Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand
So the moronic strategy currently seems to be to talk about Venus and promote Oreskes as a way to defend the climate apocalypse. lol.
hunter
hunter. I'm waiting for someone to bring up the Mekon - perhaps to vanquish the Oreskes-spawn.
ACK
Martin A: you make a very persuasive argument; the only flaw is that the absolute quantity of CO2 on Venus is higher than it is on Earth, yet the temperature at Earth-equivalent pressure is what Earth’s temperature would be, with considerably less absolute CO2, were it the same distance from the Sun as Venus.
Similarly, the absolute quantity of CO2 on Mars is higher than the absolute quantity of CO2 in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, yet the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere at altitudes where the pressure is Mars-equivalent is what the temperature of Mars would be, were Mars to be the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is. Are these matching figures the result of truly bizarre coincidence, or could it be that the “greenhouse effect” (which is really a misnomer, as greenhouses principally limit convection rather than “trap” radiative heat) could be open for discussion?
The basic conclusion that Mr Huffman reached is that the temperature of a planet’s surface is dependent upon the planet’s distance from the principle energy source of the system, and the density of that planet’s atmosphere, with the components of that atmosphere having no relevance. All the data and calculations have been presented, and I have not seen anyone argue with those; most seem to immediately resort to ad hom, and declare him wrong, just because… well… he must be, right?
Radical Rodent
ACK, if The Mekon are a powerful Green House Gas, then The Miliband should propose Green taxation, so punitive, that they will be wiped out. This is well accepted and proven technology, for destroying traditional technologies so "alien" that The Miliband had no understanding of them at all.
golf charlie
I happen to think that comparison between Venusian and Earth atmospheres is premature. We may know something about Venusian temperatures and atmospheric compositions but we know practically nothing about its atmospheric dynamics. How do we explain a planet with more than hurricane force winds at the top of the cloud layer which diminish to stillstand at the poles? Where do these winds get their energy? Not from planetary rotation which is very slow (although it is interesting that both winds and rotation are retrograde). The poleward decrease in wind speed indicates shear, requiring a constant infusion of energy, but from where and does this energy come from and does this energy requirement influence the disputes you are having? I don't know and I don't believe anyone does.
ACK
golfCharlie. Get with it. Milliband is not in government, nor even in the shadow government. He has no authority over and above that of any other opposition MP.
The Mekon was green, but a powerful leader who would have blasted you, buddy, to smithereens.
ACK
ACK, the evil influence of The Miliband has spread from the UK, into the EU and USA. The much maligned but brave independence fighters from within the UK have led a popular UN-Green revolution, leading to a fresh sense of Independence in the USA, and the possible popularity of popular uprisings becomes more probable across the EU.
Miliband's contribution to getting the UK where it is today, by making himself unelectable as Prime Minister should not be underestimated, and was seen as unbeatable. Corbyn is rising to the challenge.
golf charlie
Yeah, Alan; gussets can be fussy. Beth'll know. One measure of Naomi Oreskes corruption is that she understood the limitations of climate models in the early '90s, even wrote an elegant analysis, yet, when the political opportunity arose to alarm and terrorize the populace, she took full advantage of it, more to the point, aggressively used, still using those tactics of totalitarianism.
===========
kim
Oh, and TNX for showing the thickness and texture of the veil over Venus so transparently.
==============
kim
Martin A: you make a very persuasive argument; the only flaw is that the absolute quantity of CO2 on Venus is higher than it is on Earth, yet the temperature at Earth-equivalent pressure is what Earth’s temperature would be, with considerably less absolute CO2, were it the same distance from the Sun as Venus.RR -Similarly, the absolute quantity of CO2 on Mars is higher than the absolute quantity of CO2 in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, yet the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere at altitudes where the pressure is Mars-equivalent is what the temperature of Mars would be, were Mars to be the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is. Are these matching figures the result of truly bizarre coincidence, or could it be that the “greenhouse effect” (which is really a misnomer, as greenhouses principally limit convection rather than “trap” radiative heat) could be open for discussion?
The basic conclusion that Mr Huffman reached is that the temperature of a planet’s surface is dependent upon the planet’s distance from the principle energy source of the system, and the density of that planet’s atmosphere, with the components of that atmosphere having no relevance. All the data and calculations have been presented, and I have not seen anyone argue with those; most seem to immediately resort to ad hom, and declare him wrong, just because… well… he must be, right?
Nov 24, 2016 at 12:58 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent
(which is really a misnomer, as greenhouses principally limit convection rather than radiative heat)
Yes, we all know that. The point has been made a million times.
But it's now the universally used name.
The French call fluorescent tubes "neons" but nobody worries about it. My car has a "radiator" although it loses heat by conduction to the air flowing through it, not by radiation.
most seem to immediately resort to ad hom, and declare him wrong, just because… well… he must be, right?
Well if someone repeatedly comes across as ... shall we say ... crackpot ... on other matters, that does not rule them out of being right about a different matter. But it does make one inclined to check what they say very carefully. It also greatly reduces the motivation to invest time in understanding what they have said. So that, if there seems to be a gap in their reasoning, many will loose interest at that point.
My recollection is that he said
[A] allowing for distance from the Sun, Earth and Venus would be at the same temperature where their atmospheres are at 1000 millibars (ie sea level on Earth)
[B] Therefore the greenhouse effect does not exist.
Maybe he explained how he got from [A] to [B] but if he did, I did not take it in.
Similarly, the absolute quantity of CO2 on Mars is higher than the absolute quantity of CO2 in the Earth upper atmosphere, yet the temperature of the Earth atmosphere at altitudes where the pressure is Mars-equivalent is what the temperature of Mars would be, were Mars to be the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is.
Yes. The same, to within some margin of error.
I think that Huffman mentioned his own margin of error but not the error that was in the data that he made use of.
So we have 96% absorption of surface radiation (Earth**) and 100% absorption (Venus***).
96% absorption and 100% absorption seem pretty close, even though they are the result of hugely differing absolute quantities of ghg's on the two planets. So perhaps in the same sort of range as the margin of error in Huffman's temperature estimates.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
** According to EM's graphic, if I have interpreted it right. A more authoritative source of data would be good.
*** Presumably.
Martin A
Martin A, Radical Rodent & many others
Could a change in the contents of the atmosphere cause earthly temperatures to get less cold in winter without producing hotter temperatures in summer? Martin A's comment about real greenhouses do trap heat in summer, but don't increase heat in winter or in summer at night, but they do decrease the rate of loss through convection.
I have not noticed UK summers getting hotter or drier in my 50+yrs, but I don't think it gets as cold.
I have never doubted the climate warms and cools over 10s-100s of years. I just don't think climate scientists have advanced the understanding of why.
golf charlie
Martin A: perhaps you could read what David Evans has been doing.
Oh, you are sure to have been told a million times that Isaac Newton was a devout believer in alchemy, yet his theories held sway for centuries, and many of his physical laws still hold.
One problem with an open mind is that no idea is dismissed out of hand, no matter how potty it might seem, and all ideas are open to question, no matter how “popular” they might be. It is a simple concept, but one that a lot of people seem to have trouble with (“You don’t believe him, do you?!” or – a favourite to raise hackles on this site: “It must be true, it was on the BBC.”).
Golf Charlie: you have a point, and one I cannot disagree with; my own observations are that, while summers are no warmer than I remember (and possibly even slightly cooler), winters are definitely not as cold.
I have never doubted the climate warms and cools over 10s-100s of years. I just don't think climate scientists have advanced the understanding of why.Fully in agreement with you, there!
Radical Rodent
One problem with an open mind is that no idea is dismissed out of hand, no matter how potty it might seem, and all ideas are open to question, no matter how “popular” they might be. It is a simple concept, but one that a lot of people seem to have trouble with
RR - life is too short to look into everything, so we all use intuition, prejudice, insight, potential payoff, call it what you wish, to make a division between things that justify spending time to understand and those which might have some validity but which it seems a better bet to let someone else invest the time and effort. And, if there really is something there, explain what the originator was on about in steps that can readily be followed.
"So there is no greenhouse effect. You have just proved that climate science is utterly wrong to think otherwise. This is the scandal that so many "experts" in climate science, and all the scientific authorities, will not face. Listen to the physicists that tell you there is no greenhouse effect; they know without having to go to the Venus data -- and I am one of them. The continuing incompetence on this vital point among so many scientists, for more than a century, is amazing, and tragic.Can you make sense of that? If so, please explain in simple steps so that we can all understand why the greenhouse effect is false.
(...)
There is no sign whatever of a greenhouse effect on either planet. The fact that the temperature ratios are so close to that predicted solely by their relative distances from the Sun tells us that both atmospheres must be warmed, overall, essentially in the same way, by direct IR solar irradiation from above, not by surface emissions from below. Keeping it simple, the atmospheres must be like sponges, or empty bowls, with the same structure (hydrostatic lapse rate), filled with energy by the incident solar radiation to their capacity to hold that energy.There is no greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace of carbon dioxide."
H D Huffman
[One thing I will agree with is that all warming is produced by direct incoming solar radiation. But that does not mean that the greenhouse effect is a hoax.
Martin A
OK - I think I get what he's saying:
[1] Earth and Venus seem to behave much the same so far as temperature vs. altitude is concerned.
[2] Venus has 96.5% CO2, Earth has just 0.04% CO2. That is a big difference, so if the greenhouse theory were correct, they could not have the same temperature vs.altitude profile. But they do, so the gh theory must be wrong.
But, as I have pointed out, the percentage CO2 (and other ghg's) is not relevant to anything. And from EM's graphic, it seems that ghg absoptions on Earth (96%) and on Venus (100%) is much the same. So Huffman's [2] above seems to be bollocks.
Martin A
Now find where Huffman factors in the different albedos of the two planets .....
Phil Clarke
So what it all boils down to is whether or not there is any environmental climate sensitivity (ECS) – i.e. how much temperatures will rise for each “doubling” of CO2 concentration (yes, you are in disagreement with most of the climate scientists – they DO consider that the concentration of CO2 is important, hence the fearmongering over rising CO2 levels). YOUR proposal is that the ECS is NIL, which is in conflict with much of climate science; the general consensus is that it is about 1°C, though there remain many who argue it is higher – some as high as 13°C. If any of these figures are correct, then the temperature on Venus should be at least 11°C higher.
As for keeping an open mind – yes, you are right: we do need to rely on our own intuition, but we have to keep in mind that we could be wrong, and don’t dismiss something just because it is against everything you previously believed in. Personally, I will accept any new idea, hypothesis or theory; this does not mean that I believe it, but will not consider or challenge it unless or until it might influence my life.
Radical Rodent
Martin A. I think both Huffman and you are both wrong as is demonstrated by a simple experiment that can be conducted on a calm clear night. The experiment was described by Roy Spencer. Extend your hand horizontally palm upward. After a few minutes turn hand over so that palm is now downward. You should eventually feel that when the palm is facing downwards it feels warmer from re-radiated energy (now infrared) from the ground. If you have a wall that was heated by the sun, it also re-radiates its energy as IR as can be detected by your own personal IR detector. These effects are much less evident on overcast nights (even those following sunny days). This is because the clouds intercept upwelling IR radiation, absorbing it, so less of it passes through the atmosphere to be lost to space. This interferes with the IR gradient away from the surface and the ground and lowermost atmosphere feels warmer. So the atmosphere is not only warmed by direct radiation from the sun. It is also warmed by radiated energy from everything on the Earth, including the atmosphere itself. Clouds absorb IR but also emit it.
ACK
Alan - I agree with much of what say, but I am not sure why you think I am wrong about something or other.
I have an infra-red temperature measuring gadget (bought at Lidl, I think) and it is fun to point it at the sky (cloudy and cloudless), walls and so on. It claims to have a range -40°C to 220°C. When I point it at something whose temperature I know, it seems surprisingly accurate. It gives results just like what you described when pointed at clear sky, cloudy sky, walls, the ground.
So the atmosphere is not only warmed by direct radiation from the sun. It is also warmed by radiated energy from everything on the Earth, including the atmosphere itself.
Er, yes, obviously.
When Huffman says that that is not so, it's more bollocks. I misread what he was saying when I said I agreed with what he said.
Mind you, clouds being warmed by radiation from the ground is not the same thing as pointing out that the ground itself is not warmed by radiation reflected back to it from clouds. The energy absorbed in the ground from so-called back radiation is energy that was already in the ground, left it and returned a microsecond or so later.
Martin A
Perhaps a better example would be what I witnessed a few years ago, in the Arabian Gulf – after a clear, cloudless, moonless and totally windless night, I slipped on ice, even though the air was warm enough that my usual attire for the area was sufficient for me not to feel cold. I do recall being told at school that some sultans had a courtyard surrounded be high walls, and floored with dark tiles, which they would flood at night, and harvest the ice in the morning. I have never seen that corroborated, since.
Interestingly, it is replicable. All you need is a desert (plenty of those, still, even if they might be reducing), well away from any potential effects of UHI, and a clear, cloudless, moonless night. Surround a patch of land with a wall, to simulate no air movement, ensure that there is some shallow standing water, and leave overnight. Obviously, to improve the scientificacity (ooh, I’ve made up a new word!) of the experiment, you will need certain measuring instruments – including, but not limited to, thermometer(s) and anemometer(s) whatever might be used to measure humidity (Note: it is important to have very low absolute humidity, to minimise the effect of water). If ice forms, then it does throw doubt on the theory of CO2 re-radiating the heat back.
One advantage with this set-up is that, if the ambient wind level is low (preferably zero), you could also increase the CO2 concentration within the enclosure, using the feature of the density of CO2 being denser (i.e. heavier) than air, thus simulating a high-CO2 atmosphere, and testing the “greenhouse effect” further.
Another advantage is that it would not be an overly-expensive experiment to set up, though it may take a bit of time, waiting for optimum conditions.
I would dispute that the atmosphere is warmed by radiation. Some radiation will cause some warming, but I would moot that most warming of the air is by conduction when in contact with surfaces (principally the ground) that have been heated by solar radiation, and then carried away by convection – a process that is powerful enough to loft heavy-than-air objects to high altitudes. The heat radiated from the ground at night is merely the residual energy gained during the day, which is why air temperatures only become noticeably cooler some time after sunset, after it has been surrendering its heat gained during the day by conduction as it flows over surfaces; very little is re-radiated back.
Radical Rodent
We agree, but my post was inspired by a desire to refute your statement that
"One thing I will agree with is that all warming is produced by direct incoming solar radiation". (5.05pm)
This clearly is wrong as you later acknowledge -
"So the atmosphere is not only warmed by direct radiation from the sun, it is also warmed by radiated energy from everything on the Earth, including the atmosphere itself.
Er, yes, obviously." (7.39pm)
ACK
Previous post should have been directed to Martin A
ACK
RR. I do not understand your reasoning. You ascribe heat loss from the surface (and ice formation) to convection? But you already told us that the air felt warm. How does the desert achieve such magic - convecting heat away from a cold area towards a warmer one, and removing latent heat to boot? My experience in deserts is that heat is lost by radiation. I have experienced vertical rock walls radiate their heat towards me. This cannot be convection.
If I can experience the effects of IR why shouldn't the atmosphere?
ACK
RSS has reestablished The Pause.
So Phil, can we please ask again for the explanation of a cooling trend when it emerges after the impossible period of temperature stasis that we currently enjoy?
ssat
ssat, I am sure Phil Clarke would oblige, but unfortunately expert Climate Scientists have blown trillions of Taxpayer's money already, and have completely blown the trust and confidence placed in them.
It will be upto 3% of climate scientists with any remaining credibility, and those with expertise outside of the disastrous wreckage of climate science, to resolve why the planet warms and cools.
Any country bumpkin could tell you that fighting nature is normally wasted effort. Working with nature and taking preventative/mitigation action is normally worthwhile though.
golf charlie
RR - No offence taken. It's just not the sort of thing I would normally think of claiming. (" I am sure that you have assured us that you retain an open mind")
concentration really does not matter
That's right. What does matter is the absolute quantity of ghg's, not their proportion.
Although the absolute quantity of ghg's present in the Earth's atmosphere is relatively small, it is still sufficient to result in 90% of outgoing radiation being absorbed without making it to space (according to the graphic provided by EM). If you could double the amount of O2 and N2 (but keeping CO2 and H2O the same) that would halve the concentration of ghg's. But, because the absolute quantity of ghg's had not changed, the absorption of longwave radiation would not change.
when the concentration is less than 1%, they will absorb 90% of outgoing radiation;
As I said, the concentration is irrelevant. The absolute quantity of ghg's in the Earth's atmosphere (which happens to be less than 1% of the total content of the atmosphere) is evidently sufficient to absorb 90% of outgoing radiation, according to the EM-provided graphic.
when the concentration is 99%, they will absorb just 99% of outgoing radiation.
To repeat again, the percent concentration does not matter. If the atmosphere were pure (=100%) CO2 at 1/1,000,000 of 15 pounds per square inch, very little outgoing radiation would be absorbed.
If the atmosphere were pure CO2 at 15 psi at sea level, essentially all outgoing longwave would be absorbed.
But both examples would be at 100% CO2. - illustrating how *concentration* of ghg's is not relevant to how much outgoing is absorbed.
_________________________________________________________________________________
And just to reiterate th key point about Earth/Venus. If EM's graphic is to be believed, Earth's atmosphere and Venus's are not very different in their capacity to prevent radiation from the surface making it to space even though their percent CO2 differ hugely.