Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/21/the-real-war-on-science/#more-22532
Interesting views from a scientist who understands science, and the damage caused by climate science on politics and vice versa.
golf charlie
golfCharlie. On my report as well. My wife, early in our marriage, got access to my old school reports. She fell about when she read "7% - Seems to have given up trying". She has never forgotten it and periodically brings it up in conversation to my embarrassment. School reports should be destroyed before they can do much harm, but my granddaughter's is electronic.
ACK
Entropic “Your Nov 25th 6.12pm post is impressive. I agree with every item on your fact list, but would doubt some of your conclusions.”
My conclusion was that there is a GE and that is caused merely by the average height of radiation lifting from the surface as the composition of the atmosphere changes. Those facts you agree with are sufficient to support that hypothesis. You don't agree with my hypothesis because you believe that further complexity is involved to create a GE that fits another narrative. You go on to explain that complexity in action and which produces effects that aren't proven but are expected. However, as we both acknowledge the existence of a GE, we wait to see the outcome. My money is on AGW = benign.
On Trenberth: well you know why that elicits comment, mostly derision, as you have heard it many times before.
If I may return your compliment: I admire your tenacity in the face of the opposition you are subject to here. It too is impressive.
__________________________
ACK "I haven't yet thought it through yet but it seems to me that the whole process of longwave radiation upward through the atmosphere and into space fits the thermodynamic definition of work being done."
Insolation is the work done. What you describe is work having been done. For any instant of equilibrium, energy in = energy out. It is not energy in = some doings + energy out. You can't count it twice. The energy, once out of the system, goes on to warm the cockles of space (T^4 = 53degK) doing the work as was its destiny before it was intercepted by Earth (T^4 = 4,228,250,625degC).
My point is that it is easy to get side-tracked by conflating time related processes within the system having an effect on GE itself - those processes as described by Entropic. It is just as valid to consider that an increase in CO2 causes an instantaneous change in height of radiation to space as is the current idea of a lag in that response. The evidence for the former is seen in the desert night as that height plummets and vice versa in the desert day.
ssat
Radical rodent ,ssat
The idea of a thought experiment is to set up a hypothetical situation and apply the laws of physics as you see them to deduce what will happen.
Please do so. I would learn a lot about how you view physics from your prediction of the balloon's behaviour.
Entropic man
ssat
We seem to agree halfway.
The observed lapse rate is -9C/km. That means that a warming of 1C at the surface would require the radiating height to increase by 1/9km or 110m.
The minimum temperature level corresponding to the radiating height (effectively the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere) has been observed since the 19th century from manned balloons and then unmanned balloons and aircraft. IIRC the change in radiating height since the 1880s is 5 hectopascals, equivalent to 45m.
That accounts for 100* 45/110=41% of the 1C observed warming. The remaining 59%% comes from downwelling radiation, which your hypothesis fails to account for at all.
Entropic man
Ssat. Still trying diversions. Why not try answering my questions? I question your bold statement that outgoing IR radiation can do no work and have given several examples where work is done, which you have either ignored or given incorrect explanations for. You want to focus on the important question of AGW, but IMO get some basic physics wrong. I like Ravishing Rattie's answer best - the outward IR flux can do work, but finds little to do except in special circumstances. I am not convinced she is right, but at least she made a genuine attempt to provide an answer.
ACK
EM. Indeed ssat would have it that upwelling IR can do no work, so if any of it is scattered (some becoming downwelling radiation) this can do nothing at all either, it is "spent", you can't count it twice and all that tosh.
ACK
I would learn a lot about how you view physics from your prediction of the balloon's behaviour.And this is where you and I differ, so much: I make no prediction about the balloons’ behaviour, as I have no idea how these balloons will behave. I do not even surmise how they will behave, to observe to see if I am right; as I have no preconceptions of the results, there is nothing that I can be right or wrong about. You, however, already “know” how they will behave, and, with that foreknowledge, might even be able to adjust the experiment so that you get the results you expect; who knows? As I have no idea what the results will be, I would merely set up the experiment, and observe. The results should speak for themselves. That is my understanding of Science; perhaps you will tell me where I am going wrong?
Radical Rodent
Entropic The remaining 59%% comes from downwelling radiation, which your hypothesis fails to account for at all.
Exactly wrong! If you double count the radiation you get the wrong answer. My hypothesis accounts for that. Your 59% is natural variation. Or looking at it another way, your acceptance of 59% from downwelling radiation excludes the possibility of natural variation.
By your numbers, the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by the 45m increase. We agree! I'm putting my money on the 59% being natural. Why don't we leave it there and wait and see :)
ssat
I find it informative to look at worst case scenarios when checking theories.
Direct: light from the sun can cause heating - see solar power stations in the desert, sunlight reflected with mirrors produce great temperatures.
Indirect: Sunlight landing on the earths surface, warming the surface, generating IR, can warm objects (hands etc as above).
If we disregard power density, it clearly can be seen that direct sunlight and IR from a warm ground *could* do some useful work if we had working technology.
To prove a point, you could have a thermocouple, the 'hot' sensor near the earths warm surface, the 'cold junction/sensor' could be 100 metres higher. This would generate a voltage and could do some work if a current flowed through a motor.
The temperature gradient would be so low in this case that the output power would be negligible, but there would be power/work done. (just like a nuclear powered satellite power source)
Can unimpeded IR, flowing from the warm earths surface to space be classed as 'doing work'?
My current definitions of work would say no, its just a very diffuse, low grade energy flow that currently can not be utilised by humans.
Steve Richards
I find it informative to look at worst case scenarios when checking theories.
Nov 27, 2016 at 12:59 PM | Steve Richards
A lack of evidence is also informative!
golf charlie
There is one serious flaw in the argument of the climate “scientists” and that is that there should be balance in the energy flow. I would suggest that there is rarely ever a balance; there will almost always be an imbalance, hence, this planet has endured ice ages and periods of warmth we can only dream of. This can easily be demonstrated on a daily level: when the sun is up, the incoming energy grossly exceeds the outgoing energy; during the hours of darkness, this is reversed, with the outgoing energy exceeding the incoming – there is imbalance, and thus days tend to be warmer than nights.
Extend that to a year, and the incoming energy during the summer months exceeds the outgoing energy; during the winter months, this is also reversed – there is imbalance, and summers tend to be warmer than winters.
In both situations, we more or less understand what is happening (even if we might not know the exact details), and accept that there is nothing we can do about it except adapt (i.e. doff clothes in summer; don clothes in winter). For the longer term situation, though, we do not fully understand what is happening, yet – for some truly bizarre reason – we are being told that it is entirely our fault, and that we can actually do something about it – just send money, and it will be sorted for us.
Ri-i-i-i-ight…
What makes it even more bizarre is that those who have been suckered into this scam feel the need to bully those more savvy into following the creed. At long last, the end of this Great Delusion is hoving into sight.
Radical Rodent
Ravishing Rattie. We keep having these discussions about how science is done.
"I would merely set up the experiment, and observe. The results should speak for themselves". But why would you set up the experiments as they are proposed? EM designed his experiments to demonstrate that his understanding of how GH gasses behave was correct. If his predictions of the outcomes of the experiments proved correct then he now can have a stronger belief that his understanding of the role GMGs play is correct. His experiments were clever in that they could, at the same time, disprove alternative hypotheses.
It is a pity EM called them "thought experiments" because they are not like Einstein's experiments. You cannot get the answer simply by thinking about them. True you could apply what knowledge of physics you have into making predictions. But here EM cheated because he designed the experiments to demonstrate what he predicted would be the outcome and what could be disproven. Cheating is too strong a word, he designed his experiments to produce expected outcomes. Of course if the experiments were conducted and outcomes were different he would have to revise his accepted theories somewhat smartish.
Experiments are always designed to produce expected outcomes. You never just sit back, take observations and then construct a theory to explain them. You didn't design EM's experiments and are therefore unlikely to be able to make predictions, unless you understand why he designed them the way he did.
ACK
Steve Richards
"Can unimpeded IR, flowing from the warm earths surface to space be classed as 'doing work'?
My current definitions of work would say no, its just a very diffuse, low grade energy flow that currently can not be utilised by humans".
I don't believe that the ability of an energy flow to be used by humans comes into the either the physics or thermodynamic definition of "work". I have never stated that the flow can do "usable work" which I think is what your definition refers to. I believe ssat and I are considering the scientific and not the practical definition
ACK
Yes, you do have a point, Minty. The only part I would argue with is this: “… if the experiments were conducted and outcomes were different he would have to revise his accepted theories somewhat smartish.” As a true alarmist, I suspect he will not revise any of his theories, but will attempt to adjust readings to suit or, failing that, declare the experiment null and void.
Mind you, I do like the idea of constructing those scenarios, just to see what the results would be…
By the way, I think you and ssat are on a hiding to nothing, as neither of you seems to understand what the other is saying: ssat seems to be defining work as noticeable whereas you define it as, shall we say, detectable. Now, as energy cannot be created or destroyed, then you are, in the strictest of definitions, correct, as, whichever way the energy is going, “work” is being performed. That the work is of little use is (I think) what ssat is driving at; the “work” was done by the insolation warming the planet; once here, the insolation turns to insolence, as the energy just kicks about, looking for trouble, and just saunters off when it can find none.
Radical Rodent
ACK & Radical Rodent
A simpler experiment is to ask people if it has got any warmer. Where are the hot dry summers that we were all assured were inevitable in the UK?
Without Gavin Schmidt's hand on the bulb of NASA's world thermometer, how will we know, months in advance that a year is going to break the previously Unprecedented records? It must be something unique about Global Warming, that the UK does not get warmer.
golf charlie
golfCharlie. Who should be asked to conduct your experiment - Oreskes or someone less trustworthy?
ACK
ACK, Oreskes is admired and respected by 97% of climate scientists.
97% of climate scientists are known to be wrong, 97% of the time. I think that is why they have lost the confidence of those paying their wages.
golf charlie
Ssat
The rise in radiative height and the downwelling radiation are separate aspects of the greenhouse effect. I don't think I am double counting, though I don't have enough expertise in radiative physics to be sure.
If I am double counting that leaves a problem. All the other measurable forcings add up to neutral or cooling . There is no n measurable natural variation which can explain that 0.59C.
ACK
I don't think my thought experiment is a cheat. As you said, if physics works as I expect they would behave as my hypothesis predicts.. If physics behaves as ssat expects, then they will behave as his hypothesis predicts.
If the greenhouse effect is radiative physics the balloon's would behave as I described. If ssat is right and the greenhouse effect is gravity/lapse rate/density driven, neither balloon would show a greenhouse effect.
I had hoped to get predicted behaviour from ssat or radical rodent, but they do not seem to think in terms of hypothesis testing.Nor have they suggested possible experiments. Instead I have to do their hypothesis testing for them.
Entropic man
Entropic man: I have said that the experiment that you suggested is an excellent idea; what is wrong with that? As a real test for the hypothesis, I think that performing that experiment is far, far better than just sitting down and thinking that you can make up some results based on what you know, so far, about physics. But, when performing your experiment, please bear in mind the words of Richard Feynman, in 1974: “…if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it…” Another way, one could suggest, that you should always be careful what you wish for.
Radical Rodent
Radical Rodent, if only Climate Scientists had actually tested their hypothesis that man made CO2 was going to cause unprecedented and dangerous Global Warming, before deciding it was a fact, they wouldn't have spent so much money looking for evidence that didn't exist.
golf charlie
EM. Calling your experiments "thought experiments" is a cheat because they are unlike the experiments considered by Einstein (which are what people would understand by this word combination). Thought experiments were those that couldn't ever be done. Einstein imagined the implications of travelling on a train close to the speed of light - something impossible. Your experiments could be done, it is also possible that you have not accounted for all the influences that might affect the outcomes. What you propose are excellent experiments which could produce your expected outcomes. But as Ravishing Rattie points out, you don't know the outcome. If you did, why propose the experiment?
Einstein did propose experiments that might be, in the future, carried out - like observing the transit of Venus to see if the Sun's mass would deflect light. He did not call them "thought experiments".
ACK
EM. It occurred to me while rereading my last post to you that I might make a better analogy relevant to your work experience. When you were teaching you probably got your pupils to conduct experiments. To you they were not experiments because you had conducted them perhaps many times before - to you they were a "demonstration" of some scientific fact or principle. To your pupils they were experiments because, to them, the outcomes were unknown.
So the question is: are you so confident about the physics behind your "thought experiments" that you could call them "demonstrations"?
ACK
ACK
My two balloon experiment was designed to test ssat's hypothesis that gravity and an atospheric gradient were necessary components of the greenhouse effect.
My hypothesis is that the radiative physics of CO2 is sufficient.
The two hypotheses predict different results. If ssat is correct the two balloon will warm equally. If I am correct the balloon with CO2 will warm more. Sinc the only difference between the balloon's is the CO2 other factors have been controlled for.
Since there is other strong evidence for my hypothesis, yes I am confident that the experiment would behave as I predicted.
Entropic man
ACK "There's a world of difference between cannot do work and doesn't do (much) work." I am sure that was on one of my school reports ....!
"In Climate Science, they have had all the money, trying to prove a theory, that cannot work, and won't be paid to carry on failing to do any useful work", appears to be the end of year report on Climate Science, now sitting with Donald Trump.