Schrodinger's cat

Nice comment.

Perhaps climate sensitivity is our next sub-topic. I see that GC gas started us off.

We seem to agree on a lot of basic physics. Makes it easier to define where we disagree.

Belief? Not an act of faith but an acceptance that the AGW paradigm best explains the observations.You may have noticed my tendency to critique alternative theories by picking out the points on which they disagree with the rest of physics. I have spent years doing the same for AGW, but have struggled to find disagreements.

I have a granddaughter likely to get caught up in the shitstorm, so I wish that AGW was not happening. Unfortunately I see strong evidence and have been unable to shake it. Alas, I am not very good at self-deception. 😞

"The science is settled" is, of course, rubbish. The current paradigm is pretty solid, but there is endless detail to be discovered, and lots of surprises.

The proportion of GHGs is the same at all altitudes. What changes is density. In the troposphere they act as an insulator. At the tropopause they act as a radiator. Under constant CO2 conditions they would cancel out. In our current situation the extra CO2 we are producing has increased the insulating effect faster than the OLR.

Nitrogen and oxygen play very little part. They absorb almost nothing at relevant wavelengths and radiate almost nothing.

… the AGW paradigm best explains the observations.

Does it? Why, with CO2 levels rising, did temperatures fall for more than 30 years from 1945 – 78/9? Why, with CO2 levels rising, have temperatures more or less flat-lined, so far, throughout this century? How will you blame man-made CO2 when falling temperatures become impossible to ignore? Why are you so utterly unable to see that what has happened since the Little Ice Age is merely a repetition of what happened for the Mediæval Warm Period, what happened prior to the Roman Warm Period, what happened prior to the Minoan Warm Period? Why can you not accept that this is just part of a natural cycle, of which we have only just begun to study, and remain are a long, long way from comprehending? What is it about the unknown that so scare you, Entropic man? What catastrophe resulting from the slight warming we have observed can you imagine is likely to happen in your grand-daughter’s life? (BTW, there are many, many unpleasant scenarios that might arise within her lifetime, but I doubt any of them will have much to do with changing climates.)

Nitrogen and oxygen play very little part. They absorb almost nothing at relevant wavelengths and radiate almost nothing.

Precisely! Which is why we have the general climate we have, as these gases are warmed by conduction when in contact with surfaces heated by sunlight, and distribute this heat through the atmosphere by convection. It’s not exactly rocket science, is it? What “greenhouse” gases we have – with H2O being the most predominant one – help to cool us by radiating some of this heat to space (though clouds operate by shielding us during the day – hence, cloudy days are generally cooler – and trapping the heat by night – hence, cloudy nights tend to be warmer). Why do you ignore such a leviathan in the room?

Aug 16, 2017 at 12:04 PM | Radical Rodent
Remember this?

"Radical rodent, Supertroll ..."
"Physics lesson"
Aug 11, 2017 at 8:38 PM | Entropic man

Climate Science ignores History, otherwise the "Physics" of Climate Science doesn't work.

Climate Science had the opportunity to point out the MWP and LIA to Mann and the IPCC. It failed Science, and therefore Physics.

Aug 16, 2017 at 12:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

As you point out RR the CO2 theme doesn't fit the data we have. If the mechanism really is supposed to be the CO2 increases the radiation and therefore the surface temperature due to lapse rate there isn't even any lag in the temperature response. Therefore the theory is increase in CO2 increases the temperature everywhere immediately.

Also as you point out the clouds are a very dominant and strong classic negative feedback to changes in temperature and moderative higher and lower temperatures.

Radical rodent

There you are, global dimming due to increased post-WW2 industrial aerosol production increased albedo and decreased insolation. The result was a cooling effect which cancelled out the warming effect of increasing CO2.

With the increase in environmental awareness from the1970s aerosol production went down and measured warming resumed.

Stop thinking of CO2 as the only variable.

Why do you insist on treating the MWP and LIA as separate events and most of those studying Holocene climate change now regard them as part of a longer term cooling trend?

Rob Burton

There is lag. Land and air temperatures respond quickly to changes in forcing, but ocean heat content and temperature take decades to catch up.

If we are going to discuss climate sensitivity everyone will need to be clear about the meaning of forcing, fast feedbacks, slow feedbacks, transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).

Time for you to do some background reading, sir.

Why, with CO2 levels rising, have temperatures more or less flat-lined, so far, throughout this century?

Just swung by to see if is worth re-engaging.

Nope

Aug 17, 2017 at 12:10 AM | Phil Clarke

Is Entropic Man avoiding Mann's Hockey Stick in accordance with instructions?

You still have not justified Gergis "proving" Mann's Hockey Stick. If Gergis remains Climate Science's best hope of saving the Hockey Stick, you really should not have bothered.

Are you ready to accept that there was a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age? Entropic Man does, Mann refuses to acknowledge it, and William M Connolley has always supported Mann. Is this failed UK Green Party political dogma, being recycled?

Entropic man wrote, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:17 AM:

Belief? Not an act of faith but an acceptance that the AGW paradigm best explains the observations.

But it doesn't explain the observations at all. That's the whole point. A fully natural explanation involving the Sun and the coupled ocean-troposphere system fits the observations much better.

(...) I wish that AGW was not happening. Unfortunately I see strong evidence and have been unable to shake it.

Ok, so exactly what is this "strong evidence" that you see and find so compelling?

In our current situation the extra CO2 we are producing has increased the insulating effect faster than the OLR.

No, it obviously hasn't. There is no trace in the real-world observations of any increase in some postulated atmospheric radiative "insulating effect" causing global warming over the last 32+ years:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/gl-olr-vs-gl-tlt.png

The OLR simply follows (corresponds to) tropospheric temps over time.

In fact, what caused our current positive radiative imbalance at the ToA is a significant increase in ASR (solar heat (net SW, TSI minus albedo) to the Earth) from the 80s to the 90s, not a reduction in OLR. The OLR rather increases as well, a simple radiative effect of the rising temps, countering the positive imbalance somewhat:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/ersb-asr.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-olr.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-net-flux.png

" but ocean heat content and temperature take decades to catch up."

Why decades? I have always wondered why the bulk of the ocean is about 4C which is cooler than the core and the atmosphere. There is also I think about 1.4 billion cubic kilometres of ocean... so each of us has about 1/5 of a cubic kilometre to heat up with our own personal CO2 contribution.

"There is lag"

So you don't believe the radiation/lapse rate effect then? What are you talking about with 'forcing'? As it seems cloud cover dropped at the end of the 20th century why don't you think that caused the warming of the oceans/air.

I can see how the sun can heat the ocean but not how a slight increase in surface air temp can. And obviously an increase in downwards IR can't if you believe that is happening.

My current idea is to focus the DWLIR (which of course doesn't rely on direct sunlight) to make solar cells work at night.
That and the wind-powered cars ought to do it. Or dig a hole to get the best underground temps and a pipe to up there where it's cold and put a turbine in between.

Of course non-believers will still be allowed to use fossil fuels.

. so each of us has about 1/5 of a cubic kilometre to heat up with our own personal CO2 contribution.

Aug 17, 2017 at 1:22 PM | Rob Burton

Thank you for putting it into perspective!

The BBC likes to use "Olympic Size Swimming Pool" as a standard unit of measurement of water. 50m long × 25m wide × 2m deep

To cover a square kilometre with Olympic Size Swimming Pools (2m deep) would require 800.

To fill that square kilometre to a fifth of a kilometre , would require 200 m depth, or the depth of 100 Olympic Size Swimming Pools.

Each of us has to heat 80,000 Olympic Size Swimming Pools with CO2.

Rhoda your geothermal-stratospheric pipe plus turbine will of course work intermittently on the moon between shade and sunlit parts. Perhaps greens could be converted to greys and shipped there to luxuriate in this so clean energy source.

@em et al, Here is a link to the document describing the standard atmosphere:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539.pdf

In it you will find some interesting data. Before I point out a number of interesting figures and equations....

CO2 does not figure in any equation what so ever. CO2 is mentioned as the 4th most common gas in the atmosphere.

Atmosphere is assumed to be dry.

Below 86km the gas mix is irrelevant, above 86km it is significant.

The standard effectively uses two methods to determine the nature of the atmosphere: Molecular scale and kinetic temperature.

Molecular scale calculations run from 0km to 84.520km in 7 layers, which operate using ideal gas laws without referring to gases in play. Input a height to obtain the average temperature at that height.

Kinetic temperature DO need to understand the make up of the atmosphere from 86km up to 1000km in 4 layers.

The gases used in the equations are:

N2 - becomes significant above 115km
O
O2
Ar
He
H

The mix of above gases are not significant below 86km, above 86km individual gases become significant.

Page 22 contains graphs indicating monthly temperatures at 60km peak in June, at 90km they peak in December. Is this worldwide?

Page 23 shows mean annual temperature at 40km, decreases with latitude, fair enough you say, but, at 60km it increase with latitude!

The standard appears to suggest that atmospheric temperature is determined by height/pressure/gravity up to 86km then by direct solar effects upon specific gases above 86km.

So many contradictory events occurring above us.

So what does this tell me?

That the simple concept used by warmists that atmosphere is homogeneous, that the 33C degree difference is an issue, that the lapse rate is a constant, that the earth is a black body with albedo, that CO2 trumps H2O is unproven.

There seems much to analyse in the upper atmosphere and how it affects surface weather/climate.

There seems to be many assumptions in climate science that do not survive close inspection.

....and the air-brushing from history of the ice age scare of the 1970s.

Aug 17, 2017 at 1:12 AM | Radical Rodent

That is a bit unfair on air brushes.

Trump has called for a Red Team v Blue Team approach. Political colours vary either side of the Atlantic, but the Green Wing of the Hockey Team seem to have compromised the credibility of Climate Science beyond redemption.

Meanwhile, back at the thread .......

"The proportion of GHGs is the same at all altitudes. What changes is density. In the troposphere they act as an insulator. At the tropopause they act as a radiator. Under constant CO2 conditions they would cancel out. In our current situation the extra CO2 we are producing has increased the insulating effect faster than the OLR."
Aug 16, 2017 at 12:17 AM | Entropic man

Was this change in the properties of GHGs known about at the time of Mann's Hockey Stick?

The problem I have and have always had with GE theory is that, whatever the mechanism of GE, there has to be a time delay between energy received and lost in order to upset any perceived status quo.

But

Each new day resets the status quo as the hemisphere basks in the sunshine. Until then it had been cooling – despite back radiation (DWIR). It now warms, clearly powered by solar radiation. That warming will continue until energy loss is equal to energy gain which will be at some time after the zenith hour and before dusk.

So GE is about rate of cooling. Cooling, energy loss, is 24 hour.

GE theory claims two plausible explanations;

a) With increasing GHG, the average escape altitude for energy is rising through the troposphere as temperatures fall. Lower temperatures reduce outgoing radiation – therefore a time delay. The new day starts at an elevated level of energy.

b) With increased GHG, the average escape altitude at this new status quo is greater than previously. Via the lapse rate, this translates to warmer temperatures at all altitudes below it.

We now have a second time delay – radiating temperature lagging behind radiating altitude. A warming world (a) and a warmed world (b).

If, in (a), the warming world becomes the warmed world within 24 hours, then explanation (a) is immaterial. Of course, this is the case: the energy received has thermalised.

So, every day has 12 hours of warming and 12 hours of cooling. With increased GHG, every day is a little warmer.

But is it?

The lapse rate determines temperatures below the average escape altitude. The lapse rate is formed by the GHG (quiet at the back). The lapse rate is modified by atmospheric water vapour. Water vapour effects cloud. Cloud affects reflectivity.

So, to prove that increasing Co2 automatically leads to increased surface temperatures, it has to be proved that Co2 increases the lapse rate and/or decreases cloud reflectivity. I haven't seen that.

Rob Burton

I've a busy weekend coming so you won't hear much from me for a few days.

Seawater gets denser as it cools to 4C and then less dense as it cools to Its freezing point. (which is why ice floats).

It is mostly warmed from the top. The result is that it stratifies with the warmest water at the surface and 4C water at the bottom.

There is some mixing. Wind moves the surface water around and churns up the upper 700metres. The thermohaline circulation moves the deep water around.

Don't belittle the temperature change. It took 3×10^22Joules/year to warm 1.4 billion cubic km by 0.02C. That is about 1 million times more energy than our civilization's current energy budget. AGW has increased our ability to influence Earth's energy flow by six orders of magnitude.

Visible light warms the upper 50m and turbulence carries the into the upper 700m, and then through the thermocline into deeper water.

Ocean warming by DWLWR is an indirect two stage process.

DLWR is absorbed by the top few mm, warming the surface and the air immediately above it.
This warm film then acts as a barrier slowing heat loss from below the surface.

The ocean ends up warmer, not because DWLR warms much but because it slows cooling.

Ssat

The chain of reasoning runs as follows.

Increased CO2 increases the number of IR photons circulating in the troposphere.

This increases the number of IR photons absorbed by the surface, increasing its temperature.

Evidence for both of these is a measured increase in DWLR.

Increased surface temperature resets the altitude of the tropopause through the lapse rate.

Read earlier posts here. The lapse rate is due to PV=nrT and g. The greenhouse effect and AGW influence the temperatures at either end and the height of the tropopause.

Be careful of oversimplified models of the atmosphere. Simple lapse rate models don't work. There are three levels at which the atmosphere gains energy and two levels at which it loses energy.

At the surface visible light warms the surface and the bottom of the atmosphere. The atmosphere then cools in accordance with the lapse rate to the tropopause at 12km where most of the surface heat radiates away.

The next heat absorbing layer is the ozone layer absorbing UV at 40km. The stratosphere shows a reversed lapse rate as heat conducts downward between 45m and 12km.

Above 40km the atmosphere cools as per lapse rate to 80km, where more O2/UV absorbtion and interaction warm the atmosphere again.

Thus the atmospheric temperatures gradiant cools from surface to tropopause, warms through the the stratosphere, cools through the mesosphere and warms in the thermosphere.

Some very good points made in the above comments. I believe that alarmist climate scientists are losing credibility for a number of reasons.

A paper at Climate Etc concludes that the recent Arctic warming is nothing special. It went through a cooling phase before that and a warming phase before that... Just before the Bronze Age it was warmer than it is today. That is just the latest in a long line of similar findings.

I get the rather worrying impression that climate scientists now regard climate models as the reality and observations as some sort of aberration to be corrected by applying algorithms based on the models.

The alarmism is losing its power to scare people. Gore's latest film has flopped and even the biased BBC seemed unimpressed. The millions of papers warning of climate related catastrophes of every description are running out of steam, ideas and enthusiasm. The papers supporting the demonisation of carbon dioxide are diminishing too. They still can't explain the pause, find the missing heat or the tropical hotspot. Other papers are appearing with increasing frequency, discussing the importance of natural climate variability and solar effects.

Global warming has gone flat in every sense and scientists and the public are getting bored with it. However, this is just my perception. Those whose fame, reputations and incomes depend on the alarmism are never going to give up. The same goes for thousands of academics who mistakenly thought it was all peer reviewed when in fact, much of it was pal reviewed. The establishment is still committed to the entire idea of saving the planet.

But the main player in all of this is Mother Nature. Only she knows whether the next trend will be warming, cooling or continuation of the pause. I'm convinced that the oceans warm the atmosphere, not the other way round. At the moment they are cooling.

RR. So many questions, you'll give EM indigestion. So I'll help him out. You quite correctly criticize his "quite touching faith" that we can measure the entire temperature of the 1.4 billion cubic kilometres of oceanic waters to an accuracy of 0.02°C with just a few thousand temperature sensors, but he doesn't need anything more than the hundreds of observations of marine organisms slowly migrating polewards to indicate that waters that affect us most - relatively shallow coastal seas have indeed warmed. Then there are the typhoon spawning grounds where many measurements seem to imply increased surface temperatures - which is why many predict increased typoons (despite contrary evidence).