Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand
"It can only be refuted with stronger evidence, not just contrary opinion" - ACK
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.
Dismissed.
Phil Clarke
There may be lots of brilliant books on accurate techniques in statistics, going cheap. Condition, New, still in original wrapping.
golf charlie
Phil Clarke, climate science was asserted without evidence. Trump has just dismissed it, for having no evidence.
Skeptical Science was the weakest link. I am sure their budgets will now be increased by generous benefactors, to meet the shortfall from US Taxpayers.
golf charlie
PC I'm not refuting anything, just offering my considered opinion of Oreskes work based upon my own evaluation of critics more skilled and learned than myself.
ACK
Still no specifics. Who exactly are these unnamed peers who critiqued Oreskes' 2004 paper? I am only aware of Benny Peiser who claimed to have found 34 papers rejecting the concensus that Oreskes had missed, however when it emerged that these either did not actually do so, or were not academic journal articles. Peiser withdrew his claim.
I hope you're not relying on Monckton. That would be most unwise.
Phil Clarke
Can't take a strong hint PC? I've admitted it's an opinion, so back off.
ACK
It is of course perfectly fine if you choose not to share how you came to that opinion - it came to you in a dream perhaps - I just thought this was a perfect opportunity to put into practice your desire to see BH to become more evidence-based.
Ah, well. Some other time.
Phil Clarke
“modeled” [sic]
RR - modeled is the standard spelling of the word in North America.
Martin A
As we appear to have several of the brethren assembled here tonight, I'll ask the question that never gets answered: when we enter a cooling period what will be the climate science explanation of that or is it now impossible for a cooling period to occur if we do not mend our ways?
ssat
As the surface temperature anomaly in one part of the planet is now +20C, I don't think you need to worry for some time yet ......
Phil Clarke
Martin A
Here are your energy budget figures.
Nov 23, 2016 at 12:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
Thanks EM.
The graphic suggests that 10% (=40/390) of radiation from the Earth's surface makes it direct to outer space.
What I was really after was the probability that a photon emitted from the surface is captured by a ghg molecule and so never makes it to outer space. Even better than an overall average figure would be estimates for regions of low (or zero) atmospheric water vapour, and for regions of high atmospheric water vapour.
From the graphic, p=0.9 would be an estimate (=1 - 40/390) of the probability of a longwave photon not making it to outer space. But I imagine that that estimate will include longwave radiation that is simply reflected back down from clouds, rather than being absorbed by ghg's and then re-radiated or got rid of by other means. Perhaps there is no need to draw a distinction between those two things?
p = 0.9 is a value bigger than I had imagined, having forgotten the actual estimate (if I ever knew it). It's not far off p = 1.00, presumably what an atmosphere of pure high pressure CO2 would give.
Martin A
PC, I'll take that as 'impossible' then.
We may not have too long to wait as the Pause continues its way toward the 17 years that Trenberth says will bust the theory anyway.
ssat
Martin A:Explanations that lead to a conclusion along the lines 'the entire “greenhouse gas” conjecture is flawed' result in my losing interest in reading any further and instead looking for interesting rubbish for sale on Ebay.
Oh. I am sure that you have assured us that you retain an open mind; odd for you to admit that, in some areas, you do not.
Nov 22, 2016 at 10:19 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent
RR - I don't recall ever having claimed to have an open mind but not impossible that I did once or twice and have forgotten having doing so. I'll keep an open mind on the question as to whether I did or not.
Martin A: the original point was that Venus, despite having an atmosphere that is nearly ALL greenhouse gases (97% CO2), has, at altitudes where it is Earth-equivalent pressure (1 at.), temperatures that are the same as the Earth would have, were Earth the same distance from the Sun as Venus, even though the atmosphere of Earth is comprised mainly of non-greenhouse gases (99% N2 & O2). Does this not indicate that the entire “greenhouse gas” conjecture is flawed?
Nov 22, 2016 at 3:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent
I think there is also about 1% Ar and about 0.5% H2O.
The Earth's atmosphere being mainly non-greenhouse gases is not really relevant. So far as capturing longwave photons is concerned, they might just was well not be there. (Assuming that somehow the water vapour molecules remained in place.) What counts is the extent to which the ghg's that are present capture outgoing longwave radiation.
The graphic that EM pointed to suggests that the H2O and CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere absorb around 90% of the longwave emitted from the surface. That is not far from what an atmosphere of pure (high pressure) CO2 would absorb (100%) so in that sense there may not be much difference between Earth's and Venus's atmospheres.
I doubt that the greenhouse effect is *fully* understood. [If it were, there would be full agreement on ECS etc.] But there can't really be any reason to doubt its existence or the validity of approximate calculations from simple models of the effect.
Martin A
Haha… good one, Entropic man.
Martin A: correct me if I am wrong, but you do seem to imply that all that is required for “greenhouse effect” to be… er… effective is a tiny, tiny trace of a greenhouse gas – concentration really does not matter; so long as there are a few molecules of a greenhouse gas buzzing about, then they will absorb large percentages of any outgoing radiation. The larger the concentration, the lower the percentage each molecule will absorb: thus, when the concentration is less than 1%, they will absorb 90% of outgoing radiation; when the concentration is 99%, they will absorb just 99% of outgoing radiation. I suspect I misunderstand.
Sorry if I offended you by suggesting that you might have an open mind – having an open mind is something that many scientific minds seem to be proud of.
Radical Rodent
Martin A
At sea level the free path for a 15micrometre photon is very short. IIRC at sea level it is a fraction of a millimetre. 100% of the radiation is absorbed and reemitted.
Only at high altitude is the free path long enough to give an emitted photon from CO2 a good chance of escaping to space.
I remember one source which looked at emission in layers, like pages in a book.The energy in emiitted photons do not make the trip from the surface to space in one jump, but passes through a number of CO2 molecules en route, like passing up from page to page in a book. Overall the amount of energy leaving as longwave radiation is close to the amount absorbed and insolation-albedo=OLR.
Because of downwelling a proportion of the energy recirculates back to the surface. This reservoir of energy. Is what maintains the extra 33C attributed to the CO2 greenhouse effect.On Earth that reservoir is equivalent to a warming forcing of about 340W/m^2.
As Science of Doom pointed out, on Venus the recirculation generates the equivalent of 16,000W/m^2 and a surface temperature of 733K.
If conditions were stable and the CO2 constant Earth would have about 240W/m^2 coming in and 240W/m^2'going out. Because CO2 is currently increasing and temperatures have not yet caught up there is an imbalance of about 0.7W/m2 warming the system.
That is 100 * 0.7/240 =0.3% of the energy passing through the climate system. It is also enough to raise global temperatures by 0.18C/decade.
Entropic man
If conditions were stable... Climate is never stable, is constantly changing. But in the moronic world view change is unprecedented, is only negative, and can only be dealt with by windmills and CO2 control.
hunter
We may not have too long to wait as the Pause continues its way toward the 17 years that Trenberth says will bust the theory anyway.
Ha ha. Good One.
Phil Clarke
Phil Clarke 12:17, is that a bit of worthwhile climate science that you will be trying to save?
If you are happy for Oreskes to represent Climate Science as an expert authority, that doesn't really say very much for the rest. I think that is how Trump viewed it aswell, when he reviewed US Taxpayer funding for Climate Science.
golf charlie
Totalitoreskes.
==========
kim
Oreskes messes and misses in mishigas,
Her dybbuk is tabac, her technocrat grasp crass.
Her aspect is that of a perfect face false
Which blows ideogaskets left out of her gasp.
============
kim
Some of the discussion above seems to have forgotten/ignored 1. IR photons are absorbed and emitted by water molecules and ozone (as well as other less common components) and 2. IR photons interact with other atoms/molecules without being absorbed.
ACK
Kim
Ironoreskes.
Sorry not in the mood to try to compliment your poetry.
ACK
Kim. "bust an ideogusset" might have been more appropriate.
ACK
Phil Clarke
I think you're making that old denier mistake of confusing climate and weather. This is on the BBC website, so it must be right:
"Tokyo sees first November snow in 54 years"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38088036
"Residents of the Japanese capital were taken by surprise, as the temperatures around this time of the year usually range from 10C to 17C. It is the first time fallen snow has been seen on the ground in Tokyo in November since records started to be taken in 1875."
Schools have also been closed in Kazakhstan due to unusual early cold, China has experienced unusually early intense cold, and heavy snow is now battering the northern parts of North America,
Mark Hodgson
terroreskes