Discussion > GHG Theory step by step
Withholding data, to hide Inconvenient Truths, and Cherry Picking Data to "prove" impossible truths has always been part of dendrotreemometry, as demonstrated Jacoby.
https://climateaudit.org/2011/12/03/crowley-tries-to-get-data-from-jacoby/
This frustrated the late Tom Crowley (Biology) and compromised the IPCC's credibility, even though The Guardian omitted to mention it:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/15/passing-of-climate-giant-tom-crowley
Climate Scientists don't want to debate dendro, as it was the only "observed proof" they ever had for their theories. Yet dendro was flawed from the outset, and some in the IPCC knew it.
golf charlie
I've only had a chance to look through the Davis paper a couple of times. I now think he is saying that the solar heated earth heats the lower atmosphere by thermal conduction. If there were no GHG then the only way the atmosphere could lose heat is via conduction with the earth. So during the day, the earth loses heat to the atmosphere and at night, it gains heat. I think this is the buffering.
The presence of GHG helps the transfer of heat by IR and also causes delay, but his calculations show that the heat involved is negligible.
I need to spend a bit more time on this.
Schrodinger's Cat
This detracts from the trapped heat meme which has been a pillar of climate press releases for years. It isn't trapped, and this paper implies it is gone within milliseconds. I therefore assume, without confirmation, that we get a reset every time the sun goes down, or even behind a cloud. Am I wrong? Why? If this were correct it would blow away the forcing on which climate scientists rely.
( i seem to remeber that during this debate EM has denied that lapse rate relies on and only on the gas laws, and claimed that the time taken for the photon to leave the atmosphere was in nanoseconds and if delayed microseconds.)
rhoda
rhoda
I have been arguing here that the oceans are the major (not the only) buffer. Solar radiation warms the oceans but they retain their heat long beyond the diurnal cycle. Davis is making the same point about land, if I understand correctly.
Schrodinger's Cat
Oct 22, 2017 at 7:00 PM | rhoda & EM, aTTP, SC et al
Would this auto reset function possibly explain the lack of Global Warming, and why Settled Science assumptions about Energy Budgets, Lapse Rates and ECS are not correctly defined?
golf charlie
Rhoda
That 3*10^-4 second transit time for an IR photon travelling from surface to space is 300 nanoseconds.
The gas laws apply to adiabatic conditions.
When you include evaporation, condensation and ice crystal formation the latent heat modifies the ideal gas law behaviour.
None of what I wrote yesterday contradicts my earlier posts.
Entropic man
Mr Cat (Oct 22, 2017 at 6:32 PM): which is what I have been saying for some time; anyone living “near” a desert will be well-aware of the hot blasts of dry wind that can emanate from such areas – a good sign of heating by conduction rather than “greenhouse gases.” Observations of the reverse can be made at night – hence sea breezes during the day; land breezes during the night.
Radical Rodent
It's on page 1, July 20th.
"I would agree with the claims that without GHGs there would be no lapse rate, but not because GHGs drive the lapse rate"
It's my understanding that the lapse rate only requires gravity and the gas laws. Oh, and some unspecified gas.
rhoda
You do know what “adiabatic” means, don’t you, EM? Hmmm… perhaps not:
… a process that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a thermodynamic system and its surroundings.Which is why you have saturated adiabatic rates. Perhaps you meant: “The gas laws apply to dry gas conditions.” But, I suspect even that might not be correct.
Radical Rodent
None of what I wrote yesterday contradicts my earlier posts.
Oct 22, 2017 at 9:57 PM | Entropic man
Is it possible that an error about an assumption, totalling just a small fraction of a single percent, could account for the travesty of the missing heat in Trenberth's Energy Budget?
Planet Earth has proved the Climate Models wrong, and has rather more experience of calculating the varying variables
golf charlie
Rhoda, Radical rodent
Yes, I understand the concept of an adiabatic process.
Under adiabatic conditions the energy content per kilogram of atmosphere remains constant regardless of altitude and you would see a smooth and continuous drop in pressure and temperature with increasing altitude.
You get a smooth change in pressure , but the temperature is all over the place, the observed pattern isn't adiabatic.
The conventional view produce that temperature profile you need energy to be taken up by the atmosphere at the surface (conduction and radiation), at 50km altitude(UV absorbtion by ozone) and above 100km(absorbtion of IR and UV radiation). You also need energy to be lost to space at 10km and 90km(greenhouse gas emissions)
I would be really interested to hear your alternative physical explaination for that temperature profile.
Entropic man
I refer you to your opinion from page 1 which I quoted. Lapse rate is universal, in theory. Particular conditions on Earth notwithstanding, where there is gravity and gas there will be a lapse rate, calculable using the gas laws. If you were referring to particular earth conditions you didn't say so. Regardless of that lapse rate applies.
rhoda
EM, from your second link, can you elaborate on this note at the bottom?
"This image shows the average temperature profile through the Earth's atmosphere. Temperatures in the thermosphere are very sensitive to solar activity and can vary from 500°C to 1500°C. "
golf charlie
I don't wish to interrupt the current debate but when that runs its course, here is a question.
Current CMIP5 model projections seem to rely on the output of model ensembles. Does the output of a model ensemble have any real or physical meaning or is it meaningless?
Schrodinger's Cat
... but the temperature is all over the place…So? As long as there have been measurements, this has been the case; have you not heard of temperature inversion (a phenomenon that is usually the case in the Persian Gulf during the summer months, so not a “new” phenomenon)? Not sure if there is an explanation for this, or if this is another of the mysteries that the climate “scientists” are ignoring; however, just because a phenomenon cannot be explained does not mean that it cannot exist.
(BTW, the idea that the temperatures in space are so far above boiling is rather interesting… Obviously, you seem to have no trouble with that concept.)
Radical Rodent
There's not enough of anything to be hot, but that's the temp according to molecular velocity?
rhoda
Cat, there is much wrong with the idea that the average of a model ensemble is somehow better than each run. In any field as well as in climate. The whole concept we are presented with ought to have been challenged when they first dragged it into the light. I have a number of questions.
Does the model spec, currently CMIP5, impose conditions on the models which make it unlikely for them to provide independent results? To what extent?
Are there internal runtime checks on intermediate results preventing 'wrong' outcomes?
Are actual run outcomes vetted for inconvenient results?
What variation is there between multiple runs of the same model with the same parameters?
Why don't they chuck out the canadian model which runs so hot? Is it because the of effect on the average?
rhoda
rhoda, Radical rodent
The key point is that the temperature of a gas is a measure of the average kinetic energy of its molecules.
This is calculated as 0.5*mass*velocity.
It does not matter whether there is one molecule per cubic metre or ten billion.
In fact, the low density might help attain those high thermosphere temperatures. The molecules can travel kilometres between collisions, accelerated by absorbing many photons. They can reach the very high kinetic energies associated with very high temperatures.
Another example is a!
tokomak fusion reactor. This uses magnetic fields to accelerate ionised deuterium and tritium molecules in a soft vacuum to a kinetic energy equivalent to 15 million Centigrade. At this temperature they collide hard enough to fuse into helium, releasing neutrons and more energy.
Heat content is not just about temperature. It is the average kinetic energy multiplied by the number of molecules.
Regarding the temperature profile I linked, details such as the height of the tropopause vary slightly with temperature and season. The 10km minimum temperature occurs at 9km near the poles and12km near the equator. On average it is also drifting upwards at about 20m/decade. There are also, as you mention, localised variations in the troposphere.
The overall pattern of minima and maxima does not change.
Entropic man
Oct 23, 2017 at 9:41 PM | Entropic man
Is this all derived from more computer model based theory?
golf charlie
5/. Even WUWT has no function beyond pointing out points 1, 2, 3 and 4.
clipe
Oct 24, 2017 at 12:16 AM | clipe
aTTP has been hard at work
I would be really interested to hear your alternative physical explaination for that temperature profile.
Oct 23, 2017 at 3:27 PM | Entropic man
Who prepared the model, and based on what?
golf charlie
So I dont know what you are saying, but its not worth spending a copper nickel on.
A nickel nickel in my possesion
1945 Victory coin. Might be worth a dime.
clipe
aTTP has been hard at worknot looking out the window in the morning because, if he did, he would have nothing to do in the afternoon.
clipe
Clipe, read the thread from the top! The thread is about Climate Science gatekeeping, via the "Peer Review" process, about failed models. Then it gets "interesting" in the comments as your previous link demonstrates.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/23/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections/#comment-2644063A skeptic attempts to break the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling
Guest Blogger / 22 hours ago October 23, 2017
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
Guest essay by Pat Frank
"Regular readers at Anthony’s will know that for several years, since July 2013 in fact, I have been trying to publish an analysis of climate model error.
The analysis propagates a lower limit calibration error of climate models through their air temperature projections. Anyone reading here can predict the result. Climate models are utterly unreliable. For a more extended discussion see my prior WUWT post on this topic (thank-you Anthony).
The bottom line is that when it comes to a CO2 effect on global climate, no one knows what they’re talking about.
Before continuing, I would like to extend a profoundly grateful thank-you! to Anthony for providing an uncensored voice to climate skeptics, over against those who would see them silenced. By “climate skeptics” I mean science-minded people who have assessed the case for anthropogenic global warming and have retained their critical integrity.
In any case, I recently received my sixth rejection; this time from Earth and Space Science, an AGU journal. The rejection followed the usual two rounds of uniformly negative butscientifically meritless reviews (more on that later).
After six tries over more than four years, I now despair of ever publishing the article in a climate journal. The stakes are just too great. It’s not the trillions of dollars that would be lost to sustainability troughers.
Nope. It’s that if the analysis were published, the career of every single climate modeler would go down the tubes, starting with James Hansen. Their competence comes into question. Grants disappear. Universities lose enormous income.
Given all that conflict of interest, what consensus climate scientist could possibly provide a dispassionate review? They will feel justifiably threatened. Why wouldn’t they look for some reason, any reason, to reject the paper?
Somehow climate science journal editors have seemed blind to this obvious conflict of interest as they chose their reviewers."
golf charlie
and Then There's Wotty