Richard Drake - please stop behaving as if you were the Head Boy and constantly fretting about who said what and to whom. It's very tedious to those who are just not bothered by such things.

"I do boo at foul play"

Yes, like drunk in a theatre.

Yes this is an interesting thread. The takeaway point for me is this comment:

More GHGs reducing OLR is as non-controversial in the field of atmospheric physics as Kepler's law of motion in the field of astronomy.
On the other hand, the overall consequence for the climate system with 100s of interacting variables, of reducing OLR by a few W/m^2 over a century timescale is a very challenging problem.
Aug 9, 2014 at 9:24 PM | Science of Doom

The first part of this equates to ‘CO2 is a greenhouse gas’. Many commentators follow this with ‘and must cause warming’.

The second part, however, is where the real controversy arises. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all other things being equal will cause warming, but the second part of SoD’s comment is really saying all other things are not equal and we really do not know how unequal they are. This is where the scientific battles should be fought. This is where science should be seeking enlightenment.

And I would like to record my thanks to SoD for his excellent website and his scientific approach. I would recommend anyone who wants to know about the science to go to science of doom and work your way through his posts. There is a lot to take in, but worth the effort.

H2O,

The uncertainty is in the feedbacks, which is why it's a bit disheartening (but essential) to keep going over and over GH theory, so we can stop concentrating on the bit which is pretty well undisputed.

I agree SoD's site is definitely worth reading cover to cover, I myself learned most of what I know (over and above the usual undergrad physics I learned years ago) from SoD#s page. The best thing about the site is he doesn't shy away from showing you the equations - you can go and work it out for yourself if you want - the proper Nullius In Verba.

I'd ignore the comments, however.

"So what is the Earth's temperature in the limiting case of being totally opaque to IR??"

Well, the oceans are totally opaque to IR - what's the temperature of the water?

But assuming you're interested in an 'other things held equal' sort of treatment, it's easy enough to work out.

The surface temperate is equal to the effective radiative temperature plus the adiabatic lapse rate times the average altitude of emission to space. Tsurf = Teff + ALR * h. If the emission to space rises from its current location around 5 km (on average) to the 'top of the atmosphere' at 10 km, the greenhouse warming will rise from 33 C to 66 C, and the surface temperature will be about 46 C on average. (Any higher, and it gets complicated with the lapse rate not being constant.)

"I'd be interested indeed if you could point us to the place, and precise words, where NiV urged you to "forget the physics"."

I don't think I've ever said it in quite those words (I'm not sure - I've written a lot over the years). But I have said, on many occasions, that using arguments against the basic physics of the greenhouse effect against the catastrophists is a poor strategy and a distraction. None of the arguments work, they make sceptics look bad, and they divert effort and distract attention from more productive lines of engagement. They're also unnecessary - accepting the basics doesn't meant the catastrophists are right.

I've got no problem whatsoever with people discussing the physics in order to understand how it works. I'd encourage it. But it's a complete dead end as far as the larger debate is concerned - except to note how bad most of the mainstream explanations are. All the interesting action is elsewhere.

However, I also believe in open debate and freedom of speech, so I'd much rather argue it out in the open than try to stamp on dissenting views. That never works, and one risks becoming dogmatic. All scientific proposals, no matter how well supported, are open to challenge. Such debates are good fun, in moderation. But I would advise anyone that any hopes of overturning the consensus by such arguments are almost certainly in vain.

Thanks for all the kind comments!

RKS

I still think the effect of CO2 on the REAL atmosphere is bugger all. And unless anybody can actually PROVE otherwise I reckon it's as valid as any other opinion.

I agree.

However, it is not necessary to overturn the well-established physics of the GHE in order to hold this view. As H2O says, and I've been saying, and NiV has been saying, and countless other people.... the place where the consensus is undoubtedly wrong is in their assumptions about feedbacks and the contribution of natural cycles.

Arguing about the GHE is the equivalent of someone saying that planes crash because of poor visibility, and the 'skeptics' trying to prove that gravity doesn't exist. It's a complete fool's errand, and unnecessary to poke holes in the consensus.

But they LIKE us doing it! It makes us look stupid and easy to dismiss, and it means while we're arguing about it, they can gloss over the real sticking plasters in their set-up - feedbacks and natural contribution.

Ignore the creep

It's trolling. Sidetracking threads with stuff of no interest to anyone except the troll.

"..and perhaps as, unlike the rest of us casual contributors, he wants to be accepted as some sort of authority on matters of science, he should at least let his public know what his background and qualifications are. Not knowing his? details I've assumed the masculine tense when referring to him.."

I am a bloke, it's true.

If authority came from background and credentials then I should point you towards the hundreds of professors of atmospheric physics who know way more than me.

I can give you a long list if you like. Listen to them, if credentials impress you.

However, I understand that this blog, like many others, exists because the argument from authority is not accepted.

Of course, if I wanted to claim some authority from degrees and publications then of course I need to put them forward as evidence.

To cite an amazing blog (modesty precludes me from mentioning the author):

"Opinions are often interesting and sometimes entertaining. But what do we learn from opinions? It’s more useful to understand the science behind the subject. What is this particular theory built on? How long has theory been “established”? What lines of evidence support this theory? What evidence would falsify this theory? What do opposing theories say?"

Accept nothing without evidence. Whatever credentials I might claim are irrelevant. Likewise for people with amazing credentials. Can I put forward evidence?

To very loosely paraphrase some guy with crazy hair from a patent office one time: "It really doesn't matter how many people think you are wrong, it just needs one, but they actually need to produce evidence"

Of course, I work on the basis that someone with three decades in the field and a few hundred papers probably knows a lot about their field of expertise. I don't accept that they are right because of this. But if I don't understand their claims my first instinct is to do a lot more research, because, unlike many people commenting on blog sites, I do make a working assumption (prejudice?) that my disconnect is more likely to be my lack of understanding of the field, rather than the professional with a few hundred papers.

And yet, I still think many professionals are wrong. However, no point telling you my opinions. Opinions are not really very useful. I would rather present evidence. That takes time.

I dislike the word 'feedbacks' as well, for a similar but unrelated reason.

A feedback is perceived as a secondary effect of a more important mechanism.
CO2 does this important thing.. and then there are some other secondary 'feedbacks'
This supports the myth that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature.

The truth is that CO2 may well be a factor in temperature, but it's just one of many
competing factors. We have no idea of its relative importance against other forms of
climate drivers, such as the hydrological cycle, solar cycles, aerosols, deforestation,
sea currents, desertification, ice cycles.... the list is almost endless. Not one of them
is categorically the driver, and the other 'feedbacks'.

But 'feedbacks' is a handy shorthand which people here understand.

Aug 13, 2014 at 9:19 PM | Nullius in Verba

Thanks for that NiV. I reckon humankind has the nous to survive a 46 maximum ever. ie move to Siberia/Scotland etc if it happens.

RD
I am not sure why I am bothering to respond to you but having met my Friday work deadline I have some free time and came back to catch up.

"I'm sure you missed my suggestion that you had traduced NiV (at 8:42 AM) or you would have mentioned it. I'm mindful it's time-consuming to dig out exact quotes when you have other work to do. I suggest then that you retract the statement for now and later find the passage you were thinking of and quote it, verbatim, with link."
Aug 13, 2014 at 11:40 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

My statement that you object to being;

NiV, on an earlier derailed thread, urged me to forget the physics and contest the feedbacks...Aug 13, 2014 at 8:42 AM

Note that there are no quotation marks. It was a précis. I am not going to search an old thread at your behest and don't need to as NiV has responded on this one;

"I don't think I've ever said it in quite those words (I'm not sure - I've written a lot over the years). But I have said, on many occasions, that using arguments against the basic physics of the greenhouse effect against the catastrophists is a poor strategy and a distraction. None of the arguments work... accepting the basics doesn't meant the catastrophists are right... All the interesting action is elsewhere." Aug 13, 2014 at 9:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterNullius in Verba

To which you immediately responded;
"Thanks Nullius. I think it's highly unlikely you ever said "forget the physics" unless you were drunk one night you edited BH and I've seen no evidence of that! I agree with everything you say here."
Aug 14, 2014 at 2:34 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Your last sentence gave me a good laugh but now, if you'll excuse me, I'll do my catching up.