Discussion > Where is Rhoda's Evidence? (plagiarised by Dung)
Martin A
On the contrary. I do my own energy calculations.
When you want to know the TOA imbalance you need to find out total incoming radiation and total outgoing radiation. there are three man options.
1) Direct measurement.
To get the imbalance the basic calculation is
imbalance = solar insolation -albedo-OLR
The easiest thing to measure is solar insolation, which can be measured directly from orbit and is relatively constant. Albedo and OLR have to be sampled by satellites. Since both vary locally with time of day, temperature, season and cloud cover an overall value for albedo or OLR will have confidence limits larger than the imbalance. You can therefore constrain the size of the imbalance, but not get an exact figure.
2) Modelling
Set up a physical model of the system and use it to calculate energy flow in and out of the system. The confidence limits for this depend on how accurately you can measure the variables. This is Hansen's approach.
3) Accounting
Examine your bank account balance for today and this date a year ago. You find that it has changed from £1000 to £1100. You do not need details of every transaction to know that money flowed into your account at the rate of £100/year.
You can do the same with the energy content of the climate system.. Starting with the ratebof sea level rise you can calculate the increase in ocean heat content. Divide through by the surface area of the Earth and you get the imbalance.
Alternatively you can calculate the imbalance via the increase in average ocean temperature..
In both cases you are dependant on the scientists for some basic measurements, but you can crosscheck their calculations for yourself.
"If someone's guess (or hypothesis) convinces you, good luck - but please recognise that your belief is based on what one of your priests has told you to believe, not physical evidence."
A hypothesis is an educated guess. The test of its validity is how well its prediction agrees with physical evidence. In this case Hansen's guess, an imbalance of 0.7W/M^2, agrees with the physical evidence of ocean warming and sea level rise, from which I calculated two separate estimates of the imbalance. If the hypothesis had disagreed with my own calculations I would have less confidence in the warming. Since they match, m confidence is increased.
Belief has nothing to do with it. Nor do priests. I know enough physics to check the published science for myself. I am not dependant on what I am told.
What about you? Are you able to crosscheck what the denialist propaganda sites tell you; or are you so gullible that you accept what your priests tell you without question?
Entropic man
EM, First point - please let's get it out of the way for good - I don't think anybody seriously doubts that the world has warmed off and on since the last ice age. Or, on a shorter time scale, since the end of the so-called little Ice age. No reason to doubt your calculations of ocean expansion etc etc.
OK, now let's get started. If you want to have some chance of convincing people here you will need to be consistent.
One moment you say:
Belief has nothing to do with it. Nor do priests. (...) I am not dependant on what I am told.
But a moment earlier you say
A hypothesis is an educated guess. The test of its validity is how well its prediction agrees with physical evidence. In this case Hansen's guess, an imbalance of 0.7W/M^2, agrees with the physical evidence of ocean warming and sea level rise, from which I calculated two separate estimates of the imbalance. If the hypothesis had disagreed with my own calculations I would have less confidence in the warming. Since they match, m confidence is increased
So your degree of belief is enhanced ("my confidence is increased") by Hansen (one of the High Priests of the CAGW religion) telling you what he guessed for the imbalance. My impression is that you are not at all consistent in the things you say.
I know enough physics to check the published science for myself. I am not dependant on what I am told.
Previous postings have made it clear that you believe in the various predictions of climate catastrophe, catastrophic sea level rise, etc, resulting from consumption of fossil fuel. So far as I can make out "the published science" relies solely on the output of unverified (and unverifiable) computer models for these things. Have you checked these things for yourself? If not, what evidence do you have that causes you to believe these things?
What about you? Are you able to crosscheck what the denialist propaganda sites tell you; or are you so gullible that you accept what your priests tell you without question?
Sorry, I can't make sense of your questions.
First, I am not sure what you mean by 'denialist propaganda sites'. If you mean sites like Realclimate, skeptical science, And then there is physics, then I have to say I find them extremely convincing. But probably in quite the opposite way from what their owners intended.
Second, to not believe in something, it is sufficient to have seen no evidence for that thing. It is not necessary to have evidence that the thing does not exist to not believe in it. On that basis, the second part of your question does not make sense to me.
Martin A
EM - I wanted to add the following but was afraid of being 403'd.
In this case Hansen's guess, an imbalance of 0.7W/M^2, agrees with the physical evidence of ocean warming and sea level rise, from which I calculated two separate estimates of the imbalance.
Yes, obviouslyhis guess agrees with the physical evidence of sea level rise etc.
How do you imagine he made his guess? He's not competely daft. You can't count his guess as providing independent confirmation, because it is obviously not independent.
Martin A
EM
You went into a very detailed analysis designed to prove that CO2 was responsible for global warming:
Take a long tube with end windows transparent to infra-red radiation. Fit an IR source shining 15 micrometre IR into one end(call it A)and fit IR detectors at both ends.(Just in case you forgot what you said!)
As a control, fill the tube with a non-greenhouse gas such as nitrogen. Shine IR into the tube at end A and it will all emerge from the other end B. Very little IR will be redirected back to A.
Gradually add CO2 to the gas mixture.Some of the IR will be absorbed by CO2 and reradiated in all directions. Now most of the IR will emerge at B, but a small amount will be directed back to A.
As you increase CO2 concentration the proportion of IR absorbed and reradiated increases, less IR reaches B and more is redirected back to A. The amount emerging at B will decrease from 100% towards 50% and the amount emerging from A will increase from 0 towards 50%.
When there is enough CO2 all the IR shone into the tube is absorbed and reradiates in all directions. It has saturated. 50% of the IR emerges at A and 50% at B.
I asked (not unreasonably) for some figures that would support this hypothesis of yours vis-a-vis the real world since in the real world people who propound a hypothesis are the ones who are supposed to provide some sort of evidence to back it up.
As usual, you chose not to provide those figures (or indeed any figures); instead I'm supposed to go hunting for them myself. This is of course typical of climate science. Come up with an idea; declare it to be fact; make everyone else run round in circles.
I repeat the nub of the argument.
Has anyone carried out your experiment using the "base" CO2 ppm of 280 and the figure of 560 and quantified the difference in IR at point A? If so, what is it? If not how do we know the whole thing isn't a crock of shit?
Your move. But unless you can answer the question, don't bother.
Mike Jackson
Martin A
A physical model of radiative forcing depends on the radiative physics of greenhouse gases.
Waring of an ocean depends on a) absorption of visible light. DB) reduction in cooling rate due to IR absorption in the surface film.
The warming rate is affected by the change in radiative forcing, but the ocean warming does not cause the change in radiative forcing.
To suggest that Hansenl took the rate of ocean warming and then fiddled the radiative forcing to match is conspiracy ideation, one of the signs of denialism.
Entropic man
To suggest that Hansenl took the rate of ocean warming and then fiddled the radiative forcing to match is conspiracy ideation, one of the signs of denialism.
Don't be silly EM.
Hansen made an estimate as to the radiative imbalance because satellite measurement measures were too large to be credible.
Why should Hansen not make use of information available to him that would improve his estimate?
Martin A
...one of the signs of denialism.
Nov 12, 2015 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic manOne of the signs of it being truly a religion, and an unpleasantly intolerant one, is the use by its adherents of words such as 'denialism', in characterising those who do not share their beliefs.
splitpin
Diagenes: "I just look at the posts made by guyys such as Science of Doom and Clive Best and wonder what you are all talking about. They present measurments and you present beliefs nand superstitions."
Although I don't disagree with SoD's analysis of 4micron and 15 micron wavelengths keep you eye out for the usual "pea under the thimble" (h/t Steve McI)you find in climate science. In this case he tells that the radiation isn't measured, it's "calculated" but from the "usual CO2 parameters" what does that mean?
He is rightly surprised at the amount of energy taken out at the 15micron/sec band in one meter of air at 377ppm, but has he tried it at 280ppm to see if there it's linear, or logarithmic, or there's some other relationship?
The reason I think he's right to be surprised is that CO2 is, as I understand it, almost instantaneous in it's release of photons and that they come out randomly at all angles to the molecule, given the CO2 molecules are around 1 per 2500 at first blush it seems unlikely that 95% of the 15micron/second energy band would be absorbed over a distance of 1M.
I don't think anyone here denies the GHG effect, that's well proven. What isn't proven is that the retained heat has much, or any, effect on the atmospheric temperatures. There is no >CO2->heat->atmospheric temperature relationship that I know of.
geronimo
Splitpin
Why do you use alarmist?
Entropic man
Entropic Man - I don't think I have ever used the term, though please correct that if you have an example of my having used it.
splitpin
"Why do you use alarmist?"
Because they're alarmed? And want others to be alarmed too?
geronimo
Splitpin
That would be "you in the plural. On a site whose commenters call me alarmist, believer, lliar and stupid, among other derogatory epiphets, I feel free to call a spade a spade and label you denialists.
If you, as a group wish me to use polite terms, then treat me politely.
Measure for measure.
Entropic man
EM, Mike
Mike, glad you reminded me of this:
Take a long tube with end windows transparent to infra-red radiation. Fit an IR source shining 15 micrometre IR into one end(call it A)and fit IR detectors at both ends.
As a control, fill the tube with a non-greenhouse gas such as nitrogen. Shine IR into the tube at end A and it will all emerge from the other end B. Very little IR will be redirected back to A.
Gradually add CO2 to the gas mixture.Some of the IR will be absorbed by CO2 and reradiated in all directions. Now most of the IR will emerge at B, but a small amount will be directed back to A.
As you increase CO2 concentration the proportion of IR absorbed and reradiated increases, less IR reaches B and more is redirected back to A. The amount emerging at B will decrease from 100% towards 50% and the amount emerging from A will increase from 0 towards 50%.
When there is enough CO2 all the IR shone into the tube is absorbed and reradiates in all directions. It has saturated. 50% of the IR emerges at A and 50% at B.
This doesn't happen for atmospheric pressure ie. at the surface and certainly not for any significant incoming radiation.
Also it goes against the basic laws of opacity and optical depth.
What actually happens is that a directional IR beam such as that in the direction of the surface to space, gets attenuated by absorption. Mean free path for CO2 at 0 degrees and 1 bar is 39nm. Collisional transfer happens at a rate much higher (I believe 1000 times higher) than re-radiation, so you get much less isotropic re-emission. This has been demonstrated by experiment. In fact even Science of Doom has this on his site.
Less isotropic emission means that you get little extra "back radiation" beyond that which occurs naturally just from having warm Co2. The exact same process occurs for all absorbing gases. At atmospheric pressure and pressures near it transfer of absorbed radiation into collisional energy with other molecules is the single most important factor even so much that re-radiation can be ignored.
Now if you don't believe me just go and read up about optical depth.
When there is enough CO2 all the IR shone into the tube is absorbed and reradiates in all directions. It has saturated. 50% of the IR emerges at A and 50% at B.
No, it depends on the strength of the IR beam. But also it takes a significant amount of incoming radiation to increase isotropic re-emission. Background emission from IR just by being hot produces the effect you talk about and will do so even in the absence of incoming IR in same emission bands.
When you measure the radiation around you, the CO2 part is coming from the first few centimeters around the detector. Otherwise it would break some fundamental laws of physics.
As for energy imbalance, this would only be a temporary thing. It would have to be because emitted radiation will only change dependent on the Sun. You could have a much hotter surface due to changes in atmospheric processes and characteristics but the final emission to space as measured by satellites, will on average and over time be constant.
Micky H Corbett
Geronimo
I don't think anyone here denies the GHG effect, that's well proven. What isn't proven is that the retained heat has much, or any, effect on the atmospheric temperatures. There is no >CO2->heat->atmospheric temperature relationship that I know of.
Unfortunately, despite the concise description you gave above of the ENTIRE sceptic argument, one I've tried to give here many times, many people here do dispute the basic physics of the GHE, making the erroneous step of equating the GHE with global warming. It's the logical equivalent of trying to disprove a link between depression and people jumping off buildings by denying gravity exists.
But still they do it.
TheBigYinJames
BYJ @ Geronimo
Are you saying in effect that you agree that no warming happens as a result of the GHE? Surely the whole alarmist case is that the GHE DOES cause warming?
Dung
EM
"Take a long tube with end windows transparent to infra-red radiation. (...) It has saturated. 50% of the IR emerges at A and 50% at B."
So it's a tube with a perfectly reflecting internal surface? [ie not a transparent tube, and not a tube optically black or grey on its interior surface?] Would you please confirm that so I can try to make sense of what you said?
alarmist, believer,...
EM - I think you have missed the point. I take it that Splitpin's comment was that the use of the term "denialist" is not the sort of term one would use in a disagreement on scientific matters.
But it *is* the sort of term that you could expect in a religious discussion ("Before the cock crows twice, thy shalt deny me thrice") so Splitpin's point was that its use is a definite clue that belief in CAGW can be characterised as a religion. I meet many people who fervently believe in CAGW whose only explanation for why they believe is something along the lines of "because everybody knows its true".
Splitpin did not seem to me (in the instance above) to be complaining about the unpleasant connotation of the term. It was originally used in the proposal to have criminal trials for non CAGW believers on the grounds that they were "worse than holocaust deniers". Since then, people such as yourself seem to take delight in using the term.
Alarmist. Does that term have unpleasant connotations? I had not realised that, if it does. I have the impression that you find the future alarming and wish others to share that alarm. Please help us understand why you find the term inappropriate or offensive.
Believer. I can see that it carries an implication that belief in CAGW has the nature of a religion. You certainly seem to beleive that horrible things are in store in the future caused by human activity. I can see that there is an element of mockery in the term but I can't see it is offensive or inappropriate but if you find it so please help me understand how that is.
liar. Well I don't hold with anybody using that term unless they can show that somebody has knowingly told a dliberate untruth. But I don't think it is a term applied in a widespread way such as the way you yourself seem to use the term "denier" to characterise anybody who does not share your CAGW beliefs - ie the majority of BH commenters if I have got it right.
stupid. If somebody calls you that, my suggestion is simply to pay no attention. Or, if you wish to take the time, to explain calmy why whatever it is that you said does in fact make sense.
Martin A
re you saying in effect that you agree that no warming happens as a result of the GHE? Surely the whole alarmist case is that the GHE DOES cause warming?
Nov 13, 2015 at 10:08 AM | Registered CommenterDung
Dung - please make it clear what you mean by "warming happens"?
Do you mean "it is currently getting warmer, with temperatures rising as time goes by"?
Or do you mean "temperature levels are maintained pretty much as they currently are (which is higher than they would have been had the Earth's atmosphere been, say, pure nitrogen)"
The latter is not really open to dispute.
However, that is quite different from the claim that an increase in one of the greenhouse gases has significantly enhanced the greenhouse effect, which is causing temperature increases that will eventually be detectable despite the background of ongoing temperature changes due to other effects.
Martin A
Dung
Are you saying in effect that you agree that no warming happens as a result of the GHE? Surely the whole alarmist case is that the GHE DOES cause warming?
I would be nervous of saying "no" warming, perhaps "insignificant" or "un-alarming", but yes that's the gist of it.
Extra CO2 should provide more heat energy into the system, but that does not mean it will make the temperature of the air any or significantly warmer, since there are other mechanisms at play which add/subtract heat energy from the air at the same time, and CO2 is just one of them. Many of these other systems (such as clouds) could and probably do mitigate the extra heat energy from CO2.
Alarmists do indeed believe the simplistic idea that heat in = temperature rise, which drives much of the idea that we have to somehow disprove the very basic and well-understood physics of radiative transfer. We don't.
TheBigYinJames
Micky H Corbett
Thankyou for that. I need to be careful what I say but since that quote was a direct lift from EM's explanation do I take it that the reason he couldn't give me the figures I asked for is that they would have been meaningless or possibly that there is no way of calculating them?
I understand the principle he was expounding, namely that introducing CO2 into his test tube will cause "scatter" as it re-radiates photons (photons?) but I would really like to know what the difference is between the two concentrations because that, to my mind, is virtually the entire basis of climate science.
(Another random question that occurred to me while typing the above: is the behaviour of CO2 in terms of its "absorbency" or "reflectivity" — forgive me using layman's language here — dependent on the ambient temperature or even to any extent on ambient air pressure?)
Mike Jackson
Dung, look at my words: "I don't think anyone here denies the GHG effect, that's well proven. What isn't proven is that the retained heat has much, or any, effect on the atmospheric temperatures. There is no >CO2->heat->atmospheric temperature relationship that I know of.
TBYJ put it correctly there seem to be many interactions in the atmosphere once the heat goes up it doesn't necessarily mean that it will automatically cause increased atmospheric temperature - probably some, but the atmospheric temperature rising causes water vapour to increase, this will cause precipitation, clouds and positive feedbacks. For instance the retained heat is said to be 0.6W/m^2 (Otto et al 2013), clouds (from memory) reflect an average of 70W/m^2, therefore it seems feasible to me that the original warming increases low cloud cover by, say, 1% and the relationship between cloud cover area an albedo is linear, the world will start cooling by 0.4C/m^2. (which will, of course, cause cloud cover to decrease. Complicated isn't it? At least for me.)
Of course there are unknown unknowns, like how did the Little Ice Age start, and why did it finish. I don't have anything more than a superficial knowledge of the topic, but as a former engineering manager, if people came to me with the above information and then told me there was a clearly defined relationship between CO2 and AtmosphericTemperature, I'd ask them to provide more empirical evidence than we have at present.
geronimo
Mike
To his credit what EM is talking about should occur in the bulk atmosphere away from the surface. But then the radiation transferred is simply that which comes about due to temperature of the atmosphere not what comes from the surface. It's because CO2 is very good at stripping away 15 micron radiation and having it realised by other molecules at other frequencies.
The initial absorption of the surface IR happens and more or less saturates at ppm lower than even 280 so the initial heat transfer has been a foundation of the greenhouse effect as it were for thousands of years. Any effect of increased Co2 is in how more radiation will 400ppm release compared to 280ppm once the atmosphere is thin enough? And how much the local environment is affected by this and can possibly compensate.
David Evans made an interesting point about water vapour coupling.
Micky H Corbett
Would BYJ like to comment on this?
I should add that members trained in electromagnetic theory are in a very good position to question “back radiation” nonsense and confirm that radiant energy flux is a vector that always flows from hotter to cooler objects. But this discussion has never surfaced probably for the same reason, to go with the flow and make money.
Nov 13, 2015 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered Commenter E Forster
Dung
BYJ, Martin A
I do not need to define 'global warming' since I did not originate the description. However I take it to mean 'a rise in the (spurious, meaningless, fabricated) average temperature of the planet at the surface.
If an action causes an effect and at the same time the effect causes a reaction which cancels the original effect, why would it not be appropriate to say that the original action has no effect or even that it does not exist.
Dung
Dung - you asked "Are you saying in effect that you agree that no warming happens as a result of the GHE? "
But then you said "I do not need to define 'global warming' since I did not originate the description. "
No.
But if you want an answer to your first question, then you do need to explain what you meant by the words you used, because an unclear question can't be given a clear answer.
(A) Yes "warming happens" in the sense that the GHE keeps us at our present more or less comfortable state
(b) But no there seems to be no hard evidence, or even precise calculations, that "warming happens" to make us get warmer than we currently are.
So until your question is clarified I don't think it can be given a clear answer.
Martin A
Martin AA
"If not, then the figure is just somebody's hypothesis as to what the imbalance is."
Isn't this how science works? One puts forward a hypothesis and then confirms it by observation?
Nov 11, 2015 at 7:14 PM Entropic man
No. It's nothing to do with "how science works".
You were giving Hansen's guess of the radiation imbalance as if it were a fact. And you said it was one of the three reasons you were convinced.
"One reason why I am convinced that we are warming is that these three independent calculations give the same result."
If someone's guess (or hypothesis) convinces you, good luck - but please recognise that your belief is based on what one of your priests has told you to believe, not physical evidence.