Discussion > Discussion for Schjrodinger's Cat
EM - you have a talent for dreaming up imaginary monsters or for identifying nasty things that happen anyway.
I didn't see the link to man's emissions there EM. Or mention of the fact that deaths from extreme weather events have been falling since 1920s. Why did you not mention that?
I agree with you about trying to work through some of Huffman's stuff. He tends to come across a bit like MynicedogSpartAlec on occasion.
Aug 30, 2014 at 11:22 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson
It's worse than that. For me he's borderline off his rocker. It's like watching an injured dog
Yes I know the magnitude of Ts^4 is negligible against the magnitude of Te^4 but that is not the point. My point is that the rate, Q, is a function of the difference between the temperatures. When Q is fixed, Ts dictates Te. You can't just have a Te that can be anything as long as it satisfies a presumed radiative imbalance.
Aug 30, 2014 at 11:04 AM ssat
No. It's *not* a function of the difference between temperatures. If you think that, then it's clear why you think that the background radiation has a significant effect.
It's the difference of the fourth powers. As you said earlier, it's Q= ε σ [Te^4 - Ts^4] A
It's not the fourth power of the difference.
Martin A
I have not claimed anywhere that background radiation has a significant effect. I've said the temperature of space is deterministic. I didn't expect it to be controversial
Q = Qin = Qout = ε σ [Te^4 - Ts^4] A
Q is derived from the solar constant, less albedo and is known in Watts. That is the supply side of the equation and it tells us nothing about Te. The demand side of the equation informs us about Te because we know its relationship with Ts. That relationship lies within ε σ [Te^4 - Ts^4] A. Ts determines Te.
If there is a radiative imbalance so that Qin > Qout then Ts still determines TE. If Qin increases Ts still determines Te. The fact that Ts^4 = 53 is a small number in the scheme of things does not make those statements untrue.
Now don't get me wrong: I am far from a slayer but have one doubt and that is that it is a energy imbalance rather than an energy redistribution that is bestowed by increasing GHG.
EM,
Can you please try to explain to me what point you are trying to make with respect to your planetary C02 figures above? I genuinely don't understand.
What has Venusian atmospheric composition got to do with the Earth?
I'm not mathematician so please use words.
Andy
ssat 12:55
I'm sorry, I just don't get it. If background radiation does not have a significant effect, how does its precise value affect anything? Can you help me understand why you think Ts determines Te?
If we take Te as 252K (and Ts = 2.7K) then (Te^4 - Ts^4) = (Te^4 - 0) to eight significant figures (4.0327580E+009).
EM (Aug 30, 2014 at 1:31 PM): you do seem to be fond of making quite extraordinary leaps of logic. Where have I said or even suggested, hinted or intimated that I want CO2 science to be wrong? Science is the interpretation and explanation of observed phenomena, and, as such, can be prone to the many human failings that occur. It is the constant questioning of a scientist’s work, both from the scientists themselves, as well as listening to the questioning from others, that the flaws may be discovered and dealt with, in an attempt to correct. However, the “CO2 scientists” (to paraphrase you) seem reluctant to allow questioning from anyone, which has to make one suspicious of their claims. Personally, I don’t want them to be wrong, but I have the suspicion that they might well be.
HDH gives a plausible alternative to the “greenhouse effect”, and I feel that it is more plausible than the GHE; however, that does not make it correct, nor does it discount the alternative(s). Even more plausible is the idea that it is a combination of the two theories – with an allowance for other effects that have yet to be identified – that will be the most likely explanation.
As Mike Jackson points out, it is the band-wagon of self-destruction that we have been forced to board that I want to stop and get off. Our understanding of the vast, complex, chaotic system that is the Earth’s climate (which is not only comprised of – or compromised by – the atmosphere, but the oceans and the crust, itself) is minimal, at best. We have only really started to look at it in depth less than a hundred years ago – possibly, it could be argued, less than 50 years ago! What records we do have are isolated – even the UK (possibly with the greatest concentration of observation stations in the world) is sparsely measured, and a lot of gaps have to be filled in. The oceans have even fewer records, mostly surface temperatures obtained by meteorological ships (usually following the main shipping channels, so leaving vast areas having no records at all). It is only in this century that the oceans, down to a depth of 700m, have seriously started to be measured – and even then, the recordings are extremely sparse, with 2,000 ARGO buoys in how many billions of cubic kilometres of sea? Yet it is from this, a single hair on the tail, that the climatastrophists are telling us that we have hold of a tiger; however, many of us feel that it is more probable that we are sharing the room with an elephant.
Martin A,
Thank you for your patience. Why I was interested in Ts was because I was pondering why climate science just accepted that Te would float around to suit the hypothesis of a radiative imbalance. SoD just clarified that on the other thread by his reference to 'large heat capacity' where he infers* a lag of time before equilibrium after each delta CO2 addition. I'm assuming the lag has a relationship with climate sensitivity.
* His answer was somewhat enigmatic in that I didn't read it that he ruled out a CS of close to 1.
Climate change has naff all to do with it.