Over a year and a half ago, there was a comment on a post of mine,
"Why Very Warm Events are Exponentially More Probable in a Warmer World," about temperatures in Salem, Oregon, where I live,
by Mark Albright of UW.
He gave this graph to show that temperatures in Salem, Oregon were in fact decreasing:
However, this graph is for the annual mean of the daily
maximum temperatures. I can reproduce this trend from
these data via Mark's site.
However, what if we look at the daily
average temperature, defined as the average of T
max and T
min for the day? The result is quite different, with a positive trend:
The trend, since the record started in 1928, up until 2014, is +0.07 C/decade. Over the 30 years 1984-2014 the trend is +0.23 C/decade, easily positive and very worrisome. (It's equal to 0.41 F/decade.)
Anthropogenic global warming increases nightly minima more than it does daily maxima. So just looking at the trend in daily maxima can be misleading. Better to look at the trend in the daily average.
(note 2/13: corrected the label on the last graph.)
75 comments:
David
I was looking at your last graph. This would be the annual average temperature (I think you still have it labeled as maximum).
On your graph I notice that you include the very warm 2015 dot. If you removed this anomaly what would your trend be?
The last few years of Salem, Oregon temperatures have been influenced by the warm blob.
It started in 2013 and persisted into 2016 and is now gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean)
The heating you are seeing may be the result of the warm blob. Which might have caused the warmer temperatures in the past.
Hi Norman.
Thanks for catching my mislabel. I fixed it.
Using the daily average temperatures for Salem, averaged over each year, the trend is positive for any time interval, except from 22 years ago to today, when it's zero.
Yes, The Blob may be having some influence on Pacific NW temperatures. But The Blob could well be influenced from global warming. And/or, as the Wikipedia article says, it may be due to a flip of the PDO.
David
I am now thinking the Climate Science community may have gotten the fundamentals wrong. I know you will not accept my point but I will attempt anyway.
I have been trying to locate the source of physics that would make the claim that a 3.7 W/m^2 energy increase could heat the surface by 1 or more C.
I found this article:
http://www.brleader.com/news/images/Mysterious%20negative%20feedback.pdf
I see how they derived the value but it is for a 254 K surface. This equation and logic would not work for a 288 K surface. Since Stefan-Boltzmann is the fourth power of surface temperature, the warmer something gets the more energy it takes to maintain that temperature because it will radiate at an increasingly elevated level.
I think my criticism is fair game and the more I look into it the more it seems that in some early research they made this error and are just continuing to repeat it with each new paper not reflecting upon the initial flaw. An equation can be completely logical and work but if the initial assumption is wrong or mistaken the equation does not reflect reality.
What do you think they got wrong, using a 254 K surface instead of a 288 K surface?
You realize, I hope, that this no-feedback CO2 sensitivity isn't observable -- it can't be measured, because feedbacks exist in the real world so you can't measure something in a world without feedbacks.
So this number is more just a what-if theory. It's like the calculation for T in sigma*T^4 = (1-alpha)S/4. Everyone uses today's value for the albedo, 0.3, but in a world with no greenhouse effect alpha would likely be higher, since 255 K = -18 C is below freezing and there'd be a lot more ice.
So these numbers are only heuristic values, not anything that applies to the real world. And they can't ever be measured. So it doesn't really matter what surface temperature they used.
It's silly (IMO) to hunt for something very basic like this that climate science has gotten wrong all along. Tens of thousands of very smart scientists have been looking at all this for over 100 years. Trivial mistakes were weeded out long, long ago.
Norman, this post explains how to calculate the 1.0 C. It's much simpler than I thought.
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/
David Appell
From you Judith Curry link.
"Jeff, the 1C value for a forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 (the canonical value for doubled CO2 based on radiative transfer equations and spectroscopic data) is derived by differentiating the Stefan -Boltzmann equation that equates flux (F) to a constant (sigma) x the fourth power of temperature. We get dF/dT = 4 sigma T^3, and by inversion, dT/dF = 1/(4sigmaT^3). Substituting 3.7 for dF and 255 K for Earth’s radiating temperature, and assuming a linear lapse rate, dT becomes almost exactly 1 deg C. In fact, however, the models almost uniformly yield a slightly different value of about 1.2 C, based on variations that occur with latitude and season."
If you put in the value of 255 you do get very close to 1. But if you put in the Earth's surface temperature at 288 you get only 0.68 (which is what I had calculated).
If the Earth's surface were currently 255 K you could raise its temperature 1 K with 3.7 W/m^2 addition. You simply cannot do this with 3.7 W/m^2 addition to a 288 K surface.
I think somehow they calculate that the 1 K increase will take place in the Tropopause and then works its way down to the surface and increase the surface by 1 K. Convective energy is shown not to warm the surface at all but the overall effect is cooling. I think this is a flawed reasoning.
Norman wrote:
"If you put in the value of 255 you do get very close to 1. But if you put in the Earth's surface temperature at 288 you get only 0.68 (which is what I had calculated)."
Yeah, I get that value too (0.68 C for 288 K).
But so what? As I said, and as Curry said, this is not a measurable number, and it's just the calculation of a toy model.
Nothing in any climate model depends on this value.
David
Judith Curry feels much as I do. Are you certain that 10,000 scientists have been working on this? I have only seen a few papers coming up with this and then the rest just use the original paper as a reference for their own paper.
The surface heating has nothing to do with the energy that is leaving the Earth system. It is only based upon how much energy it is gaining and losing... that is what determines the surface temperature and the air temperature above. The amount of energy entering the TOA and leaving the TOA can only let you know their is an imbalance, it will not tell you where this extra energy is found (could be ocean, upper atmosphere etc...it does not have to be at the surface.
The surface temperature is based upon the energy in vs energy out. You have know radiative fluxes in and out and then you have the other energy losses (evaporation and thermals both cool the surface).
I do not know if you saw this argument on Roy Spencer but the radiative downwelling IR is around 340 W/m^2. It raises the surface by 33 C. That means you need about 10 W/m^2 to raise the surface by 1 C. 3.7 W/m^2 added to the downwelling flux will get you around 0.3 or 0.4 C. This is exaclty what Roy Spencer's temperature graphs show. GISS shows much more warming than this.
Why is it impossible for you to believe that scientists can be corrupted for money and livliehood? If Obama wanted climate change to be a big agenda to grow the power of government he could direct money to people who would produce results favorable to his disires. I look at Tony Heller's site and he does show jus such tampering with many examples. He was even given time to tesitify in a Congressional hearing. I can't say for certain there is corruption, and that is not a point I am trying to prove with you. I am only trying to determine why you can't conceive of this possiblitly. Thanks.
Norman wrote:
"I think somehow they calculate that the 1 K increase will take place in the Tropopause and then works its way down to the surface and increase the surface by 1 K. Convective energy is shown not to warm the surface at all but the overall effect is cooling. I think this is a flawed reasoning."
It's just a toy model!
It's not intended to be exact!
It's just a demonstration. Nothing in any climate model that projects AGW depends on this number. It's simply heuristic, just like the sigma*T^4 = (1-alpha)S/4 models is heuristic.
That's what science is -- making better and better models.
Norman wrote:
"I have only seen a few papers coming up with this and then the rest just use the original paper as a reference for their own paper."
What original paper?
I'd be surprised in many papers noted this result. It belongs in a classroom, and all scientists thoroughly understand it and its limitations and its nonapplicability.
Norman says:
"Why is it impossible for you to believe that scientists can be corrupted for money and livliehood?"
Norman, can you be corrupted for money and livelihood?
David
I haven't had to be at this time since corruption is not necessary where I work. Not sure if I had to feed my kids and the only path available was corruption for money I would not take that over starving children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_the_United_States
This link shows some corruption discovered in Government. This list only includes people who were caught and charged.
Norman wrote:
"I haven't had to be at this time since corruption is not necessary where I work."
So you're an honest man, but everyone else is suspect. Right?
David Appell
This link shows a very strong correlation between dustiness levels and Antarctic temperature. The authors believe dusty ice was what warmed the ice sheets and that could very well have been. But on the other hand it could also show that intense dustiness in the air so reduced solar incoming radiant energy that caused the Antarctic to become quite cold at peak of dusty air. Just depends on how you look at the data.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Norman wrote:
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_the_United_States"
Now I'm confused. Since you're an American, you're corrupt because Wikipedia says so?
Norman, yes, I know about dust.
But I'm more interested in why you think you're the only honest person in America.
David Appell
Tom Curtis on Skeptical Science has this point to offer:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=7&p=11#120582
With this graph embedded in his post:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/HansenSato2011Fig2.png
This article points out strong dust storms can decrease the total energy to the surface by around 40 W/m^2
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/acp.huang.2009.pdf
Tom Curtis graph does not include the potential cooling by intense global dust storms. If you add 40 W/m^2 to his 6.5 you get a 46.5 W/m^2 potential energy difference. Now if you divide 5.1 by this value your climate sensitivity drops considerably from his 3/4 C/(W/m^2) to O.11 C/(W/m^2). So an increase of 3.7 W/m^2 would warm the Earth by 0.407 C which again is what Roy Spencer's research is showing.
I keep seeing flaws in the science. I am not sure if Climate Scientists are the cream of the crop in the field of science. Have you looked at the course requirements to be a climate scientist? I think you had to take a much more rigorous class schedule to get your PhD in theoretical physics.
David Appell
You say you are interested in why I think I am the only honest person in America. Hmmm.. I am curious in how you would logically reach such a conclusion from the content of my posts.
I would not even try to guess at the number of corrupt or honest people in America. As I stated above, my point was NOT to say that climate scientists are corrupt, it was more to question why you think they could not be corrupted. This is not saying they are or are not, it is questioning why you think it is not possible. Very different point than what you are making I would think.
Norman, does this mean you accept the lack of importance of the 1 deg C value for a bare (no feedbacks) radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2?
Norman wrote:
"As I stated above, my point was NOT to say that climate scientists are corrupt, it was more to question why you think they could not be corrupted. This is not saying they are or are not, it is questioning why you think it is not possible."
Trump can't even keep leaks out of his inner circle. Do you really think 10,000 or so scientists all around the world, from all different countries, are together colluding on climate science to say that, no, 3.7 W/m2 only gives 1 deg C of warming?
Norman, do you realize how absurd that sounds?
Do you know any scientists, Norman? I've kinda gotten the impression that you work for a technical group, maybe CERES, doing programming or software maintenance or IT or some such. Yes?
Scientists are, and always have been, extremely skeptical, of absolutely everything. They like thinking they're the smartest, and want to tear down everyone. And often they do. The history of science is replete with feuds.
But when science knows something, it knows it. It's known CO2 is a heat trapping gas for 150 years.
The thought that all these people are keeping quiet about some grand conspiracy is absurd, and frankly, extremely insulting, coming from people like you.
If there really WAS a conspiracy, and all of them just wanted the research money to keep flowing, they'd keep saying how UNCERTAIN they are of the science, and more research is needed to reduce that uncertainty.
Instead they've been saying, all along, that they're more and more sure of the human influence on climate, and on the prospects.
So your ugly insinuation isn't even logical.
You aren't the only honest man in America, Norman.
David Appell
I read through your series of comments on science and scientists.
I do not work for CERES or program. I took numerous classes in computer programming at Metro Tech but never finished a degree in it (second child born and it was time consuming).
No disagreement that Carbon Dioxide "traps" heat but I would think it is more likely it emits IR in all directions based upon its temperature not so much "trapping"...I think that term is what causes many to reject the science.
I also would not think many people would be involved in a direct conspiracy. Only a few top leaders. You know that Roy's graphs are produced by a very small group of people. I do not know how many actual people are involved in producing the final product of GISS global tempeartatures. I would strongly doubt 10,000. More likely many people are working on parts of the project but the actual final graphs need be produced by a few select individuals.
Your one point "If there really WAS a conspiracy, and all of them just wanted the research money to keep flowing, they'd keep saying how UNCERTAIN they are of the science, and more research is needed to reduce that uncertainty."
That is a different tangent and one possible thought but not the one I am making. My suggestion is not that the top climate scientists want more money flowing on research projects. My approach would be you have an Administration that wants to strengthen government and enlarge it you need public support for such a growth to take place. You can find people who agree with you and support them. They provide evidence to suggest a vast and growing threat to mankind that can only be stopped by a large and powerful government and that citizens must also give up freedom to eliminate the threat. A select few GISS scientists decrease warming in the past and increase current warming a bit and the overall effect is a warming of over 1 C while Roy's graphs only show modest warming. One is a threat the other not so much.
Whereas the Progressives are using Climate as the enemy to battle, the Republicans have selected scary ISIS terrorists to accomplish the same goals. Both expensive battles that require giving up freedoms to accomplish and the Government grows in power and might.
Why would by insinuation be illogical or ugly? I also have taken psychology classes and a drive for power and control is a very strong and overwhelming drive in some humans, they will go to great lengths to increase power and control and will use whatever method they feel will help them achieve this.
David Appell
You asked "Norman, does this mean you accept the lack of importance of the 1 deg C value for a bare (no feedbacks) radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2?
My post above this one would be with feedbacks included.
I was wondering, if climate scientists are so complete and thorough, why do they only include the positive feedback from increase in water vapor without also considering the negative feedback of evaporative cooling to get the increased water vapor in the atmosphere? I have looked at numerous articles on this and have not seen one that talks about the surface cooling from the increased evaporation. I was looking for some data so I could calculate it myself but have not yet found enough to compute. My question is why is this obvious condition not discussed or included in the determination of the radiative increase?
Norman says:
"No disagreement that Carbon Dioxide "traps" heat but I would think it is more likely it emits IR in all directions based upon its temperature not so much "trapping"..."
Yes, that's true.
And half of those random directions have a downward component. And the emissions that strike the ground come from very low, less than a meter in altitude.
Norman wrote:
"I also would not think many people would be involved in a direct conspiracy. Only a few top leaders."
And these few leaders are telling all their staff to alter their data and pretend there is a different conclusion.
That is just fucking stupid, dimwitted and ridiculous.
Norman said:
"My post above this one would be with feedbacks included."
So Norman, does this mean you accept the lack of importance/relevance of the 1 deg C value for a bare (no feedbacks) radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2?
Norman wrote:
"I was wondering, if climate scientists are so complete and thorough, why do they only include the positive feedback from increase in water vapor without also considering the negative feedback of evaporative cooling to get the increased water vapor in the atmosphere? I have looked at numerous articles on this and have not seen one that talks about the surface cooling from the increased evaporation."
Because, Norman, as you've shown over and over again in the last few months, you don't understand the science, so you get everything wrong.
Scientists aren't stupid. They know to include evaporation.
Here is a description of a famous model, NCAR CAM, v5. Be sure to read section 4.5, "Evaporation of convective precipitation." Also read the many other paragraphs about evaporation. Hurry, the modelers are very anxious to receive your input and save climate science.
"Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 3.0)," NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN–464+STR, June 2004.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
David, using the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate the no feedback climate sensitivity is a good back-of-the-envelope estimate provided you include the emissivity in the equation. That is, if you stood outside the Earth, which has a surface temperature of 288K and measured the outgoing radiation it would be around 240 w/m2. Setting the emissivity to 1 doesn't work simply because the Earth is not a perfect blackbody emitter. One can see that in Figure 3 of the Physics Today article by Pierrehumbert. If you include the finite emissivity effect then you find epsilon ~ 0.62. In fact I recently wrote this on your blog here. Then, for a forcing of 3.7 w/m2 you get delta_T ~ 1.1.
One more thing --- water vapor evaporation and condensation is clearly understood and incorporated into climate models. On the simplest level, the greenhouse effect is due to the lapse rate. If there were no lapse rate, no GE. Fundamentally, the lapse rate comes from gravity and the compressibility of air. What water vapor does is that it decreases the lapse rate because energy is transported from the surface to the atmosphere. In this sense, it acts as a negative feedback.
David Appell
Please open your mind. Have you paid any attention to news over the years?
You state: "And these few leaders are telling all their staff to alter their data and pretend there is a different conclusion.
That is just fucking stupid, dimwitted and ridiculous."
No the leaders are not telling their staff to alter the data, they are doing it. The staff is collecting data. The top people run it through programs that alter the outcome (look at Tony Heller's site he does give numerous examples). Only need a few corrupt people.
Now for you emotional outburst that is really unfounded and seems to lack an understanding of how conspiracies work and can be effective for several years.
Have you heard about Enron?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
The vast numbers of employees at Enron were not aware or participating in the corruption of the upper leaders.
Bernie Madoff?
Ford Motor Company and Pinto?
Your favorite: Tobacco companies (do you think all the farmers growing tobacco were aware of the manipulation of the company heads?)
Recently VW. Do you think all the people assembling VW cars were aware of the deceit of the few people that changed the emission outcomes?
There are many other examples if these are not enough for you.
I really do not understand you perception of reality. Seems very limited and isolated. If you cannot conceive of a potential for corruption in science or any other area you are a very limited thinker and probably that is why you must react so emotionally. Become aware of the real world you live in. Power and money can corrupt many and have already.
Joe T
Not sure I am understanding where you get your information from. The emissivity of the Earth is nearly 1 I believe the figure is about 0.95. Look at page 307 of this link.
file:///C:/Users/Norm/Downloads/Land_surface.pdf
Norman
I'm not sure what part of what I wrote was unclear. The mean temperature of the Earth's surface is 288K. Now move to the TOA and look down. If the surface + atmosphere were a perfect blackbody you'd expect to measure 390 w/m2 at the TOA. You don't, rather you measure 240 w/m2. Furthermore, as in the Pierrehumbert paper I linked to, the measured emission spectrum is clearly not blackbody. That tells you that the emissivity is around 0.62. Perhaps you're thinking I was talking about the emissivity at the surface. I'm wasn't. The rest follows simply to show that 1.1C is the no-feedback response to a doubling of CO2.
A word of advice. When you link to a file that starts C:/Users/Norm/Downloads, this is on your own personal computer. Lucky for you, no one actually has access to your computer via the internet (well, perhaps some do but I don't)
Norman, again you present absolutely no evidence of any corruption, nor has the highly uncredible Tony Heller.
For some reason you don't like the AGW conclusion of science, which you clearly do not understand. But you can't prove it's wrong scientifically, so you take a coward's way out and allege, with no evidence whatsoever, conspiracy and fraud.
Seems very limited and isolated.
David Appell
You are using strongman and attempting to silence my thoughts since you do not accept them.
You claim: "For some reason you don't like the AGW conclusion of science, which you clearly do not understand. But you can't prove it's wrong scientifically,."
What part of the science to I clearly not understand? I am attempting to prove it is a flawed hypothesis and I have shown you much evidence which you will ignore and not look at. Your claim is untrue that I have "no evidence whatsover".
When you reject all items that challenge your strong belief how can I even hope to prove anything to you. I have linked you to CERES radiation graphs (which you reject without looking at). I have linked you to more than one paper discussing climate sensitivity which you reject.
Please do not make false claims that I do not have evidence. You reject it but that does not mean I am not supplying it.
Why is Tony Heller research so uncredible? Your own opinion? He presents data that was accepted by NOAA in the past but has now been changed where previous temperatures are lowered and current temperatures have increased (over previous graphs made by the same agency). Tony Heller testified at a Congressional Committee with his research. With no evidence to support your claim (which you falsly accuse me of doing) you state he is highly uncredible. Why? Your opinion of his research is not evidence. It is quite the opposite.
Joe T
Thank you for the advice on my link. I will be more careful in the future.
I know you are wrong with your claim that "On the simplest level, the greenhouse effect is due to the lapse rate. If there were no lapse rate, no GE."
I do not know from what material you were able to come to that conclusion but it is not correct thinking at all.
If you had an atmosphere that had no convection (no lapse rate) isothermal. The atmosphere at the same equilibrium temperature from the top to bottom. You still have a GHE.
If you have 240 W/m^2 entering the Earth system then equilibrium will be reached when 240 W/m^2 leave the system.
Follow the logic. The Earth's surface receives 240 W/m^2 reaches a temperature of 255 K. The surface radiates to the atmosphere (which is somehow kept from convection for the sake of this point to show you that lapse rate is not a fundamental need for GHE). It radiates 240 W/m^2 into an atmosphere with GHG and this IR is absorbed and the atmosphere begins to warm. It will warm until it reaches an equilibrium temperature where it is radiating away at 240 W/m^2. But the atmospheric emission goes both ways,toward the surface and away. Now you have 240 leaving to space and 240 returning to Earth's surface. Atmopshere is emitting a the rate of 480 W/m^2 so surface will increase in temperature until it emitting 480 W/m^2.
The surface receives 480 W/m^2 (240 from solar and 240 from atmospheric IR).
This radiation calculates to a surface temperature of 303 K or close to 30 C.
If you had no evaporation or thermals (convection) a dry planet with GHG your surface would become much hotter.
With the current global energy budget they have 503 W/m^2 reaching the Earth's surface. The Earth is cooled by evaporation so it does not get so hot and thermals. The Lapse rate may actually keep the surface cooler by moving a lot of energy into the atmosphere
If you did not have the convective lapse rate and only allowed conduction I think the surface would be much warmer than it is now.
Norman,
"I know that you are wrong.."
It must be wonderful to be so absolutely positive of the correctness of your position. Were you as certain when you wrote:
"I see how they derived the value but it is for a 254 K surface. This equation and logic would not work for a 288 K surface .... the more I look into it the more it seems that in some early research they made this error and are just continuing to repeat it with each new paper not reflecting upon the initial flaw."
As I showed you, it is trivial to calculate a 1C per doubling of CO2 using a 288 K surface.
And when you wrote: "It will warm until it reaches an equilibrium temperature where it is radiating away at 240 W/m^2. But the atmospheric emission goes both ways,toward the surface and away. Now you have 240 leaving to space and 240 returning to Earth's surface."
So 240 w/m2 = 240 w/m2 + 240 w/m2?
Is conservation of energy now just a personal choice?
You seem intent on knowing what my sources are. Most of these things are easy to understand. If the temperature of the ground were the same as the temperature of the entire atmosphere, then the IR flux at the ground is equal to the flux at the TOA. Consequently the emission spectrum wouldn't show the huge decreases in intensity characteristic of the cold upper layer where CO2 emission can finally escape. Perhaps you never picked up a climate textbook? The effect of the lapse rate on the greenhouse effect is discussed in Pierrehumbert's paper, but more explicitly in his book.
Joe T
I read your equation but I really do not understand how you are working it to prove the 1C increase.
YOU: "As I showed you, it is trivial to calculate a 1C per doubling of CO2 using a 288 K surface."
I think your math is wrong.
YOUR CALCULATION: "Now to get from the forcing to the temperature change, you can derive a simple estimate of the Planck response to the forcing without feedbacks. Incoming solar radiation is about 240 w/m2. Then epsilon*sigma*T^4 = 240, where epsilon is emissivity. Then dI = 4*eps*sigma*T^3 dT = 4 I/T dT. Hence dT = T/(4*I) dI, where T = 288 K, I = 240 w/m2 (note here epsilon is around 0.62). Therefore dT = 0.3 * dI without feedbacks. For dI = 3.7 w/m2, dT =1.1 C. Close enough."
I am not sure what you are doing. I have tried to follow it.
If you use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law your calculation is not sensible with physics or the 1st Law.
Reminder this is an equilibrium condition.
P = ε σ A T^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).
For ease of calculation I will use an emissivity of 1 and surface area of 1 m^2 (if the two cases are the same these constants will not effect the outcome).
At 288 K the power a surface (with 1 emissivity) will emit is 390 W/m^2. That means to maintain an equilibrium temperature of 288 K you need to add 390 W/m^2 to this surface. More energy and it will raise in temperature, less it cools.
Now using the established equation to move the temperature up 1 K (same as 1C) you need to add P = (5.67 x 10^-8)(289K)^4
Just using a standard calculator the amount of energy you would have to add to increase the surface from 288 K to 289 K is 395.52 W/m^2. You have to increase the energy to the surface by 5.52 W/m^2 from previous. That is why I make the claim your math or logic are not correct. The physics does not support it. You made an error in your assumptions.
Joe T
I will wait to respond to the rest of your post after I can see a response to this current one. Thanks.
One would think from this conversation that the totality of climate physics is the SB equation. Exascale computing to solve the simplest equation possible! But climate physics is vastly more complicated than what we're writing about. To get some idea of how limited this discussion is, read Spencer Weart's historical summary.
The basic problem you are having is that the energy balance on the surface of the earth is far more complicated than what you have written. At the surface, you need to solve the radiative transfer equations and include convective heat transfer. Your energy balance is wrong.
I'm doing the problem at the top of the atmosphere where my assumptions are less wrong than yours. Since this is only a back-of-the-envelope type calculation, it's not unreasonable to just include radiation to space. My energy balance is achieved by setting the incoming heat flux to the outward flux. If I'm up in space looking down, I don't need to know all the details of the physics in the black box I'm looking at. All I need to know is that if the surface temperature is 288K, then I immediately know from that value and by looking at the details of the emission spectrum, that whatever it is I'm looking at, it is not a blackbody. Therefore the emissivity is not one. The mistake you are making is setting this to one at the top of the atmosphere.
The rest is simple and obvious ---- I'm taking the differential of the intensity and the temperature so that I can linearize the 4th order equation in a small region about the equilibrium temperature. Perhaps you never took calculus?
Joe T
I have studied calculus in the past but am very rusty. I am reading a calculus refresher and will try to make sense of your equation.
On another note you wrote: "You seem intent on knowing what my sources are. Most of these things are easy to understand. If the temperature of the ground were the same as the temperature of the entire atmosphere, then the IR flux at the ground is equal to the flux at the TOA. Consequently the emission spectrum wouldn't show the huge decreases in intensity characteristic of the cold upper layer where CO2 emission can finally escape. Perhaps you never picked up a climate textbook? The effect of the lapse rate on the greenhouse effect is discussed in Pierrehumbert's paper, but more explicitly in his book."
You are making an incorrect assumption in this post. You assume that no lapse rate would mean the surface and atmosphere were at the same temperature. This is not a given. No lapse rate only would mean the atmosphere itself had no change in temperature not that the surface and atmosphere were at the same temperature. Not sure why you conclude this?
Also it was not a lack of understanding that I posted to you about the surface temperature and radiation in an equilibrium state (at equilibrium you do not need to find differentials because nothing is changing). I do know about convection and evaporation. But both these are cooling effects to the surface and act to warm the entire troposphere. They do not warm the surface and would require even higher radiant energy to reach the surface than the 5+ watts I posted about to raise the surface by 1C.
Joe T
I will learn calculus but I do not think it is necessary to disprove your faulty calculation
You have that dT=T/(4 x I) dI to determine the increment change in intensity effect on temperature. You use 288 K as your temperature but 240 as your input. A surface will not reach equilibrium temperature of 288 with a 240 flux. It is losing energy at the rate of 390 W/m^2 and it has to have this much input energy to maintain a 288 K temperature.
This creates a complete flaw in logic and leads you to an incorrect conclusion about surface warming. I am correct.
Rather than use a 240 flux for a temperature of 288 K use the correct math. It should be 390 W/m^2 intensity in your equation.
If you use the correct value you come up with dT=288/(4*390) dI Which gives you the value of dT = 0.1846 dI. A change of 3.7 W/m^2 to the surface will raise the temperature by 0.68 K not 1.1 as you had calculated. A flux of 3.7 W/m^2 will raise a surface at 255 K 1.1 C but not a surface at 288 K.
Also, as you point out, that would be the maximum a 3.7 W/m^2 flux could raise the temperature of a surface at 288 K. In the real Earth system evaporation would increase as would also convection. These together cause cooling of the surface so a 3.7 W/m^2 flux could not even raise the surface by 0.68 C, it would be somewhat less based upon some complex equations to find the new equilibrium. Probably closer to the 0.5 others have discovered which really matches well with Roy Spencer's temperature graphs.
Joe T
You also attempted to point out what you perceive as a flaw in my scientific understanding with a post above.
YOU: "And when you wrote: "It will warm until it reaches an equilibrium temperature where it is radiating away at 240 W/m^2. But the atmospheric emission goes both ways,toward the surface and away. Now you have 240 leaving to space and 240 returning to Earth's surface."
So 240 w/m2 = 240 w/m2 + 240 w/m2?
Is conservation of energy now just a personal choice?"
That would mean you really do not understand my post at all but I will help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Multilayer insulation is an actual material that works (spacecraft) the physics is known. Read how it works to greatly reduce cooling in a vacuum environment where radiation is the only heat transfer mechanism.
You are not grasping the situation described. The surface is constantly receiving 240 joules of energy per second per meter. If this energy is not removed the surface will heat up and continue to heat up indefinitely. There is no violation of 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It is why things are insulated so that you can reach a higher equilibrium temperature with the same energy input.
So in the example above I wrote to you. The surface is receiving 240 joules to a given area in a given time. At equilibrium it will radiate this same amount of energy away and its temperature will be at 255 k. If you put GHG atmosphere between this surface the GHG will be warmed by absorption and start emitting. The atmosphere will continue to warm until it is emitting 240 joules/sec m^2, now it is at equilibrium. But the atmosphere must warm to a temperature where it emits at this rate and it will emit both ways. Now the surface is not just receiving 240 W/m^2 from the Sun but also 240 W/m^2 from the atmosphere. Since it now receives 480 W/m^2 the surface temperature will rise until it is emitting 480 W/m^2 (same amount it is gaining). You do not need an atmosphere to demonstrate it. A shell around an object with a constant energy input will show this same effect. You do not need a lapse rate to create a GHE.
Norman,
Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong. It's clear to me now that you don't understand the greenhouse effect and don't understand simple concepts in physics. Even elementary things you wrote are wrong. You said, "Remember this is an equilibrium condition" and then you wrote down the SB equation. Any high school student would know that is not an equilibrium condition because all you've included is the outward flux. You haven't equated it to an inward flux as I have. This is just wrong and you don't understand what you are doing.
You don't understand the lapse rate. The definition of the lapse rate is how the temperature varies as a function of height. You can derive the dry lapse rate easily from the condition for a reversible adiabatic process P*V^gamma = constant. That and the equation for hydrostatic equilibrium yields the 10C/km lapse rate. Evaporation carries heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere and reduces it to 6.5C/km. This is simple physics.
The greenhouse effect is a product of the lapse rate. Everyone knows this apparently but you. If the surface and the upper atmosphere are at the same temperature then there is no cooler upper layer to cause an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. No lapse rate, no greenhouse effect. You are wrong again.
My calculation of the non feedback climate sensitivity is correct. You don't understand the meaning of the word equilibrium. You insist on setting the emissivity to one, but at the TOA it is not. I could go on but this conversation is futile because you simply don't understand physics or math.
I'll leave you with this final challenge: Look at what the data says. With any graphing program you should be able to do the following. Plot the temperature versus log2[CO2]. (That's the logarithm of the CO2 concentration to the base 2 ---- the reason for that is it tells you how much doubling there is). Use the Keeling curve for the CO2 concentration on the x-axis, use any temperature series you like on the y-axis. Personally, I use Berkeley Earth because it allows me to go back to 1850. Use satellite data like UAH TLT if you like, but be aware that there is a likely problem with the diurnal correction. If you use UAH TLT, then try it with RSS TTT as well.
Calculate the slope of the line. That will give you a real world estimate of the transient climate sensitivity including fast feedbacks (but not slow ones). See what the real world is trying to tell you.
Otherwise, I'm done.
Joe T
YOU: "Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong. It's clear to me now that you don't understand the greenhouse effect and don't understand simple concepts in physics."
That is a pretty strong opinion but it is not my being wrong it is your lack of valid reading comprehension. Reread my posts maybe.
Here is what I wrote that you ignored or did not read but conclude I know nothing of physics.
ME: "You are making an incorrect assumption in this post. You assume that no lapse rate would mean the surface and atmosphere were at the same temperature. This is not a given. No lapse rate only would mean the atmosphere itself had no change in temperature not that the surface and atmosphere were at the same temperature. Not sure why you conclude this?"
I write a clear comment and you reply: "The greenhouse effect is a product of the lapse rate. Everyone knows this apparently but you. If the surface and the upper atmosphere are at the same temperature then there is no cooler upper layer to cause an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. No lapse rate, no greenhouse effect. You are wrong again."
Why would you assume that the surface and air temperature would be the same? A lapse rate only applies to the temperature of the atmosphere and is caused by convective overturning. Air rising cools because of adiabatic cooling (the energy of the air parcel is used in expanding the parcel against surrounding air causing cooling).
What makes you falsely post that I do not understand the meaning of the word equilibrium?
Joe T
Evidence it is you who do not understand equilibrium or simple radiation physics.
Here is the proof. You seem to think emissivity is important to determine equilibrium temperature of a surface and it is not.
If you have a 390 W/m^2 input of radiant energy hitting a surface the equilibrium temperature of any surface regardless of emissivity of the surface will be 288 K (if no other energy loss mechanisms are working...simplified example to demonstrate a logic point of the nature of equilibrium conditions).
Stefan-Boltzman: P=(emissivity)(Stef-Boltz constant)(Area)(T^4)
So finding just T for a given radiant flux: T=(P/(emissivity)(Stef-Boltz constant)(Area))^-4
Power is 390 W/m^2 and we will use 1 for the emissivity which will give an equilibrium temperature of 288 K and then use 0.5 for emissivity and it will yield the same result. The thing I understand which I am not sure you do is that if the emissivity is 0.5 the radiant energy the surface can receive is also half (emissivity and absorbitivity equal)
"For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation
For equilibrium temperature of a surface exposed to a 390 W/m^2 flux with an emissivity of 1
T=(390/(1)(5.67x10^-8)(1))^-4 = 288 K
If the emissivity is 0.5 using Kirchhoff's Law the amount of energy the surface will absorb from a 390 W/m^2 flux is 195 W/m^2 (the rest of the 390 flux will not be absorbed).
T = (195/(0.5)(5.67x10^-8)(1 m^2))^-4 = 288 K. Regardless of the emissivity of the surface with a given flux all the surfaces will eventually reach the same equilibrium temperature.
Not sure why you think I do not understand it or why you believe the emissivity would change the equilibrium temperature.
Joe T
Why do you assume I do not understand lapse rate? My understanding is that the surface temperature is what sets the temperature of a vertical point in the atmosphere based upon the lapse rate. The temperature of a given point does not set the surface temperature. The surface is the source of energy that heats the atmosphere and what causes the convective overturning that sets up a lapse rate. I do not know why you believe a GHE needs a lapse rate to exist? What do you believe a GHE is? I understand it is an increase in the surface temperature of a planet based upon the fact an atmosphere with GHG will emit radiant energy in all directions with a component of this energy returning to the surface. Very similar to how multilayer radiant insulation slows the cooling of an object.
Joe T
My posts are too long and it is unlikely you will read them. So a simple question. Why do you think you are correct when you believe an additional 3.7 W/m^2 flux will increase the equilibrium surface temperature of a 288 K surface by 1.1 C? (meaning such an increase in flux would raise the surface temperature to 289.1 K.
Stefan-Boltzmann equilibrium temperature of a previous 288 K surface with an additional 3.7 W/m^2 added to the incoming flux necessary to maintains a temperature of 288 K (which would be 390 W/m^2).
Equilibrium temperature of a surface with a flux of 393.7 W/m^2 flux hitting it. I have already shown that the emissivity does not affect the equilibrium temperature but if you want me to use 0.62 for the emissivity the result will come out the same. First with emissivity of 1 then 0.62
Emissivity of 1: T=(393.7 W/m^2)/(1)(5.67x10^-8)(1 m^2)^-4 = 288.67 K (a 0.67 increase not a 1.1 increase)
Now Emissivity of 0.62: T=(393.7 * 0.62)/(0.62)(5.67x10^=8)(1 m^2) = 288.67 identical to an emissivity of 1 or any value you want to use for emissivity. A surface at 288 K will not warm to 289.1 K with a flux of 393.7 W/m^2. That is truly an unphysics thought process.
So what type of flux would you need to sustain an equilibrium temperature of 289.1 K? 396.07 W/m^2.
David Appell
Since I think Joe T is done with me I have clearly found the flaw in climate science and with Joe T's logic. The flaw is glaring and real and this comes from one of the foundations of climate science. I explained the flaw to Joe T but he is not able to accept it. Maybe if I show the flaw very clearly he can then understand my point and reconsider his assessment of my understanding of physics.
The paper from 1990. Was a primary reference of other climate papers.
http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/pubs/Cessetal-1990.pdf
The paper describes the very same zero feedback sensitivity as Joe T does and the flaw is the same.
Page 16602 of the paper (second page when scrolling down). They have the equation to calculate zero feedback climate sensitivity.
They clearly define F as this: F=(emissivity of surface)(Stefan-Boltzmann constant)(Temperture of surface)^4. The surface temperature they are using is 288 K. This would give a value for F of 390 W/m^2 but on the following column they set F to be 240 W/m^2. 240 W/m^2 is what the IR would be leaving the Earth at TOA but it is not the radiation emitted from the surface as the equation is indicating.
Using flawed logic and mixed up concepts (interchanging the IR emitted at TOA with the surface flux since the same symbol is used in both cases) they come up with 4F/T(surface) = 3.3 Watt/m^2-K or climate sensitivity of 0.3 K/(W/m^2). But the reality of their own definition is that F is now the flux of the surface which is 390 W/m^2
So instead of doing the scrambled math of mixing surface flux with TOA flux you would use
4(390 W/m^2)/288 = 5.42 Watt/m^2-K which gives a zero feedback sensitivity of 0.185 K(W/m^2) so an increase in downwelling IR of 3.7 W/m^2 will increase surface temperature 0.68 K.
The math that climate science is based upon seems flawed. A 3.7 W/m^2 increase in energy could not warm a 288 K surface to 289 K no matter how it was distributed within the system since a 289 K surface is losing energy at a faster rate than 3.7 W/m^2.
Not sure how you will be able to resolve that flaw or explain how they define F as a surface flux then they flip it to the flux at the TOA and think that is acceptable.
Norman,
You should publish your findings and blow this climate scam wide open! Consider OMICS Publishing Group as they are not controlled by the "few select individuals" who produce the "final graphs".
Your findings are truly incredible and I have no doubt that OMICS will be happy to publish them.
Layzej
Your response is so well used and unoriginal. Is that all that is available in your response box of comments?
I am pointing out a legitimate problem that I would hope an intelligent thoughtful person who understands physics could explain why my reasoning is incorrect.
Do you have any scientific thought or are you just reaching into the well used box of anti-thought comments.
Explain to me how an energy of of 3.7 W/m^2 can raise the temperature of the Earth's surface by 1.2 C? If you raise a 288 K surface by 1.2 C it will radiate much more than this.
So you would rather throw out a mindless comment than explain the science and even demonstrate why the paper I linked to that uses two very different values for F?
I wonder do you even follow what my point is or are you just posting?
Norman, Joe T has been through this with you.
Every time you don't understand something, you think it means there is a fundamental flaw in the last 100 years of climate science. I've seen you do this many times on Roy Spencer's site, and you're doing the same thing here.
After the basics, much about being a student (and we are all students) is figuring out your errors for yourself. But you won't do that -- any little problem and you think it means 10s of thousands of scientists (experts) over 100+ years are wrong and the entire AGW hypothesis utterly falls apart.
People get tired of responding to that kind of nonsense. Joe seems to be. Layzej too. I know I certainly am.
David Appell
Your approach is one of appeal to authority. Just because thousands of people believe something it must be true. I think that makes very poor science.
Neither you, nor Joe T and now Layzej have explained any flaw in my logic even though I pulled up a peer reviewed article and demonstrated how the logic was bumbled.
I do not think that there are thousands of scientist for over 100 years that have done the equation wrong. I think it is a recent error that is perpetuated because people like yourself or Joe T do not look and think about it but are blinded by a belief but are unwilling to examine it and correct possible errors but blindly trust in some mystical thought process that experts cannot make mistakes.
Explain the flaw in my logic. Explain how 3.7 W/m^2 can increase a 288 K surface by 1.2 C?
Rather than mindlessly appeal to authority explain the reasoning. How is this possible?
I think the reason people quit responding because they have no answer and do not want to think about it.
I have seen the equation and I have clearly stated why it is an incorrect conclusion. Joe T
uses 240 W/m^2 as the surface flux when a surface at 288 K emits around 390 W/m^2 not 240.
Even if only 240 W/m^2 leaves the Earth system that does not make it that the 288 K surface is radiating at 240 W/m^2 (which it is not) it radiates at 390. Put in 390 W/m^2 into the Joe T equation and what do you get?
David Appell
So to make it easy explain the flaw. I explained Joe T's flaw and he quit posting.
So rather than spending time telling me I am wrong because of numbers of people involved or what Joe T thinks. Spend a brief time and science and explain exactly how you think the 1st Law of energy Conservation can be violated?
With not other effects, a plate in outer space...In order to raise a 1 m^2 plate with near blackbody emissivity 1C you have to add the same amount of energy to the plate that is leaving it. At 288 K the plate will be emitting 390 W/m^2 so to maintain a temperature of 288 K it must receive 390 W/m^2. If the plate was 289 K it would be emitting 395.5 W/m^2. In order to remain at 289 K it must receive 395.5 W/m^2.
If you added 3.7 W/m^2 to the flux of 390 W/m^2 to now add 393.7 W/m^2 to the surface it would emit 393.7 W/m^2 at equilibrium. Its temperature would be 288.67 K not 289.2 K (which is what you and Joe T are saying what would happen).
It would violate energy conservation if 393.7 watts could raise a surface to 289.2 K because the 289.2 K surface would be emitting more radiation than it is receiving. How do you explain this? I would like more than an appeal to authority. Actually explain it. Thanks.
Norman, no one is obligated to spend time explaining anything to you. Reread what Joe wrote. Figure it out for yourself. Ask the paper's author. I have other things I wish to spend my time on instead of doing homework problems you assign me.
Norman, against my better judgement, I'm going to ask: what value are you using for the surface's emissivity?
Joe asked you this too. Did you answer him?
The Cess et al paper is clearly using 0.62. Are you?
PS: You do realize, I hope, that the no feedback numbers in the paper are not measurable or observable, and do not appear anywhere in climate models. Right?
David Appell
From your friend at Science of Doom
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/07/the-dull-case-of-emissivity-and-average-temperatures/
The Earth's surface emits close to unity (1) at wavelengths absorbed by atmosphere.
The surface emissivity is not 0.62. It is how much energy reaches the TOA from the 288 K surface but it is NOT the emissivity of the surface. The surface radiates 398 W/m^2 according to the latest global energy budgets. Hopefully you know that if you have a radiant flux of 398 W/m^2 emitting from a surface and the emissivity is low like 0.62 it means you must have a really hot surface, much hotter than the Earth's surface currently measures at.
T =(398 W/m^2)/(o.62 emissivity you and Joe T seem to want to use)(5.67x10^-8...Stefan-Boltzmann constant)^-4 = 326 K!! or about 53 C! Much warmer than if you use a 1 for the emissivity which would give you a 289.45 K temperature.
David Appell
From what you wrote and what Joe T wrote:
YOU: "Norman, no one is obligated to spend time explaining anything to you. Reread what Joe wrote. Figure it out for yourself. Ask the paper's author. I have other things I wish to spend my time on instead of doing homework problems you assign me."
Basically it is most obvious you do not have an answer and may even fear I am correct so you would choose the safe path of ignoring what I post and pretending you are far too busy to answer a simple question. Sending me back to what Joe T wrote indicates you are not reading my return comments which he chooses not to respond to .
No you really do not have an answer but do not want to show your lack of knowledge so you hide behind comments like you are too busy.
Same with Joe T. Calls all my understanding flawed and then drops out of the debate with no answer to my question.
From Joe T "Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong. It's clear to me now that you don't understand the greenhouse effect and don't understand simple concepts in physics."
Yet he can't explain why it is wrong or how I do not understand simple concepts in physics. He can't explain nor are you willing to even attempt to explain how 393.7 W/m^2 energy flux can sustain a temperature of 289 K when that surface is emitting at the rate of 395.5 W/m^2.
Less energy in means more energy out. I would hope that you could spend some time in explaining why this is possible since it is completely against the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Norman says:
"The Earth's surface emits close to unity (1) at wavelengths absorbed by atmosphere."
What value does YOUR PAPER use for emissivity?
Norman said...
"No you really do not have an answer but do not want to show your lack of knowledge so you hide behind comments like you are too busy."
I'm not too busy. I'm just done with you. Much like Trump, you misinterpret your lack of understanding for conspiracy.
You think every time your (usually simplistic) calculation doesn't agree with a paper's, it means there is a 100-yr conspiracy hiding the truth that only now you have discovered and can reveal as a fatal flaw in climate sciencew.
You're the boy who cried wolf.
And, as Joe said above, and as I've pointed out to you many times on Spencer's site, you understanding of physics is very weak.
I am tired of explaining this to you time and time again. I'm tired of having to find the flaws in your simplistic arguments. I'm tired of your insults. I'm tired of your ignorance and that you're happy to remain so.
Shove off.
David Appell
YOU: "And, as Joe said above, and as I've pointed out to you many times on Spencer's site, you understanding of physics is very weak."
That is a weak opinion, based on nothing. You have not pointed out great flaws in my understanding of physics many times. This is not a true or verified statement.
Again basically you do not have an answer nor does Joe so you just think the First Law of Thermodynamics is now bad physics. A
The paper itself uses a very simplistic calculation (also if you are at equilibrium state you do not need complex math...where did you study physics again? A Doctor degree, that must have been a very easy school). You use the simplest explanation possible and only complicate matters when the problem requires. Occam's Razor, you know. Einstein did not have to add multiple variables and differentials to describe the relationship between mass and energy. A very simple equation.
David Appell
There is no "Boy who cried Wolf"
The flaw in the equation is obvious and simple to see. They use the radiative flux of 240 W/m^2 (which is the TOA flux away from Earth) as the energy forcing the surface to a 288 K temperature. It could not be worse phyiscs and you won't even look at it. Makes you the sad sack of physics. Stick the head in the ground and ignore.
I ask you a very simple question that you should easily be able to answer and you attack my knowledge of physics, ignore completely the question, pretend I am this dumb hick that knows nothing. Worthless science.
Again make is easy for me. Why do they use a flux of 240 W/m^2 with an Earth surface temperature of 288 K. You have seen global energy budgets. How much radiant energy does the surface have to receive to maintain a temperature of 288 K?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
How about 163.3 W/m^2 Solar and 340.3 W/m^2 Downwelling IR? That comes up with 503.6 W/m^2.
If the surface needs a whopping 503.6 W/m^2 to maintain and equilibrium temperature (because of surface losses from evaporation and thermals) how do they think using 240 W/m^2 is correct math? What rational math is this concept based upon? Magic?
Norman says:
"Einstein did not have to add multiple variables and differentials to describe the relationship between mass and energy. A very simple equation."
Clearly you have never encountered Einstein's equations or studied general relativity.
--
Both Joe (above) and I (on Spencer's site) have pointed out your many errors.
Did you write to one of the paper's co-authors with your disproof of all of 20th century climate science? Or at least ask them a question?
Why not?
Norman, I'm done with your questions, that are always based on a misunderstanding. Every time. You haven't disproved climate science. I'm simply not interested in whatever you are writing about here -- your comments are off the topic of the blog post, and you have cried wolf too many times.
Look Norman: Top right-hand column of Cess+ pg 16602 says:
"It then follows that Delta(F)/Delta(T) = 4F/T• = 3.3 W m -2 K -• for conditions typical of
Earth (F = 240 W m -2 and T• = 288 K)"
If F = 240 W/m2 and T = 288 K, then emissivity = emissivity of "surface atmosphere system" = 0.62
David Appell
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Deriving.htm#.WL4O0W8rKAY
First General relativity is not the same as the relationship between mass and energy. It is a new understanding of gravity and how it works.
You do not need an elaborate set of equations to determine the amount of energy released by the conversion of a given mass to a given amount of energy. Any difference would violate the Energy Conservation.
Wrong, Norman -- again you show your ignorance of physics. E=m*c2 (m* does not equal mass) only holds in Lorentzian reference frames. For a general reference frame, general relativity is required.
David Appell
One last shot, I know you are not interested but this scientist (a PhD) Joel Norris is a Climate Scientist.
http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/jnorris
He has the same value I do with a zero-feedback response.
Above I posted: "So instead of doing the scrambled math of mixing surface flux with TOA flux you would use
4(390 W/m^2)/288 = 5.42 Watt/m^2-K which gives a zero feedback sensitivity of 0.185 K(W/m^2) so an increase in downwelling IR of 3.7 W/m^2 will increase surface temperature 0.68 K."
Joel Norris comes up with the same number. Does he lack physics understanding and is clearly wrong as I am? Hmmmm?
http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/jnorris/files/caltechweb.pdf
Page 14 Title: Zero-Feedback Climate Responses
He rounds it to 5.4 I have 5.42. So now who lacks understanding?
The paper you cited used an emissivity of 0.62. You agree?
David Appell
I can see the flaw in the paper and I hope you will look into it. If you do not believe me an think me an idiot, fine I can't change your opinion but do look at Joel Norris paper linked above.
http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/pubs/Cessetal-1990.pdf
They use the emissivity of 0.62 for the Earth/atmosphere system. If they want to do it this way they have to follow through and not then use a unity of one for the emissivity in the calculation later.
If you take their mistaken math. Climate Sensitivity = 4(240 W/m^2)/288 K
You get the 3.33 W/m^2-K
However you need to divide this by the emissivity of 0.62 because now this becomes the absorbitivity of the system. So you now need to take 3.33/0.62 = 5.37 W/m^2-K which is the same as Joel Norris caculated.
If you use 0.62 at the Surface/atmosphere system then that becomes the absorbitivity of the same system. That means it takes 5.37 additional watts added to the system to be able to absorb 3.33 W/m^2.
am I blocked?
No you're not blocked, asshole, I put moderation on comments on posts > 15 days old to prevent comment spam. I upped that to 30 days for your benefit, but the spam is getting too much and I reduced it back to 15 days.
Norman says:
"I can see the flaw in the paper and I hope you will look into it."
I won't. I'm not interested -- you've been wrong too many times before. Just like you were wrong here about emissivity. Figure it out for yourself.
Have fun.
David Appell
When have I been wrong all these times before. You keeping making this statement with no evidence. Did you look at the emissivity problem?
You can do a simple calculation to show how they got it wrong.
If you have a 1 m^2 plate in outer space alone and by itself. Set the emissivity of the plate at 0.62.
You send radiant energy at it until the surface reaches 288 K. It is emitting 240 W/m^2. How much energy must send to the plate's surface to maintain a 288 K temperature? Would you suggest 240 W/m^2 because that is what it is losing?
David Appell
If you wanted to raise the same plate from 288 K to 289 K how much radiant energy would you have to add to the surface?
A 288 K plate with an emissivity of 0.62 has an absorbitivity of 0.62. That means it would need to have a radiant flux of 390 W/m^2 striking its surface to maintain a temperature of 288 K. (390 W/m^2)(0.62) = 241.8 W/m^2
An object with an emissivity of 0.62 only has an absorbitivity of 0.62 so it takes 390 watts to maintain its 288 K temp and it will emit 241.8 W/m^2 same as it absorbs (First Law of Thermodynamics).
To go to 289 K if will now be emitting 245.23 W/m^2 and will need the same energy input to maintain a temperature of 289 K (equilibrium condition).
How much input energy? 245.23/0.62 = 395.53 W/m^2 which is the same amount if the emissivity and absorbitvity are equal to one. Changing the emissivity does not change the energy balance, first law still dominates
Norman, T = 288 K and F = 240 K ==> emissivity = 0.62
Unless you have something new to say here, your future comments will be declined. You have been off the topic of this post all along.
Norman says:
"You can do a simple calculation to show how they got it wrong."
If you think that, then write to the authors or write to the journal.
Let us know what you find out.
David Appell
Since you will block this as previous post. The fact is obvious you are not a science minded person. You do not possess any natural curiosity. You really do not care about the Truth. You are like a disciple of a cult. If the Authority makes a claim it is unquestionable truth and only truth that you allow to exist in your thoughts.
I am very glad science is not composed of your mental type as it would go nowhere. Science is generated by those who love the truth. Never accept blindly anything from anyone. Challenge everything, even established ideas.
Even though I think you make a very bad scientist I still thank you for allowing me the privilege to post on your blog. It has not been at all productive. I will gladly return to Roy's site. Much more intelligence and thought on his site. Agree or disagree people will engage in thought provoking ideas.
Post a Comment