Barriers coming down?
Press Release 22/05/13
Global Warming Policy Foundation Invites Royal Society Fellows For Climate Change Discussion
London, 22 May: In response to a suggestion by Sir Paul Nurse, the President of the Royal Society, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has invited five climate scientists and Fellows of the Royal Society to discuss the current state of climate science and its wider implications.
In a letter to Lord Lawson, the GWPF chairman, Sir Paul stated that the Royal Society “would be happy to put the GWPF in touch with people who can offer the Foundation informed scientific advice.”
Sir Paul suggested that the GWPF should contact five of their Fellows: Sir Brian Hoskins; Prof John Mitchell; Prof Tim Palmer; Prof John Shepherd and Prof Eric Wolff.
The GWPF has now invited the five climate scientists to a meeting with a team of members of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council and independent scientists and has proposed a two-part agenda:
1. The science of global warming, with special reference to (a) the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide and (b) the extent of natural variability;
2. The conduct and professional standards of those involved in the relevant scientific inquiry and official advisory process.
“I hope the Fellows of the Royal Society will be happy to meet with our team of scientists so that something positive can come out of Sir Paul’s recommendation,” said Dr Benny Peiser, the Director of the GWPF.
via Press Release: GWPF Invites Royal Society Fellows For Climate Change Discussion.
I like it when they talk to us.
Views: 120
“with people who can offer the Foundation informed scientific advice.””
Just love the patronising tone…Still, it’s nice to see and is going to be good to observe. No more hiding from the facts.
I am interested to know why you think this is patronising. The scientists batting for the GWPF include Richard Lindzen and on the economics side is Richard Tol. Both are highly successful in their fields and have published many papers, and both have contributed to IPCC reports.
Do you imagine that the “deniers” are some fruitcakes that crawl out of Alex Jones’ office?
Isn’t David siding with GWPF?
I thought he meant RS was patronizing GWPF and there was no more hiding from the facts for RS.
Sorry I wasn’t really sure. David seems to think we are all crazy “deniers”, and who can blame him when he has Barack Obama on his side
http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/
I’m still not sure.
David?
Good grief, on the “authority” of Organizing for Action:-
“Climate change is real, it’s caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for our health”
I know, when I first saw that site I thought it was a spoof.
The “call them out” button generates a tweet to send to the “denier”
Smells awfully like Gore’s Reality Drop project to me.
Wrong David. I was referring to the Royal Societies attitude.
I did see the “other” Davids comments. He should change his name to Dick…
[What do you mean by “other” David? I don’t see there was another. Which comments? If you’re both using the same name, the second one to arrive must change. Otherwise I’ll have to block you both, sorry, it’s just too silly. – RT]
Are you a different David? This could get confusing
Ah, I thought there were 2. Might be good for one of you to be David 1 or 2, or even better, use an initial too (unless they’re the same of course, mine are RSC and I still get confused with Richard S Courtney even when I use my surname which isn’t “Courtney” – hence the “(NZ)” to distance myself from Courtney in UK).
RT- I have commented before and over several years. I do enjoy stirring Ken up as you may remember. The “new” one who has been challenging you should change his name as I was here first. Check the IP addresses if you want. Your system should be able to block someone new taking a name already used. It does on other blogs
Yes I do remember you David and your penchant for stirring up poor old Ken. New David is the imposter!
Apologies for misinterpreting you
No, don’t remeber you at all, David.
Cant have been any significant comments from you.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/05/RS-Invitations.pdf
Batting for the evil deniers:
Prof Vincent Courtillot
Prof Mike Kelly
Nic Lewis
Prof Richard Lindzen
Viscount Ridley
Prof Richard Tol
Mike Kelly, of course, is a Kiwi and was involved in the climategate inquiries
Best comment so far at Bishop Hill
Not as congenial in other quarters:-
‘Roy Spencer and WUWT Cut and Run on own Greenhouse Gas Challenge’
Dr. Roy Spencer threw down his “put up or shut up” challenge (May 10, 2013) to Principia Scientific International (PSI) demanding PSI prove they possessed a better climate model than the discredited greenhouse gas “theory.” PSI’s model accounts for all the incoming and outgoing solar energy on Earth without any need to factor in the alleged heating effect of carbon dioxide (CO2). As such, PSI promptly did “put up” and now Roy has been shut up.
[too long, snipped – RT]
The important part that got snipped i.e my comment on one of the most important GW/CC issues today along with GMAST standstill, CS and OHC:-
Disclosure:
I agree with “we assert that CO2 is empirically proven to be a cooling gas” – carbon dioxide (CO2) is a refrigerant, code R744, i.e. a coolant by definition. NASA concurs (see link below)
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
And,
“SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.”
But I disagree with “As such it can contribute no warming whatsoever” – maybe I’m splitting hairs or am wanting better semantics but the fact that CO2 absorbs and is thermalized initially (and PSI doesn’t dispute that) must mean it contributes to the warmth of the atmosphere at least to a small degree. The effect of the initial thermalization shows up as a forcing up to about 200ppm in the verified polynomial representations used by combustion engineering but only at 273K in the graph below:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
Increasing concentration however, doesn’t have the effect of increasing forcing beyond an initial threshold in combustion engineering curves at the 273K end but no-one knows exactly what the effect is in the atmosphere (the IPCC doesn’t know – they haven’t verified their assumption/simplification of a straight line on a log-log graph and they assume that one line/curve is applicable for the entire temperature range of the atmosphere).
But in extreme cases the effect is to a very large degree (a curve for 2730K is different than a curve for 273K from what I can gather but I can’t link to anything on the internet – it’s in books). NASA describes the thermosphere as being “lit up like a Christmas tree” and “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in” when, “for the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space”.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
I cannot see how absorbing 95% of 26 billion kWh of energy can be described as contributing “no warming whatsoever”. That warming doesn’t hang around for long though, as the warmists would have us believe.
I think that is the crucial distinction that should be made when the word “warming” is used.
RC, the interpretation of the Solar storm high atmosphere heating is this: The energy from the solar storms arrives not in form of light but in form of high speed particles. These lose the energy through collisions in the highest layers of the atmosphere. The most efficient IR active molecules in the high atmosphere are NO but in particular CO2, which due to its trimer composition and associated vibrational modes is an efficient IR absorber and emitter. There is of cause no H2O in these altitudes.
Energy loss of the high atmosphere is primarily by IR radiation and indeed CO2 is carrying the main load of that.
This is why the addition of CO2 to the Atmosphere has already had a cooling effect to the temperature of the Mesosphere. This is quite dramatic actually, is well understood and unfortunately is been misquoted as a ‘proof’ that CO2 is cooling the atmosphere as such or as a means of ‘debunking’ the green house effect by some hobby scientists….
Perhaps a basic text on atmospheric radiation physics can help:
An introduction to atmospheric radiation
… or this lecture on basic radiation physics of the atmosphere
Whilst these links to basic radiative physics may be fascinating, I would point out the sidebar link to Science of Doom which covers most of this.
Indeed Andy, the Backradiation Chapter on the Science of Doom” site is not bad and anybody who doubts the influence of CO2 on the energy budget of the planet would be well advised to read whats written there.
It seems that some people still do no understand the basic radiation physics involved and cry ‘hurray’ when they discover that as part of all this the upper atmosphere must cool and break out into a joyous chorus that now for sure the whole AGW theory must fall, that CO2 is a ‘cooling agent’ or that ‘CO2 is a heat shield and cools the planet’ or whatever variation of the theme that is peddled….. All seen before in many places.
>”….in particular CO2, which due to its trimer composition and associated vibrational modes is an efficient IR absorber and emitter”
Thank you Thomas. In other words a very efficient energy transfer medium, by definition a coolant, refrigerant code R744.
Hi Richard C, Richard T has linked in the side panel here to the right, this website called Science of Doom. Andy also recommends it and its not bad.
Here is the chapter on back radiation. Worth a study.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
And CO2 (compressed and then released) is a great coolant. I used to make dry ice with a fire extinguisher (CO2) for students. Always impresses. But that has nothing to do with radiation physics but simple gas law stuff… of cause you know that.
Indeed CO2 assists a hot atmosphere to emit radiation from its top. But it hinders the passing of radiation from the bottom through it. The later effect causes the bottom of the atmosphere to heat while the top cools. Precisely as measurements prove it to be.
A bit like double glazing perhaps. As compared to single glazing the outer window pane is cooler than before (with single glazing) but the inner pane towards the room is a lot warmer. Exactly what would be expected due to the higher ‘resistance’ to heat transmission of the window.
I’m not really sure I was recommending it. More like pointing to the site so that we don’t keep repeating the same issues
Thomas:
Uh, no. The atmosphere isn’t heating up according to the AGW theory. Sorry.
First of all, it is predicted to warm at over 0.2°C/decade, and accelerate.
Isn’t happening, we’ve flat-lined for almost two decades.
Second, the tropical upper troposphere is expected to warm at two to three times the rate at the surface, due to positive water vapour feedback.
Isn’t happening at all. Nada, zip.
Bod D, it would really help if you read sites like the Science of Doom or this discussion here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html
which is on the effect you commented about. You may find a lot of your questions well discussed there and the relevance towards AGW put into perspective.
This post by Richard T is aptly entitled “Barriers coming down” and in my experience in participating in discussions on AGW for a long time now is the fact that many people have barricaded themselves into a dogma and will not actually read let alone spend time to understand the science as it is presented. All to often arguments brought against what science presents us with are pronounced by people who neither read nor understand nor want to read the science but have a’prioi opinions that they do not want to see challenged. I hope in the spirit of “barriers coming down” this can change.
Thomas:
Yes, we’ve been referred to that page ad nauseam. Cook the Cartoonist is trying to pretend that the “fingerprint” of GHG is in fact the stratospheric cooling, not the tropospheric warming.
He’s trying to pretend that the big red spot in the middle of the diagram isn’t really there after all.
The simple fact is that stratospheric cooling can be caused by CO2 and ozone. Is there more CO2 up there? Yes. Big deal. The whole point about the hot spot is that it is a necessary outcome of water vapour feedback. As CO2 increases the temperature, it causes a water vapour increase in the atmosphere over the tropics and more GHG warming. Simple.
So no hot spot implies water vapour feedback is zero. Which implies CS is as low as the sceptics have been saying for years. Doubling of CO2 concentration will produce at most 1.2°C increase.
Face it, the science is telling us the sceptics have been right all along, and the alarmists were wrong – we aren’t all going to fry.
>”Hi Richard C, Richard T has linked in the side panel here to the right, this website called Science of Doom. Andy also recommends it and its not bad.
Here is the chapter on back radiation. Worth a study.”
Thanks anyway, read all that a few years ago.
But here’s an idea for you Thomas. Why don’t you access the DLR databases that SoD links to for his examples of DLR graphs e.g. Darwin. Try to find any evidence at all that DLR has been rising anywhere in the world at any location where observations have been made for many years now that is commensurate in sign and magnitude with CO2 forcing?
Good luck with that Thomas.
Or, but preferably in addition to the above, you could present some observational peer-reviewed scientific literature. I suggest Gero and Turner (Great Plains USA), Francis and Hunter (Arctic/Barrow area), Wild et al (GEWEX network), Wu et al (I think they are – SURFRAD network), and a long-term Antarctic study for which I can’t recall the authors off-hand.
Good luck with that too.
>”Hi Richard C, Richard T has linked in the side panel here to the right, this website called Science of Doom. Andy also recommends it and its not bad. Here is the chapter on back radiation. Worth a study.”
Just checked Thomas. I have 13 pages of Science of Doom bookmarked under ‘Climate Science’ – ‘Heat and Ocean’ for ready reference. They’ve been there since 2010ish.
And BTW, my ‘Climate Science’ folder has 13 categories. Here’s some of what is in 4 of those:-
‘Heat and Ocean’ sub-folder alone has 172 pages in total bookmarked
‘AGW Busted’ sub-folder has 138 pages.
‘Models’ sub-folder has 11 sub-sub-folders, here’s 5 of them: ‘Codes’ has 17 pages, ‘NCAR’ has 29 pages, ‘NASA’ has 2 sub-sub-sub-folders – ‘GISS’ and ‘GSFC’, GISS has 17 pages. ‘Models Articles’ sub-folder has 179 pages. ‘WCRP’ sub-folder has 18 pages including the RCP Database.
‘Water Vapour’ sub-folder has 67 articles.
That’s just a sample of what was left after I’ve culled a whole bunch. In addition I have access to probably well over 1000 articles/links/papers etc in CCG ‘Open Threads’, just one of which is:-
‘1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm’
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
The ‘Open Threads’ index I use most, and which I compiled along with many of the ‘Thread’ category headers (“Thread” is me), is filed in ‘Climate’, ‘Disproving AGW’ (bookmarked of course). There are 33 categories and in addition to the index at the top-of-page bar you can find that index here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-26342
Please remember this Thomas, before you point us/me to some web page.
Richard C:
Preach it, brother.
It might help if you had a sub-folder called “Fact” and another called “Fiction” but I suspect that you would have trouble working out what link went where and that there might be very little in Fact.
Speaking of preaching, I see the religious fundamentalists are back at Hot Topic preaching about custodianship and social justice and badgering the Churches to adopt their religion.
>”It might help if you had a sub-folder called “Fact” and another called “Fiction” but I suspect that you would have trouble working out what link went where and that there might be very little in Fact.”
Well, observations seem to be of a semi-factual nature (less so with GISTEMP) but according to the following Observations vs CMIP5/AR5 models graph, I should move my ‘Models’ folder to become a sub-category to the new ‘Fiction’ folder that you suggest:-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
And apparently, going by that graph, my ‘Climate Science’ folder should be divided into the sub-categories of ‘Fact’ and ‘Fiction’ – thanks for that suggestion Simon – so that I will have a new ‘Climate Science’ – ‘Fiction’ – ‘Models’ path.
I will have to be careful though, not to move the ‘Non-IPCC Natural Forcings’ folder (8 pages) – i.e. the models that are actually on track with observational fact – into the ‘Fiction’ folder too. That should really stay somewhere in “Fact’ shouldn’t it?
That’s a start isn’t it Simon?
BTW, ‘Non-IPCC Natural Forcings’ folder (8 pages), looks like it will be a bit tiny in ‘Fact’ given the bulk of ‘Models’ (the IPCC-aligned CO2-forced configurations) gets moved to ‘Fiction’.
Episcopal Green is a long way down that track Andy.
Thomas, I see SoD’s post of Darwin DLR has “The mean = 409 W/m²” per day.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/11/darwinian-selection-back-radiation/
But when I look at this Australian Energy Resource Assessment, Chapter 10: Solar Energy re Darwin there’s no mention of DLR being an energy resource:-
http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA17057.pdf
Instead, their attention is on DSR and the figures (10.12 onwards starting at page 268/8) show daily solar radiation of around 20 Megajoules/m² per day at Darwin. That works out, by my reckoning, at about 230 W/m² per day.
409 W/m² per day – DLR (LW “backradiation”)
230 W/m² per day – DSR (SW insolation)
Shouldn’t you be advising the Australian Govt that there’s a major un-tapped energy source around Darwin that they’ve overlooked?
Richard C: Lets talk about Darwin then:
1) You correctly divided the 20 Megajoules or average daily incoming solar radiation energy by the seconds in a day and arrived at 230W/m2. That is the average (averaged over a 24 period) power in Watt/m2. (not Watt/m2/day which would be a rather odd unit)
2) You also correctly quoted the Darwinian DLR measurements at 409W/m2
3) Looking at the two statements you and suggest we should use DLR as an energy source…..
I have come across similar comments made by others who struggle with radiation physics, its a topic where lay people often trap into seeming contradictions, so its perhaps a timely opportunity to sort this out:
A) When considering DLR as an energy source you must also look at the emission of IR from the ground! Darwin, hot as it is, might have an average annual temperature of say 28 Deg C. (I am guessing here based on worldweatheronline).
At that temperature the average ground radiation upwards will be about 465W/m2.
B) Therefore the NET radiative balance of energy leaving the ground via radiation is about 60W/m2 = Outgoing at 465W/m2 minus DLR at 409W/m2, rounded to 60W/m2.
As this is NET energy leaving the ground, you won’t be able to utilize this as a power source at the ground. You can only use thermal radiation as a power source via some heating process when you have a net positive flow to the place where you would like to extract some work or useful energy. To drive any form of heat engine of thermal radiation you also need a colder place against which the heat engine could do its work (Carnot Cycle, look it up).
C) Using IR photons for photo-voltaic processes won’t work either. The per photon energy is not sufficient to derive a useful voltage from semiconductors for energy purposes. Plus as the upwards going radiation is larger than the DLR you could simply soak that upwards gong radiation up if you had any technology to convert IR photon energy into electric energy.
D) Now lets go to the day case: The average insolation is 230W/m2 (that is a day and night average). It is obviously significantly larger than the NET outgoing IR of about 60W/m2. So whats up with that difference of about 170W/m2? Well it resembles energy removed otherwise. Evaporation is a major component, convection via updrafts and winds another. Plant growth a small matter (literally). It might be an interesting exercise to work out where all that remaining 170W/m2 goes.
E) Energy use during the day: During the day time the insolation could be as high as 800W/m2 or sometimes close to 1000W/m2. That means you can use this to significantly heat surfaces (Hot water solar for example) or use the high energy photons in the visible and UV spectrum of the Sun for PV solar panels.
Hope this helped.
>”That is the average (averaged over a 24 period) power in Watt/m2. (not Watt/m2/day which would be a rather odd unit)”
Not that odd, that’s the units of the Australian study – a “per day” average in Megajoules. I just converted to common terms of W.m2 per day to compare with Darwin DLR from SoD.
>”At that temperature the average ground radiation upwards will be about 465W/m2″
OK, the implication being that they can have energy collectors facing down during daytime to capture this prodigious 465W/m2 of energy along with solar from upwards facing collectors and upwards facing collectors for collecting night-time DLR.
>”B) Therefore the NET radiative balance”
Net is irrelevant in terms of energy collectors – upwards facing for downwelling energy, downwards facing for upwelling energy. Also how the fluxes are measured BTW e.g. BSRN:-
http://www.bsrn.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Home/Publications/McArthur.pdf
Net is calculated AFTER measurement of downward and upward fluxes.
>”As this is NET energy leaving the ground, you won’t be able to utilize this as a power source at the ground”
Wrong as above. In addition, the reason LWIR (upwelling or downwelling) is NOT utilized as an energy source as solar is, is that you (and many others) are attributing equivalent heating effect to DLR (IR-C) as is normally obtained from IR (and some UV) in the solar spectrum (IR-A/B). Using the terms of an electrical analogy (a very loose one), it is the difference between “real” and “apparent” power. Yes you can measure DLR or ULR in the same units as DSR but the capacity to do work is vastly different.
This is the trap that Spencer (and Watts) has fallen into in his fight with PSI. He neglects heating effect (or lack of). Also the trap that Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) (and updates) manufactured for themselves and AGW in ‘Global Heat Flows’:-
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif
324 W.m2 – DLR (“Back Radiation”)
390 W.m2 – ULR (“Surface Radiation”)
168 W.m2 – DSR (“Incoming Solar” “Absorbed by Surface”)
Apparently, there’s 714 W.m2 of LWIR energy available to do work compared to a measly 168
W.m2 of SW solar.
>”It might be an interesting exercise to work out where all that remaining 170W/m2 goes.”
That was the subject of a post here at CCG a while back.
>”E) Energy use during the day: During the day time the insolation could be as high as 800W/m2 or sometimes close to 1000W/m2. That means you can use this to significantly heat surfaces (Hot water solar for example) or use the high energy photons in the visible and UV spectrum of the Sun for PV solar panels”
Again. a REAL heating effect (you’re talking cloudless solar peak there BTW – the effective figure is somewhat less) not available from the daytime 465W/m2 ULR or average 409W/m2 Darwin DLR that is erroneously attributed by AGW to being an effective heating agent i.e. “the high energy photons” are in the solar spectrum, the LWIR-C photons are relatively much lower energy (see the EM spectrum table).
Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it has real effects Thomas.
Hope this helped.
>”C) Using IR photons for photo-voltaic processes won’t work either. The per photon energy is not sufficient to derive a useful voltage from semiconductors for energy purposes.”
‘How A Photovoltic Cell Works’
“The “photovoltaic effect” is the basic physical process through which a PV cell converts sunlight into electricity. Sunlight is composed of photons, or particles of solar energy. These photons contain various amounts of energy corresponding to the different wavelengths of the solar spectrum.”
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsolar3.htm
UV-A/B, Visible, and IR-A/B is the solar “sunlight” spectrum. Energy-per-photon in IR-A/B is considerably higher than in the LWIR spectrum. See “eV” values here:-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Light_spectrum.svg/324px-Light_spectrum.svg.png
LWIR/DLR/IR-C is NOT in the solar spectrum. Energy-per-photon in IR-C is considerably lower than IR-A/B in the solar spectrum.
Ergo, PV DOES work in the solar SW spectrum including IR-A/B but NOT in the LWIR IR-C spectrum.
There is also radiation/material compatibility “tuning” to consider BTW e.g. UV-B doesn’t burn the surface of fair skin until the angle of incidence is sufficiently large
Richard C said: “But here’s an idea for you Thomas. Why don’t you access the DLR databases that SoD links to for his examples of DLR graphs e.g. Darwin. Try to find any evidence at all that DLR has been rising anywhere in the world at any location where observations have been made for many years now that is commensurate in sign and magnitude with CO2 forcing?”
Again, I think you don’t see the trees for the forest Richard: What is the current value for CO2 forcing? This graph shows the components making up the anthropogenic forcing. Overall it is about 1.6 W/m2 at the moment. Darwin has a DLR average annual of around 400W/m2 and the signal is noisy. You can not expect to see the 1.6W/m2 of CO2 forcing directly in observational data in Darwin amongst the noisy 400W/m2 measurements. But if you wonder what 1.6W/m2 forcing does to the planet generally and especially at the poles where the effect is most pronounced, look no further than the temp anomaly measurements of earth and especially their geographical distribution.
>”e.g. UV-B doesn’t burn the surface of fair skin until the angle of incidence is sufficiently large”
But UV-A penetrates deeper than UV-B over a much wider angle of incidence.
That’s an example of radiation/material “tuning”. Laser and microwave intensity is another, often there’s a necessity to turn down intensity to get penetration, whether gases containing particles…..or chickens, respectively.
>”Darwin has a DLR average annual of around 400W/m2 and the signal is noisy. You can not expect to see the 1.6W/m2 of CO2 forcing directly in observational data in Darwin amongst the noisy 400W/m2 measurements.”
But you should be able to identify it over the long term because that is supposedly the “1.6W/m2 of CO2 forcing”. I’ve cited 5 long-term studies of DLR: Gero and Turner (Great Plains), Francis and Hunter (Alaska), Can’t recall authors (Antarctica), Wild et al (GEWEX), Wu(?) et al (SURFRAD). None of which exhibit anything commensurate with aGHG forcing in sign or magnitude. You on the other hand have come up with nothing, just hand waving.
And of course you can’t see 1.6 W/m2 of CO2 forcing in amongst 400+ W/m2 noisy data, it is totally insignificant – even if it does exist.
>”But if you wonder what 1.6W/m2 forcing does to the planet generally and especially at the poles where the effect is most pronounced, look no further than the temp anomaly measurements of earth and especially their geographical distribution.”
But unless you can produce the observational evidence as above (and you haven’t so far), you have no basis for proof of causality (and there are other explanations for Arctic anyway e.g. AMO/NAO). Francis and Hunter is a DLR study from the north polar region and there’s another from the south, neither provide that evidence “especially at the poles”.
>”This graph shows the components making up the anthropogenic forcing”
Those are values of components of a posited methodology (IPCC’s RF from 1750). Is does not necessarily follow that the methodology is valid or the effects are real and measurable.
For going on 2 decades now, in the absence of the posited 2 C/decade aGHG temperature forcing (i.e. we should have seen 0.4 C rise over 20 yrs but we haven’t), it is looking increasingly like the methodology is fallacious.
>”But if you wonder what 1.6W/m2 forcing does to the planet generally”
Thomas, the IPCC’s CO2-centric solar-specialist go-to guy Mike Lockwood has pointed out that estimates of solar output variation between Maunder Grand Minimum and Modern Grand Maximum range to 6 W.m2. I know of 2 such papers specifically finding 5.75/6 W.m2 and I think I might know another if pressed.
So I don’t “wonder what 1.6W/m2 forcing does to the planet generally”, I wonder about a 400 yr solar variation closer to 6 W.m2 and what effect that has at the surface (think sea freezing across the Bosporus thick enough to walk on in the MM).
The IPCC discounts the larger solar estimates because it ruins their narrative. Also, they left solar forcing at Modern Grand Maximum levels out to 2100 in CMIP5/AR4 simulations. That has since proven to be a gross error.
Richard C said: “Not that odd, that’s the units of the Australian study – a “per day” average in Megajoules. I just converted to common terms of W.m2 per day to compare with Darwin DLR from SoD.”
Yes they spoke of Mega Joules, a unit of energy. If you divide this by time as in “per day” it becomes a measure of Power expressed in Watts. If you divide this by m2 you get a power per area or Energy flow per area, also expressed as Watts per m2. If you divide this once more by time as in: Watts per m2 per Day you get nonsense…..
Then Richard said: “Net is irrelevant in terms of energy collectors – upwards facing for downwelling energy, downwards facing for upwelling energy.”
Me thinks you should join the “perpetual motion device developers society”. They can use your talents. 🙂
Net is all that counts for thermal collectors. If the outgoing radiation is greater or equal the incoming – and remember unless your collector is colder than its surroundings that will be the case for thermal collectors – then you have nothing to collect. You are loosing energy…!
The only way Richard that you can extract energy from the temperature difference between two surfaces is if a) there is a difference and you actually have a net flow of Energy, and b) if that temperature difference you are exploiting is large enough to get a meaningful efficiency from a process extracting work. Of cause the flow of thermal energy must be towards your system of extraction, not away from it. Again, I recommend looking up “Carnot Cycle”. Its quite interesting.
As per using IR photons for PV energy generation: IR photons in the Earth thermal spectrum (your upwelling and downwelling IR) have roughly 1/20th of the energy of a solar photon at say 500nm (mid visible spectrum). Absorptions are quantum processes and the energy of IR photons is so low, that they won’t push an electron across the band gap in a regular PV semiconductor. This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_solar_cells
However researchers are extending the frequency range useful to PV cells all the time, also to the near IR frequencies and last year new materials, some based on carbon nanotubes, made significant progress. However extracting energy in quantities useful for a nations energy systems as you suggested from Thermal radiation at room temp levels is not on the drawing boards. The efficiency in Watt/m2 would be utterly dismal.
Thanks, Thomas.
I hadn’t seen it expressed in this way before. We hear all these scare stories that CO2 levels have increased by dramatic amounts, but when expressed as a forcing component, we are talking about an increase of less than 0.5% over a noisy signal
Andy:
And the supposed planetary imbalance is only 0.6W/m2 (Hansen) so it’s down to less than 0.2% of the total.
>”If you divide this once more by time as in: Watts per m2 per Day you get nonsense…..”
Rubbish. You get an averaged per day comparison basis. The Australian study is on a PER DAY basis. SoD’s mean is on a PER DAY basis. Once you get the units in common terms W (J/s), the Australian study data can be directly compared to SoD’s.
“”Then Richard said: “Net is irrelevant in terms of energy collectors – upwards facing for downwelling energy, downwards facing for upwelling energy.” Me thinks you should join the “perpetual motion device developers society”. They can use your talents. :-)”
That is how the fluxes are MEASURED Thomas. In other words an instrument detects an energy flow. Your “perpetual motion” criticism is EXACTLY the criticism being levelled by AGW sceptics (and those saying DLR has negligible heating effect) at Kiehl and Trenberth 09 and updates – and AGW.
Thank you for joining the sceptics on this Thomas. It is a balmy notion that 324 W.m2 – DLR (“Back Radiation”) or 390 W.m2 – ULR (“Surface Radiation”) is energy available for useful work but AGW assumes it is available.
>”The only way Richard that you can extract energy from…….”
But first the “energy” has to useful energy. Energy in the solar spectrum can do work. Energy in the LWIR/IR-C/AGW “backradiation” spectrum cannot do work beyond negligible. Bulk ocean heating being an example: solar SW is the bulk ocean heating agent, DLR does little beyond aid evaporation, if that.
>”As per using IR photons for PV energy generation: IR photons in the Earth thermal spectrum (your upwelling and downwelling IR) have roughly 1/20th of the energy of a solar photon at say 500nm (mid visible spectrum).”
Thank you Thomas – that is EXACTLY my point.
And what is the energy-per-photon difference between solar IR-A/B and DLR (IR-C)?
Infrared:-
* IR-A: 700 nm–1400 nm (0.7 µm – 1.4 µm, 215 THz – 430 THz)
* IR-B: 1400 nm–3000 nm (1.4 µm – 3 µm, 100 THz – 215 THz)
* IR-C: 3000 nm–1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm, 300 GHz – 100 THz)
Electromagnetic spectrum:-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Light_spectrum.svg/324px-Light_spectrum.svg.png
1.24 eV – 1.4 µm (solar IR-A)
124 meV – 10 µm (DLR/IR-C) this being AGW’s “backradiation”
1.24/0.124 = 10 times compared to your “1/20th” at “say 500nm” (20 times).
Should be, of course – >”Thank you for joining the sceptics on this Thomas. It is a [barmy] notion that 324 W.m2 – DLR (“Back Radiation”) or 390 W.m2 – ULR (“Surface Radiation”) is energy available for useful work but AGW assumes it [(back radiation) does actually do work as a land and ocean surface and bulk ocean heating agent]”
Sorry RC, your confusion is getting worse.
One one point you suggest using DLR or IR upwelling radiation (ULR) for energy generation and the next moment you assert that it has no difference on the heat content and temperature of the oceans and the rest of the planet.
Neither DLR nor ULR are useful for work extraction in order to make electricity or so on. You would need a considerably colder side to the equation to begin extracting work from either. Ever meditated over why thermal power plants need cooling water or massive cooling towers…..
Having said that, DLR of cause is a significant component of moderating our climate to the temperatures we see. Without it Earth would have a surface temp a lot lower than today at around -18C and without it, Venus (if you leave the high albedo of the atmosphere due to sulfur compounds but remove the IR properties of CO2) would sport much cooler temperatures at the surface of -34 Degrees! Check it out.
On photon energies: The peak of the solar radiation is around 500nm, the peak of our ULR around 10,000 nm. The energy of a photon at 500nm is about 20x that of an average ULR one. Now this argument (photon energies) is significant if you want to make any sort of PV arrangement using IR photons. It means nothing if all you are interested in is looking at the thermal flux where simple thermal absorption is all that counts. The every DLR photon that is not outright reflected back from the surface delivers its energy to the surface where its absorbed. In Darwin that’s around 400W/m2 as we know. We also know that Darwin will emit some 460W/m2 on average from the ground. Net 60W/m2 upwelling or cooling of the surface. Any increase in DLR will result in a likewise reduction of the net ULR and hence cooling, resulting in a warmer surface.
The 1.6W/m2 CO2 forcing is global. Water vapor feedback is adding significantly to that, especially in the wetter climates. And your hope to see an increase in observed DLR at Darwin and around the globe visibly in the data would require us to have baseline measurements of the same from well back in time, which unfortunately we don’t. Yet the result of all this is the well known build up of heat in the earth’s climate system, and that is too much to ignore. (for most of us anyway).
RC, I am getting tired of this. When I teach Physics I normally get paid…. and you are a student with a lot of basics to cover and in my humble opinion well over your head in the matter. But good luck to you and your mates.
Look RC,
Thomas:
Do you ever read this stuff back to yourself? Have you really not learnt a thing yet?
The atmosphere isn’t warming, dude. There is no tropical hot spot, which is a necessary condition of water vapour feedback.
Is it a mantra that warmists must repeat every morning while shaving? “The Earth is warming, the water vapour feedback is happening; the temperatures are rising, the hot spot exists; Om, Om, Om…”
Good grief, and they call us deniers!
>”Sorry RC, your confusion is getting worse.”
It’s your confusion Thomas – not mine.
>”One one point you suggest using DLR or IR upwelling radiation (ULR) for energy generation”
Yes, I’m highlighting the absurdity of the AGW assumption that DLR is on a par with solar for such an application.
>”….and the next moment you assert that it has no difference on the heat content and temperature of the oceans and the rest of the planet”
That’s a lie Thomas, I made no such assertion.
>”Neither DLR nor ULR are useful for work extraction in order to make electricity or so on”
Again you out yourself as a closet AGW sceptic Thomas – glad you’ve finally seen sense.
>”Having said that, DLR of cause is a significant component of moderating our climate to the temperatures we see”
And now you contradict yourself Thomas. But significant? What is the observational evidence for this (citations please – no hand waving)? You have not come up with ANY papers so far – I’ve cited 5 on the other hand. In addition DLR does NOT equate to CO2 forcing, the observed signs and magnitudes are not commensurate.
>”The energy of a photon at 500nm is about 20x that of an average ULR one”
And the energy of a photon at 1000nm is about 10x that of an average DLR one i.e. solar does the business, DLR does not.
>”The every DLR photon that is not outright reflected back from the surface delivers its energy to the surface where its absorbed. In Darwin that’s around 400W/m2 as we know. We also know that Darwin will emit some 460W/m2 on average from the ground. Net 60W/m2 upwelling or cooling of the surface”
Specious argument. There’s net downwelling/upwelling radiation when solar is included but that doesn’t stop solar collectors being installed to intercept (harness) the downwelling component that does useful work.
>”Any increase in DLR will result in a likewise reduction of the net ULR and hence cooling, resulting in a warmer surface.”
What tosh. ULR is NOT “net”. Rnl is nett in the conventional heat loss equation (look it up).
>”And your hope to see an increase in observed DLR at Darwin and around the globe visibly in the data would require us to have baseline measurements of the same from well back in time, which unfortunately we don’t”
Actually we do Thomas (BSRN, SURFRAD). And there are scientific papers studying both networks along with site-specific studies (e.g. Great Plains, Barrow, Antarctica).
>”Yet the result of all this is the well known build up of heat in the earth’s climate system, and that is too much to ignore. (for most of us anyway).”
A build up that is at standstill in the atmosphere (as acknowledged by Hansen, Sato and Ruedy, NASA GISS). And also at standstill in the upper ocean (Pacific and Atlantic actually cooling).
>”RC, I am getting tired of this. When I teach Physics I normally get paid…. and you are a student with a lot of basics to cover and in my humble opinion well over your head in the matter.”
You’re certainly NOT teaching me physics Thomas (If you did I would fail by the standards of my education). I know more than the “basics” including academically (that was 30 – 40 odd years ago and I’ve been learning ever since). Now you are resorting to put-down since you’ve painted yourself into an embarrassing corner.
Hey Bob,
yes I agree now, see here, the Atmosphere has not been warming at all:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
And see here Bob, the ocean has been cooling:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
And the arctic melting, like sea ice volume going down or sea ice extend shrinking, na all just an illusion really.
Nasa, NOAA and PSC don’t have a clue anyway, just scientists who rarely know anything anyway. They should ask Bob, he knows.
All indications of any of the graphs above that might suggest to the untrained eye a warming trend or an accumulation of heat in the oceans is completely illusory. Just tilt your monitor downwards on the right and she’ll be ok…. Oh, for the sea ice graphs you must tilt it to the left.
And I am sorry that people have been calling you a Denier…. It is so obvious that earth is not warming. In fact one could imagine it might be cooling really.
🙂
>”….the ocean has been cooling:”
Why so it has:-
-Pacific: 0 – 700 (Oct-Dec), UNITS:1022 joules
2003.875 4.680
2004.875 3.905
2005.875 3.291
2006.875 4.023
2007.875 2.933
2008.875 3.769
2009.875 3.374
2010.875 2.007
2011.875 3.505
2012.875 2.858
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/h22-p0-700m10-12.dat
Atlantic similar:-
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/h22-a0-700m10-12.dat
If the upper Pacific and Atlantic Oceans have been cooling since 2003, there’s no anthropogenic ocean heating going on – period!
TONY JONES [ABC Lateline to Bill McKibben]: Let’s start with the statement most frequently used by climate change sceptics: the planet has stopped warming since 1998 and started to cool, actually cool, since 2003. True or false?
Jo Nova: [Tony Jones is offering a blatantly false position for McKibben to knock over…. skeptics most frequently point out that there has been no significant warming…..]
But how long before the cooling is significant?
RSS Trend 2003 – 2013: -0.066 ±0.409 °C/decade (2σ)
HadSST2 2003 – 2013:-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:2003/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend
“The planet has stopped warming since 1998 and started to cool, actually cool, since 2003.” True or false?
True.
On the question of two Davids: I’ve seen no sign that there are two of them.
This David and the one who is a fan of The Crusaders and Triumph motorbikes?
Ah, the other thread. Yes, they’re different.
Listen up, guys: When names are duplicated, the second must be accompanied by another letter/s or word/s, because having identical personas is silly. If not, comments from both personas will be blocked. Easy for me. Thanks.
David (we’ll talk down here, ok?),
RT- I have commented before and over several years. I do enjoy stirring Ken up as you may remember. The “new” one who has been challenging you should change his name as I was here first. Check the IP addresses if you want.
I’m sure you’re right, then the other David is the one who has to change. Let’s see if he’s convinced.
I am assuming “other David” is David Thompson who comments at Ken’s and also blogs here
http://makesensereally.wordpress.com/
Apologies if I have got the wrong guy but presumably he could clear up the confusion fairly quickly
That’s a different email address from our “other” David, so it might be a third David.
Good grief, an army of Davids
Sure RT, I originally commented here as (not so) silent also. Perhaps you should require people to register before they comment. They do on blogs like Kiwiblog and it just cuts all this confusion out.
I’m not too anxious about the confusion. People identify themselves and their opinions because they want to be identified correctly, I don’t need to help them. Nor do I want to be a government, telling you all what to do. You can all sort it out, I’m sure.
Uh… why not use your whole name guys?
Brilliant response RT. Totally agree. Question: Why do commenters use a pseudonym?
I’m not telling you why I use a pseudonym.
Is there a way to switch on avatars (pictures) for users? It is a wordpress blog I presume.
From now on I shall be known as David The Fat Old Biker That Doesn’t Take You Guys Seriously, or “David the fat bastard” for short
Feel free to talk amongst yourselves about me while I’m gone.
What a jolly sense of humour you have, David, to be sure. Most amusing.
Sense of humour? Nah, I just don’t take either you guys or myself seriously, especially when it comes to climate change. None of us know enough about even one area to warrant being taken seriously so why would anyone in their right mind listen to us, let alone base decisions on what we say. Like the wise man said, “always look on the bright side of life”.
Wow! Discussion of the multiple identities of “David” takes precedence over flat-earth, no-day/night GHE model vs round-earth, day-night no-GHE model (gets snipped in favour of far more important issues of inanity) in this comment thread.
Hopefully the pressing issue of the respective identities of “David” will be resolved soon. I can see how that would relegate one of the more bothersome GW/CC issues to 7 line single comment space to make way for 15+ more important comments on who “David” might be.
BTW, I very much doubt the RS and GWPF will even raise the GHE issue, both will take GHE as gospel unless I’m mistaken.
It’s not taking precedence at all. Just don’t pile screeds of other people’s writing in here. Summarise, rewrite and post again. It’s great stuff, but not related to anything except in your own study. Think of other people!
I am David and so is my wife.
I’m humbled (and amused) that my existence has cause so much discussion on this site when all I did was poke my nose in, wind you guys up and bugger off. I had no intention of coming back because from what I can see none of you says anything I can’t find in a hundred other denier blogs and few (if any of you) know more about climate change than I do – which is 5/8 of 3/4 of bugger all.
Love your work guys, I’ll definitely be back now that I’m an icon here.
Icon? Oh, hardly. You contributed the confusion of an identical screen name. Who will that make famous?
GWPF have set out the terms for discussion here
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/05/GWPF-Background-Paper.pdf