full year might be an interesting exercise.

• #
gai

Here it is KK

CO2 depletion
Open field:

Carbon dioxide measurements above a wheat crop. Observations of vertical gradients and concentrations

The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.

Greenhouse

Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion.

…Slack (1986) states that ‘low atmospheric CO2 content in many greenhouses is indeed a major contributor to lower than expected yields, and the enriching with co2 to bring levels back to at least ambient will have a major effect on plant yields.”…

……..Relative Fruit Yields (5)
CO2 Conc… 4 weeks…. 20 weeks
Ambient…….100……….100
600 ppm…….179……….129
1,000 ppm ….235……….137
1,400 ppm ….254……….139

• #
KinkyKeith

Daily range: 300 to 500 ppm.

• #

Just imagin the 12 inch oak tree lifting root from ground to smash tomato plant “you aint gitn my (sunlight, CO2, or H2O dammit). Why are there no tomato plants under oak trees?

• #
AndyG55

Ummmmmm a 12 inch oak tree isn’t going to be particularly threatening..

except to miniature tomatoes.

• #

Not sure if that is real data or if it has been homogenised.

http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

• #
KinkyKeith

David

Interesting. The later diagrams for 2000 years are amazing.

The effect that we humans have had on the Law Dome and Cape Grim.

Unless of course, these figures were given a creative adjustment.

Can’t see anyone doing a wet CO2 analysis anytime before 1800 and yet there are figures going back 1800 years to o BC.

Some proxy, if they even bothered, was tacked on to later wet analysis.

KK

• #
Clyde Spencer

I’m surprised to see that NOAA is monitoring CO2 at Point Barrow. When I was last there, many years ago, all the villager’s homes were heated by natural gas, the feces from the employees at the army base were incinerated and vented into the air, there was an airport in close proximity to the ‘village,’ and snowmobiles were the most common mode of transport. I would expect to see high levels of CO2, especially in the Winter, although the readings would not be representative of the south shore of the Arctic Ocean.

• #

Hey KK

“This still leaves us with the question of which came first; the chicken(Delta T) or the egg (delta CO2)”

If you wish to do such. Get physical. Which came first the bicycle tire, or the tire pump? Why two wheels? Why the lock and chain in NYC but none in Tuscaloosa.
When you finally cannot figure whether to scratch watch or wind ass you are getting close to the rest of us.

• #
KinkyKeith

A few clues in there Will.

A bike tyre gets hot because the air has been compressed to insert it there; in the tyre that is!

And I deliberately put these in the correct order: “the chicken(Delta T) or the egg (delta CO2)”

An increase in temperature ensures that there is more CO2 expressed into the air.

When we were in the centre of NYC in about 2009 if felt to be the nicest and safest place I had been. The people were fantastic.

Obviously people become very relaxed when there are two policemen on each corner.

Did not go to any of the more distant suburbs though.

KK

• #

KinkyKeith October 30, 2015 at 3:48 pm

“A few clues in there Will.
A bike tyre gets hot because the air has been compressed to insert it there; in the tyre that is!”
Nothing to do with heat!! Without the pump? why the tyre? and vice verse. 😉

• #
KinkyKeith

Too cryptic Will.

KK

• #

Huh? This is cryptic

KinkyKeith October 29, 2015 at 8:31 pm

“This still leaves us with the question of which came first; the chicken(Delta T) or the egg (delta CO2). KK”

Like the bicycle tyre and the pump the two are cyclicly related; the come first not only is criptic, such may only be an attempt at humor. OK haha! Please answer your question, best you can, so that others can figure if they should try for a real answer to a real question.
All the best! -will-

• #
KinkyKeith

OK The original statement

“which came first; the chicken(Delta T) or the egg (delta CO2)”

relates to the basic dispute and refutation of the CO2 “effect” on the temp.

So: warmers “believe” that any increase in CO2 leads to more warming by some unknown (at least to me) mechanism.

Real scientists know that when temperatures rise for some reason, then CO2 will be expressed from the oceans

and become evident as increased atmospheric CO2. see analysis of polar ice caps for 800 year lag in presence of CO2 after temp rise.

Note; expression from oceans is not the only origin of this new CO2 apparent on warming.

• #
KinkyKeith

OK

I have re- read it and now having seen the darkened letters can see the source of your comment.

• #

Johannes, the next two posts will apply the model.

• #

Could I get a short explanation what equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is? I tried hard, but I didn’t find out.

• #

Johannes: The ECS is the number widely used to describe how much effect increasing CO2 will ultimately have on surface temperature.

From post 3, where the ECS is computed using the conventional model: “The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the surface warming ΔTS when the CO2 concentration doubles and the other drivers are unchanged”. Believed to be 1.5 to 4.5 deg C by the IPCC. Note that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, so each doubling or fraction thereof has the same effect on surface warming.

• #
Greg Cavanagh

Would it be fair to say that with your new model; you’d be able to (estimate/model) the sensitivity of not only the earth’s surface, but of atmospheric locations above the earth.

Which brings up a second question; does your model model locations above the earth, or could one query specific heights above the earth (say 3,500m) and derive a projected temperature or climate sensitivity at that height/longitude?

• #

Greg, the alternative model is really only aimed at computing global surface warming due to changes in the solar and CO2 drivers, and only on longer time scales between steady states (decadel+). (The conventional basic model has the same limitations.)

However, given the surface warming and change in average lapse rate, one could use it to estimate the warming at any height in the troposphere. But we are only dealing with global averages, so it wouldn’t be estimating anything that is anything other than difficult to measure.

• #
Greg Cavanagh

Thanks David; I now understand your model to be (what hydrologists would call) a 1D model of the earths climate. You’ve said a lot in this one reply 🙂

• #

I really like Davids pipe sketch. For the hydraulics folks, this represents the drain field tiles/leaky pipes for a septic tank (skeptic tank) if one goes up even a little the others take over, and the flowers grow over there!
We all know what is in the skeptic tank. Insolation after doing all interesting work (weather), dissolving cow pies, tornadoes, hurricanes, polar vortices, jet streams, and whatever else you try to avoid. This energy collects at the low temperature tropopause, to maximize that, divide by tropopause temperature to convert to entropy (very tired energy). Thermal EMR (always spontaneous to downhill) dispatches the contents of the skeptic tank to lower radiance (temperature) space along with all that STINKY! Convection helps a lot there.
In this grand way FRESH comes back from the poles.
Just so all creachers/critters/varmints, including earthlings, do not suffocate from their own farts.

What a wonderful planet! -will-

• #

Yes, exactly Will! I felt Joanne’s cartoon, while it implied it, didn’t make it so darn obvious. The straight line water level across the four pipes above makes it unmissable.

Hmmm, you’re certainly reading a lot into the diagram. Very imaginative.

• #

DAvid,
I try to think why it is and why it spins. Without your earthling fantasy!
Are your yellow unicorns with straight horn flutes. better than my orange unicorns with spiral horn flutes? Earthlings are well suited to hiding behind bushes, eating berries,and observing who screws whom! and deciding what is next. Damn near as self aware as the very clever raccoons!

• #
AndyG55

more rambling nonsense.

• #
Greg Cavanagh

Whatever he’s on, it seems to be a hallucinogenic.

• #

fine kinda isosceles triangle with big teef ; now what?

• #
AndyG55

yawn !!

• #
AndyG55

Says the deer in the headlights. !!! 😉

• #
Greg Cavanagh

Thinking about this; I would also presume that the pipe sizes and invert levels vary over the longitude of the earth. ie: they won’t all be equal at all longitudinal locations.

(It’s funny that you’ve got round pipes and different invert levels. As I’m sure you’re aware the flow rate of a circular pipe is strongly dependent on the depth of flow. Circular pipes imply a particular flow curve. Whereas they are more likely to be some odd oval shape.)

But as Will says; for us hydraulics folk it makes a lot of sense.

• #

Greg, keeping it simple and using global averages, just one pipe per emitting molecule.

Yes the shape of the pipe is critical, but I don’t know what it is so I choose the shape that least implied some function or rather and just made it the obvious — a circle.

The crucial factor is the same level in each pipe. The obvious idea is: if you block one pipe a bit, the heat just backs up a little and flows out the other pipes with only a small change in heat (level of the dam’s water). A rerouting.

The establishment says something very different:
1. The flow through the wv pipe reduces in sympathy with flow in the CO2 pipe due to surface warming — block one (CO2) and two get blocked! This is the water vapor amplification.
2. The idea of rerouting in response to more CO2 is nixed by the conventional omission of feedbacks except in response to surface warming. So there is no rerouting! All changes are in response to surface warming only, and are the same as for more absorbed sunlight! (And this carries through, roughly, to the GCMs.)

So the simple idea of the image is totally in conflict with the establishment view. However I will show (in the next two posts) that it is much more in line with reality, and the establishment solution is fundamentally wrong.

• #
ExWarmist

David says,

However I will show (in the next two posts) that it is much more in line with reality, and the establishment solution is fundamentally wrong.

Agreed. Demonstration of a better fit to empirical data is critical to demonstrating that the previous model is false.

For example, when Albert Einstein proposed General relativity, he had three tests.

From Wiki: Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:

[1] the perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit
[2] the deflection of light by the Sun
[3] the gravitational redshift of light

In the letter to the London Times on November 28, 1919, he described the theory of relativity and thanked his English colleagues for their understanding and testing of his work. He also mentioned three classical tests with comments.

“The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible.”

The perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit was anomalous within the Newtonian paradigm, but was explained within the Einsteinian paradigm.

From Wiki: Mercury deviates from the precession predicted from these Newtonian effects. This anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit was first recognized in 1859 as a problem in celestial mechanics, by Urbain Le Verrier. His reanalysis of available timed observations of transits of Mercury over the Sun’s disk from 1697 to 1848 showed that the actual rate of the precession disagreed from that predicted from Newton’s theory by 38″ (arc seconds) per tropical century (later re-estimated at 43″).[3] A number of ad hoc and ultimately unsuccessful solutions were proposed, but they tended to introduce more problems. In general relativity, this remaining precession, or change of orientation of the orbital ellipse within its orbital plane, is explained by gravitation being mediated by the curvature of spacetime. Einstein showed that general relativity[1] agrees closely with the observed amount of perihelion shift. This was a powerful factor motivating the adoption of general relativity.

The earlier model/paradigm for gravity was replaced by a new model/paradigm for gravity due to the success of the new model/paradigm’s capability to explain and correctly predict observed phenomena.

In the same way, I hope that David’s model is able to create the same paradigm shift in our understanding of the dynamics of climate – especially as it relates to CO2.

• #
Greg Cavanagh

Thanks David. I knew I was reading way too much into a diagrammatic representation of the Earth energy balance.

Being a draftsman, my mind went to how such information could be better represented, but ultimately, it’s an “idea representation” only (which is fine for it’s purpose).

I do wonder how average Earth circumference atmospheric temperature is gathered or referenced. It bothers me that longitudinal differences aren’t taken into account directly (there has to be some).

Nevertheless, you’re doing what should have been done from day one. I can’t express my exasperation and utter disbelief that these things aren’t considered in the many computer models around the world. And you’re only doing a 1d model at that. What the hell simpleton models are out there now?

• #
KinkyKeith

Greg

I assume that the “models” are extremely complex but they do not model everything that needs to be included and they model

some things (man made CO2 for example) which is nigh on impossible to model because there is effectively no cause

and effect of any measurable magnitude.

As many off us have surmised, the presence of CO2 in excess does not create “back radiation” nor do anything else to create a temperature increase.

All that they ever wanted was something that looked like a model, had CO2 as a factor and temperature as the output and bob’s your uncle: done.

Then comes the interpretation and only the u n has interpreters capable of interpreting it.

Crazy.

KK

• #

What about the role of Halloween pumpkins in climate change, according to the US Dept. of Energy?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/28/pumpkins-cause-climate-change-energy-department/

• #
gai

To Moderator AZ and Jo,
Good Idea. Needs a separate topic!

• #
RJ

@ AZ

“CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere, rather than just on the surface,”

It is very much – in fact directly – on topic. And your comment – “not warming – is contrary to the above statement. Do you know the first thing about this subject?

• #
KR

I find it odd that you think differing responses to different forcings have _not_ been considered by climate scientists.

From IPCC AR5 Ch. 8:

For many forcing agents the RF gives a very useful and appropriate way to compare the relative importance of their potential climate effect. Instantaneous RF or RF is not an accurate indicator of the temperature response for all forcing agents, however. Rapid adjustments in the troposphere can either enhance or reduce the flux perturbations, leading to substantial differences in the forcing driving long-term climate change. In much the same way that allowing for the relatively rapid adjustment of stratospheric temperatures provides a more useful characterization of the forcing due to stratospheric constituent changes, inclusion of rapid tropospheric adjustments has the potential to provide more useful characterization for drivers in the troposphere (see also Section 7.1.3).

Note that tropospheric adjustments includes changes in the lapse rate(s), if any, as per both theory and observations.

Your claim “The conventional model applies the same response to each driver” is simply not correct. Arrhenius’s work on the subject (“On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”, 1896) was strictly about CO2, with a wide array of possible water vapor responses. Callendar’s work in the early 20th century (Callendar 1938) explicitly differentiates between CO2 and solar forcings and effects. Manabe, from his earliest works forming the first computer climate models, (Manabe and Strickler 1964) bases his results on extensive computations of differing levels of CO2, water vapor, and ozone respectively.

In short, different forcings and their climate responses have, contrary to your claim, been considered separately There is no mapping of the same response onto every forcing.

Simplified models (whether instructional, toy, or those used for baseline emissions scenario evaluation) are based on these far more comprehensive works. You continue to criticize the ‘conventional model’ without addressing the huge literature supporting the simplifications such smaller models embody.

• #
Yonniestone

If the IPCC had more comprehensive smaller models to work with then why didn’t they combine them with the conventional one to attempt what David Evans has done?

Typical of a bureaucracy where excessive epidemiology is applied to garner a result to dupe the masses.

• #
KR

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. Climate modelers have combined the knowledge from more complex and detailed models, and observations, and those results form the simplifications embedded in simpler models.

First with differing efficacies for different forcings, (described and used in AR5) with the rather more comprehensive Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF), which incorporates efficacies and includes short term responses – giving for each forcing component change an estimate of how the climate will change for a stated change in that forcing.

Keep in mind that the IPCC does not run GCMs – rather, they have specifed a set of forcing scenarios, and bring the results from various modelers together for evaluation (CMIP3 and CMIP5, AR4 and AR5 respectively).

• #
KinkyKeith

KR

The baseline is this:

Current models are nothing more than elaborate computer simulations of a system which is imperfectly understood by the “modelers”.

Under those circumstances I think that anything that David does to bring attention to the “models” and perhaps indicate some of the

more obvious “errors” is a step forward.

The issue has ALWAYS been the Temperature Effect of HUMAN ORIGIN CO2 but we continue to deal with models which contain the effects of all

inputs and including Natural Origin CO2.

The reason for this is obvious; it helps to cover up the truth that the driving factors are

1. The Sun ; when it goes out it gets cold.

2. Water and it’s vapour and it’s solid.

3. The deep space heat sink surrounding Earth which has an infinite capacity to attract EMR at 200 deg K from Earth by virtue of it’s energy level indicated by its temperature of about 1.6 K deg above absolute zero.

When are we going to get some sense into this “modeling” problem?

There is little or no scientific payoff for finding a solution to this model and indeed the only payoff is Political.

KK

ps. You quote the big A, Arrhenius.

I seem to remember that he later in life repudiated that theory??

Besides if we haven’t gotten past him we aren’t doing too well as scientists are we?

• #
KR

Svante Arrhenius – “I seem to remember that he later in life repudiated that theory?” Um, _no_.

He did update his results – the original calculations indicated a censitivity to doubled CO2 of ~6°C, but he went back to his data in IIRC 1904, noting that he had failed to account for mutual displacement of CO2 and water vapor in the information he got from Langley. His updated estimate was 4.2°C/ CO2 doubling. But no refutation, because he had no reason to do so.

The fact that his results from over a century ago are within the range currently estimated (1.5-4.5°C/doubling, with the low end in AR5 rather biased IMO by some questionable recent empirical results) simply demonstrates that our understanding of climate science is neither rocket science, nor a recent NWO conspiracy. Details (such as regional effects and exact sensitivities) are challenging, but the basics of what CO2 emissions do to the climate really are that simple.

• #
handjive

The Dirty Little Secret Of 97% Doomsday Global Warming

Father of global warming saw it as a good thing:

North Otago Times, 16 April, 1910
“… as has been called to our attention by Prof. Arrhenius, the consumption of coal at present is returning to the atmosphere the carbon dioxide of which it was robbed when the deposits of carbon were stored away in the coal beds during the carboniferous period … a doubling of the quantity in the atmosphere would more than double the rate of growth of plant life.”
. . .
Whoa! Inconvenient, what?

• #
AndyG55

The baseline for plant growth is around 200ppm. (plus/minus)

That means that an increase from 300ppm to 400ppm is an effective doubling of available CO2.

• #
KinkyKeith

So you confirm that this is STILL an empirically untested and unproven theory.

Karbon has NOT doubled.

• #

KR, I find it odd that you keep on misquoting me on this, even though we have been over this several times on previous posts.

This series is about basic climate model, the simple application of basic physics, which have been very influential (see the Introduction). In the conventional basic climate model, the response (both the feedbacks and the surface warming) to forcings from different climate drivers are identical — see Fig.2 of Post 3 or Fig. 2. of post 9.

While this series is not about GCMs, I say in passing, again, that in the GCMs the response (both the feedbacks and the surface warming) to forcings from different climate drivers are roughly the same. Yes, they are not quite the same — for example, increased ASR affects ozone but increased CO2 does not. So climate scientists do know there are difference responses to different forcings, obviously. This will be dealt with a post, after this series is finished, where we look at GCMs.

“Your claim “The conventional model applies the same response to each driver” is simply not correct.” Nonsense. It is precisely and literally correct KR. See post 3 where the conventional basic climate model is derived and defined (and note that this description accords with the leading theorists and leading climate textbook, references in post 2), and see post 9. All forcings due to drivers are added to form a total, before the feedbacks and Planck sensitivity are applied. One cannot undo addition, information about the numbers being added is lost when you only have the total — the feedbacks and Planck sensitivity do not “know” which driver caused which bit of forcing. Ergo, all drivers are treated identically.

• #
KR

I don’t believe I’ve misquoted you, in that I’m attempting to speak to the content of your posts, the gist.

You have repeatedly criticized your outline of the ‘basic model’ as representative of the main thread of climate science (when it’s just one casting of a simple model, supported by but not inclusive of all the more complex work that has established the basis of those simple relationships), claimed that all forcings are treated the same (absolutely not, differences such as stratospheric warming/cooling, efficacy, and effective radiative forcing [ERF] demonstrate that forcings _are_ treated individually), made some rather silly claims about partial derivatives (discussing issues that were raised in the context of using proper notation, not underlying problems with partial derivatives), etc.

What you call the ‘basic model’ is not the root of climate science, nor the sole source for our understanding of radiative forcing, atmospheric changes, spectral shifts, the lapse rate, etc. Raising issues with the model you are presenting only speaks to your model, it does not (as you’ve repeatedly stated) speak to the structure of more complex models such as GCMs, and it doesn’t begin to address other parts of the science or observations. IMO that may indicate your arguments are in fact a strawman, that the issues you raise won’t apply to anything outside the model you’ve been working with.

At this point you are up to 16 posts on your ‘New Science’, roughly 16,000 words – and you have not yet gotten to the core of your arguments (but lots of ‘that will be come in later posts’ in response to IMO some substantive issues). That’s about 2-3x the length of the average peer-reviewed paper, depending on the journal, and it isn’t yet clear what your point(s) is/are.

Lots of bread in the sandwich, but as yet very little meat.

I’m going to cease commenting on these threads – I will reconsider when you have actually presented your thesis, the content of which would be stated in a peer-reviewed abstract of a few hundred words (note that it’s traditional to state the thesis first, and only then present your evidence). Until then, when you have a testable hypothesis that can be evaluated against the evidence both within and outside your paper, further discussion isn’t going to get anywhere.

• #

KR, you really have trouble with this, don’t you? This is getting very repetitive. You keep making the same wrong accusations without evidence or argument.

1. “You … claimed that all forcings are treated the same”. This series is about basic climate model, the simple application of basic physics, which have been very influential (see the Introduction). In the conventional basic climate model, the response (both the feedbacks and the surface warming) to forcings from different climate drivers are identical — see Fig.2 of Post 3 or Fig. 2. of post 9. Do you dispute this? See Comment 10.3.

2. “You … made some rather silly claims about partial derivatives”. Hardly. Lucia and others disputed application of basic differentials, but Held, Soden, Pierrehumbert and I had it correct — as she later implicitly acknowledged. Lucia then moved on to trying to derive the basic model without partial derivatives, but succeeded only in recreating the Planck feedback without a formal partial derivative symbol by defining a function in which all the relevant variables were held constant, just like in the normal definition — sheer legerdemain. See here for details. If you have some some specific thing I did that is “silly”, please let us all know what it is…so if you are wrong, like Lucia, we can all see.

3. The conventional basic model is the reason most climate scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory, not huge opaque computer models that no one fully understands, as argued in post 1. It is a rough estimate of the effect of increasing CO2, and it is wildly wrong for the reasons given here.

The Charney Report from 1979, which kicked off the scare, estimates the ECS via this basic model as 1.6 to 4.5 deg C, likely 2.4 deg C. AR5 (p. 1033) gives the ECS as 1.5°C to 4.5°C. All that research and money, all those cpu cycles, 34 years on, and the establishment are still at where the basic model was in the Charney Report back in 1979. Well well.

Actually we have got to the core of the argument about the basic models. The next two posts will apply them. Enjoy, KR.

• #
KR

One note here – you are repeating an incorrect claim, one that I pointed out before.

As I’ve noted, scalars in basic models come from more complex studies, and arguing about basic models in no way invalidates the ECS results of the complex 1D radiative convective codes, GCMs, or for that matter empirical and paleo estimates.

You claimed: “The Charney Report from 1979, which kicked off the scare, estimates the ECS via this basic model…” This is a misrepresentation.

The Charney Report did _not_ derive ECS from that basic model. Quoting from the Charney Report itself, Section 4.1, Models and Their Validity:

We proceed now to a discussion of the three-dimensional model simulations on which our conclusions are primarily based.

While a 36 year old evaluation of what was then the state of the science is a bit outdated, the major elements still hold. The basic understanding of what processes are involved in climate change certainly comes from examining direct radiative effects, feedbacks, cloud effects, and oceans on a more piecemeal basis.

But the Charney report based their ECS numbers on 3D general circulation models. Your above quoted claim on their ECS derivation is, to be blunt, completely wrong.

• #

But the Charney report based their ECS numbers on 3D general circulation models. Your above quoted claim on their ECS derivation is, to be blunt, completely wrong.

Perhaps, but here you say

KR November 2, 2015 at 1:21 am

“I’m going to cease commenting on these threads”

Have you no personal integrity at all?

• #

KR, you embarrass yourself again — did you even read the Charney Report?

You say “The Charney Report did _not_ derive ECS from that basic model.”. Like your other emphasized claims, this is easily disproved nonsense. Are you trying to mislead onlookers?

The conventional basic climate model is described in some detail in the Charney Report, on pages 7 to 9. The report presents the basic model’s estimate of the ECS, then the estimates of two primitive GCMs.

Page 7: ΔQ is their symbol for the decrease in OLR from CO2 molecules when CO2 doubles, and they give the value as about 4 W/m2 per doubling (AR5: 3.7 W/m2 per doubling).

Page 8: lambda is their symbol for the Planck feedback, and they give its value as about 4 W/m2 per K (AR5: 3.2 W/m2 per K). They give the surface warming as ΔT = ΔQ / lambda, which is the no-feedbacks case in Eq. (8) of post 2.

Page 8 and page 9: Feedbacks are shown to modify the Planck feedback from 4 W/m2 per K to 1.7 W/m2 per K, so the feedbacks were thought to amplify the no-feedbacks warming by 4/1.7 or about 2.4, which is about the current estimate.

Page 9: The Charney Report estimates the ECS via this model as 1.6 to 4.5 deg C, likely 2.4 deg C, which is pretty similar to the ECS calculated in Eq. (18) of post 3.

This is indeed an estimate using the conventional basic climate model: same three ingredients (OLR blocked by a CO2 doubling, Planck sensitivity, and feedbacks), same connections/equations, and same result as the conventional basic climate model presented in post 3.

Is the basic model important? Why is it even presented in the Charney Report? Reading further we find on page 12:

Our confidence in our conclusion that a doubling of CO2 will eventually result in significant temperature increases and other climate changes is based on the fact that the results of the radiative-convective and heat-balance model studies can be understood in purely physical terms and are verified by the more complex GCM’s. The last give more information on geographical variations in heating, precipitation, and snow and ice cover, but they agree reasonably well with the simpler models on the magnitudes of the overall heating effects.

Note: the “radiative-convective and heat-balance model studies” they refer to are the conventional basic climate model on pages 7 to 9.

• #
KR

You quoted from page 12, Section 4.0 – I quoted from page 13, Section 4.1, two paragraphs later. The Charney report went from the background on simpler models and physics you quote to the statement:

“We proceed now to a discussion of the three dimensional model simulations on which our conclusions are primarily based.”

There’s also the overview in the Summary and Conclusions, Section 1, which states (pg. 2, paragraph 1) regarding ECS:

Our estimate is based primarily on our review of a series of three-dimensional models of the global atmospheric circulation, which is summarized in Chapter 4. We have also reviewed simpler models that appear to contain the main physical factors. These give qualitatively similar results.” (emphasis added)

So yes, I have read the Charney Report. In full, including their methods and how they reached their conclusions on ECS – an estimate taken from 3D GCMs. The simpler models gave similar results, which only increased their confidence in the GCM results they presented, but were _not_ the source of the ECS estimate.

I find your (again, incorrect) claim inconsistent with those statements. Did you read all of the Charney Report?

• #

KR, yes I did read all the Charney report, and what I have said about is entirely correct.

You on the other hand said “The Charney Report did _not_ derive ECS from that basic model.” (Comment 10.3.1.1.1) which was obviously rubbish.

• #

“Lots of bread in the sandwich, but as yet very little meat.”

Lets get to the no meat in your nonsense sandwich!
You have made claims that the GCMs are different than the basic model. David says this series is not about the GCMs and you only claim again and again that the GCMs are different while showing no difference except tons more spaghetti code? where is your evidence that Your concept of the basics and the not for consideration here GCMs, have any validity what so ever? Where specifically in a way that can be verified by all are the differences that force your GCMs to avoid the fundamental errors presented in this series so far?

“I’m going to cease commenting on these threads – I will reconsider when you have actually presented your thesis, the content of which would be stated in a peer-reviewed abstract of a few hundred words (note that it’s traditional to state the thesis first, and only then present your evidence). Until then, when you have a testable hypothesis that can be evaluated against the evidence both within and outside your paper, further discussion isn’t going to get anywhere.”
Oh yes please do that! You have repeatedly demonstrated only intent to harm the work of others! No one is obligated to do their work in a manner that you wish to dictate! Please stuff your traditional!

• #

KR,

The models currently anticipate surface warming from GHGs rather than a change in lapse rate slopes followed by convective adjustments do they not ?

• #
KR

No, they do not. While the radiative forcing (RF) used in AR4 and prior discusses instantaneous changes at the tropopause including only the stratospheric response, with the ‘efficacy’ factors expressing how various forcing changes operate differently on surface temperatures, the effective radiative forcing (ERF) used more recently and in IPCC AR5 includes short term responses including tropospheric and stratospheric adjustments, cloud response and absorption effects, aerosols, etc., only excluding ocean warming – and only then the resulting surface warming.

It really makes no difference in the end whether you use instantaneous tropopause radiation changes and scale final surface response by the ‘efficacy’, or alternatively evaluate the ERF as the value per forcing agent change that produces a known surface response – it just moves the relative scaling the surface temperatures that we are most interested in from one side of the equations to the other. And the ERF allows a more direct comparison of those forcing agents on the same scale.

• #

Yonniestone October 30, 2015 at 5:10 am

“If the IPCC had more comprehensive smaller models to work with then why didn’t they combine them with the conventional one to attempt what David Evans has done?”
How much money you git from dat?

“Typical of a bureaucracy where excessive epidemiology is applied to garner a result to dupe the masses.”

Yep! One must be very gifted to do that well, month after month! DO you really think we are dealing with some as stupid as we?

• #
AndyG55

Not really flash with ‘Paint’ but thought I’d play with Dave cartoon up the top.

• #
KinkyKeith

Sometimes a picture says it all.

Would have liked to see the overflow and other pipe feeding into the Radiation pipe as the port of last call before deep space.

• #
AndyG55

I’m done with the artwork.. your turn 🙂

• #
handjive

OCTOBER 28, 2015: NASA’s TIMED satellite identifies unexpected carbon dioxide trends

“The gas is responsible for raising temperatures close to Earth’s surface, but it has a very different effect in the upper atmosphere, reducing air density and actually having a cooling effect.”

“It seems clear that we don’t quite understand the relationship between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere,” says TIMED project scientists Diego Janches.

“We tend to separate them into different fields – lower atmosphere is Earth science, upper atmosphere is heliophysics – but we need to understand the atmosphere as a complete system.”

• #
gai

“The gas is responsible for raising temperatures close to Earth’s surface, but it has a very different effect in the upper atmosphere, reducing air density and actually having a cooling effect.”

“It seems clear that we don’t quite understand the relationship between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere,” says TIMED project scientists Diego Janches.

Early this morning I explained all that on Science 6

If I can easily explain why CO2 warms the lower troposphere and cools the stratosphere why the heck can’t an “expert in the field” explain it.

The education of these people leave a heck of a lot to be desired!

• #
Svend Ferdinandsen

I like that you simplifies it to simple global radiation and energy balances. Even if i am a bit lost in all the variables and indices, i hope that you at least keep up.
I have never seen the advantage in using weathermodels to evaluate a global temperature averaged over space and time. The starting conditions can give very different results, but in a year or ten you should not feel the weather that was.
The GCM’s are so complicated that no one knows what is going on, but they make it look scientifically.

• #
KinkyKeith

“The GCM’s are so complicated that no one knows what is going on”

And that’s the truth Svend.

The issue has ALWAYS been the Temperature Effect of HUMAN ORIGIN CO2 and they avoid “modeling” it like the plague because it would be a flat-liner.

KK

• #
gai

” they avoid “modeling” it like the plague “

Boy, ain’t that the truth! they even drag in the effects of water vapor so they can yell ‘CATASTROPHIC WARMING!’

• #
ExWarmist

Hi Gai,

That would be the “presumed effects of water vapor.”

i.e. presumed to be a +ve feedback, etc…

• #
Bulldust

Apologies for being O/topic, but it is big news that China is relaxing the one child policy:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-to-end-one-child-policy-to-allow-two-children-for-all-couples-20151029-gkmdyn.html

The demographic time bomb (too many retirees and shrinking working population) had to be addressed. Not sure what this does for China’s projections of GHG emissions. No doubt the misanthropic Greens will be gnashing their teeth.

• #
PeterS

According to the Greens the world is way too over populated and there have been some who called for culling. So such news should in theory cause them to voice their anger, but I doubt they will because they hate only Western civilization and want to destroy it, not others.

• #
Leonard Lane

Good comment PeterS, thanks.
Yes their target is Western civilization. A strong and advancing Western civilization would slow down or stop world governance whereas the goal of Communism has always been world governance. Sadly, but understandingly, this is true of the UN also.

• #
PeterS

Does the new model take into account pumpkins? According to the Energy Department in the US, pumpkins are causing climate change. The global warming elite have gone down to a new low in scamming.
Energy Department smashes pumpkins for causing climate change

• #
Dennis

Prime Minister Chairman Mal is apparently going to attend the Paris Conference late November.

It would be good if he experiences the same pain experienced by PM Rudd at Copenhagen.

• #
ExWarmist

I wonder if it will be snowing?

Is Al Gore invited this year – Gore Effect and all.

• #

Well that has been pretty unedifying. Konrad’s question is not unreasonable and goes to the heart of the matter. It does sometimes help to take things to a limit to see what would happen. In the case Konrad talks about the limit is NO radiative gases but otherwise the same atmosphere. I presume also NO condensing radiative gases like water vapour.
IIRC some of the early GCMs came up with an average global surface temperature of around 65 to 70 deg C (Manabe).

• #
KinkyKeith

Yes. Unfortunate that it ran away like that.

• #
RJ

I find it depressing that sceptics are being lost in this sort of nonsense.

Accepting the core flawed science when everyone should know by now thanks to the the slayers and other that’s it just rubbish.

• #
llew jones

It’s not so much the core science that is the problem but rather the failure of the alarmist sect of climate science to understand that the core science from Arrhenius until now is deficient in its understanding of the climate.

For example Arrhenius did not consider the vital role that clouds play in Earth’s climate. That and other apparently vital climate parameters are omitted from the alarmist’s core science. Thus apart from modeling errors the science of climate is as yet deficient and certainly inadequate for calculating global temperature trends.

• #
ExWarmist

Your assuming that a single strategy for dealing with the threat of the MMGW movement to post-medieval culture is appropriate?

We face a multi-faceted problem. A strategy with a single focus will fail. David’s contribution is about the scientific basis of MMGW and is a valid part of an overarching strategy to avoid the return of civilization to a medieval framework.

• #
RJ

@ ExWarmist

A strategy of accepting the back radiation “science” will most certainly fail. And both Jo and Anthony Watts does. Without reservation.

This article with complex formula’s that no one understands (but that of course is the point) might excite some but it’s pointless. Holding onto something that even simple logic shows is flawed. If sceptics want to win rather than going round and round and round in pointless circles a new approach is needed.

• #

Do David and Jo accept surface warming from back radiation ?

Anthony Watts et al certainly do.

Note, however, that surface warming from back radiation is attributed by the alarmists and the lukewarmers to a net reduction in the cooling rate rather than a direct increase in ASR which is where the Slayer group loses me. The Slayers seem to argue that AGW requires back radiation to mimic an increase in solar input rather than simply slowing its rate of exit.

David’s narrative is sound and serves well enough for those who are not into the equations (like me). I agree with David that the lapse rate changes induce convective adjustments that work against surface warming.

• #
RJ

“lukewarmers to a net reduction in the cooling rate rather than a direct increase”

from this post above

“CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere, rather than just on the surface,”

It’s complete and utter nonsense. Radiation from a freezing cold atmosphere can not warm the surface. This is established proven science except in the AGW fantasy world. That Jo supports.

And if it has now moved onto slowing the cooling rate (it hasn’t). It would only slow it by a few seconds. So not even worth worrying about.

• #

RJ: “Complex formula’s”? You can just focus on the picture of the dam above — if the CO2 pipe is partially blocked, what happens? The water backs up slightly and comes out the other pipes.

This totally disagrees with the conventional view, which is that, due to water vapor amplification, the water vapor pipe also develops a blockage and consequently the surface pipe has to carry a lot more heat — that blocked by CO2 and that blocked by water vapor — and thus the surface warms lots.

Yes, CO2 and the greenhouse effect works like established science says it does, but they applied this basic physics wrongly, using the wrong architecture. It was a subtle error, with its roots in Arrhenius’ early model that mainly only had lab-data to work with.

• #

RJ October 30, 2015 at 3:55 pm

“I find it depressing that sceptics are being lost in this sort of nonsense.
Accepting the core flawed science when everyone should know by now thanks to the the slayers and other that’s it just rubbish.”

Have you even tried to read (even with no understanding) What Dr.Evans is presenting?
Can you from any POV show any error in what is presented or why it is presented in that manner?
If you disagree please do your own blog where all can shit upon you!!!!

• #
RJ

I have read all of this over and over etc in the past. Read everything I could get my hands on over many years including this site.

Then read articles that explained it all. And left it behind. Its clear that radiation from the freezing atmosphere can not warm the surface. The BR theory is fiction.

I’m surprised and disappointed to come back to this site. After all the gates etc to see that people still believe. It’s not now about how much warming. There will not be any due to extra CO2.

It’s time to move on.

• #

RJ,

David currently thinks there is a little surface warming from GHGs but is open minded on the point.

I have submitted, with his support and help, a proposed mechanism whereby the effect could be zero as per your contention.

I suggest you keep the faith in this site.

Radiation from the cooler atmosphere may well not warm the surface but it would cause the surface to cool less quickly if and only if there is no consequent change in lapse rate slopes and adjustment of convective overturning.

If you have two bodies floating in space with one warmer than the other then the exchange of radiation between the two will indeed slow the cooling rate of both simply because the combined heat reservoir is larger and will take longer to dissipate.

It is the failure to accept that basic principle which caused me to not associate myself with the Slayers but nor do I agree with the lukewarmers such as Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer.

In my view the net effect of CO2 on surface temperatures is indeed zero but only if one applies the scenario that I have proposed.

• #
RJ

I look forward to it.

A slower cooling rate I can handle. But as radiation travels at the speed of light …

But BR warming the surface. No. Skeptics must strongly directly challenge this. Not beat around the bush on this one. Otherwise its game over. The bad guys will win.

• #
bobl

RJ,
Most skeptics with the ability to run the math have dealt with this concept.

Usually in thermodynamics we don’t bother much with irrelevancies like what happens within a system boundary. It used to work like this.

Define the system boundary, develop the net flow of heat across the boundary. If we put that boundary at top of atmosphere, the models calculate a lower net flow of OLR for higher CO2 and conclude that the rest must be ‘stored’ thus the imbalance warms the earth.

Essentially traditional thermodynamics says we are lowering OlR or slowing the cooling of the earth.

Irritatingly climate science seems to want to rewrite this view of thermodynamics and bother with the minutia of how the net difference across the boundary comes about.

For that they use the idea of diffuse reflection. I the same way a white room is brighter, so is the earth from diffuse reflected IR. Diffuse reflection meaning that rather than bending the rays, the radiation gets absorbed, then re-emitted. Instead of calling it diffuse reflection they call it back-radiation.

BTW, this has little to do with heat, and everything to do with Electromagnetic Radiation, IR is NOT heat, it is closer to radio waves than anything else it CAN scatter backward in the exact same way that radio can reflect of the ionosphere or the moon.

• #
Gee Aye

You make your claim here based on the fact that you have read a lot. Although you skipped any parts with complicated formulae.

• #

Gee Aye:

Equations are simply the mathematical expression of concepts previously understood in images and words.

The concepts and images always come first.

As far as I can see the basic established physical principles and an appreciation of established meteorology (based on observations) are sufficient to lead to an explanation as to why GHGs fail to cause surface warming.

Climatologists have gone off on a conceptual fantasy without understanding how basic physics works out in a real atmosphere.

It is obvious that the AGW theory has failed to account for observations and we are here, progressively nailing down the reason why.

David has worked through a vast array of complex equations and has achieved originality in his presentation. He has come to much the same conclusion as I came to by working from first principles to create a conceptual overview.

• #

My response was under RJ’s not yours. I would not respond to “sounds right” fluff like this though as I already get enough red thumbs

Equations are simply the mathematical expression of concepts previously understood in images and words.

• #
Winston

Gee Aye,

Even if Stephen is wrong in his appraisal as to how climate varies conceptually through solar influences, he is completely correct in his reply to you.

It is essential to any scientific understanding of any complex system that there is a blend of right brain conceptualising with left brain mathematical calculation. One must observe the natural world in big picture fashion, then formulate hypotheses and seek mathematical clarification to confirm those impressions. One must then constantly re-refer back to and re-evaluate those concepts otherwise one disappears into the rabbit hole of the minutiae of mathematical calculation. It is rare indeed for one individual to possess the capacity to simultaneously perform these monumental, and at times mutually exclusive tasks.

Newton had it, Einstein also but it is rare indeed at that sort of level of expertise. That means that people like Stephen are very valuable members of a team approach to problem solving, being someone who grounds the process properly in how the system actually functions as a whole, arriving at a unifying concept that a team of mathematicians self reinforcing their small picture navel gazing would never achieve on their own.

That some of Stephen’s concepts seem to dovetail into some of David’s mathematically derived modelling is one of the more interesting aspects of this whole exercise, and even if both are eventually found to be incorrect in some of their fundamental assumptions, they have both added immeasurably to our ability to firstly comprehend the flaws in the alleged logic of the alarmists, and secondly in formulating a better model that more closely approximates the reality of what the observations are actually telling us.

Now if only we can get the NASA/GiSS boys to stop adjusting the observations, we might have a chance at arriving at a novel concept: THE TRUTH.

And I say all this one who tends more to the Konrad side of the debate than either Stephen’s or David’s.

That being said, for what it is worth, I think David’s approach is the only one that the mainstream might be forced to listen to, even as the gap between their predictions and reality diverge with each passing year. His deconstructive approach is the only possible option to overcome their collective tin ear.

• #

my reply is under RJ’s not Stephens

• #

sorry you went ahead to write so much and I’m glad I don’t need to respond to “sounds right” fluff like

It is essential to any scientific understanding of any complex system that there is a blend of right brain conceptualising with left brain mathematical calculation.

• #
Winston

Very well, Gee.

If you prefer, rather than lateralised to left and right brain, or dominant and non-dominant hemisphere, perhaps I should have delineated this concept as synthetic learning and thinking, as opposed to analytical thinking.

Einstein was renowned as a synthetic thinker first and foremost, who thought in pictures and visual constructs, and arrived at solutions by playing violin and engaging in meditative thought while doing so. His brain had an exceedingly well developed corpus collosum through which he was able to make connections between his conceptualising and his analytical thought processes for them to be more easily integrated.

My point was that a group tasked with investigating the nature of any complex system and its dynamics would be best served by incorporating people with different thinking styles, different ways of observing data and various methods for conceptualising a theory or a model to explain more comprehensively. Not an unreasonable assertion, I would have thought.

• #
Gee Aye

And my point was that your post had nothing to do with what I wrote since you didn’t notice that it was indented under rj’s nonsense, so whatever you wrote is out of context and is neither a relevant argument nor something that I necessarily disagree with

• #
RJ

And being “[snip]” on. It’s robust debate. And I have been on the receiving end more than once. And attacking me not my viewpoint. It’s life.

• #
Peter C

Maybe it is OK to propose a hypothetical question, assuming IPCC reasoning (ie CO2 reduces radiative heat loss) and then work through the model reasoning.

It may not be the complete answer, or even correct but it might show that even if the IPCC proposals are correct the upper bound is a much smaller effect than assumed.

Alternative reasoning suggests that greenhouse gases in fact cool the atmosphere. In that case the calculations of the Earth’s temperature in the absence of any radiative gases would need to be seriously in error and the calculations of the Earth’s energy budget all wrong.

• #

GHGs warm the vertical column and the surface beneath in ascending air but cool the vertical column and the surface beneath in descending air so the current calculations are indeed in serious error and the Earth’s energy budget all wrong. That is why AGW proponents had to propose a warming effect from downward radiation to replace the missing element which is adiabatic warming in descent.

• #
Peter C

The problem here is lack of data but this instrument, which is due to be launched into space in 2016, may go some way to providing the necessary info! (H/T to Sliggy apparently).
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/ravan#launch

It includes cavity radiometers, whose existence was anticipated by Lord Moncton some years ago. I think that he assumed that they already existed.

Without allowing for albedo, the incoming solar radiative flux F at the characteristic-emission altitude is 1368 Watts per square metre, measured by cavitometers on satellites

Of course even after it has been launched, NASA might be slow to releaase the data. We are still waiting for an update on the CO2 map (Orbiting Carbon Observatory)
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/19dec_oco/

• #
Peter C

Stephen,

I have moved this down so as not to interrupt the flow of the discussion above.

Note, however, that surface warming from back radiation is attributed by the alarmists and the lukewarmers to a net reduction in the cooling rate rather than a direct increase in ASR which is where the Slayer group loses me. The Slayers seem to argue that AGW requires back radiation to mimic an increase in solar input rather than simply slowing its rate of exit.

I now agree with that. Alan Siddons did mess things up with this argument (posted by Joseph Postma)
http://www.principia-scientific.org/light-bulb-experiments-slaying-watts-with-watts.html

• #
Peter C

Interesting! I am in moderation, I think because I quoted some text with a forbidden phrase (which Stephen has sidestepped). It will probably appear eventually.

• #
RJ

Postma is an outstanding scientist. A giant among midgets thinking they are giants.

It must frustrate him greatly. But is does show where the world is at today. We really still need religion and a dangerous cause to fight against. Even if we embrace a made up danger.

And it’s clear that BR is based on surface warming. Not just slowing the cooling rate. If it was only slowing the cooling rate it’s game over. So why have some luke warmers embraced this change and pretended otherwise?

• #
el gordo

‘Accepting the core flawed science when everyone should know by now thanks to the the slayers and other that its just rubbish.’

I tend to agree. If I was a junior reporter working for a great metropolitan daily and the editor said give me 600 words on David Evans lectures, I would be stumped.

There is no scoop here.

• #

el gordo:

There is no doubt that GHGs are capable of absorbibg and emitting radiation if that is what you mean by the core science.

After that everything is up for grabs.

If you couldn’t make a pretty strong scoop from David’s work when he is finished then you wouldn’t be much of a journalist. 🙂

• #
RJ

Stephen

I did reply. But my posts are being caught. And I doubt if they will be let through.

• #
el gordo

Thanx Stephen, I’ll keep that in mind.

Could you condense David’s work into 300 words so that a Daily Mail reader understands?

‘There is no doubt that GHGs are capable of absorbing and emitting radiation …’

Its a sensitivity issue and of no interest to the general public.

Did you notice the Sub Tropical Ridge spent the winter too far south? I’m looking for answers.

• #

el gordo:

That would be pretty easy. Post number 1 above does it in even fewer words. Plenty of scope to add some hyperbole for a front page spread 🙂

As for the position of the Sub Tropical Ridge that is covered by my separate hypothesis as to how solar variability changes circulation patterns so as to reorganise the distribution of climate zones in a warming or cooling world:

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

• #
el gordo

Increased ‘jet stream meridionality’ since the turn of the century is restricting the STR to its summer mode?

• #

El Gordo: Here it is summarized in a mere 183 words:

Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics
The basic climate model, the application of “basic physics” to climate, is essentially why establishment climate scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory, despite considerable contrary empirical evidence. Dating back to 1896, the model contains serious architectural errors. Fixing the errors finds a much lower sensitivity to carbon dioxide — the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) overestimated future warming by a factor of five to ten. Less than 20% of the global warming of the last few decades was due to carbon dioxide.

Notch-Delay Solar Theory Predicts Cooling from 2017

Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017).

• #
el gordo

Okay thanks for the clarity, there are two stories.

‘Less than 20% of the global warming of the last few decades was due to carbon dioxide.’

‘Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021.’

• #
llew jones

A bit, from earlier in the year, on the IPCC claimed cooling effect of aerosols

“Scientists Say New Findings a Serious Blow to Global Warming Hysteria”

https://stream.org/scientists-say-new-findings-serious-blow-global-warming-hysteria/

• #
Martin Mason

The tragedy of the debate is that the warmists have a clear and credible narrative that can register with the masses. The earth emits LWIR, GHG absorb and re-emit it up and down, the downwelling radiation emitted warms the surface. Simples isn’t it? On the other hand we have no narrative, those that know why it doesn’t happen seem to be blighted by a total inability to explain why and sometimes, as is clear on this thread, have no communication skills whatsoever only rudeness. why come on to a discussion board if you have no ability to discuss? This isn’t only here, on every sceptic blog those who could explain talk in riddles and often like drunken idiots.

If we have something to add to the debate then please lets add it in as few words as possible and in language that an educated layman can understand and enough of the rudeness, it isn’t big and it isn’t clever and it makes us look like idiots.

David is doing a great job and he has clearly defined the rules under which he’s developing his argument yet we even have to question this every other post even though it’s a given.

• #
RJ

Martin

The alarmist have a clear strategy. It has nothing to do with science though. And most skeptics simple agree with them. Most accept their “science” and just argue about the amount.

Look at Anthony Watts. He was a gentlemen allowing full debate until a group challenged the BR theory. Then I say another side. Funny that don’t you think. He was a gentlemen with alarmist. But not with this group. I wonder why?

• #
el gordo

‘…and just argue about the amount.’

Its the degree of sensitivity, a lukewarm world with a soft landing is up against against hell on earth, so the significant cooling David Evans predicts should bring about a paradigm shift.

• #

Martin Mason October 31, 2015 at 1:54 am

“The tragedy of the debate is that the warmists have a clear and credible narrative that can register with the masses. The earth emits LWIR, GHG absorb and re-emit it up and down, the downwelling radiation emitted warms the surface.”

They have a narrative; nowhere credible; except to the masses. The same masses who demand to be told what to do! There is no need for evidence and the warmists have none whatsoever.
You claim “it makes us look like idiots”. Just who do you represent besides yourself, and the masses who demand to be told what to do?

• #
el gordo

Here is someone else who believes 2017 is a tipping point and the moon has a lot to answer for.

http://www.thelongview.com.au/documents/RAPID-GLOBAL-COOLING-FORECAST-IN-2017-Kevin-Long.pdf

• #
Arcawaches

I want to commend David for his methodical approach in laying out his arguments. Apparently some don’t even want to give an inch to the IPCC et al. But how far does that get you? You are labeled a crank and worse even before you get in the door. Speak their language. Get them to listen on their terms. If a person speaks only French and another person speaks only Chinese how far in any argument do they get until they both speak the same language. Having the warmists deal with these issues in their their terms using their language is going to be more productive in the long run.

• #
RJ

It’s not (going to be more productive)

This scam is not about science. And if we buy the BR science it will make it worse. We have then accepting or confirmed the foundation of their pseudo science. And they will simple make up more nonsense like 97% of the scientist agree.

Science has been corrupted.Skeptics must return to real science to have any hope of winning this battle.

And the real science is very clear. CO does not warm the surface.

• #
Ross

RJ

You could be right in what you say, but many people have been saying exactly the same thing for many years. At best they are called a denier or they have simply been ignored. In other words, they have got no where –the money continues to get wasted, more heads are in the trough, more politicians have been conned, more banks a salivating at the prospect of trading things called carbon credits etc. etc.

David is thinking “outside the square” in my view by attacking the actual basis of the so called science and showing how even if you accept their basic assumptions they have computed everything incorrectly.

As I’ve said before, if a brave, well known politician picks up on this then could at the very least act as a major turning point but hopefully it will do a lot more.

• #
RJ

Unfortunately the people who are challenging the foundation of this end of world religion (BR) pretending that it’s backed by science have been drowned out (and censored) by lukewarmers pretending to be skeptics.

And this approach has been tried before (Monckton). It obviously will not work because this scam is not about science. It just uses pseudo scientists to give this nonsense credibility.

What more do real skeptics need to see this?

• #
RJ

“well known politician picks”

Some have. They are demonized by the devoted believers. But they are not helped by the so called skeptics that by supporting the surface warming pseudo science are NOW doing more harm than good.

• #
Geoff Sherrington

Hi David,
So rain falls at a climate station and takes up some of the incoming energy that would otherwise move the mercury upwards in the thermometer. Thus, temperatures correlate with rainfall with high statistical confidence. Rain cools, both from investigative physics and measurement.
OTOH, a warming climate correlates with more water in the atmosphere, about a 6.5% rise in humidity per deg C higher.
Where in the your model can you bring this mechanism in?
On first inspection, we have temperature changes, moisture changes, phase changes, but no place for CO2. Or are these effects enveloped by a wider, more general set of numbers?
I do not know the answers, so I am asking out of curiosity.
Geoff.

• #

Geoff, it comes in the feedbacks (as computed by the IPCC, see post 3), specifically the water vapor feedback — the big positive feedback that causes the water vapor amplification. Basically anything that isn’t a driver is in the feedbacks — except that the IPCC’s feedbacks omit feedbacks that aren’t in response to surface warming (post 5 and post 7).

That extra humidity causes the hotspot in their models — a lot more on this in the next post.

Land surface temperatures are heavily influenced by soil water, but the modelling is only concerned with quantities that change — the effect could be regarded as largely static. The IPCC’s answer would be that their very exact Earth simulations (cough cough) take this into account and so all these effects you mention are included in the feedback figures, which are “emergent” quantities.

Skeptics such as Lindzen and Kininmonth reckon the figures for the rise in humidity per deg C higher that are used in the GCMs are significantly higher than reality. Paltridge finds that the extra water that is evaporated is confined to the lower troposphere, which is more stable and consequently there is less entrainment of water vapor and less movement of water vapor to the upper troposphere (where the water vapor emissions layer is) — which contradicts the GCMs.

• #

Geoff Sherrington October 31, 2015 at 9:06 pm

“OTOH, a warming climate correlates with more water in the atmosphere, about a 6.5% rise in humidity per deg C higher.”

That is to saturation only of WV! There is 9 times the amount of column water in the atmosphere than is needed and recycled as daily precipitation. Do you have any numbers to show CO2 changing this at all? Why is this airborne condensate some of which that must evaporate and re-condense continually from insolation never recognized by meteorology and the CCC.

• #
gai

Geoff Sherrington says: “…OTOH, a warming climate correlates with more water in the atmosphere, about a 6.5% rise in humidity per deg C higher….”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is backwards. More water vapor in the atmosphere correlates with LESS rise in temperature especially in the maximum temperature.

PHYSICS: Part of the incoming solar energy is bound up in the latent heat of vaporization. If you add more heat to a boiling kettle the kettle boils more vigorously adding more moisture to the air but the temperature does not rise.

REAL WORLD: Arid areas are always hotter than moist areas. An example from Sleepalot looks at the humid Brazilian rain forest, Barcelos, Brazil (L= 0.9750° S), and the dry N. African Desert, Adrar, Algeria. (L= 27.8667° )

This data is from May (2012) midway between the vernal equinox and the summer solstice.

Barcelos, Brazil
….monthly min 20C, monthly max 33C, monthly average 26C
Average humidity 90%

…..monthly min 9C monthly max 44C, monthly average 30C
Average humidity around 0%

I took a rough look at the data from Brazil. Twelve days were sunny. I had to toss the data for two days because it was bogus. The average humidity was 80% for those ten days. The high was 32 with a range of 1.7C and the low was 22.7C with a range of 2.8C. Given the small range in values over the month the data is probably a pretty good estimate for the effects of humidity only.

You still get the day-night variation of ~ 10C with a high humidity vs a day-night variation of 35C without and the average temp is STILL going to be lower when the humidity is high and the effect of clouds is removed.
DATA from: classic(DOT)wunderground.com/history/station/82113/2012/5/22/MonthlyHistory.html

ALTITUDE:
Barcelos, Brazil elevation ~ 30 meters (100 ft)
Adrar, Algeria ~ Elevation: 280 metres (920 feet)

One would expect a drop in temperature of ~ 4C due to altitude for Adrar, Algeria so the difference between locations, taking into account altitude is ~ 8C higher in Adrar which is further north but with much lower humidity. – (wwwDOT)engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

This data would indicate GHGs have two effects. One is to even out the temperature and the second is to act as a “coolant” at least if the GHG is H2O, the most significant GHG.

What is really funny about CAGW is thanks to this energy bound in the heat of vaporization, if the water vapor goes up, as demanded by the CO2 global warming conjecture, the world temperature should actually be go DOWN!!!! (And the deserts should be contracting not expanding.)

• #
RandyB

Does this ‘4-pipe’ model include enough resolution to predict some empirical results that may be verifiable when NASA lofts the IR satellite next year? It seems the IR spectrum escaping to space from the different ‘pipes’ may have some fingerprints so to speak. If these can be specified, perhaps this model can actually be validated [or not] by predicting how that spectrum might look over different temp zones/lattitudes, areas of higher vs lower Co2, cyclical variations expected to occur daily or seasonally etc..

• #

Good question Randy.

Might take a few years, because basic models only simulate transitions between steady states. They don’t shed any light on seasonal variation. Recall that basic models rely on OLR = ASR.

The crucial thing to look for is whether the emissions from water vapor and cloud tops are increasing or decreasing. We are looking for signs that the rerouting feedback exists — which would be that water vapor and cloud top emissions are increasing as the CO2 concentration increases. If it exists it changes the conventional models entirely, because it is omitted from the conventional models (including the GCMs) — to the extent that it exists and is significant, the conventional models have overestimated the ECS.

We already have a fair idea of changes in surface emissions, because we have a fair idea of surface warming. For the last 17 years of the pause, OLR through the CO2 pipe has continued to shrink as the CCO2 concentration increases (that would be good to check — did they get the spectroscopy correct?) while the surface pipe isn’t carrying any more (the pause). Ergo the OLR through the cloud tops and water vapor pipes must be edging up on average — or maybe some smaller pipe is making huge changes, e.g. ozone or methane.

Think of the dam analogy (pictures in intros of post 11 and this post): do we see water vapor amplification akin to what goes on when the ASR increases, or simple redistribution, as the underlying move as the CO2 concentration increases?

• #
Martin Mason

Can somebody help me with a physics question or point me to a good reference where I could find the answer.

The Science of Doom type explanation states that as CO2 concentration increases the effective radiation level of CO2 is raised into a colder area and less radiation is emitted causing the atmosphere to warm. It is stated but not demonstrated how, what is the mechanism for this?

CO2 absorbs and emits photons at a wavelength of 15microns at the surface. The CO2 molecules cool to say -50C in the higher Troposphere, what effect does this have on the amount of energy that it can absorb and emit or does temperature have no effect?

During the absorbing and emitting of photons by CO2, is there a red shift and if so what is the magnitude?

any help is much appreciated.

• #

Yes, increasing the CO2 concentration raises the CO2 emission layer into colder air and thus it emits less. It rises simply because there is more CO2 — so the point at which there is the same amount of CO2 on the way to space ascends. The relevant parts of the CO2 blockage are in the wings of the CO2 spectrum, nearer 13 and 18 microns, where the CO2 emission layer is in the upper troposphere. See the last diagram on this page of Barrett-Bellamy.

• #

Martin Mason November 1, 2015 at 7:03 pm · Reply

“Can somebody help me with a physics question or point me to a good reference where I could find the answer.The Science of Doom type explanation states that as CO2 concentration increases the effective radiation level of CO2 is raised into a colder area and less radiation is emitted causing the atmosphere to warm.”

CO2 from 14-16 µm has an tropopause optical depth of about 4; 98% emissivity at temperature of 200 K. This effect has been constant since CO2 went above 200ppmv. All CO2 EMR exitance to space occurs at this level with another 7% added from the much higher atmospheres.

“It is stated but not demonstrated how, what is the mechanism for this?”

Much is stated but none is ever demonstrated as this is fantasy and cannot be demonstrated. This nothing is all that is known about this Earth’s atmospheric CO2. There may be other fantasy also never demonstrated.

“CO2 absorbs and emits photons at a wavelength of 15microns at the surface. The CO2 molecules cool to say -50C in the higher Troposphere, what effect does this have on the amount of energy that it can absorb and emit or does temperature have no effect?”

The temperature effect is as stated above. There are no other known effects from increasing CO2 levels.

“During the absorbing and emitting of photons by CO2, is there a red shift and if so what is the magnitude?”

At very low altitudes (20 meters) there is both temperature and pressure line broadening,a form of Doppler shift that is present that more completely suppresses surface EMR exit continuum flux between 13 and 18 µm.

• #
Martin Mason

Thanks for the responses, I accept that there will be different views.

• #

Distance to food says the spyder: g ≤ h+w+l ≥ √(h²+w²+l²)
³´·¹ºª just·checking!! 😉

For real! 22.4 liters at 101.6 kPa STP has one mole of atmosphere. How many moles of atmosphere in 22.4 liters at 50 kPa pressure altitude? 25? 12.5? How many know how this atmosphere works?
All the best? -will-

• #
KinkyKeith

0.5

0.25

0.125

• #
KinkyKeith

Or more likely 1 for all.

All 4 one!

KK

• #
flood

Dr Evans,

I was linked here from another internet discussion on the topic of atmospheric science. You have a lot of information here and I just have a question that may have been asked previously so I apologize in advance.

Has this been published in any scientific journals? If not, has it been submitted to any? What were the responses if any were received as to why it was not published?

• #

flood, from post 1:

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

• #
flood

About how long do you expect this process to take?
Have you had any feedback as of yet?
Also if you don’t mind me asking, which entity or entities have you submitted to?

• #

flood, the discussion on basic models requires two more posts and a concluding post, with the next one going up in about 12 hours. Then there are a number of posts which makes a strong case for what is causing the bulk of the recent global warming.

Feedback so far is generally positive. More importantly, there have been no significant problems found despite obvious attention from the usual suspects, over 16 posts.

Read the next two posts, then imagine the pressure that will be brought to bear on the editor of any publication I submitted this to.

Btw, which internet discussion did you link in from?

• #
flood

There is a politics/religion and controversy section on http://www.corvetteforum.com where it was being discussed. A lot of it is general political debate/garbage but there are some interesting things discussed there from time to time.

I feel that for a lot of folks who don’t have the background in the various fields of study that are required to fully understand these topics, we can benefit greatly from peer review and publication. There is so much mis-information on any subject let alone controversial ones such as this it will add substantial credibility to your work. This is why I wanted to ask.

I am sure it requires a lot of time and energy so I truly wish you the best.