Entropic man: ooh, I am glad you raised that subject again… (stop groaning, you at the back!)

Just to recap, the “Environmental Climate Sensitivity” (ECS) is a measure of how much the temperature of the atmosphere will rise for every doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It remains the subject of a great deal of debate, and has not yet been determined, though there are claims that it could be anywhere between <1°C and 8°C, though there are hypotheses that it could be as high as 13°C. Should the Earth move as close to the Sun as Venus presently is, the increased concentration of solar radiation would raise the temperature of the atmosphere, in its present constitution, to about 66°C.

Is there any part of this, so far, that you can disagree with?

If the answer is no (which it should be, as much of it is what you have told me), let’s carry on…

Venus has long been known to have an atmosphere, and was the focus of a lot of investigation, with satellites being sent to it fairly early in our space programmes. The first to descend towards its surface was crushed by the intense pressure of the atmosphere before it even reached the surface. Since then, it has been determined that the surface pressure on Venus is about 90 times that of Earth, with temperatures similarly higher (~467°C); it has also been determined that the constitution of the Venusian atmosphere is about 97% CO2. A lot of people have claimed (and still claim, who knows?) that this high concentration of CO2 is why the Venusian surface temperatures are so high – “It’s the runaway greenhouse effect!” Others disagree. Some have gone as far as investigating the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere at altitudes where the pressure is at Earth-equivalent (for brevity, let’s refer to it as 1 atmosphere, or 1 at.); there, they have made the startling discovery that it is 66°C – the same as the Earth’s surface temperature would be, were it the same distance from the Sun! What has become of environmental sensitivity? 97% is a little over 11 doublings of our present CO2 concentration; why is the temperature not at least 11°C higher?

“Ah,” you will say, “that is because of the albedo effect!” Good point, though suspiciously coincidental that it should just so happen to lower the temperature from whatever it “should” be to what Earth’s would be. Can planetary albedo reduce atmospheric temperatures by at least 11°C, or as much as 143°C? Figures I have seen in papers about Earth’s albedo and its effects on surface temperatures suggest not, as they indicate that its effects are just small decimals of a degree, at most. However, Mr Huffman’s calculations, which he has made freely available to all and sundry (and are, I shall admit, way beyond my comprehension, even though I am not a blonde – but I have seen no-one else take them apart, either), take into account albedo, and he has found that it has no effect whatsoever, thus can be discounted. His conclusions are that it is not the composition of planetary atmosphere that determines the surface temperatures, but the distance of the planet from the principle energy source within the system (in our case, the Sun), and the density of that atmosphere. Quite why that is in denial of the second law of thermodynamics you will have to explain very, very carefully to me.

Oh, and please note: I have NEVER said that there has been no warming since the Little Ice Age; the evidence for that is pretty substantial. In fact, I have often expressed my gratitude that it has happened, and prefer that it continue to warm, rather than start to cool. However, it should also be noted that the longest-running temperature record (Central England Temperatures, or CET) does show the temperature rise to be pretty much negligible.

Thank you, Mr Clarke. However, I would have thought that a rise of less than 1°C over 230 years could be considered pretty negligible, especially as we are told to be aware (and fearful) of a rise of up to 4 times that in the next 80 years. As an aside, it would be interesting to know how “homogenised” those temperatures are.

You should also note that Mr Huffman was aware of the clouds, and suggested that they might be why there was a small anomaly in the temperature equivalents in the given table; the results with all other levels of pressure were remarkably consistent.

By the way, have you worked out why he started at the altitude where the pressure was 1 at., and then only went higher?

Is that your best attempt at cherry-picking? Do try harder – there must be far more dramatic examples in there…

Oh, yes… and what about the early start to the skiing in Europe, this year, or the “dump” of snow causing mayhem in Stockholm? Two events I know you will dismiss as “weather not climate”, yet you cannot accept the same for a warm December – such is more “proof” of warming (panic!), not mere weather. (Odd how you choose to ignore the unusually cold December of 2010 (11?). That doesn’t fit your narrative, though, does it?)

Mr Clarke, please read the final paragraph of my Nov 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM post.

Entropic man: so, what is your explanation for the atmosphere of Venus where it is 1 at. being exactly the temperature that the Earth’s would be, were it the same distance from the principle source of energy in the system? Coincidence, perhaps? How do you explain that the same ratio covers the entire range of altitudes covering the lower pressures on Earth (with one anomaly, and a probable explanation)? Yet more coincidence? Why, assuming that the ECS is actually 1°C, is the temperature not 11°C warmer? Because albedo has reduce it by exactly that amount? And you do not consider that another suspicious coincidence – especially as research on this planet show albedo has very little effect on our own temperatures?

As Martin A pointed out in that thread, 100% of all received energy is eventually radiated out to space, else the temperature will rise indefinitely. What part of the solar spectrum contains the most energy? If memory serves me right, it is the infra-red end, hence we have infra-red cameras to find hot-spots in many uses. What is the spectrum of the reflected radiance from Venus? Logic leads to it being the higher end, as it is known that the lower wavelengths tend to have greater penetration into various surfaces.

Entropic man: said with such confidence but not one shred of evidence. Are you truly suggesting that this equivalent-temperature-at-the-same-pressure thing between the two planets is actually a coincidence? Amazing… Of course, any research that has shown that albedo has little effect on surface temperatures is obviously wrong, too, though I doubt you will have evidence for that, either.

Oh dear, indeed.