Rhoda: A lot of radiative theory requires that CO2 re-emits. Thus DWIR.

It does but not until that re-emission escapes to space does it matter. It is then replaced immediately. Think steady-state, not equilibrium. The surface temperature (degrees K) is at the magnitude needed to feed IR (Watts) into the atmosphere to maintain its volume via temperature (degrees K). Conversion to temperature is via collision induced absorption of Watts. Collision induced radiation (same link I gave you earlier) reverses that conversion so the Watts travel to space.

DWIR has no ability to do any work: it cannot and does not raise the altitude of atmospheric mass via expanding the atmosphere. That work is done by IR emitted from the *surface. The atmosphere is aglow with IR constantly being replaced as it is lost. Whichever way you look with eyes that can see in the absorption/emission bands the glow would be like a light mist. Its travelling in all directions but the flow is, of course, outward.

* As Martin A states: it is the surface that warms the atmosphere.

ssat. It always seemed to me that it didn't matter how many conversions/collisions/state changes happened. A given photon, if we can imagine such a thing, will find its way out. The delay caused by 400ppm rather than 280ppm would be in microseconds.

I leave it to EM to invent the solar cell that works on DWIR, 384 w/m2(?) ALL THE TIME. That's in his free time after measuring a 45 metre change in TOA height. Except it isn't the top of the atmosphere and it doesn't have a consistent height being subject to all sorts of influences.

Rhoda, yes, microseconds is the correct order of magnitude. For that reason it is quite difficult to accept another theory which has the altitude of outgoing radiation increasing without taking its temperature with it. The result is outgoing radiation reduces - yer actual 'trapped heat'.

"it is the surface that warms the atmosphere" yes but, but... most of the atmosphere doesn't come into contact with the surface. It is only that bit of the atmosphere that is in contact with the surface that is heated by it. Heat must be transferred from this part of the atmosphere by other means - convection and conduction (molecule to molecule).

Martin A. Yes, yes, yes, but the important thing is that these heat transmission systems are cooling the lower atmosphere and warming the upper parts. You warm the lower atmosphere by reducing the effectiveness of the heat transmission away to space.

Martin A. Whatever name, it is important to understand that the energy continually created is what keeps the Earth's atmosphere from collapse. That would be the case if the atmosphere was pure nitrogen or as it is composed now. DWIR is merely an observation of an atmosphere containing radiative gases but has been assumed to be driver when it is only passenger.

Martin A

Dynamic equilibrium it is! :-)

I wonder if the sceptics who claim that "There is no equilibrium" are thinking of static equilibrium. Rhoda and Jiminy Cricket raised the point that we cannot have complete information on the climate system, but it does not matter. Sit outside on a pleasant Summer afternoon and you feel every cloud shadow, every thermal, every gust of wind. Nevertheless these short term variations damp out and it remains a pleasant Summer afternoon.

Once again, previous training helps. Many biological processes are dynamic equilibria. Maintaining a constant temperature is a constant balancing act as your body adjusts second by second to variations in heat loss and heat production. To a biologist or a medic dynamic equilibria and the feedback systems that control them are part of the standard toolkit.

An engineer designing bicycles, aircraft or any dynamic systems would also have a similar toolkit.

Reading across to similar concepts in climate comes naturally.

As you have seen, I struggle with some mathematical and scientific concepts because they are not part of my toolkit. They come more naturally to you because they are part of your toolkit.

EM, the principle that doing X will lead to Y is well established in science. Sometimes, stopping X or, doing Z can fix, or reduce the anount or consequences of Y.

For Doctors, Engineers and most Scientists, this is clearly understood, especially when human lives and/or lots of money is involved.

Climate Science still depends on the same Science to justify stopping X and doing Z, without any proof or evidence that Y is happening, or that it is caused by X. As a Country Bumpkin, I can work this out, I do not need to be a Scientist.

Climate Science is dependent on fudged data. I would have failed my O Level Physics if I did that.

Dung, don't forget that CS works both ways. A low-side perturbation will cause a runaway low, or a flop to a lower equilibrium point. There does seem to be a way to achieve a low state for long periods. The same high side excursion doesn't seem to be very fearsome. We won't cook, we will freeze.

We won't cook, we will freeze.

Mar 16, 2017 at 4:06 PM | rhoda

Flocks of deep frozen, climate change chickens, are coming home to roost.

Dung don't give climate scientists any credit. Even if they got their act together, the climate will do what it wants to (unless we really screw up with geoengineering).

unless climate scientists get their act together

Mar 16, 2017 at 5:40 PM | Dung

I don't think the Climate has ever shown any sensitivity towards consenting Climate Scientists, and what they have decided by excluding common sense.

Leopards can't change their spots. Climate Scientists can't change their minds about that Stick.

WUWT has another go at CS today. For me, it starts at the wrong place, going over various IPCC calculations, after taking the concept of CS for granted. Of course, I reject the concept, at least in terms of its ability to make a useful prediction.

A definition occurred to me.

Climate sensitivity is the measure of the change in a notional value ( the disputed Global Mean Temperature) in response to an alteration of only one of an unknown number of influences.

rhoda: "Climate sensitivity is the measure of the change in a notional value ( the disputed Global Mean Temperature) in response to an alteration of only one of an unknown number of influences."

That's pretty much the perfect description, although I would add: "It is a useful concept when you're trying to scare the bejasus out of everyone and the effect of CO2 doubling is a benign 1.2C."

As aa way of bumping this, a link to the previous similarly-named thread. Same questions, largely the same participants. We haven't made much progress in the intervening four years.

Ooops, link http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2063688

We haven't made much progress in the intervening four years.

Mar 20, 2017 at 12:17 AM | rhoda

Correction!
Climate Science has not made much progress, so Trump has provided some financial stimulation.

Climate Science's continued lack of progress can continue for as long as Climate Scientists can afford.

The top down approach has the advantage that you can see the wood, rather than having to measure every tree.

The simple answer is that the wood is the trees. The seasonal climate. The angle of the sun. The ancient paths of the animals. The angle of the slopes. The impact of humans. The impact of diseases. The impact of storms.

There is no Young's modulus for the climate "material" contained with any boundary defined for climate. It doesn't exist. No equivalent to tension, strain and modulus of some homogeneous climate material.

The wood is defined by what is within it. If you only see trees then you are blind.