While the diversion into desert climates has been interesting, the topic of this thread is "Can Trenberth do sums". Can we all agree that Dr. Trenberth's sums, based on a fantasy, quarter power universe, have no bearing at all on reality?

If this is the case how has this nonsense persisted for so long? Who has peer-reviewed the publications? Why have main stream physicists not pointed this out before? Dr. Trenberth is not the first scientist to make a mistake - anybody involved in original research will make several "howlers" in their career. But when the mistake is pointed out the only proper course of action is to admit it and put matters right.

If I am completely wrong about this I will personally apologise to Dr. Trenberth.

Roger, here is an example of a climate science peer reviewed paper, one that is still in print, still being cited.

"The database used by MBH98 contains the errors and defects listed below. We detail each of these points in this section, then in Section 3 we show how correcting these errors and defects affects the calculation of the Northern Hemisphere average temperature index using MBH98 methodology.

(a) unjustified truncation of 3 series;

(b) copying 1980 values from one series onto other series, resulting in incorrect values in at least 13 series;

(c) displacement of 18 series to one year earlier than apparently intended;

(d) unjustified extrapolations or interpolations to cover missing entries in 19 series;

(e) geographical mis-locations and missing identifiers of location;

(f) inconsistent use of seasonal temperature data where annual data are available;

(g) obsolete data in at least 24 series, some of which may have been already obsolete at the time of the MBH98 calculations;

(h) listing of unused proxies; (i) incorrect calculation of all 28 tree ring principal components.

(a,f) Series #10 and #11 (Central England and Central Europe air temperatures respectively) use June-July-August averages. This raises three concerns: annual data were available in the primary sources; other station temperature series used by MBH98 (#21- #31), where identified, are annual; and MBH98 claims to calculate an annual temperature index. The Central England Temperature series is truncated at 1730 rather than the available 1659 in source data, which removes a major late 17th century cold period (see Supplementary Information). Series #10 has a 1987 value which is 0.43 deg C higher than in the source data though this does not appear to affect any calculations discussed herein. Central Europe (#11) is truncated at 1550 rather than the available 1525, which removes the warmest temperatures in the series (compare Figure 1 Top and Bottom panels). #11, which is an exceptionally long series of direct temperature information, also shows a notable lack of 20th century uniqueness. In series #100, MBH98 also crop two very high values from the start of the series. These truncations are not justified and were not disclosed by MBH98."

It's from M&M 2003 you have to wonder what peer review is all about when a paper as shoddy as this passes it and becomes the poster child of the IPCC, because don't forget it was effectively reviewed again by the world's leading climate scientists to get into IPCC TAR.

Roger; "Can we all agree that Dr. Trenberth's sums, based on a fantasy, quarter power universe, have no bearing at all on reality?"

I certainly do. I have shown above that the concept of back radiation is incorrectly applied in his diagram of Energy Flows. The next thing to look at is his idea of a steady state, irrespective of the quantities he has used we can continue with his numbers. His steady state condition is a balanced 341-102=239 at top of atmosphere. The system is therefore not accumulating energy. Yet, through his construct of back radiation he computes a net absorption in the surface of ~1Watt. This would imply that with constant greenhouse gas concentrations, the surface of Earth would continuously warm over time. Logically an impossibility. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, this diagram is not addressing the effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations for that would not be a steady state condition and would have, according to the theory Trenberth is promulgating, an imbalance between his calculated flows at top of atmosphere. His mathematics, as you point out with his 'quarter power universe' may be suspect but he clearly cannot do sums.

So what to do?

The greatest scientific fraud in history continues unabated because the people who could challenge it feel forced to post anonymously on minor blogsites like this in order to protect their livelihoods, and cowardly establishment scientists sit on the fence for the same reason. This is not climate science, it is a climate of fear. It calls to mind the German civil servants who organised the trains to the east so efficiently, even though they were aware what they were doing.

Shame on all of us.

And the money men are laughing all the way to the bank (which they own).

Roger, I think we wait until climate science corrects itself to fit observations.

One last thing as I have to prepare for work tomorrow, you mentioned the '33K nonsense' a while back. Trenberth shows a back radiation of 333Watts as responsible for it, ratio of 10:1. Instead of all this IPCC and climate sensitivity malarky, why not set up a back radiation detector to assess the rate at which we are approaching that critical extra 2 degree tipping point which would occur at ~350Watts?

:)

ssat, " I think we wait until climate science corrects itself to fit observations" perhaps you are right.

As for a back radiation detector, IMHO it would only be of use to falsify a model of a fantasy universe in thermodynamic equilibrium, with no relation to reality. The 33K nonsense has already been falsified by the NASA Diviner empirical data, the models have been falsified by nature and even the "adjusted" data show no warming for 16 years. I can not help feeling that just one good push would make the whole, rotten pack of cards come crashing down.

I've looked through this thread with great interest. I understand most of the points being made in a general way, but I have not waded through any of the detail to see whether it makes sense. (Making sense to me would achieve nothing of value).

It seems to me that a couple of you should write up a brief discussion document setting out your argument as clearly as possible and then publish it again here to seek feedback and criticism. If it still looks good, perhaps His Grace could make it a post and get some of his contacts Betts, Lewis, and others to comment.

This debate is too important to let it drift away without challenging the "experts".

ssat
Are your objections similar to those outlined, without much detail, by AlecM?

Sep 22, 2013 at 6:02 PM | Schrodinger's Cat:

I think that we have discussed 3 different issues here:

I have questioned Trenberth's model of a quarter solar power, isentropically insolated planet in thermodynamic equiibrium, and pointed to the falsification of this model consequent upon NASA's Diviner measurements of the Moon (as well as common sense).

ssat (if I understand correctly) has pointed out that, even if you accept Trenberth's model, the numbers "do not add up"

geronimo (if I understand correctly) has pointed out that we can compare "the greenhouse effect" in arid deserts with that in the humid tropics at the same latitude, thereby showing the effects of CO2 only, and CO2 plus water (phase changes and feedback effects). Furthermore, historical data can show us the effects of a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years in both environments.

I am willing to summarise the first point, if you think that would be of any use.

ssat, I looked again at Trenberth's diagram, and in the small print it shows a TOA imbalance of 0.9 W/m2 (whereas the larger numbers show zero). Therefore his planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but undergoing steady state heating - as you have previously said. Presumably the 0.9 W/m2 comes from the "climate sensitivity" meme (eg. the 1.5*log2(400/270) = 0.85C type of calculation that we have seen elsewhere) and is the known result (because it has to be) with all the other numbers fabricated to give the "right answer". However, all of this falls apart at the first hurdle because he uses the wrong figure for insolation - as previously discussed.

I should have read your stuff more carefully.

Roger I am also uncertain about the numbers in the chart, I believe that for simplicity Dr. Trenberth is assuming as steady state climate system when it is not (I have the same problem with the flows of CO2 on the NASA site) he is dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, so the assumption that 0.3 of the solar radiation is reflected at the TOA can only be a guess, albeit an educated guess. If you think about the tropics v. desert only this time from dawn to dusk, the deserts rise by 30-40C, while the tropics rise just a few degrees. Why is this? I don't know, but my educated guess is that the clouds in the tropics reflect most of the incoming solar radiation. One then has to assume that the tropics were colder in the past and that the earth increased in temperature causing the oceanic evaporation of water which accumulated over the tropics and now regulates their temperatures to a few degree. The rest of the numbers are dodgy too because they can only be a snapshot, unless I've (with a lifetime of misunderstandings behind me) there's something I am missing.

Oops, just read ssat's post above, he's said it all before. Sorry.

Just for a bit of fun I was thinking about Trenberth's world which is uniformly insolated at 341.3 W/m2 (instead of the correct value of 1366 W/m2). I will call it discworld, as it adopts this insolation from the ratio of the area of a disc to the surface area of a sphere with the of the same radius.

Discworld is alone in a universe where the microwave background has increased from 2.7K to 288K (the average temperature of the planet), so we have thermodynamic equilibrium. The surface flux @ TOA is given by the SB Law:
F(surface)=5.67*10-8*T^4 W/m2. This gives a flux of 390 W/m2 for a black body temperature of 288K. However, on discworld the evil CO2 increases the flux by 1 W/m2 to 391 W/m2. How much does the planet warm in order to return to equilibrium? My answer is 0.2K.

Discworld bears no relation to reality, so the stuff above is meaningless and just a bit of fun. But is it correct?

Roger,

Your solar constant figure is divided by Trenberth by 4 to show the average insolation over the sphere. The insolation varies during the year as the distance from the sun varies so that 1412 kW/m² is received in January and 1321 kW/m² in July. The diagram is about averages (including diurnal) and therefore is divided by 4 for the ratio between a disc and a sphere. From that, the solar constant would be 1366.5; pretty much your figure. As stated before, I don't doubt the correctness of the mathematics but I have a big problem with the sense of them - what I like to call sums; applied mathematics in old money.

BTW, yes there is small print in the diagram and using that then a warming would occur with an unbalanced energy flow.

My big problem however is in the concept of back radiation which is alleged to have caused that warming which is why I asked the question in the head post. It is important because it dictates that warming from 'greenhouse gases' occurs at the surface.

Within the S-B equation, which you cite, is the implicit requirement that T is the difference between the temperature of the body relative to absolute zero (T in deg K is temp above absolute zero). Using Trenberth's diagram figures and S-B I have already shown that the 333 is, within reason, the average atmosphere temperature. However, to measure that as a flux (for it to be 'sensible') the measuring device used would have to be at absolute zero. If the same device was inverted, again at absolute zero, it would show the surface radiation of 396. However, the actual flow of energy is from the hotter to the colder object, it is the difference between the two S-B derived figures and is 'sensible' (able to be sensed).

Now, those defending back radiation, including many of them posting on this blog and elsewhere as questioners of the existence of AGW, turn to the blanket analogy to support its concept. So let's use that;

Its a cold night, you're badger-watching or whatever and you have brought a blanket with you. Engrossed as you are, you realise you have started to shiver as the temperature approaches freezing. You pick up the blanket, also approaching freezing, and wrap yourself. Very quickly the shivering stops. Is this back radiation at work: your body heat reflected back? No, it is because the blanket has warmed on the inside but has changed little on the outside. Body heat loss is now at a rate dictated by the difference in temperature between you and the average temperature of the blanket sides (the blanket is your personal heat sink). Heat loss to the sink of space is from the cold side of the blanket. It is at a lower rate than that without the blanket as the difference is smaller as is your heat loss for the same reason but now relative to the blanket. At all times, the flux has been outward from body to space. Did the warming occur at the surface which in this case is your body? No, it occurred in the blanket.

Back radiation calculations mislead. The warming from the presence of radiative gases occurs in those gases which then transfer some of that heat (as entropy requires) to the non-radiative gases by conduction through collision.

If I am wrong, can someone please show me where?

ssat,

I think that you are trying to rationalise Trenberth's fantasy universe - which could not possibly exist in reality. There are only two numbers in the diagram that I recognise - the quarter power insolation and the 0.9 W/m2 imbalance at TOA (which I believe comes from the flawed IPCC radiation model, as explained above). All the other numbers have no basis in reality, and are just inserted - to an accuracy of 0.1 W/m2 - in order to produce the pre-determined imbalance.

Consifering the imbalance, this clearly can not represent a "steady state" sysyem. In the real world the system would seek equilibrium - as the planet heated it would radiate more until there was a net flux of zero at TOA. Trenberth's diagram is therefore an instantaneous snapshot a world where the radiation to space is rising.

Concerning blankets - a blanket establishes a thermal gradient between heat sources and sinks. A blanket keeps you warm in a cool room, but if the heat source is extinguished (ie. you snuff it) your body temperature would cool to the temperature of the room in a few hours. Look at it another way - drop an egg into boiling water. The shell comes almost instantly to 100C and a thermal gradient is established inside the egg, which will start to heat. After 4 minutes it is soft boiled, after 10 minutes hard boiled and after 1 hour (?) the entire egg will be at 100C. In other words, everything is either cooling, warming or in equilibrium.

Therefore, along with the flawed mathematics of "mean insolation", Trenberth's diagram fails under the scrutiny of thermodynamics - it is not thermodynamics it is thermostatics (I just made that last word up).

I sometimes act as industrial supervisor for MEng final year projects. If a student had handed me a a report that was anything like Trenberth's paper I would regretfully have to advise his academic supervisor to fail him.