Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Did a slower AMOC 12,000 yrs ago contribute to increased hurricane intensity? [link]

Low-Frequency Climate Modes and Antarctic Sea Ice Variations, 1982-2013 [link]

Understanding the detectability of potential changes to the 100-year peak storm surge [link]

Overview of  in the 5 IPCC reports & beyond [link]

“desert urbanization…nighttime warming and weaker, but significant daytime cooling.” most areas [link]

Antarctica-Regional Climate and Surface Mass Budget [link]

Finding parallels between Hadley Cell expansion & the global warming hiatus, . [link]

The 2016 southeastern US drought: an extreme departure from centennial wetting and cooling [link]

Solar Activity Plays Key Role In North American Blizzard Frequency, Study Finds [link]

New large 75-yr dataset reconstructs Gulf Stream & shows physical link between it & NAO. [link]

A long-term forest experiment helps unravel the complex forest-soil-carbon cycle: [link]

State-dependent quantification of climate sensitivity based on paleo data of last 2.1 million years [link]

How might plausible future volcanic activity alter climate projections? [link]

Perspective: New vigour involving statisticians to overcome ensemble fatigue [link]

New research using driftwood samples from the western offers insights on sea ice changes during the Holocene.[link]

New evidence that Siberian volcanic eruptions caused extinction 250 million yrs ago [link]

How humans are causing deadly earthquakes [link]

The ozone-climate penalty in the Midwestern U.S. [link]

How can we estimate snow depth & water content in snowpacks? Use cosmic ray neutron sensors. [link]

Water storage changes and balances in Africa observed by GRACE and hydrologic models [link]

Leading drivers of Pacific coastal drought variability in the Contiguous United States [link]

Influence of ice sheets on temperature during past 38 million years (a model study) [link]

Do we understand the terrestrial carbon cycle? What uncertainties? What future developments? [link]

Carbon circular logic [link]

Playing with Water: Humans Are Altering Risk of Nuisance Floods [link]

When Less Is More: Opening the Door to Simpler Climate Models [link]

Policy and social science

Potential surprise theory as a theoretical foundation for scenario planning [link]

“Adapting to : A Long-Term Historical Perspective on New Orleans 1718-2005″ [link

McKitrick: Americans have made hurricane destruction worse (but not with carbon emissions) [link]

Climate change tort cases are becoming a reality, not just a theoretical possibility [link]

U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Reasons, impacts, and China’s response [link]

’s greenhouse gas emissions rose by an alarming 4.7% in 2016, compared to last year [link]

Now in NatureClimate – A typology of loss and damage perspectives [link]

The driving forces behind membership nominations in international scientific assessments [link]

Narrowing the climate field:  the symbolic power of authors in the IPCC’s Assessments [link]

About science

Alice Dreger: Taking Back the Ivory Tower [link]

Wonderful irony here: Academic freedom lecturer (M. Mann) takes on claims of climate change deniers [link]

The invention of zero—how ancient Mesopotamia created the mathematical concept and India gave it symbolic form [link]

The Academic Reason Why There Are So Few Conservatives in Academia [link]

Author relationships with industry [link]

Science journalism is missing a watchdog attitude [link

Bret Stephens: The Dying Art of Disagreement [link]

314 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. My latest on US science policy –> The “Climate Science Special Report” demands a “red team”
    http://www.cfact.org/2017/10/03/the-climate-science-special-report-demands-a-red-team/

    Here is the beginning (links not included): “Several months ago there was a brief furor when the New York Times leaked the final draft of the upcoming Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), which is extremely alarmist. The CSSR is being prepared by the federal Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and has been in the works for several years, mostly under Obama and still staffed by die-hard alarmists.

    The USGCRP consists of the 13 federal agencies that do climate science and it was speculated that one of these, especially the EPA under Pruitt, might block the CSSR. This has not happened and the Report is now scheduled for release next month. The CSSR is far more alarmist than any IPCC report, as most USGCRP reports have been, thanks in particular to NOAA. It will be an official Federal report. Even worse, the Report is slated to be Volume I of the National Climate Assessment (NCA), which is due out late next year. The NCA is mandated by law, which gives the CSSR even more status as federal policy.

    It would be ironic indeed if the skeptical Trump Administration were to simply issue this alarmist report as federal policy on climate change science. In fact it would be tragic, a major defeat for climate realism and sound science. But there is a simple way to turn this looming defeat into a major victory. The solution is to do an official Red Team critique of the CSSR.” (end of quote)

    There is more to the article of course. As of now the CSSR is due out next month. Let the show begin.

  2. Boyd et al (2017) A typology of loss and damage perspectives

    Existential perspective. For some, Loss and Damage represents a means to highlight the importance of addressing the inevitable harm which climate change will impose on vulnerable countries, populations, cultures and ecosystems: ‘harm is occurring, something needs to be done’ (interviewee 30, 2015). This perspective is ‘existential’ in the sense that climate change represents unavoidable transformation for some communities and systems. There is an emphasis on irreversible loss, economic losses, justice and responsibility.

    It seems the premise that climate change – or more correctly global warming caused by human caused GHG emissions – would be harmful, is accepted without question and without challenge. It is just an assumption, supported by dogma and fanned by enthusiastic advocates. It is not established fact.

    It seems negligible research is being done to test the premise that global warming would be harmful. It seems this essential step is being carefully avoided. The advocates and believers in ‘dangerous climate change’ simply jump over this underlying premise and go straight to arguing we must to avoid global warming at all costs – and sue those who have become wealthier and, importantly, have bettered the lot of all humanity over the past centuries.

    • Boyd et al. (2017) A typology of loss and damage perspectives https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3389.epdf

    • Peter, if you consider modeling to be research then there is actually a great deal of research on the adverse impacts of projected high-magnitude warming. It has become a research industry in itself. For example, a Google Scholar search just on fisheries and climate change or global warming turns up over a thousand scientific papers, many of which are relatively recent.

      • David, as your comments and past responses on this subject, you have near zero understanding of this subject. I suggest you stick to your knitting.

      • What I do not understand, Peter, is your response. You say “The advocates and believers in ‘dangerous climate change’ simply jump over this underlying premise and go straight to arguing we must to avoid global warming at all costs.”

        Given that there have been between 10,000 and 100,000 studies done of the potential harms from global warming, I do not understand how you can say that nothing has been done.

        If you mean physical testing then you should say so and explain what you think needs to be done. But environmental impact assessment of future conditions is obviously not a testable science, just as geology and astronomy (among others) are not testable. So I cannot imagine what you are claiming.

      • David Wojick,

        There is no point us discussions this. We’ve been over and over it many before. Your responses have demonstrated you don’t have the most basic understanding of it. You can’t even recall the point. So there is no point repeating it again since you just don’t get it, or refuse to. If you were interested in trying to understand, you’d go back and background yourself on the comments I’ve made previously.

        You don’t understand that policy has to be justified on costs versus benefits and versus the benefits that could be achieved if the funds were used for other purposes. You just don’t get any of that. The few of the 16,000 Google Scholar studies you gave the link to had no mention of economic impacts. You don’t even have sufficient understanding of the subject to search correctly.

        Honestly, you have destroyed any credibility you may have once had with me.

      • David Wojick,

        if you want to demonstrate you do know something about the issues of the economic impacts of global warming, please provide a link to the best, most recent study that provides the following information: the economic impact in percent of GDP per degree of GMST change up to + 4C GMST increase, broken down by:
        • total economic impact for the world and for each economic/geographic region
        • by economic impact sector; such as Agriculture, Health, Sea Level Rise, fresh water, severe storms, ecosystems, energy consumption
        • For energy consumption, breakdown by impact of heating expenditure and cooling expenditure

        Here is a comparison of the three most widely used and cited IAMs: http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/climate_change/IACC_DamageFunctions_FINAL_1.pdf

        FUND http://www.fund-model.org/home is the most complex and provides the outputs I listed above (as far as I know it is the only IAM that does). However, the only impact sector that has significant negative impacts is energy consumption. But, the energy consumption projection is based on one study from over 20 years ago, and which is not readily accessible. And whereas the impact of global warming on energy consumption was positive for the past 110 years (based on empirical data), when the model projection continues after the period of empirical data (2010) the impact suddenly turns substantially negative (and sinks like the Titanic). It looks like another hockey stick. If not for the projected negative impact of energy consumption, the FUND analyses indicate global warming would be beneficial up to around +4C GMST.

      • The “studies” of future impacts of climate change are usually based on the highest end warming scenarios, like 8deg C warming by 2100. Then they make assumptions like: 1) organisms are exceedingly sensitive to any environmental change and can’t migrate fast enough to keep up (in spite of experiments showing plants growing faster in warmer conditions with rising CO2), 2) farmers are idiots who don’t adapt to warming by planting different varieties and changing their planting dates, 3) over a 100 year span cities are unable to build a 2 foot sea wall to protect themselves from sea level rise (over 100 years 10 men could build a sea wall for the average city), 4) they make absurd assumptions like that mortality rises with warming when cold weather clearly kills more people. Then journals are happy to publish such drivel. So 16,000 hits with google doesn’t mean anything when the methods are so screwed up.

    • Human caused Climate Change will of course be horrific, regardless of what actual changes may occur.

      Because Man is Evil, and Nature is Pure.

      (what, you wanted science? I’ll find you a study more speculative then the original Blade Runner, and about as accurate) ~¿~

  3. “State-dependent quantification of climate sensitivity based on paleo data of last 2.1 million years [link],” in a nutshell:

    Regression statistics doesn’t work so we hypothesize as follows: the “radiative forcing of CO2 and land ice sheet albedo is larger during interglacial states than during glacial conditions by more than a factor two.”

    As long as we’re just theorizing, how about changes in ice sheet albedo due to solar activity is a sufficient explanation such that it eliminates the need to speculate about radiative a forcing of CO2 due to an as yet unknown mechanism.

  4. JC, think you have a broken or mis-assigned url link for this:

    New research using driftwood samples from the western #Arctic offers insights on sea ice changes during the Holocene.[link]

  5. Here’s one for the “energy” department:

    German economist Hans Werner Sinn some time ago gave a lecture where he offers a very illuminating analysis of the possibilities and limitations of renewable energy in Germany. Now to my knowledge for the first time he has something written about it, making it more available:

    “Buffering volatility: A study on the limits of Germany’s energy revolution”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292117300995?via%3Dihub

  6. Wow…a discussion of cloud feedback from Dave Randall in Nature. This is probably more important than anything in the last 10 or 20 years as far as CAGW goes. I have some initial misgivings on that paper, but am waiting to hear from Pielke Sr. Sir, any comments?

    • Their Fig 1 shows a negative cloud feedback for 90% of the Earth, but they conclude the feedback is positive. Was this paper satire?

      • CO2 CS is near zero; low level clouds removing latent heat rise. This is a remarkably efficient process due to the unusual self-absorption properties of the 16-23 micron Water vapour IR range. It gives with greening almost infinite negative feedback. The present rise in mean surface temperature is an El Nino effect. Lower solar tsi is bringing on a new LIA.

        Within 2 years the faulty climate modelling based on an astonishing mistake in basic physics in 1976 by R. D. Cess (to fail to understand that emissivity must be for same temperature emitter/black body emitter. will have vanished in the same way as phlogiston. Canny climate scientists like Myles Allen are stepping away. Sir Stephen Hawkin has allegedly been outed as having made a key mistake, probably failing to acknowledge that Planck’s 1913 radiant energy treatise applies solely to a vacuum, 25 years ago and received protection from colleagues from then.

        R D Cess’ 1976 claim that Earth’s emissivity is OLR -18 degC/surface radiance +15 deg C, gives 40% imaginary extra atmospheric IR energy thermalisation than reality. The 35 K GHE claim is unphysical; designed to mislead. GHE is really based on GHG IR properties.

        It’s a mess – the Met Office was part of the cover-up to hide the 2d modelling by GISS using ‘negative convection’, which cannot exist, to offset the 40% warming in 1976 to justify the Charney Report CS claims, which is another fraud.

        Climate models must be withdrawn from the literature. Invest in a bit of seaweed instead!

      • Their Fig 1 shows a negative cloud feedback for 90% of the Earth

        No, it doesn’t.

        1.Read the caption more carefully.

        2. If you think you know better than a paper in Nature, I’d advise considering the relative likelihood of your hubris or your insight being the reason.

    • Global mean temperature is relatively continuous and relatively predictable on the basis energy balance at the tropopause.

      Unlike mean temperature, clouds are discrete elements resulting from atmospheric motions.

      But atmospheric motions are not predictable on climatic time scales, so there is good reason to be quite skeptical of cloud proclamations .

    • Overview of #cloudfeedbacks in the 5 IPCC reports & beyond [link].
      An interesting blog on this over at ATTP. “A bit more about clouds”
      This is a discussion of clouds precisely because they are a very important part of the climate puzzle.
      “Clearing Clouds of Uncertainty by Mark Zelinka, David Randall, Mark Webb and Steven Klein. Their commentary is really a summary of our recent understanding and – as illustrated by the figure on the right – they conclude that the evidence is converging on the cloud feedback likely being positive.”
      From FAR 1990 positive but cloud feedback represented the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity among atmospheric models.
      To SAR Second Assessment Report; 1995), more climate models were predicting the mass of cloud liquid and ice, and generally finding negative cloud opacity feedbacks, albeit of widely differing strengths. The report concluded that it was not possible at that time to judge the sign of the net cloud feedback.
      TAR 2001 …the sign of [the cloud] feedback remains unknown.
      AR4 2007 it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable
      AR5 “The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is…likely positive”
      BUT Cloud opacity feedback “is highly uncertain”

      The article overview states
      “Averaged globally and annually, clouds cause 18W/m2 of cooling relative to a hypothetical cloud-free Earth. This is the net result of a 46 W/m2 cooling from reflecting sunlight back to space (an albedo effect) partly offset by a 28 W/m2 heating due to reduced terrestrial radiation emitted to space (a greenhouse effect). The net planetary cooling provided by clouds is roughly five times as large as the planetary heating from a doubling of CO2.”
      The albedo effect works only half the time [there is a minuscule effect for moonlight etc] yet it produces much more cooling in that 12 hour period than a whole 24 hours of cloud GH positive effect.

      “The overall cloud feedback is actually the aggregate effect of several individual cloud feedbacks, commonly separated into three components: cloud amount, cloud altitude,and cloud opacity feedbacks” “Nearly all current climate models simulate an overall positive cloud feedback ”

      Too much information. The link I had from Victor Venema has gone down but the article could have said Cloud Albedo negative effect had x5 the effect of GHG doubling. That observational was very weak and most of the proof came from climate model simulations which duh incorporate positive cloud feedbacks in the first place.

      To the amateur eye if going from no clouds to what we have causes 18 W/m2 cooling any further cloud increase should cause more cooling.
      Miraculously this article has found a new physical fact on model evidence. That clouds cool the earth as it goes to a surface temp of 14 degrees and then at that precise point start to warm the atmosphere up.
      Not on the basics of testable physics.
      I do not see a kettle of water cooling down as you get past a certain point in heating it up.
      But on the basis of models, observationally wrong and incorporating the very features the claim to be looking for.
      Science, shame.

  7. The «relationship between the production and assessment of knowledge … poses a challenge to the IPCC’s legitimacy»
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ropr.12255/full/

  8. with regard to the article about nothing ; I think that “Nothing” has limitless potential , a blank sheet of paper could become anything but once you start writing what it can become is constrained. Humans can give existence to things that did not exist before them because these things that did not exist share our existence perhaps like mathematics

  9. Climate is of course a globally coupled and dynamic system. My scientific conviction – clearly stated in Newtons rules for natural philosophy – is that only data can shed light on its working – as relatively sparse, short term and unreliable much of it is. But the goal is to understand how the system works. Climate data series are not random – patterns of persistence and regime change emerge repeatedly as a coherent signal of what is thus defined as a chaotic system. Data comes first and last and there are no freakin’ butterflies. Except in the fractionally dimensioned state space of the Lorenz strange attractor.

    The problem is that most of the commentary here is based on what are claimed to be principles of physics but seem to me to be no more than mad narratives from mad climate hatters. Far too much of it here in the past few days. Even in the remote chance that the so called simple principles are correct – applying them at the scale of a planetary system is ultimately an absurd overreach.

    There is nothing interesting to be seen here – these are not the droids you’re looking for – move along.

    Moving beyond climate talking points seems the rational thing to do.

  10. Cold extermination: One of greatest mass extinctions was due to an ice age and not to Earth’s warming:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170306091927.htm

  11. “In the Earth’s past, scientists have seen evidence of large inputs of fresh water into the North Atlantic from melting glaciers and ice caps as well as changes in the thermohaline circulation during transitions in and out of glacial periods…

    According to Broecker, although reorganizations of ocean circulation are at the core of what happened in the past, we cannot say what the likelihood is that warming due to greenhouse gases will trigger yet another large and abrupt change. But if it were to occur, the consequences would be far less severe since, in the past, large existing expanses of sea ice were significant players in cooling the planet. “A conveyor shutdown is not likely,” said Broecker. “But if it happened, it would be ten times less dramatic and important than what happened during the glacial period when it caused a 10˚C temperature change.” http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/06/06/could-climate-change-shut-down-the-gulf-stream/

    Glacials seem to occur with large freshwater inputs to the Arctic Ocean in a warm world – with an associated slowdown in Atlantic overturning circulation – and with insolation conditions that allow for rapid ice sheet growth in high Northern Hemisphere latitudes.

    Unlike Wally – it seems to me that adding warmth to avoid a glacial may be exactly the wrong policy.

  12. Proof of the real control of climate, mainly by 16-23 micron water vapour self-absorption variation with, mainly, humidity, is the ~2.6 km maximum height of low level clouds. Deeper clouds are convective.

    That the cloud scientists have failed to do this simple observational physics is to their eternal shame. Almost as bad as to realise Cess 1976 wrong definition of Earth’s radiant emissivity is unprofessional.

    • “The opening line of the abstract states: “About 50% of the solar energy absorbed at the Earth’s surface drives evaporation, …” If this is correct, then the standard Kiehl-Trenberth diagram of the Earth’s Global Energy Budget and the coefficients used by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and others, have issues. The diagram shows far less than 50% of solar energy at the surface going to evaporation. If so, there is not a consensus even in the Orthodoxy.”

      Watts is part of the problem – and it is clear that he is habitually wrong. Case in point – the energy cartoon shows almost exactly 50%.

      Nor is Planck’s blackbody work at all relevant to anything in the energy cartoon. Not sure what this guy is on about – with no reference to anything empirical, nothing in the way of credible explanation and a total lack of relevant citations. Science is undertaken on the shoulders of giants. This – in the usual way of novel theories on greenhouse gases – he seems to have pulled out of his arse.

      I have the patience to listen once or twice – and this is the third or fourth time in two days that this novel theory has been proposed – accompanied by histrionic expressions of moral outrage. The latter always a cautionary element. No doubt I will be subjected to denunciation of my moral and intellectual capacities after this. I even read the 1976 Cess paper. My thoughts were that it is a bit dated but quite unremarkable climate science.

      My feeling is that there is little to be gained by rejecting on what seem spurious grounds the simple ideas of atmospheric physics first proposed by some guys hundreds of years ago. I love all these old guys who pioneered empirical science in the scientific enlightenment. Such giants there were before these days of institutionalized science.

      • Radian emissivity calculations requie the same temperature for the real emitter and the black body theory comparator.

        What is the definition of surface emissivity?
        A Combustion File downloaded from the IFRF Online Combustion Handbook ISSN 1607-9116

        The emissivity of a surface may be defined as the ratio of the radiance from the surface to that from a black body viewed under identical optical and geometrical conditions and at the same temperature.

        Dont tell me, a profesional heat transfer engineer that Cess was right to use OLR/surface radiance which claims -18 deg C + 15 deg C GHE. It’s as wrong as can be. Sorry, but the climate models were fraudulent (via GISS’ 2d modelling in 1976 to back up Cess by using impossible ‘negative convection’ to offset the resultant 40% extra atmospheric thermalisation of surface IR than reality). It betrays substantial ignorance

      • Yes – it always does betray substantial ignorance.

      • Robert I Ellison: Watts is part of the problem – and it is clear that he is habitually wrong. Case in point – the energy cartoon shows almost exactly 50%.

        What is that about? The diagram is from NASA and is based in part on Trenberth et al.

  13. Another problem with climate science, explaining Trenberth’s mistakes is to believe that the output signal of a pyrgeometer, of which there are many 1000s, is a real energy flux. It isn’t. The only data that are correct is the difference of up and down signals near the surface.

    The Russian pyrgeometer automatically outputs that difference. I’ve worked in Russia with superb scientists who in 200 slamdunked UL Chief Scientist David King in Moscow.

    • I have no doubt that Trenberth has made many mistakes – but this is not one. The instruments have a sensor that measures infrared flux – and to determine absolute flux the temperature of the instrument needs to be known. Nothing particularly startling here. Calibration is to a reference instrument.

      But the energy budget on a global scale is more the preserve of ‘line by line’ radiative transfer calculations.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer

      • Wrong: most of the signal (>95%) is from theoretical Stefan-Boltzmann using black body sensor temperature. To this is added the primary sensor signal set by the difference between its temperature and that of the emitter(s) in its viewing angle.

        <bThis is the maximum theoretical energy flux, sensor to a perfect black body sink at Absolute Zero.. In no way is it a real flux; that is the difference between up and down signals. For anyone to claim it is a real flux shows their poor scientific training (don’t mean to insult you).

        I have made special 2 colour pyrometers for on-line use in aluminium mills so I am a professional. Furthermore Pyrgeometer sales physicists will point out that only the difference signal is real energy transfer.

        Trenberth and the rest of the climate alchemists are badly wrong, making 4 whopping mistakes in climate models, which must immediately be withdrawn by the IPCC. This story of the failure of science from basic ignorance of its dogmatic supporters is very serious indeed.

      • Yes – it always shows a poor scientific training.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer

        But the line by line radiative transfer models agree with observation with relatively high fidelity and require water vapour and temperature data across the depth of the atmosphere.

        I’m not even sure what signal you are referring to – and it seems a rabbit hole too far for me.

      • What I meant to include here…

      • Alexander Davidson: Wrong: most of the signal (>95%) is from theoretical Stefan-Boltzmann using black body sensor temperature.

        By “signal” I assume you mean calculated outgoing longwave radiation. Is that correct?

        What is the magnitude of the approximation error? In my reading (e.g. R. T. Pierrehumbert, “Principles of Planetary Climate”) S-B gives good approximations.

      • SoD supports all te basic physics’ mistakes I have quoted.

      • Will Janoschka

        Robert I. Ellison | October 9, 2017 at 6:58 am
        “I have no doubt that Trenberth has made many mistakes – but this is not one. The instruments have a sensor that measures infrared flux – and to determine absolute flux the temperature of the instrument needs to be known. Nothing particularly startling here. Calibration is to a reference instrument.”

        Indeed! The absolute one way flux is always proportional to the difference in opposing electromagnetic spectral E-field (radiance). To use the magnitude of some E-field as “flux”(physical power transfer, rather than a potential) is a (Cardinal sin) for any direction, frequency, wavelength, polarity, chirality, or parity!

        “But the energy budget on a global scale is more the preserve of ‘line by line’ radiative transfer calculations.”

        Blow off such SCAM! The computer programs based on HiTran, ModTran, or LowTran are never your “radiative transfer calculations” but only atmospheric radiative calculations for high frequency “attenuation” of temporal\spatial “modulation” through the atmospheric mass low pass filter at any wavelength. They were all carefully designed to do only that; at obnoxious cost; for determining limits to atmospheric “seeing over yonder”; never ever for stupid non-existent radiative flux transfer.
        Jimmy Hansen et al. converted this effort into the current nonsense, for financial and political gain by the very few!

        Alexander Davidson | October 9, 2017 at 9:29 am |
        “Wrong: most of the signal (>95%) is from theoretical Stefan-Boltzmann using black body sensor temperature. To this is added the primary sensor signal set by the difference between its temperature and that of the emitter(s) in its viewing angle.”

        I do not comprehend what you are trying to express, but agree such is important. Can you try again from a different POV, without ‘temperature’, please?
        All the best!-will-

      • The energy of a photon can be calculated using the frequency and the Planck constant – the fundamental quantum energy of course. The change in energy of a surface is the difference between the energies of incoming and outgoing photons – and can be measured in IR by a calibrated IR sensor. To estimate the energy being lost from the sensor – and thus the IR flux into the instrument – a modified S-B equation is used requiring that temperature be known.

        As for LBLRTM – http://www.aer.com/science-research/atmosphere/radiative-transfer

        I am very tired of fundamentally flawed narratives from these people when the basic and elementary facts are so relatively well known. Screaming scam so often just makes them look like maroons.

  14. This was all pointed out to you years ago. Wally moved on to removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Why? Hansen:

    • I surmise this might be directed to me from the relentlessly obscurantist JCH. Only because I used the Wally sobriquet.

      I am quite sure however that JCH has little appreciation of Broecker’s wild beast.

      http://web.vims.edu/sms/Courses/ms501_2000/Broecker1995.pdf

      But by all means let JCH define realistic mitigation strategies – and these are not the shibboleths of the neo green leftists.

    • “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1

      I have been through this before of course – but then so has Hansen. Fluctuations in ocean and atmospheric circulation include 20-30 year sea surface temperature regimes in the eastern Pacific. The associated energy changes at toa are associated with water vapour due to changing atmospheric temps and cloud changes anti-correlated with SST in the tropical and sub-tropical Pacific.


      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460

      Cloud changes dominate energy dynamics in the shortwave band. But as I said above – you can’t get any idea of what is happening without data on radiant flux at TOA. Reliable and long term data preferably. Data inconvenient for the cause is systematically denied – either cause is much of a muchness in my view.

      The 20 to 30 year regimes are chaotic shifts of quasi standing waves in the spatio/temporal chaos of the climate system. They may change a little or a lot with greenhouse gases giving form to Wally’s wild beast.

    • neo green leftists

      Our family income is about 90% derived from oiled and gas. We live well. You’re just clueless.

  15. Pingback: ATTP, This is a discussion of clouds | asoliduniverse

  16. Worth repeating
    “The net planetary cooling provided by clouds is roughly five times as large as the planetary heating from a doubling of CO2.”

    • Why is it worth repeating?

      • Some people, including a bunch of scientists, believe the clouds suddenly turn into positive feedbacks once the surface temp reaches 14C. I know that you are not one of those but your lack of support on this issue is deafening.

      • a bunch of scientists, believe the clouds suddenly turn into positive feedbacks once the surface temp reaches 14C.

        Well, I guess it’s *possible* that expert scientists believe things that are self-evidently stupid.

        Or, of course, it could be that you’ve made a fundamental mistake in your understanding.

        Tough call.

      • There is a fundamental difference between negative forcing and positive feedback. Both can be true at the same time.

      • Thanks Jim D
        there are three mechanisms that explain the potential for positive feedbacks. Height, mass, something else.
        Unfortunately they are all much smaller than the negative feedback of albedo
        VTG verytallguy says:
        “Feedbacks” are net positive sounds as though our climate is unstable and will run away, however, by convention that does not include the Planck feedback.Including the Planck feedback means that feedbacks are always net negative.??
        “Well, I guess it’s *possible* that expert scientists believe things that are self-evidently stupid.”
        I guess you mean the atheists. Tough call.

      • Jim D | October 11, 2017 at 12:21 pm |
        “There is a fundamental difference between negative forcing and positive feedback. Both can be true at the same time.”
        Missing an s at the end of feedback, Jim D

      • The cloud albedo feedback is only negative if low-level clouds increase in area, but actually the observations indicate a decrease, which would be where the positive feedback comes from.

      • The cloud albedo feedback is always negative JimD, from when clouds first formed? At 14C current temp the negative feedback is massive.
        Note they always form at low level first , then medium and high levels .so the negative feedbacks are always greater than the positive feedbacks.
        Note the dodgy nature of the high cloud claim saying that very high clouds which reflect the energy first somehow cause more of an increase in IR reflection?
        Now there is more IR formed below coming out the higher you go, but it also is diluted by spread as the envelope expands. Whether the furthest out parts of the atmosphere reflect the most IR is very dodgy in my opinion

      • angech, you are still not using the word “feedback” properly. That is net cloud forcing. The snow/ice albedo forcing is also negative, but the feedback is positive. Same thing. You get confused when you use the word “feedback” for both forcing and feedback.

      • Jim D
        You keep on believing.
        Both opposite things can be true at the same time.
        “Cloud albedo effect is only negative when low level clouds increase in area.” You say.
        Proper reasoning is that cloud albedo effect is negative for low level clouds whether they increase or decrease . It is always negative.
        On a positive note I doubt there is any problem with your use of the words forceback and feeding since in your world opposite things can be true at the same time.
        On a negative note you might have to come back to the real world at some stage

  17. Correction: above I wrote that >95% of pyrgeometer output signal is theoretical using sensor temperature. I should have used internal black body reference temperature. For climate scientists like Trenberth to claim a >95% ‘signal’ from a Stefan-Boltzmann calculation is a real energy flow is clear evidence of unprofessionality.

    The reality is more complex: most energy loss from the surface is clouds carrying latent heat to be radiated to space as IR from, non-convective clouds at ~2.6 km, where the 6-23 micron IR bands of water vapour become sufficiently self-absorbed self absorbed. They are seen from space as increasingly black body partial OLR emitters, shifting energy loss to OLR.

    Latent heat removal from the surface coupled with the very high dependence of 16-23 micron water IR, easily seen by the difference of ground and local atmospheric radiant exitance or MODTRAN give incredible negative feedback, reducing CO2 CS to near zero. As [CO2] rises, maximum low level cloud altitude will fall slightly to compensate,the proportional part of a standard PID control system used to maintain a constant set point.

    This is quite simple physics but the climate model architects created a very good invisibility cloak about reality to pursue their Masters’ agreement to reduce population whist pretending that future CO2 Armageddon was real.

    I’m not the only one who has nailed the frauds they used to create their science fiction. They then set about denigrating any opposition; shameful.

  18. Poetic science purporting to show that Wally’s climate beast is not a unicorn.

    • Wally can’t make it a beast. Nor can you, When he recognized the science coming in, he moved on to removing CO2 from the atmosphere. You like Wally’s beast because you’re a 100% political-0% science animal. Wally is a scientist.

      • I’m with Wally on the science. To quote myself – climate data show the chaotic heart of the beast pounding through woodland and savannah. It moves with immense power and speed across landscapes and oceans. It shifts suddenly and fiercely. We ain’t seen fierce in the 20th century – we ain’t nothin’ yet. But what shall we do now with this wild and angry beast? There are approaches mooted – including shibboleths of neo-green-leftists – which are not worth worrying about. But there are a plurality of solutions to other problems each with intrinsic mitigation or sequestration potential. I can point to a couple of dozen off the top of the heads of Nobel laureate economists. I like to see it as part of a global mission to secure prosperous communities in vibrant and resilient landscapes this century.

        http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/post-2015_presentation_3.pdf

  19. Does anyone know whether Curry has discussed the following paper yet?:

    “Troposphere-Stratosphere Temperature Trends Derived From Satellite Data Compared With Ensemble Simulations From WACCM”
    http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/randel+polvani+etal-JGR-2017-online.pdf

    It came out September 25 and I’ve been looking forward to it for awhile, ever since Randel presented a poster for it at a recent conference. I haven’t seen Curry discuss the paper, nor I have seen any of the “skeptic” (*cough* denialist *cough*) websites discuss the paper. That’s a bit strange, since this paper is interesting for a number of reasons. For example:

    1) The paper compares satellite-based tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling trends to model-based predictions of those trends.

    2) The paper focuses on RSS and NOAA/STAR, to the exclusion of UAH. This shows bad some scientists think the UAH analysis is. UAH is apparently an outlier in both the stratosphere [DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024039] and the troposphere [for example, DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1], likely stemming for UAH’s deeply flawed homogenization [for example, DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1 and DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1]

    3) The paper constrains the model-based atmospheric projections using updated forcings, something that was previously done for surface-based projections [for example, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2105 ]. This serves as a nice complement to Santer’s previous papers that discussed model-based, atmospheric temperature projections [DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1, page 379; DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2973].

    4) The paper presents evidence of one of the the fingerprints of CO2-induced global warming: stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming.

    5) The paper shows show stratospheric cooling continued higher in the stratosphere post-1997. It also shows how lower stratospheric cooling slowed down to almost nothing post-1997, consistent with ozone recovery in response to agreements (like the Montreal Protocol) that limited human release of ozone-depleting substances [for example, DOI: 10.5194/acp-10-12161-2010 and DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8233]. So CO2 has a larger relative impact on cooling higher in the stratosphere, a nice confirmation of what scientists have known for awhile [for example, DOI: 10.1002/2015JD023841, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2624, and DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2955.1] and consistent with CO2’s role in causing cooling up in the mesosphere and thermosphere [for example, DOI: 10.1029/GL016i012p01441, DOI: 10.1029/1999GL011333, and DOI: 10.1002/jgra.50354].

    • “…incorporating observed forcings including observed sea surface temperatures…”

      Which I am seeing as driving things. If we divide it into two things, the oceans and the atmosphere, we can say the oceans are more predictably driving the atmosphere than the reverse. So we take the SSTs and calculate generally upward and sideways. This is different than figuring out what the CO2 is doing to the oceans and then using those figured out SSTs to drive the models.

      Now why stop with the SSTs? I say also include the land temperatures. Then use only the land temperatures.

      I do see a step backwards from the models. Having difficulty with modeling the SSTs we will let them, whatever they are, drive things. A conclusion could be that since what they did worked so well, it means the SSTs are driving things with to what extent not quantified.

      • Re: “This is different than figuring out what the CO2 is doing to the oceans and then using those figured out SSTs to drive the models.”

        So you’re basically complaining because the paper didn’t address something that was outside the scope of the paper. My goodness.

        The point of vertical amplification of warming in the tropic (lapse rate reduction) is that latent heat release by condensing water vapor (especially above warming tropical oceans) causes increased warming with increasing tropospheric height. That happens regardless of what caused the tropical ocean warming, whether it be increased CO2, increased TSI, or El Nino. I get that many denialists like to pretend that this vertical amplification (i.e. a hot spot) is just a fingerprint of CO2-induced warming. But those denialists are wrong:

        “In the tropics, moist thermodynamic processes amplify surface warming […]. Such tropical amplification occurs for any surface warming; it is not a unique signature of greenhouse gas (GHG)-induced warming, as has been incorrectly claimed (Christy 2015).”
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1

        Figure 12.5 on page 707:
        https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF

        The paper I linked just continued in the ongoing tradition of figure investigating how that ocean warming affected vertical warming in the tropics (for example, DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064966 and DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022365), and whether a model captured the atmospheric warming structure.

        Re: “Now why stop with the SSTs? I say also include the land temperatures. Then use only the land temperatures.”

        Because oceans provide a readier source of evaporating water that drives the lapse rate reduction.

        Re: “I do see a step backwards from the models. Having difficulty with modeling the SSTs we will let them, whatever they are, drive things. A conclusion could be that since what they did worked so well, it means the SSTs are driving things with to what extent not quantified.”

        It’s been known since at least the 1960s, that ocean warming drives the vertical amplification of warming in the tropics. That’s been continued prediction of models going back to that point. So no, there was not “a step backwards from the model”; I have no clue where you got such an idea.

      • Atomsk’s:

        If I have ever commented on the hot spot is probably more than 3 years ago. I don’t have an opinion on it.

        “…and whether a model captured the atmospheric warming structure.”

        It did and they say so. It had the SSTs forced. We got the atmosphere right but that’s not the problem. It is the climate system.

        When we force the SSTs, we have all these warm and cool spots and that warmth or lack of it plays out to form the atmospheres attributes. It is like watching a thermal boundary of everything that will head for the TOA on different time scales. That’s not everything as it excludes land but that doesn’t have much thermal capacity. It’s more like a mirror. So we see that X amount of this warmth can be modeled. But it’s more complicated. X amount of warmth, arranged geographically this way or that, can be modeled.

        For the models to walk on their own, they need to model the SSTs and not have them forced. And this is difficult problem. In the climate system, the oceans are difficult to know, model and to determine the impacts of our CO2 emissions.

    • 1) The paper compares satellite-based tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling trends to model-based predictions of those trends.

      Which is nothing new or particularly difficult.
      I amended my comparison to include RAOB and also only RAOB stations that were 90% or more complete. It’s interesting that the paper doesn’t mention the phrase “hot spot” at all. Motivated, perhaps, by the failure of the models in this regard:

      2) The paper focuses on RSS and NOAA/STAR, to the exclusion of UAH. This shows bad some scientists think the UAH analysis is. UAH is apparently an outlier in both the stratosphere [DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024039] and the troposphere [for example, DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1], likely stemming for UAH’s deeply flawed homogenization [for example, DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1 and DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1]

      UAH, MSU, RATPAC, and the most complete RATPAC all tend to agree on cooling stratosphere, Arctic maxima, and no hot spot. The one outlier is not UAH, but RSS indicates warming stratosphere for the tropics and Northern mid-latitudes.

      The failure of the GCMs with regard to the Hot Spot are important because they are in large part due to the inability to even hindcast motions of the atmosphere which determine precipitation, and so create too much precipitation.

      • AR5 on GCM precipitation errors:

      • Why do you keep repeating the same falsehoods, Turbulent Eddie, even even after those falsehoods debunked? I guess I’ll adjust my expectations for your responses accordingly.

        Re: “It’s interesting that the paper doesn’t mention the phrase “hot spot” at all.”

        Because “hot spot” is a term used by denialists (faux skeptics) to discuss tropical tropospheric amplification; “hot spot” not the term used in the peer-reviewed literature, not the peer-reviewed literature. In the scientific literature, it’s called “vertical amplification”, “tropical lapse rate reduction”, “tropospheric amplification”, and the like:

        “The problem here is that the “hot spot” concept was not created by scientists (as far as I know) but is a term coined by climate skeptic
        bloggers.”
        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4713/2dcd375cd174d2013f0194c846a4a1bd95ab.pdf

        “One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.”
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/

        Anyway, if you read the paper closely, then you’d know the paper said:

        “In this case the MSU3 trends are smaller than MSU2 because the long tail of the MSU3 weighting function extends into the lower stratosphere (above 20 km) and hence convolves stratospheric cooling with upper tropospheric warming. More aspects of the vertical structure of tropospheric temperature change could be obtained by using combinations and differences of the MSU channels (e.g., Fu & Johanson, 2005), but we leave that as an exercise for future work.”
        http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/randel+polvani+etal-JGR-2017-online.pdf

        That “exercise” has been done by NOAA/STAR, RSS, and UW. Furthermore, UMD did their own version of the “exercise”. And each found that upper tropospheric warming is greater than surface warming; i.e. there’s a hot spot. That includes RSS (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1; DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1), UW, NOAA/STAR (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1), UMD (DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006392), and an analysis from Weng and Zou (DOI: 10.1007/s00382-013-2012-5). The only exception is UAH (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1).

        Re: “UAH, MSU, RATPAC, and the most complete RATPAC all tend to agree on cooling stratosphere, Arctic maxima, and no hot spot. “

        Wrong again. Every MSU/AMSU analysis, other than UAH, shows that upper tropospheric warming is greater than surface warming; i.e. there’s a hot spot. You’ve been repeatedly shown this, and I showed you this again above.

        Furthermore, multiple radiosonde analyses show that in the tropics, upper tropospheric warming is greater than surface warming; i.e. there’s a hot spot. That hot spot appears in all of the analyses from 30+ year periods beginning in 1959, and it shows up in every analysis (except HadAT2) for the period beginning in 1979 (DOI: 10.1002/2017GL073798). The reason for that HadAT2 trend is fairly well-understood: a 1980s shift in radiosonde equipment caused 1980s radiosonde tropospheric temperatures to be artificially high, affecting radiosonde-based tropospheric temperature trends (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3717.1; DOI: 10.1126/science.1115640; DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI1929.1).

        Re: “The failure of the GCMs with regard to the Hot Spot are important because they are in large part due to the inability to even hindcast motions of the atmosphere which determine precipitation, and so create too much precipitation.”

        Your “failure” to acknowledge evidence of the hot spot is important, because it allows you to unfairly smear the GCMs. But if you insist on talking about precipitation, then see:

        “Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and early models”

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: In the scientific literature, it’s called “vertical amplification”, “tropical lapse rate reduction”, “tropospheric amplification”, and the like:

        Figure 2a is supportive.

      • Turbulent Eddy: It’s interesting that the paper doesn’t mention the phrase “hot spot” at all.

        Do you have a critique of the paper’s figure 2a?

      • Re: “Nope.”

        And you’re still wrong, even while you refuse to address any of the scientific evidence. Let me know when you can actually read and address the scientific literature, instead of relying on your own poorly done analyses. You’ve been repeating them for over two years (dating way back to at least ATTP’s blogpost on this: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/), and there’re really no excuse for it.

        Once again, multiple radiosonde analyses show that in the tropics, upper tropospheric warming is greater than surface warming; i.e. there’s a hot spot. That hot spot appears in all of the analyses from 30+ year periods beginning in 1959, and it shows up in every analysis (except HadAT2) for the period beginning in 1979:

        Figures 2c and 4c: “Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends”
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073798/full
        Figures 1 and 2: “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)”
        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
        Figure 9: “New estimates of tropical mean temperature trend profiles from zonal mean historical radiosonde and pilot balloon wind shear observations”
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022664/full
        Figure 3 and table 1: “Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations”
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053850/full

        The reason for that post-1979 HadAT2 trend is fairly well-understood: a 1980s shift in radiosonde equipment caused 1980s radiosonde tropospheric temperatures to be artificially high, affecting radiosonde-based tropospheric temperature trends (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3717.1; DOI: 10.1126/science.1115640; DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI1929.1). That also explains why the radiosonde post-1979 trends are below the model-based projections, while the post-1959 trends are slightly above the model-based projections (see: “Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends” above).

        Re: “The one outlier is not UAH, but RSS indicates warming stratosphere for the tropics and Northern mid-latitudes.”

        You really think you can say something so blatantly false, and I’ll just believe you? Do you think I’m that credulous?

        RSS shows long-term stratospheric cooling in the tropics and northern mid-lattitudes, not stratospheric warming. That was even made clear in the paper you’re supposedly commenting on. Did you even read the paper. Seriously, read the scientific literature:

        Figures A1, A2, and A3: “Troposphere-Stratosphere Temperature Trends Derived From Satellite Data Compared With Ensemble Simulations From WACCM”
        http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/randel+polvani+etal-JGR-2017-online.pdf
        Figures 6 and 12: “Stratospheric temperature changes during the satellite era”
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024039/full
        Figure 3: “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1

        And no, UAH is the outlier. For example:

        Figure 4: “Stratospheric temperature changes during the satellite era”
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024039/full
        Figures 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8: “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1

      • Once again, multiple radiosonde analyses show that in the tropics, upper tropospheric warming is greater than surface warming; i.e. there’s a hot spot

        The data is all available – I would challenge you to do the analysis for yourself.

      • Re: “The data is all available – I would challenge you to do the analysis for yourself.”

        The data analyses have already been done and published by the scientists with the most familiarity and expertise with respect to the data. I’ve cited those analyses for you multiple times; you refuse to engage them, because they show you are wrong. That’s not a good sign for you, Turbulent Eddie.

        You instead want to rely on analyses done by you, even though you have less expertise than the researchers in question. For example, you have less expertise in identifying heterogeneities in the data. And you probably forgot to correct for stratospheric cooling when looking at the TMT for RSS, NOAA.STAR, etc., even though the experts working with those data-sets know to make that correction. Yet you still think you know better than the experts when it comes to what the evidence shows. Apparently, you think they’re competent enough to generate the data you cite, but not competent enough to analyze it. That reeks of pseudoskepticism:

        “In contrast to the cases above, the form of science denialism I wish to explore below is what I refer to as pseudoskepticism. When scientific consensus is rejected by non-experts who naively consider themselves more scientifically astute than the collective scientific community, it is appropriately labeled pseudoskepticism.”
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12179/full

        Anyway, I’ve already looked at the evidence for RSS, re-analyses like ERA-I, etc. for myself. They show tropical upper tropospheric warming is greater than surface warming; i.e. there’s a hot spot. That agrees with the published studies I already cited. It’s quite telling that you keep claiming otherwise.

  20. IR radiant emissivity of sea surfaces falls with temperature because evaporation rises. 32 deg C is when heat loss is almost all evaporation. There is also an effect due to variation of water vapour IR self-absorption.

  21. Only in the satellite era is continuous sampling of temperature and water vapor in the atmosphere at different heights possible.

    Radiative transfer is the physical phenomenon of energy transfer in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The propagation of radiation through a medium is affected by absorption, emission, and scattering processes. The equation of radiative transfer describes these interactions mathematically. Equations of radiative transfer have application in a wide variety of subjects including optics, astrophysics, atmospheric science, and remote sensing. Analytic solutions to the radiative transfer equation (RTE) exist for simple cases but for more realistic media, with complex multiple scattering effects, numerical methods are required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer#The_equation_of_radiative_transfer

    So the models based on numerical solutions of the RTE level by level – line by line – are promising. With reliable initialization – sky’s the limit. Could the power output of the planet be computed in near real time?

  22. Radiative transfer models work well for the atmosphere because in a temperature gradient, bidirectional IR radiant exitances produce a small real net energy flux from the difference of opposite exitances. Errors balance out..

    Applying the same argument to the surface is wrong because the surface only emits real IR energy in the atmospheric window – the rest is blocked off by that part of GHG IR bands that are fully self absorbed.

    To claim pyrgeometers measure real IR energy flows is plain wrong. They are potential radiant energy fluxes to a perfect black body absorber at absolute zero, not real. It’s easy to do the maths to show that the real Up signal is from the gas adjacent the surface, not the surface, the sensor physically blocking opposite atmospheric GHG IR exitance.

    The reality is that removal of latent heat by variable rise of low level clouds and its control by the very strong humidity dependence of 16-23 micron water vapour self-absorption, is the dominant process, almost completely offsetting CO2 increase warming by negative feedback.

    To summarise: Climate models assume 40% more surface IR energy emission than reality. To claim that a pyrgeometer pointing at the surface measures real surface IR emission is wrong.

    • Actually, it’s to claim 60% more surface IR emission than reality. Reality is that this 60% is not emitted because of mutual annihilation from the same GHG IR bands from gas adjacent the surface, mostly water vapour.

      • “mutual annihilation”

        Ah, really?
        And just how does that work, pray?

      • IR waves from the atmospheric ghg molecules near the surface exactly offset in phase but opposite direction IR waves from the surface Planckian oscillators, resulting in net zero emission amplitude in that frequency. Where the ghg is not fully self absorbed the extra surface emission goes to Space or clouds.

        The key analogue is the horn antenna where the detector is a tube in which a standing wave is used to detect any particular incoming frequency, e.g. the proof of the Cosmic microwave background from the 2.9 deg K big bang.

        The SW frequency is set over a a wide range by tube detector geometry..There is absolutely no experimental evidence that there is any IR emission of the Earth’s surface to its atmosphere in ~60% of the Stefan-Boltzmann curve. The pyrgeometer signal is from the gas near the surface.

        I know it’s hard for climate alchemists to accept that this basic physics has apparently been missed (I could still be wrong), but the Earth operates to minimise radiation entropy production rate so the alternative, to claim that the Earth does emit in the 60% then the same IR comes back as ‘back radiation’ is unphysical and untenable.

        By the way, the UK Met Office claimed a Kirchhoff’s Law process to explain back radiation, but it appears to be fake physics because it is used to create imaginary CO2 warming and imaginary feedback, experimentally disproved by hot running models. It appears it is being dropped by the MO modellers to comply with real experimental results.

      • PS you get confirmation from Planck, 1913 treatise, where he assumes a vacuum gap between two radiative emitters. This gives rise to equal and opposite radiative energy and radiation entropy transfer by Maxwell’s Equation waves.

        These push IR flux AND radiation entropy for that frequency in the gap, to be absorbed at the other side. He goes on to use the energy in the gap to derive the Planck function. The Bose-Einstein derivation of the Planck function used to derive bidirectional photon transfer is based on assuming six photon streams in an h cubed box. But it too is for a vacuum.

        As the surface of the Earth is not in a vacuum, there can be no such Planck function where the Maxwell or partial such amplitude for partially self absorbed GHG IR emission is positive. If you look at Goody (and later with Yung), they copy Planck’s work to derive their bidirectional photon transfer theory, which gives exactly the same as Maxwell because photons are a subset of Maxwell waves.

        Since they assumed a Planckian vacuum, this is unphysical for the Earth. The real physics must be no surface IR energy emission over ~60% of its Stefan-Boltzmann curve. Prove otherwise.

        This failure by climate alchemists to read Planck’s small print renders them unprofessional, and the climate models MUST immediately be removed from the literature until the basic physics is fixed, including that minimisation of radiation entropy production rate at local thermodynamic equilium explains the real control system: clouds carrying away latent heat offsets any change in temperature as ghg concentration changes. Humidity change results in incredible negative feedback.

        There are other effects from [CO2] change, but minor because greening adds to the negative feedback by abstracting CO2. Quite frankly, I’m ashamed that so-called scientists have deliberately refused to use correct physics and control theory to come up with a CO2 cock and bull story. Even Arrhenius predicted greening in 1908 as a strong negative feedback.

      • “IR waves from the atmospheric ghg molecules near the surface exactly offset in phase but opposite direction IR waves from the surface Planckian oscillators, resulting in net zero emission amplitude in that frequency”

        OK – so you are advocating something that violates conservation of energy then?

        Where does the energy go to after this ‘destructive interference’ ?
        It can’t just disappear.
        In interference cancellation there is also constructive interference to compensate.

      • “Prove otherwise”

        It’s not up to me or anyone on this site to do that my friend.
        Nor is it empirical science’s to do.
        It has already done so.
        It is up to you to provide science (experiments) to support your wordy handwaving sky-dragon slaying claims.

      • “By the way, the UK Met Office claimed a Kirchhoff’s Law process to explain back radiation, but it appears to be fake …”

        Really….

        https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

      • Then why are they removing it by putting in a <<1 calibration until model predictions match observation.

        It is based on incorrect cloud physics to get the Atmospheric Window part of back radiation'. However an hitherto unrealised part of cloud physics, paper to come, show that the extinction coefficient of a cloud increases over the Mie calculation because Hansen and van der Hulst failed to understand that the forward scattered lobe from rain droplets is not a plane wave, giving an incredible, ~30,000 increase of back reflection for 500 micron droplets.

        Such back reflection explains the rainbow which uses few mean free paths to give high multiple reflection as the dominant reverse transfer of sunlight.

      • It’s simple to prove I’m right. No-one has ever shown that net radiative exitance of the Earth’s surface is at the Stefan-Boltzmann level.

        That claim is based on the pyrgeometer signal, > 95% artificial. Pointing a pyrgeometer at the surface measures the radiant emissivity of the atmosphere near the surface, not the surface.

        This is incontrovertible wrong until proven; not so far. Any competent physicist knows that only the Up-Down difference is a real energy transfer. Climate Alchemists are just fingers in ear, saying no no. It must be terribly shaming to be outed as grant tarts.

        Will Happer, a good physicist, refused to lie for Obama and is advising Trump. This modern equivalent of Phlogiston and its support by admitted fraudsters like Hansen, is being dumped. Allegedly, even Sir Stephen Hawkin has been protected by colleagues for 25 years because he was such an asset to Cambridge University.

        I believe it’s because he endorsed back radiation and bidirectional photon diffusion because he failed to realise it assumes a vacuum and the atmosphere is not a vacuum.

        Remember, I have run radiative furnaces, including an open hearth plant, and there is an awful lot of metallurgical industry ghg theory. See Ch 3 of the Chemical Engineering Handbook, co-written by Hottel, who did ghg experimental work at MIT in the 1950s. Climate Alchemy’s back radiation theory is as dopy as a pair of Dodo pyjamas.

      • Alexander:
        You have not answered my question.
        Are you advocating violation of conservation of energy?
        If not, then where does this “destructively interfered with” energy go to?

      • You clearly fail to understand it was never energy in the first place: because it is quenched at the Planckian oscillator stage so cannot be emitted bidirectionally with the energy in the gap.

        No gap, no energy for `60% of the Stefan-Boltzmann range.

        It’s this sheer bl@@dy failure to objectively analyse the boundary conditions of a problem that shames climate alchemists and renders present climate models unscientific.

      • BTW, my Thermodynamics’ lecturer was a post doc under Max Planck in the 1930s.

      • PS you have argued that there is a CO@ GHE. That is correct, but the increase of humidity as temperature rises allows low level clouds to extract more latent heat to offset most of the CO2 effect. Extra greening, currently 15%, offsets most of the rest.

        This almost infinite negative feedback has been ignored by the unprofessional climate scientists, now recanting as they retire. Max Planck said science is controlled by the retirement death of those who control fiefdoms.

      • “You clearly fail to understand it was never energy in the first place: because it is quenched at the Planckian oscillator stage so cannot be emitted bidirectionally with the energy in the gap.”

        Not just me Alexander, the whole of empirical science, including Planck.
        And just what is it that the experiment I linked to was measuring, if “never energy”.

        IR photons most certainly have real energy, whether incoming our outgoing, and that cannot be ‘destructively interfered’ with, without commensurate ‘constructive interference, taking place somewhere else.

        Just hopeless sky-dragon slaying claims with zero experimental evidence … as of course there won’t be.

      • Atmospheric photons as energy carriers cannot exist when there is zero gap between two emitters at the same temperature. Only when temperatures are different is there a net difference of Wave amplitude.

        Photon energy is a subset of that difference of wave intensity. I have had people claim to me that atmospheric pressure is set by photon momentum. Reality is that ground pressure is about 1% S-B radiation pressure

      • Steven Mosher

        “BTW, my Thermodynamics’ lecturer was a post doc under Max Planck in the 1930s.”

        Interesting appeal to authority.

        the simple fact is you are wrong, regardless of who was on top of your
        lecturer

      • Then show me how Goody and Yung were not badly mistaken in their bidirectional photon diffusion theory by not realising that Planck 1913 (see Goody’s ‘Planck pencils’), also Bose-Einstein 1923 assumed a vacuum.

        Last time I looked at atmosphere literature, it was only a vacuum from the limited pressure at ToA. Also, how can you justify R D Cess’ 33 K GHE claim based on failure to understand that radiant emissivity is defined as the ratio of the radiant exitance of a real emitter to that of an ideal black body of the same geometry <b and temperature. To claim the 33 K fall in temperature from the 15 deg C surface to the -18 deg C OLR, which is a black body, sets up the problem to assume non-existent thermalisation of GHG IR in the atmosphere. An humungous own goal.

        What is the definition of surface emissivity?
        A Combustion File downloaded from the IFRF Online Combustion Handbook ISSN 1607-9116

        The emissivity of a surface or body is always defined as the ratio of the radiation emitted by the surface to the maximum possible, that is, from a black body at the same temperature.

        What’s more, to offset the implied imaginary increased atmospheric heating over reality from that mistake (~40% of the S-B level), GISS used Manabe’s 2d atmosphere model with negative convection. Negative convection cannot exist. 25 years later Hansen admitted to an AIP reporter that it was a fudge, science fraud. It was apparently replaced by the UKMO with a Kirchhoff’s Law explanation of ‘back radiation’ with positive feedback of the extra CO2 signal as [CO2] rises. This wrongly assumes DWLIR is a real energy flux. There can be no direct warming of the Earth’s surface by [CO2] increase.

        Cloud physics assumes Mie forward lobes on entering lower drops are back reflected at the plane wave level when they are Gaussian waves with ~30,000 times more back reflection for lower, same size droplets in rain clouds. For 500 micron drops the gain is ~30,000, explaining rainbows and why clouds are dark underneath. This was missed by Hansen in 1969.

        Then there’s the real control system: ~60% of surface S-B IR exitance vanishes when the atmospheric GHG bands form a continuum with the surface Planck oscillators. The real control system is via the non self-absorbed 16-23 micron water vapour IR bands. Self absorption is strongly dependent on surface temperature when the surface warms. More latent heat is removed by clouds which increase in area (~6% over the past 20 years, giving higher albedo. This is at constant TSI, now falling. ccording to NASA, sea levels are now falling.

        Sorry; don’t mean to insult but I started my career operating radiant furnaces using ghgs – an open hearth plant, and there is a lot of industry literature that has been ignored by GISS. It’s a mess and the models must be withdrawn until these basic physics’ mistakes have been corrected. I could well be wrong too, but I will not allow incorrect physics to continue. Apparently, for 25 years, Sir Stephen Hawkin no less has ben protected by colleagues.

      • I realised you were being sarcastic, but I’m right, aren’t I?. Non-convective maximum cloud altitude (flat tops) IS set by the end of cloud buoyancy and more 16-23 micron water vapour IR emitted to Space. The exact balance is unknown apparently.

        This is why ~5 times as much surface energy is taken away by clouds as IR emission to Space, there being no surface IR emission outside the atmospheric window.

      • “I realised you were being sarcastic, but I’m right, aren’t I?. Non-convective maximum cloud altitude (flat tops) IS set by the end of cloud buoyancy and more 16-23 micron water vapour IR emitted to Space. The exact balance is unknown apparently.”

        Flat-topped cloud, i.e. (Non-convective) – Status, stratocumulus, altocumulus and cirrocumulus is set by a hydrolapse and/or an inversion in the presence of turbulence or uplift at that level.
        All that is needed is for an air-mass to be cooled and/or humidified from below in the case of Sc and sometimes Ac, often via convective infill at an inversion base – or warmed and/or humidified via advection up a frontal surface.
        Like I said Alexander – there are no sky-dragons.

    • Alexander Davidson: To claim pyrgeometers measure real IR energy flows is plain wrong. They are potential radiant energy fluxes to a perfect black body absorber at absolute zero, not real. It’s easy to do the maths to show that the real Up signal is from the gas adjacent the surface, not the surface, the sensor physically blocking opposite atmospheric GHG IR exitance.

      How much is the error, and what is your estimate of the true fluxes from the surface? ie, what figures ought to be in the Trenberth, Stephens and others energy flow diagrams?

      The reality is that removal of latent heat by variable rise of low level clouds and its control by the very strong humidity dependence of 16-23 micron water vapour self-absorption, is the dominant process, almost completely offsetting CO2 increase warming by negative feedback.

      How much do the fluxes change if the surface warms by 1C?

      • A pyrgeometer near the surface and pointing at it measures the combination of 40% Stefan-Boltzmann atmospheric window IR emission from the surface and the IR emitted at the same temperature by atmospheric ghgs.

        One of the key factors missed by the amateurs in climate alchemy is the balance of atmospheric vs surface IR radiant exitance in the Down pyrgeometer signal shifts with altitude.

        The atmospheric window emission from the surface includes the 16 – 23 micron water vapour spillway, which increases as surface humidity and temperature increases. At about 2.6 km, 16-23 micron self absorption falls so much that it cools normal cloud tops, stopping them rising. That altitude controls dominant cloud negative feedback.

        OLR for ghgs is from the altitude above which self-absorption falls significantly; ~20 km for CO2. MODTRAN calculates this stuff easily.

        As for 16-23 micron flux change with humidity, it is as much as necessary to minimise radiation entropy production.

      • “At about 2.6 km, 16-23 micron self absorption falls so much that it cools normal cloud tops, stopping them rising. That altitude controls dominant cloud negative feedback.”

        Really, and fascinating … something that entirely escaped me during my 32 years working for the UK MetO!

        The only thing that stops convective towers is entering into an ELR that is warmer than it, or via inhibition due meeting dry and/or subsiding air. And cooling cloud tops actually induce increased parcel rise due to the parcel being more unstable (layman’s mistake, you are not thinking parcel centric).
        Many overnight thunderstorms are prolonged/induced by this effect.
        The altitude of equilibrium for up/down LWIR is around 7/8 km, the Ms18C level, where -g/Cp now sets the Earth’s effective temp due the GHE.

      • THANK YOU TONY BANTON. I’M CLEARLY GETTING TRACTION.

        It was simple Mk 1 eyeball observation, showing flat tops to low level, convective clouds that showed to me the real control system.

        At that height 16-23 micron ( and a bit more ) water vapour ghg band self absorption falls so much that the cloud’s thermal energy rushes to Space. For convective clouds, Earth’s safety valve, momentum dominates.

      • That’s complete gibberish.

      • “Really, and fascinating … something that entirely escaped me during my 32 years working for the UK MetO!”

        You do realise I was being ironic/sarcastic with that?

  23. As there seems to be some interest in radiative energy transfer in this thread, some may find ‘experiments’ discussed in last winter’s essay of passing relevance.

    http://quondam.000webhostapp.com/Thermal_Dissipation_III.pdf

  24. My latest on skeptical science videos, new and old. (The articles have links to the videos.)

    New: http://www.cfact.org/2017/10/11/more-sound-climate-science-on-youtube/

    The beginning: “Another science video that debunks climate alarmism is up on YouTube, titled The Environment: A True Story. Climate alarmism is not in the title, but that is what the film is all about. This is the third sound science climate flick in less than a month, which is good news indeed.

    Its predecessors are designed for classroom use, each being about 24 minutes long. True Story is very different. It is more of a mini-series, a whopping 2 hours and 40 minutes long. At that great length it is very thorough, especially on the subject of natural variability, which is its focus. The basic message is that emerging from the little ice age is the best explanation for the present warming, but there is a whole lot besides that.

    This is a full scale Canadian documentary and the Canadians are very good at this sort of thing. The star is Dr. John Robson, a well known Canadian journalist and historian who often writes for the National Post of Canada. He is also a video pundit, along the lines of ask a professor, as well as a prominent skeptic of climate alarmism. There are supporting roles by several well known skeptical scientists, especially the ever calm Will Happer. Robson sometimes gets excited, even talking too fast to be followed, but Happer is always measured and cool.” (end of quote)

    Old: http://www.cfact.org/2017/10/11/vintage-co2science-videos-are-still-useful-today/

    The beginning: “When looking for YouTube videos skeptical of alarmism and alarmist science, especially for teaching, one should not overlook the extensive collection of vintage CO2Science videos. CO2Science has one of the largest collections of sound science material on the Web, including excellent non-technical summaries of many hundreds of scientific research papers which present findings that are inconsistent with alarmism. They have almost 100 carefully crafted videos as well. Most of the videos date from the Copenhagen Conference era, circa 2008-2009 or a decade ago.

    All of these videos are directly available on the YouTube CO2Science channel. (None play directly from the CO2Science website, at least not on my admittedly old computers.) In addition each can easily be found using the YouTube search feature and once you find one you are then offered the full channel.

    While some of the videos of are dated, many are still very relevant because the alarmist arguments and methods have not changed much. For example there is a whole series on how the IPCC advocacy apparatus works. There are also many on the benefits of atmospheric CO2, the usefulness of fossil fuels, etc. It is interesting to wonder what role these may have played in the happy failure of that ridiculous UNFCCC Conference.

    Interestingly, most of these videos are very short, between 1 and 6 minutes long, which means they can be combined in many different ways to create classroom materials. The practice of weaving teaching materials out of short videos is part of the popular movement called Open Educational Resources, which hopes to replace expensive textbooks. These videos can also be used to replace alarmism.” (End of quote)

    There is more to each of course.

    This is truly fun stuff. Keep it coming.

    • My latest on skeptical science videos, new and old……

      Choose any you like David.

    • Re: “Another science video that debunks climate alarmism is up on YouTube, titled The Environment: A True Story.”

      Who’s engaging in this “alarmism”? Is it the IPCC scientists who under-estimate the impacts of climate change?:

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/

      “Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction
      […]
      A constant refrain coming from the denial campaign is that climate scientists are “alarmists” who exaggerate the degree and threat of global warming to enhance their status, funding, and influence with policy makers. The contribution by William Freudenburg and Violetta Muselli provides an insightful empirical test of this charge and finds it to lack support.”

      And this is some of the relevant supporting research on this point:
      “Reexamining Climate Change Debates: Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)?”
      “Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?”
      “Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge”

      Or maybe the “alarmists” are the IPCC scientists who’s tone tends to be more tentative and less “alarmist”, while paying sufficient attention to uncertainty?:

      “The language of denial: Text analysis reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics”
      “Comment on “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” by J. A. Curry and P. J. Webster”
      “Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on consistent treatment of uncertainties”

      Nope. The proponents of “alarmism” are people like you: people who try to create alarm about scientists, by misrepresenting what the scientists are saying and doing.

      • Are there climate alarmists?

        There are those that say, Don’t worry about it. I say worry a little bit and now let’s talk spending and taxes. There’s some stuff we need to do anyways. So if the don’t worriers exist, what to we call everyone else?

        “The political controversy over climate change may cause proponents’ language to be conservative (for fear of being attacked) and opponents’ language to be aggressive (to more effectively attack). This has clear implications for the science communication of climate research.”

        I accept that too much certainty comes from some on the skeptic’s side. Some also attack. There are attacks on a number of controversial issues. Trump was attacked for withdrawing or maybe withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Spencer was attacked for intelligent design. White males have been called racists for decades. One of the most consistent attacks has been on big oil going back to the Exxon Valdez. Corporations and capitalism have been attacked consistently. I am not sure what you call the media attacking Trump about once a day. Remember the FLOTUS shoes? I spent one minute with the NIPCC report related to the above quote. Sure they attacked, you can look at some of the authors and guess that. It’s a report from one organization.

        So we have these other controversial issues in the U.S. That the same tactics are used with the climate. Perhaps it’s time that capitalists, corporations and big oil start fighting back rather than being cowed. For the most part, they haven’t done much wrong. They have delivered value.

      • By climate change alarmist I mean any person or organization that endorses the hypothesis of dangerous human caused climate change and the resulting need for action, especially by government. Climate change alarmism is a massive social and political movement, of historic scale, but it is just a component of the larger environmental movement.

        The IPCC is a leading alarmist organization. But there are degrees of alarmism so those who say the IPCC is understating the danger are clearly more alarmist. In the same way, the USGCRP is more alarmist than the IPCC and it controls billions of dollars in research funding. Much follows from this. There is a great deal to study and say here.

    • This is a screen grab of Earth null school – showing total precipitable water in the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean.

      https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-145.40,0.83,217

      It shows high pressure cells in the Gulf of Alaska and across the Southern Ocean – spinning up in waves of storms spinning off polar regions. Winds and currents on the coasts of the Americas facilitate upwelling of deep ocean water – feedbacks drive the evolution of cold tongues across the Pacific. There is a band of warmth just north of the equator – this is moving south with the sun and will dissipate further as it meets the cold sea surface tongue now emerging in the central Pacific.

      With cooler SST over such a large of the tropical and sub-tropical parts of the planet – comes more and lower cloud and a cooling planet.

      But as upwelling occurs on a continuum – year to year variability and as 20 to 30 year globally coupled regime shifts that add up to millennial variability – it is not just a single event in isolation.

      So the quandary – even if all warming between the mid 1940’s climate shift and that of the late 1990’s is attributed to people – it is just some 0.4 degrees K. And on the other hand – greenhouse gases are a wildcard in a spatio/temporal chaotic deck.

    • The north east Pacific is cooling as enhanced coastal winds and currents kick in – upwelling waxes and wanes. Now it is in the waxing phase. It is not all that surprising in the way of oscillations.

  25. Sorry, flat top low level clouds that have stopped rising are non-convective; missed out the non.

  26. https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/10/12/la-nina-expected-winter-what-mean-our-weather/758631001/

    La Niña is expected this winter. What will that mean for our weather?
    Doyle Rice, USA TODAY Published 3:14 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2017 | Updated 3:21 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2017

    La Niña, the cooler sibling of El Niño, is likely to form over the next few months, federal government forecasters said Thursday.

    Specifically, there’s a 55 to 65% chance that a La Niña will develop during the fall and winter of 2017-18, the Climate Prediction Center said.

    • “International climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate that further cooling of equatorial Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures is expected during spring and into summer. All models anticipate that SSTs may approach or surpass La Niña thresholds during spring or early summer. However, only three models indicate that these SSTs will persist long enough to be classified as a La Niña event.”

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks

  27. This blog is about dead. Its death confirms it was driven by hyperbolic US climate change policy not science.

    Climate Ball Final Score: Sanity 1, Alarmists 0

    Thanks for playing!

  28. We’ll see what La Nina brings.

    • The PDO keeps eating the La Niña:

      Instead, we saw the surface temperatures warm substantially over the last half of September. The warming wasn’t enough to wipe out the whole-month cool anomaly, but it was enough to undermine—at least a little—forecasters’ confidence that the pattern is solidly established and will last for the required five overlapping seasons. So…no La Niña yet.

      The Australians, the ones with brains, are already backing off.

      October’s 5-day forecast has some of the highest anomalies seen in several months. The enhanced greenhouse effect is a beast.

      • “It seems likely that the surface waters will tend cooler again, as those stronger-than-average surface winds I mentioned above work to cool the surface and keep the warmest Pacific waters trapped in the far western Pacific. Also, we still have a substantial amount of cooler-than-average water below the surface. The cool subsurface waters increased during September, and will likely provide a source of cooler waters to the surface over the next few months.” This is a quote from elsewhere in his cite – he quotes the bit where it is speculated based on extraordinarily little that the La Nina won’t be a big and hairy monster.

        Any hint of warmth sends JCH into paroxysms of self vindication – and it takes so little to send him off. He has not the slightest clue but tends to search for words that seem to have meaning for him – but no one is buying what he is selling. I picked the emerging La Nina well before the models kicked in – for very good physical reasons. Nothing has changed – he is all just stuff and nonsense endlessly repeated.

      • Waiting, waiting, waiting.
        We all set ourselves up, don’t we.
        Fingers crossed for any sort of La Nina.
        Will JCH say that he never predicted a La Nina would happen by the end of this year if one happens?
        Answer, yes.

      • Darn double negatives.
        Will JCH say that he never predicted a La Nina would not happen by the end of this year if one happens?
        Answer, yes.

      • I don’t care if we have yet another toasty warm La Niña, though it would be tough to be the last one’s mean of .89 ℃. Regardless, if it happens, which BOM just called into doubt, it will be a heater.

  29. Dead blog or otherwise it’s honest. So I hereby announce for the very first time the very simple proof that the climate models are based on nonsense.

    The problem is that the bidirectional photon diffusion theory of Goody and Yung, is based on Planck’s 1913 treatise which assumes a vacuum, with Maxwell’s waves propagating in both directions, hence stored energy. The photons are simply a subset of Maxwell wave propagation.

    Consider the CO2 15 micron GHG band; fully self-absorbed. It emits to the adjacent, equal temperature surface at the black body level – no gap. The surface emits at the black body level to the gas – no gap.

    No gap means there is no energy dissipation, no radiation entropy production. The CO2 emits as part of OLR at say 20 km. That means to Space, the surface of the Earth in the IR spectrum is at ~20 km. There can only be zero heating of the surface if CO2 rises AND no positive feedback. No need for any hypothesis about how the energy in that band at the surface is transferred; it just does over no gap so no energy dissipation. QED

    • I don’t know what this means at all. All surfaces above absolute zero emit radiation – gap or not. Photons are emitted in all directions having energies related to the quantum of change in the energy state of the Planckian oscillator. I use that term because it was used above but it and much other terminology here simply serves to confuse the discussion. Electron orbits shift to a lower energy state and emit a photon. Simpler? The Schrödinger-Maxwell equation simply defines a probability function of photon locations evolving wavelike through time.

      A warm surface emits photons to molecules in the atmosphere – or even in about 7% of cases directly to space. There is no mystery here – the surface warms and then cools as IR through the atmosphere to space. Ultimately the energies equilibriate at toa in maximum entropy.

      That there is a latent heat flux in the troposphere merely provides a negative feedback in the lapse rate – and an upper tropospheric temp increase. None of it is all that significant or interesting.

      • To reinforce my main point. In any fully self absorbed IR frequency range such as the 15 micron CO2 band, the surface of the adjacent solid Earth ceases to exist, so it cannot have IR radiant exitance. This seems very strange to Mr Ellison, but it is perfectly logical.

        Think of it as an invisibility cloak, and completely changes the main assumption in climate alchemy. I have no conscience about destroying this shibboleth – too many people have for too long used a fake scientific enterprise to make fat livings as their masters feast on the grants offered by dumb politicians out to improve their virtue signalling record.

        Tony Abbott has called an end to the fraud in his recent GWPF lecture.

    • Alexander Davidson: Consider the CO2 15 micron GHG band; fully self-absorbed. It emits to the adjacent, equal temperature surface at the black body level – no gap. The surface emits at the black body level to the gas – no gap.

      Please take a step back. What does “fully self-absorbed” mean? How can you tell it is “fully self-absorbed”? Is it “fully self-absorbed” everywhere? Is the adjacent surface at the same temperature everywhere and always? Which air is adjacent to the surface, the bottom 2 meters of the atmosphere? More, or less?

      The problem is that the bidirectional photon diffusion theory of Goody and Yung, is based on Planck’s 1913 treatise which assumes a vacuum,

      All physical laws are based on simplifications that crate some approximation error. How great is the error in this case.

      Tony Abbott has called an end to the fraud in his recent GWPF lecture.

      A link would be helpful.

  30. You don’t get it, do you, and it’s so simple? There has never been experimental proof that with no gap to the local atmosphere, at equilibrium, Earth’s surface net emits or receives IR energy in fully self-absorbed ghg IR bands. The claimed proof, based on pyrgeometer data showing opposite radiant exitances, not real energy flows, is false, as any professional knows.

    If you read Planck 1913 in its fine detail, he explains that the surface of a solid emitter radiates IR over 360 degrees when in a vacuum. With a vacuum and a gap, the radiant energy and radiant entropy transfer across the gap is equal for both absorbers. This gives no net radiant energy transfer but there is a positive radiation entropy increase in the universe because of the finite time for the photons to cross the gap. Planck appreciated that as well as the radiant energy the radiation entropy is transferred to the absorbing surface, but it would, if it existed, raise the entropy of the universe.

    No gap to the local atmosphere means no possible such radiation entropy accumulation nor radiative energy thermalisation by photons crossing in opposite directions. Because the Earth’s local thermodynamic equilibrium requires minimisation of radiation entropy production rate, the no gap, no radiation entropy increase principle wins.

    There is IR oscillator continuum at the junction which means in that fully self absorbed band, the surface disappears. Hence at equilibrium, the surface cannot radiate any IR energy in that band to be thermalised in the local gas. There is IR emission from that band in the OLR. Looking at that band from a space microwave pyrometer, the energy appears to come from the altitude at which the ghg emitters are space filling, a back body,

    There is some energy loss from the surface in the non self-absorbed part of partially self-absorbed ghg bands, notably 16-23 micron water. It’s the unusual properties of that range of IR frequencies that is the control system, minimising radiation entropy production rate and causing Earth’s surface to remain at a set point determined by tsi. However there are various time constants to achieve equilibrium, the longest the 800 year thermohaline circulation response.

    • Pyrgeometers are irrelevant. Self absorbed? None of it makes any sense to me at all. I can’t even read it in the usual way and have not any clue about what it is I have just read. It is just not ideas and language that that are remotely comprehensible in a framework of physics as it is more generally understood. As I said before – it is a rabbit hole too far for me. It is not even wrong it is just totally oddball and get’s more so with every contribution.

      • Then why not read a good text, or Will Happer, advisor to Trump, who has written a GHG IR for dummies paper?

        To be kind, self absorption is when the concentration of ghg IR emitters/absorbers in a particular band becomes space filling in projection. The absorptivity is initially proportional to ghg concentration of [ghg] but then turns to being space filling in projection, about 200 ppmV for 15 micron ghg IR, CO2 in air.

        The key new thinking by me is to realise that at Earth’s surface, ghg band emission away from the surface IR in the 15 micron CO2 band at > ~200 ppmV is at the back body level. Emission in the opposite direction is a virtual black body IR emitter (modelled as a differential equation.

        Self absorption correction is standard in analytical spectroscopy. So there is a continuum of the same IR emitter density of states, surface to gas, meaning that in that band, there is no local energy thermalisation.

        However, as temperature falls with altitude, energy from the surface as latent heat shifts to OLR IR to Space when the ghg IR band ceases to be self absorbed.

      • Alternatively read the work of Hoyt C Hottel (Ch 3 of the Chemical Engineers’ Handbook), or any professional heat transfer handbook.

        Because no climate alchemist read such literature they converted radiant exitance as a real energy flow, when it isn’t, and self-absorption: not a clue, as shown apparently by your response.

      • Self absorbed? Unless we are talking David Springer then the closest I can get is perhaps saturation in the atmosphere as a whole.

        The energy flux is very real – it comes from the sun to the surface where it heats. Heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere to space as both latent as radiant energy. And there is plenty to read on the matter. Molecules absorb and emit photons – emit in all directions. Some head down again and heat the surface some more. It is called scattering. Photons are emitted to space at all levels in the atmosphere – including from the surface. It is real energy.

        All on the basis that pyrgeometers measure the difference between fluxes up and down and not absolute values? As I said – knowing the temperature of the unit absolute flux can be estimated – but this is not relevant to modelling or energy budgets. It simply isn’t. But it still is real energy.

        I have read a few physics texts in my time – and frankly I have given your old fashioned expressions the benefit of the doubt. To the point of googling every term in order to partially translate into the modern vernacular. But I don’t appreciate having to work so hard just to translate. Even then I am left wondering if you have not simply invented terms. Instead of sending me to dusty old texts – you need to work on language accessible to the modern world. Safe to say I am not impressed by your novel but misguided ideas either.

    • Have you submitted your work to a journal?

      • My main paper, now nearly complete demonstrates a key property of rain clouds, extinction coefficient, can be far higher than standard Mie theory. Van der Hulst 1967, a very good physicist and James Hansen 1969, failed to realise that the forward scattred Mie scattering lobe is not a plane wave,

        Hence that lobe from 500 micron diameter rain drops at the base of a non-convective cloud entering a similar lower drop can give backreflection 30,000 times higher. This increases extinction coefficient. NASA stupidly claims dark underneath clouds in polluted environments is because they have small droplets. The expermental of enhanced backreflection is the rainbow; I have used Mieplot’s Gaussian wave model to do the calculations.

        As for the new explanation of how there can be no surface heating, no positive feedback as [CO2] rises has been difficult to describe as I have researched the problem. However, it is just one of the glaring mistakes by te climate alchemists who throw the insult to me that I am a skydragon slayer. I work solely on my own.

      • “… who throw the insult to me that I am a skydragon slayer. I work solely on my own.”

        Alexander:
        A ‘sky-dragon slayer’ is someone who tries to solve already perfectly explainable physics with some ‘other’ physics.
        There are no sky-dragons, and they don’t need slaying my friend.
        To say otherwise, I am afraid, smacks of a psychological root cause in you.

        It implies that either….
        a) All climate scientists right back to Tyndall and Arrhenius are incompetent.
        b) the above are deluded and/or perpetrating a scam, and somehow no one has gainsayed when they have failed to replicate experimental results. And to boot NWP models which use the physics you deny somehow come up with the wrong answers. No ones noticed that. Funny eh?
        c) they know more than you.

        c) is the obvious answer, and a statement like ‘destructive interference’ of photons, and ‘not real energy’ speaks loudly of that.

      • Tony: the scientific debate is not nearly this simple. Would that it were. I do not claim to understand Davidson’s argument, but a lack of understanding is not a counter argument. Neither is an appeal to authority, especially not in this unsettled situation.

      • Tony Banton: I will not tolerate a so-called science that started with Cess’ 1976, at least mistaken claim that Earth’s radiant emissivity was =18 deg C OLR/Earth’s +15 deg C S-B emission. This bad physics created the false 33 K GHE claim – see any heat transfer text – radiant emissivity requires equal geometry and equal temperature comparison to a perfect black body.

        Cess was backed up also in 1976 by GISS using Manabe’s 2d calculation of atmospheric temperature profile with the substantial but imaginary extra atmospheric thermalisation of surface S-B IR than reality. offset by non-existent ‘negative convection’. 25 years later, Hansen admitted to an AIP interviewer that this was ‘a fudge’, proving science fraud.

        The Met office (Julia Slingo’s late husband) apparently covered up this by a Kirchhoff’s Law back reflection justification when there is a major error in cloud physics and they assumed ‘back radiation’ is a real IR energy flux when it isn’t, any professional will confirm. Poor saps muffed this physics.

        The bidirectional photon diffusion theory is based on assuming a gap between radiant emitters in equilibrium in a vacuum (see Goody and Yung). The atmosphere has no gaps except Space and is not a vacuum. To apply it to the atmosphere, the difference of Up and Down Planck Functions is an approximation, and a good one, so the errors drop out. However, it cannot be used at the surface because 40% of the S-B IR radiant exitance goes to Space via the atmospheric window with the rest non-existent because of ghg blanking.

        There is also the utterly stupid belief that a pyrgeometer signal is a real energy flux when it is a radiant exitance, the potential radiative flux to a perfect black body absorber at absolute zero, >95% of the theoretical. Only the Up-Down difference is real.

        So, there’s another real physics which I have been trying to devise and it’s based on the surface disappearing as an IR emitter for self-absorbed ghg IR bands. Where the ghg IR band is partially self-absrbed, the surface IR is scaled back via the spillover. The real control system is latent heat carried up by clouds until, for low level non-convective clouds, the spillover for 16-23 micron water vapour ghg bands rises substantially, driving the latent heat as IR to Space. you see this best by the flat tops of non-convective low level clouds which have stopped rising because they are cooled.

        There is no other credible explanation consistent with minimisation of radiation entropy production rate to give local Thermodynamic Equilibrium. This ensures the Earth maintains a constant set point temperature subject to constant tsi, which SW energy does heat the surface. Any CO2 effect is from OLR or transients, which have time constants up to the 800 year deep sea THC linking Antarctica to the Equator, the opposite part of the atmospheric advection going South from the Equator.

        So, stop trying to preach from authority about this fraudulent science. That, 5 major physics’ errors and fraud made it wrong from the start.

      • “Tony: the scientific debate is not nearly this simple. ”

        In terms of basic thermodynamics, it most certainly is David.
        And that is what I am pushing back on.
        We can argue ECS but the GHE is real and CO2 does what it does.

      • We can argue ECS but the GHE is real and CO2 does what it does.

        Sure. But, increased GHE != climate change != disaster

        Increased mean temperature is modeled to occur with decreased variability and decreased kinetic energy.

        Advocates start with a real principle AGW but innuendo, exaggeration, and simply false claims pollute reason.

      • David Springer

        Tony Banton,

        I’m a fan of experimental science. Theoretical science is fun but ultimately it is no more than a just-so story; a narrative.

        What experiment has confirmed that CO2 exerts a greenhouse warming effect? The famous Woods experiment failed to demonstrate it and no one else has successfully demonstrated it either.

      • Viewing the Earth through a narrow aperture at different times reveals an increase in photon scattering due to more greenhouse gases.

        https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/Harries_Spectrum_2001.pdf

      • TE, can you think of any examples where increased kinetic energy has considered a climate threat? I say this because all the given examples, heatwaves, droughts, flooding, cold waves, come from having more sluggish weather patterns with air masses and fronts locked in place. Continuous weather is rather worse than quickly changing weather.

      • “The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.”

      • David Springer

        @Ellison

        Brightness temps referenced don’t demonstrate surface warming due to greenhouse gases. It proves there are more of those gases.

        @Banton

        The 2015 Nature article shows correlation not causation.

        Both references by the way are not experiments they are merely observations. Experiments require controls to isolate variables. Write that down.

        Try again.

      • Proving that there are more greenhouse gases would be a trivial exercise – much as is Springer in general.

      • “Both references by the way are not experiments they are merely observations. Experiments require controls to isolate variables. Write that down.”
        Springer:
        You seem not to have noticed that we have just one Earth, and that one is a tad difficult to squeeze into a lab to do any kind of ‘experiment’ (other than the one we are doing with it now that is).

        And we already have the causation … Going back ~150 years.

        Write that down.
        You try again.
        ….. And I have no doubt that you will, as it a characteristic of a certain psychology prevalent on here to do a ‘with one bound he was free’.

      • Observation is of course the foundation of many disciplines. Not that Banton is an objective observer.

      • @Tony Banton,

        “… and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels … are affecting the surface energy balance.”

        This conclusion is a stretch. If the authors wish to make claims about effects on surface energy balance, the mere presence of increased DLWR is insufficient. They would need to show that surface temperature varies according to their observed DLWR changes.

        At the Earth’s surface, DLWR from atmospheric CO2 is insignificant as a heat transfer mechanism compared to conduction, convection, and evaporation. Any energy lost from the atmosphere through DLWR would be immediately replaced with thermal energy from the surface via these other mechanisms. Energy balance would be maintained in the face of increasing CO2 DLWR because it would be exactly cancelled by increased conduction, convection, and evaporation from the surface.

      • Agreed: we’re getting real traction and climate alchemy will, like Phlogiston, collapse soon.

      • willb, unless those responses can also cause more outward radiation to space, they won’t cancel out the energy imbalance. Warming is one way to increase the emission to space to achieve that, and that appears to be the way Nature chooses. Evaporation only makes things worse by adding a GHG and increasing the forcing, so that is counterproductive for the balance.

      • Jim D, the authors are claiming that their DLWR measurements are evidence for an energy imbalance, without their having actually observed any kind of a corresponding energy imbalance. They need to make this (so far missing) observation in order to justify their claim. I’m suggesting that one way to do this would be to accurately measure surface temperature and show a correlation to the DLWR measurements.

        Otherwise, the only valid conclusion that I can see is: more CO2 means more DLWR.

      • willb, the surface temperature and ocean heat content cannot both rise unless there is an energy imbalance, so these are measured proof that the imbalance exists and is significant.

      • Jim D, I’m not arguing about whether or not an energy imbalance exists. In fact, I actually think it likely that there has always been an energy imbalance (causing the surface temperature to continually change). What I’m saying is that the authors of the report have not provided any evidence that their DLWR observations have contributed to that energy imbalance.

      • They observationally confirmed the mechanism that was pretty certain already from theory and hard to measure directly. These properties of the GHGs were already measured in labs of course, but not over long periods at individual outdoor sites. So, yes, the outdoors does behave like the lab. No surprise there.

      • They “observationally confirmed” that more CO2 results in more DLWR. Despite their claim, they did not “observationally confirm” that the resultant DLWR contributed in any way to the existing energy imbalance.

      • “Despite their claim, they did not “observationally confirm” that the resultant DLWR contributed in any way to the existing energy imbalance.”

        Eh?
        Sorry but I fail to see what logic you have available to you could possibly cause that conclusion.
        It is energy that is measured at the surface.
        It is LWIR.
        it is therefor not directly incoming solar.
        It is terrestrial converted from solar SW.
        It is in addition to that.
        Ergo it IS by definition “contributing to the the existing energy imbalance”
        It IS THE “existing energy imbalance”.
        One which has to drive up the GMT.

        Your statement is a nonsense.

      • willb, I think you are saying you don’t believe any of the physics that makes that connection quantitatively.

      • Tony Banton: “It IS THE “existing energy imbalance”.”

        Perhaps or perhaps not. DLWIR originating in the atmosphere transfers energy from the air to the surface, cooling the air and warming the surface. If a counteracting transfer of energy back to the air doesn’t occur, the local temperature gradient will increase, exceeding the ALR. Since this can’t be allowed to happen, a counteracting energy transfer must be happening. If this is the case and DLWIR from CO2 is automatically triggering an equal and opposite energy transfer, then DLWIR doesn’t contribute anything to the energy imbalance.

        It’s therefore speculative to say that the energy imbalance is due to DLWIR. The authors of the report you cited haven’t provided any evidence for this. That’s why I wrote that their claim was a stretch.

      • willb, OK, so don’t you believe doubling CO2 adds 3.7 W/m2 to the forcing? Lindzen, Curry, and heck even Monckton, have accepted that much. Remember the forcing is different from the imbalance. The point is, adding to the forcing drives an imbalance, and don’t conflate the response with the forcing, which is what you seem to be doing.

      • Jim D, I do think doubling CO2 will add some forcing but nobody can really know exactly how much. At least not until the doubling actually occurs and maybe not even then. In any case, I’m doubtful that the forcing will be due to DLWIR.

        Oh, and thanks for letting me know where everyone stands on forcing vs CO2 doubling. I’ll file that info.

      • willbo, the forcing added by CO2 already is about 2 W/m2 which is significant. The remaining imbalance is 0.5-1 W/m2, the rest being canceled by the warming we have had already. More to come because the imbalance remains positive despite all the warming so far.

  31. The GHE via OLR is real, but it is offset by strong negative feedback, some of which can have a long time constant.

    My view is there can be no CO2 GHE from changes in ‘back radiation’ because ‘back radiation is not a real energy flux to which Climate Alchemists show a Pavlovian but wrong response. Eventually, these people will give up shouting ‘denier’ instead of arguing the science, which cannot be used as another form of Jehovah’s Witness belief, or is it Mormon?

    • Alexander Davidson: The GHE via OLR is real, but it is offset by strong negative feedback, some of which can have a long time constant.

      Completely offset? Would that not imply that absorption of OLR by CO2 and H2O does not heat the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere?

      My view is there can be no CO2 GHE from changes in ‘back radiation’ because ‘back radiation is not a real energy flux

      This has been much discussed. “My own view” is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in slower rate of transfer of OLR to space from Earth Surface, hence a warming of the atmosphere, hence warmer populations of CO2 and H2O vaper; the warmer atmospheric CO2 and H2O vapor increase the rate of downwelling LWIR; that increases Earth surface temperature (which is actually warmed by broad spectrum sunlight, the downward LWIR fluxes being secondary); the warming of the Earth surface is (at least partly) offset by increased nonradiative transfer of heat from surface to atmosphere (e.g. hydrologic cycle). There is constant concomitant transfer of energy in both directions between atmosphere and surface.

      Your entire series of posts seems to come down to a: distinguishing surface from near surface and b: flux rates are inaccurately measured (without a hint at the size of the approximation error.) At a given temperature, the molecules in a region have a distribution of energies, and within the region some can be emitting even as others are absorbing; and there is no sound argument that downwelling LWIR can not exist and can not increase with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

      • There has never been any calorimetric proof that LWIR exists. No professional scientist agrees that a radiant exitance like LWIR is a real radiant energy flux.

        Climate alchemists and followers believe LWIR is a real energy flux because they believe Goody and Yung’s bidirectional photon diffusion theory, which only applies to a vacuum so cannot be used. They also fail to understand that pyrgeometer outputs at equilibrium are radiant exitances, not real radiant energy flows: >95% of the signal is from S-B calculation based on internal reference temperature.

        You are supporting a convenient myth – sorry. but to continue to claim LWIR is a real energy flux is in my view unprofessional.

      • Alexander Davidson: There has never been any calorimetric proof that LWIR exists.

        Long Wave InfraRed does not exist?

      • LWIR is a radiant exitance, potential radiant IR flux from the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface to a perfect black body radiation sink. It is not a real energy flux.

        At equilibrium, LWIR is exactly offset by the ~40% of theoretical surface S-B Up radiant exitance in the atmospheric window, the remaining radiant exitance being from ghgs in the atmosphere adjacent the surface.

        This is because for fully self-absorbed ghgs, the surface ceases to exist as an IR emitter, their real IR emitting plane to space being where each band ceases to self-fabsorbed, about 20 km for CO2.

        Control of surface temperature is by partially self-absorbed, 16-23 micron water vapour IR exitance, As [CO2] increases, surface temperature rises, more water vapour evaporates, increasing humidity. higher self-absorption reduces surface IR exitance in those bands, shifting the difference to the atmosphere near the surface. Clouds carry away more latent heat.

        This strong negative feedback almost completely offsets warming from increased CO2. As [CO2] rises, the increase of LWIR is real, but warming of the surface is much lower than increased LWIR would predict.

        To summarise, LWIR is not a real radiant energy flux, nor is the Up radiant exitance from surface and near surface atmosphere. Increased humidity as CO2 warming takes place is almost exactly offset by strong negative feedback from increased self-absorption in the 16-23 micron bands of water vapour. Cloud activity increases.

      • Correction to last paragraph:

        The warming from rise in [CO2] is almost exactly offset by the strong negative feedback as clouds carry away more latent heat and surface IR exitance in the non self-absorbed part of 16-23 micron bands decreases.

        It’s all about the shift of net energy loss from surface IR exitance in the atmospheric window to extra latent heat being carried away by clouds, clamping surface temperature in a narrow range.

        Sorry, explaining this reasoning is taking a bit of time.

      • Alexander Davidson: As [CO2] increases, surface temperature rises, more water vapour evaporates, increasing humidity. higher self-absorption reduces surface IR exitance in those bands, shifting the difference to the atmosphere near the surface. Clouds carry away more latent heat.

        This strong negative feedback almost completely offsets warming from increased CO2. As [CO2] rises, the increase of LWIR is real, but warming of the surface is much lower than increased LWIR would predict.

        How is that different from what I wrote? We agree that ILWR exists, increases as tropospheric temp increases, warms the surface, and the warming effect at the surface is (at least partially) offset by increased non-radiative transfer from surface to atmosphere.

        As far as I can tell, the only new point you present is that measurement of the radiation flows is not exact.

      • My point is that it is wrong to consider that a radiant exitance is a real energy flux. Only the difference of Up and Down radiant exitances is a real energy flux.

        The UP radiant exitance near the surface is atmospheric window surface IR, ~40% S-B level, plus the rest from the adjacent atmosphere. This is because surface IR radiant exitance in the 60% does not exist, being merged into the same self-absorbed ghg frequency so the ‘IR emitting surface’ is at the atmospheric altitude where each band separately ceases to be self-absorbed.

        This is new physics. It allows the peculiar partial self-absorption properties of 16-23 micron water vapour bands to almost completely offset, as more heat leaves the surface by latent heat, temperature rise from increased [CO2]. This is also new physics and deserves a hearing.

      • The sun has a lot of “radiant exitance”, I think.

      • The 0.5 degree SW emission from the sun intercepted by Earth is a radiant exitance. To get the real energy flux you must subtract the same frequency IR from the Earth to the Sun. This is, of course, zero.

        In the same way, real net OLR is measured OLR minus the opposite IR from the cosmic microwave background, also near zero.

        This is the real physics, taught in rigorous departments. Climate Alchemy uses its bidirectional photon diffusion theory which assumes a vacuum so cannot be used, and falsely assumes the surface emits at its S-B level to create CO2 warming and imaginary positive feedback. The 33 K GHE buoyed up by ghgs directly warming the surface is fallacious: water vapour negative feedback offsets CO2 warming to near zero..

        Sorry, I must correct the use of bad physics and its fraudulent justification, later admitted by Hanson to an AIP interviewer, and stop the disastrous renewables push, now bleeding the poor to benefit the globalist oligarchs, whose apparent aim is to profit whilst halving western populations, and 90% of third world population by power starvation (see ‘Population Matters’ whose patrons include eugenicist Paul Ehrlich.

        As for the predicted very cold norther winter as we enter the new low tsi LIA, there will be plenty of white global warming dust and deaths from cold.

      • Alexander Davidson: My point is that it is wrong to consider that a radiant exitance is a real energy flux. Only the difference of Up and Down radiant exitances is a real energy flux.

        The difference between up and down radiant energy flux is net radiant energy flux. Both upward and downward radiant fluxes are always occurring, but the spatio-temporal distribution of each, and of their difference, is non-uniform.

        As written above, you seem to have said that Up and Down radiant exitances both exist (otherwise there can’t be a difference). That’s a change from There has never been any calorimetric proof that LWIR exists.

      • Sorry, but you are completely wrong. To claim separate Up and Down real IR fluxes at equilibrium is attractive until you realise Goody and Yung’s bidirectional photon theory, based on Planck 1913 and Bose-Einstein 1923, assumed a vacuum gap, meaning the theory cannot apply to Earth’s surface with adjacent ghg-containing air.

        To calculate net radiative energy transfer across a gap, vacuum or non IR active gas, you must use the difference of exitances. Each opposing radiant exitance switches off the equivalent frequency Planckian oscillator in the opposite absorber. If radiative exitances are not equal, one emitter has unfilled Planckian oscillators left to radiate, hence real net radiative energy energy loss is one directional from that emitter.

        To conclude, a radiant exitance cannot be a real energy flux. For a no ghg atmosphere only the unclamped Planckian oscillators in one radiator emits real net energy from its unclamped Planckian oscillators.

        However, I bring to the party an entirely new physics, to show that the self-absorbed ghg species in the real atmosphere adjacent the surface clamp all surface Planckian oscillators at the same frequency, Partially self-absorbed ghgs scale down surface IR radiant exitance in those bands. Thus the surface has zero radiative exitance in most ghg frequencies, but with some in the partially self-absorbed 16-23 micron water ghg IR bands.

        Since the atmospheric ghgs emit over 360 degrees from the surface – air junction, a pyrgeometer measures radiant exitance at the S-B level from the fully self absorbed ghg bands that make the IR surface disappear, plus some <S-B IR from the partially self absorbed ghg 'spillover'. To this is added the 'atmospheric window' radiant exitance of the surface.

        Thus about 60% of S-B level radiant exitance climate science wrongly believes to be from the surface is really from ghg molecules in the adjacent air. Humidity rise as temperature rises gives less IR radiant exitance from this air layer, switching more suface energy loss to latent heat, most of which is removed by clouds with advection smoothing. Urban temperature rise is a nice area to study because you can design in practical temperature rise minimisation with plant transpiration.

        This control system is beautifully simple and I feel proud to have worked it out, As far as the hurt pride of so-called experts, sorry, but science is brutal in closing down people who have not been thorough in their thinking and hope to get away by shouting 'denier' and la la la. That's pathetic.

        Read Planck and Bose-Einstein. Planck is fascinating because he calculates the energy of waves/photons criss-crossing the vacuum gap. However, although radiative equilibrium equal radiative exitance and radiation entropy are absorbed by both absorbers there is still an increase in radiation entropy from photons crossing the gap. For real surface IR physics with ghgs, the disappearance of the gap minimises radiation entropy production. This is why Earth's surface temperature is set by minimisation of global radiation entropy production rate.

      • The sun emits at 6000 degrees, not 0.5 degree. You seem to have your numbers rather mixed up.

      • Stop trying to demean me by accusing me of mistaking 0.5 deg arc for 6000 deg K temperature. Even you can probably do better thn that!

      • You are the one with the 0.5 degrees. That has no meaning for the sun which is 6000 degrees and emits photons at wavelengths accordingly. Also photons don’t diffuse in the earth’s atmosphere, and no one says they do. They are emitted and absorbed at specific wavelengths by molecules in gases, not a vacuum, (see the field of spectroscopy). You are making straw man arguments with your incorrect interpretation or understanding of standard physics.

      • Alexander Davidson: Thus about 60% of S-B level radiant exitance climate science wrongly believes to be from the surface is really from ghg molecules in the adjacent air.

        How do you know that if the exitances can not be measured accurately? Note, I do not dispute it. But how can you tell?

        To claim separate Up and Down real IR fluxes at equilibrium

        I have not written that they are in equilibrium, so that is irrelevant to what I have been writing. I have been writing about Up and Down fluxes that are not coincident in time and space, but there can be a distribution of kinetic energies of radiating/absorbing molecules even within small regions (say a cc, or large enough to contain a mole of mass.

        Note that I already accepted one of your claims: (a) it is important to distinguish between actual surface and near surface air. About your other main claim (b) that LWIR fluxes can not be accurately measured in any direction, I would appreciate it if you could tell us the amount of error; nothing is measured without error, so one always has to write and speak about the closeness of the approximation.

        I also agreed with your (fairly common) assertion that surface warming is at least partly offset by nonradiative transfer of energy from surface to troposphere.

      • 0.5 deg. arc is the angle of the Sun’s image. Photons are a subset of Maxwell’s waves. The Sun pushes out high energy photons. The Earth converts the thermalised SW photons to low energy IR photons to space.

        Only the difference of solar SW and opposite Terran SW is a real energy flow, but the Earth emits zero SW.

        The real GHE is about 15 K and mean surface temperature has been controlled by minimisation of radiation entropy to ±3K over the past million years. Recently, NASA has published sea level data indicating it has stopped rising: https://www.iceagenow.info/nasa-confirms-sea-levels-falling-across-planet/

        The Sun is now entering at least a Dalton minimum having been at a 9500 year Grand Maximum in the late 20th Century, which heat has been abstracted from the Pacific by two giant El Ninos. We now expect the coldest winter since the 1950s as we enter a La Nina, probably a new LIA.

      • The sun can fully emit all its photons at 6000 K, but you say the earth can’t emit its photons at all because even one molecule of a GHG absorbs it completely. No. What really happens is that the earth’s GHGs are too diffuse to absorb their wavelengths close to the surface except for a small fraction of their emission lines. Tyndall quantified the absorption effect of various gases around 1859. Read this for the history of Tyndall’s experiments.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/wea.386/asset/386_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=E4F2F042C581696B902E04E90EACE1AE.f01t01?v=1&t=j8rsyz6o&s=5a461e4251e79ab39f94f5bfbd04aecd707f4ce9

      • David Springer

        Jim D | October 14, 2017 at 3:33 pm |

        “The sun emits at 6000 degrees, not 0.5 degree. You seem to have your numbers rather mixed up.”

        Jim, you scientifically illiterate buffoon, 0.5 degree is the angle of arc subtended by the sun.

        Delete your account.

      • DS, OK, maybe you understand what this person is saying, but I think it is just gibberish, and it may be 0.5 degrees or 6000 degrees as far as that is concerned.

      • DS, apart from that, the earth only intercepts one hundredth of a half degree of the solar output. He got that wrong. 0.5 degrees is the angle of the sun subtended at the earth, not the angle of the earth subtended at the sun. Maybe he needs to go back to the drawing board with this new information. It’s a basic error in geometry.

      • Stop trying to demean me again. The Earth intercepts the SW from the sun in a cone determined by the angle of the Sun’s image seen from Earth’s orbit; 1366 W/m squared according to NASA.

        To claim OLR heats O2 and N2 is ludicrous because OLR IR, emitted to space as a black body radiant exitance from a range of altitudes and temperatures is not absorbed by such gases. Tyndall found that.

      • The half degree, that you described wrong, has nothing to do with 1366 W/m2. For that you only need the sun’s output and earth’s distance. Tyndall also knew already in 1859 that O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR, and that water vapor and CO2 do, if only in a limited way as trace gases. We are just talking standard physics here. Start at the beginning. Which part of what Tyndall did surprises you?

      • What did I write that was incorrect physics?

      • You used a straw man about O2 and N2 that is completely opposite to what physics says about them going back to Tyndall. In what way do you think climate physics disagrees with Tyndall, because your one example was wrong. Or do you disagree with Tyndall, because it is hard to tell which. Try again. Be precise.

      • See Hoyt C Hottel’s work.

      • Which part of that do you disagree with then? Find something specific, quote it and say why you don’t like it.

      • Tyndall used a brass tube well below the absorption depth for the concentrations of H2O and CO2 he used. This ensures that emissivity of IR energy above the Density of States’ level is complicated by scattering from the side of the tube.

      • Are you saying he was wrong to say that certain gases have a greenhouse effect and others don’t? His measurements were good enough to distinguish these and their strengths. Later work refined and did not refute Tyndall.

      • IR was absorbed but reflection from the inner wall of the tube creating a net real residual IR energy was geometry dependent.

        Anyway, Tyndall is irrelevant to the Earth’s surface. DWLIR and Up IR radiant exitance in the 15 micron band exactly offset so there is no net CO2 IR energy absorption.

        Now you are apparently trying to trap me into making a mistake, but I could be wrong!

        .

      • Of course CO2 absorbs IR, emits it too. That’s how GHGs work.

      • Look at the Hottel charts for effective IR emissivity and absorptivity according to enclosure dimensions, concentration and temperature.

        I’m not going to do the work for you. The atmosphere is not an enclosure.

      • If he is assuming everything is isothermal, that is wrong to start with when dealing with the surface and atmosphere.

      • Att equilibrium, he temperature of the few m of air near the surface varies around the surface temperature. When NASA tried to prove there was heating of near surface air by net surface IR, Hansen admitted that they failed to get measurements because they were complicated by other heat transfer processes.

        The Mirage is probably tte only place there is a reproducible heating effect, and it’s from conduction in zero wind.

      • The 15 micron band, consisting of many lines with a whole range of strengths, emits to the surface from a range of heights, and only a small fraction at the center may emit at the same temperature as the surface if you have enough CO2. So as a whole the 15 micron band is not at all canceled by the downward flux. There is less down than up because the atmosphere is cooler due to the lapse rate. As you add CO2 this effective emitted temperature warms, and that is the greenhouse effect.

      • No: a fully self-absorbed GHG band is a virtual emitter at the surface. Because the GHG density of states (same temperature as the surface), is the same there is no IR emission in that band either way – the junction disappears, subject to random variation about the mean.

        This may be very hard for you to rationalise, but it’s reality.

      • This looks like made up stuff. Do you have a reference that does not deal with isothermal states? The fluxes don’t cancel because the atmospheric emission temperatures are different for most of the 15 micron band, and I think you would know that if you knew the line structure of that band.

      • The whole atmosphere and earth’s surface would have to be exactly the same temperature for them to exactly offset, and you know that isn’t true, right? Emission goes as temperature.

      • Alexander Davidson: LWIR is a radiant exitance, potential radiant IR flux from the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface to a perfect black body radiation sink. It is not a real energy flux.

        You seem to be all over the place on this. Are you claiming that the Earth surface does not radiate any LWIR?

        To claim separate Up and Down real IR fluxes at equilibrium

        I do not claim separate Up and Down real IR fluxes at equilibrium. I write of the Earth climate system being in approximate “Steady State”, in which the temperatures of all parts, and the energy flows among all parts, remain within bounds but fluctuate.

    • There has never been any calorimetric proof that a radiant exitance like LWIR is a flow of real energy. Most of it interacts with the surface atmosphere, the rest with atmospheric window surface radiant exitance. Radiation pressure is about 1% of surface pressure.

      • Alexander Davidson: There has never been any calorimetric proof that a radiant exitance like LWIR is a flow of real energy.

        How exactly does LWIR from the surface interact with near surface atmosphere without entailing an energy flow?

        atmospheric window surface radiant exitance.

        What is that? What is an “atmospheric window surface”?

      • It doesn’t. About 40% goes through the non GHG absorbing part of the atmosphere, the atmospheric window, ending up as OLR with perhaps intermedae cloud absorption and re-emission.

        Th rest is emitted as OLR, the IR emission from the surface being zero from equal density of IR states in surface and local atmosphere providing an IR-continuum that makes the IR surface disappear.

        This new idea may be wrong, but it allows a reliable model to be produced when the present IPCC climate models are fraudulent, and have been since 1976.

      • Sunlight heats the surface which emits photons in the atmosphere. Some escapes `- about 7% – directly to space. Some is absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-emitted in every direction in photon scattering – increasing the number of photons hitting the surface and the lower atmosphere. A photon is literally a packet of energy – real energy – but what matters is the net flux. Ultimately it will all escape to space as radiant energy – but greenhouse gases increase the amount of energy bouncing around the atmosphere and warms the planet. IR net is positive upwards – as it must be. SW energy is converted to IR energy and we must ultimately strike a radiant balance at toa. The surface balance is incoming SW and about 50% each IR and evaporation and convection.

        Radiant energy at top of atmosphere tends to equilibriate – radiant equilibrium is a state of maximum entropy. But terms such as this are not either necessary or desirable. Jargon anywhere and I simply assume they are talking through their arses while gilding their intellectual lily. There is a lot of that around here.

        I am sure that Alexander has a lot more knowledge than the usual suspects. But evaporation and convection merely is a longer path to losing energy to space if you consider turbulent global flow fields.

      • Robert I Ellison: I am sure that Alexander has a lot more knowledge than the usual suspects.

        I suspect that he merely needs practice writing out his ideas in a consistent use of words, logical order, and chronological or narrative order for energy flows. His exposition jumps all over, and he contradicts what he seems to have written earlier.

      • I include Matthew in the usual suspects.

      • Dope, you are a suspect. Over than Tsonis, the vast majority of the scientists you cite – Wong; Willis, McWilliams; Moy; etc. – think your selective knitting job adds up to complete bullchit.

      • Robert I Ellison: I include Matthew in the usual suspects.

        Everyone already knows that. I think you have never quoted anything I have written and shown it to be false. But I do have memory problems, so that isn’t determinative.

        I suspect nearly everything that is written. I am not sure whether I suspect persons. Even people whom I consider to be nearly always wrong sometimes write good stuff that is worth remarking upon.

      • JCH is an obnoxious twit who hasn’t read any of the references I cite. I quote hundreds of scientists and these people apparently have a psychic connection that causes them to cringe whenever I comment on CE. I prefer informed discussion but it is way above his pay grade. What he is good at is a sort of feral science in which he examines the portents and asserts confidence in ever shifting prognostications. There is a bit of that around here.

        I would be the last one to suggest that there isn’t more uncertainty in a system with the internal dynamics of the Earth’s climate – and much more scope for severe and rapid change than climate fantasists imagine. I don’t get that they don’t get this. This has been said again and again – but once it filters through the narrow window of JCH’s belief system – there is not anything left that bears any relation to the original idea.

        The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain. The new paradigm is the most powerful idea in climate science – and has profound implications for the evolution of climate this century and beyond. LMFAO as JCH would say.

        I cannot be responsible for the ignorance of others – but less than substantive comments such as the one above crosses the line into the utterly meaningless and irrelevant. But let’s play his game – it may discourage further interactions.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/

      • I don’t think anyone cares Matthew. I have had one discussion with Matthew – on Hurst effects that he categorized as ‘statistics of extremes’ – and which shows up all these pesky and incompetent hydrologists.

        Being misguided is not the problem – it is the patient (and obvious) construction of traps in which to spring his trivial gotchas. Pointless game playing – and he doesn’t get a second chance.

      • Robert I Ellison: on Hurst effects that he categorized as ‘statistics of extremes’ –

        As I corrected you before, that is not what I wrote.

      • It is precisely what you said. If you lied about it since – I missed it.

      • Robert I Ellison: It is precisely what you said.

        It’s a shame we don’t have the skill (me) or interest (you) to retrieve the original.

      • You have never studied the statistics of extremes, have you?

        Nuff said? Far too much as far as I am concerned.

      • Robert I Ellison: You have never studied the statistics of extremes, have you?

        Thank you for accepting the challenge. You have never studied the statistics of extremes, have you?

        I never said that the statistics of extremes was the same as the estimation of Hurst coefficients, or equivalent in their in interpretations.

        What I wrote was that the statistics of extremes is more useful than the estimation of Hurst coefficients in the planning of facilities for managing future flooding.

      • The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory.

        Does Richard Alley agree with any of the garbage you post? I sincerely doubt it.

        You are a complete and total joke. A supreme a–hole. Nobody who matters agrees with your conclusions, and that includes just about every single scientists you cite. You are amazingly dishonest.

      • David Hagen’s discussion was on Hurst dynamics – which bears no relevance at all to the way in which hydrologists devise synthetic hydrographs for extreme events. We have statistical extrapolation for short terms data. PMF estimation is not statistical but relies on data transformations based on physical aspects of catchments according to an internationally established methodology.

        Koutsoyiannis et al. show natural climate persistence causes consistently higher event frequency than Markovian, or Las Vegas roulette of random “white noise” phenomena. The little known Hurst standard deviations due to Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics (a.k.a. climate persistence) are much higher than Markovian variations and typically TWICE as large as commonly calculated standard deviations of random “white noise” in climate models.

        Have engineers and regulators fully incorporated climate persistence when quantifying the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)? Such failures to recognize and calculate climate persistence Hurst deviations will likely cause further catastrophic failures of critical infrastructure in California and elsewhere. Will regulators now recognize climate persistence and redesign emergency management for such peak flows from statistically quantifiable natural events? https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/17/will-the-oroville-dam-survive-the-arkstorm/

        Hurst effects are about identifying regimes in climate series – such as in very long record of Nile River flows. Regimes in climate series are the result of chaotic processes in climate. Extremes in such records are very easy to identify – pick the largest annual Nile River flow and you have a 1 in 831 year flood. But the Nile River series is unique – for the most part other methods are required. David wrongly conflates distinct issues.

        Koutsoyiannis is an extremely able hydrologist – he emphasizes that Hurst effects are more variable than seen in random or Markovian statistics. However –
        the assumption that random or Markovian series generation has any place in professional hydrology – and therefore that we fluffed it and put the public in danger – is simply amateur nonsense.

        Matthew’s bought into this discussion with a complete lack of any relevant background, intellectual rigor – and seemingly honesty – or commitment to good faith discourse. He is simply not worth bothering with as far as I am concerned – but if someone else want to discuss Hurst effects, chaos or extremes I am happy to.

      • Richard Alley wrote the book on it.

        Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.

        Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.

        The new paradigm of an abruptly changing climatic system has been well established by research over the last decade, but this new thinking is little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of natural and social scientists and policy-makers. https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2

        I suppose this means something other than what it actually says?

      • Robert I Ellison: Matthew’s bought into this discussion with a complete lack of any relevant background, intellectual rigor – and seemingly honesty – or commitment to good faith discourse.

        ha ha ha ha ha!

        When asked to quote a statement I had made that was false, you quoted a true statement. You have not in fact studied the statistics of extremes.

        That ranks with your admission, after many, many asides of great length, that none of your knowledge allows you forecast how increasing CO2 will change the energy flows in the atmosphere — just as I have written.

        Now I really must energize my previous resolve to stop writing to you.

      • “You can see spatio-temporal chaos if you look at a fast mountain river. There will be vortexes of different sizes at different places at different times. But if you observe patiently, you will notice that there are places where there almost always are vortexes and they almost always have similar sizes – these are the quasi standing waves of the spatio-temporal chaos governing the river. If you perturb the flow, many quasi standing waves may disappear. Or very few. It depends.” https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

        I have studied hydrological extremes extensively – and modeled many a PMF. I have many times done flood frequency analysis. We tend to talk about exceedance probabilities – rather than return periods. The latter confuses amateurs. The whole thing more probability than statistics.

        Greenhouse gases perturb flow in the globally coupled flow field – as I have said before. It is as yet unpredictable – but knowing that seems a more rational starting point. And yes please do us all a favor and ignore me.

  32. At first I thought this guy had reappeared.
    http://decorabilia.blogspot.com/2005/12/john-davison-orders-pizza.html
    But different fields, first names,and surname spellings.

  33. Clinging to Paris isn’t really cool
    Bjorn Lomborg, The Weekend Australian
    Excerpt:
    “Using the best peer-reviewed energy-economic models, we can calculate the cost for major economies and find a global price tag from this. In total the loss in gross domestic product growth from Paris adds up to $US1 trillion to $US2 trillion every year by 2030, and for every year the rest of the century. This makes Paris the most expensive treaty in history.

    It is the equivalent of taking $US150 to $US300 off every person on the planet every year. It’s reasonable for taxpayers to ask whether keeping this money would mean it could be better spent on schools, hospitals or care for the elderly.”
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/climate-change-paris-agreement-makes-too-little-difference/news-story/2a375b85f996e169611d2aafd81bcbee

  34. The article about Human caused earthquakes by the digital editor of “National Geographic” cited fracking as a major cause of earthquakes. She did not read her own link which states that Salt Water Disposal wells are the believed cause for earthquakes not fracking. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/myths.php or this web site
    https://earthquakes.ok.gov/what-we-know/

  35. The Dying Art of Disagreement piece is quite good.
    I think it’s similar to the climate wars. Are we talking to each other or finding we are so wigged out with the others position that they are beyond hope as is a conversation? That’s the easy thing to do. Is it possible Michael Mann has done some good work in the past 3 years?

    • Yes.
      No.
      Thanks for asking!

    • With David it is a contempt for intellectual depth. He actually said once that – with the internet – 10 minutes is all that he needs to become an expert. Nonsense of course – it takes years to decades to master any discipline. Brashness, ignorance, superficiality and misguided dogmatism is no substitute.

      Nor is the blunt instrument he imagines is wit.

  36. Why do state-funded academia have such a strong statist flavour ? Gosh, can’t imagine.

  37. Jim D: the temperature of the the atmosphere is determined by hydrostatic pressure, look at the ‘US standard atmosphere’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Standard_Atmosphere.

  38. Air temperature is determined by convection and radiation – warm air will rise until it reaches a geopotential altitude where it is in a local thermodynamic equilibrium with the surrounding air. Density is determined by altitude which depends on the energy content of the parcel of air. Temperature is an independent variable. The ideal gas law works because of energy inputs – neglecting energy is utter nuts and finding that somehow temperature is determined by density is nuts.

    So many memes so little time.

    • Of course – it is nowhere near as simple as that.

      • Continued:
        “As for flooding, the UN tells us it even doesn’t know whether global warming makes the frequency and magnitude of flooding worse or better.
        This simply means all the pundits claiming “this is global warming” and “we knew” are wrong. And they also neglect to mention the fact the number of strong hurricanes hitting the US has dropped during the past 140 years.
        Now, many commentators will point out that climate catastrophes are getting more expensive. This is true. But it is not because of climate; it is because more people live by the seashore, with more property. Adjusted for population and wealth, US hurricane damage costs decreased slightly between 1900 and 2013. Not surprisingly, that is why the UN finds that losses adjusted for population and wealth “have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”. Globally, the relative cost of climate-related disasters to GDP has declined almost 50 per cent since 1990.”
        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/climate-change-paris-agreement-makes-too-little-difference/news-story/2a375b85f996e169611d2aafd81bcbee

    • Arrgh. Of course it is nowhere as simple as that (below).
      Two different themes.
      Now given you knew every other bit of information you could work out temperature from density and vice versa.
      There are formulas for this sort of stuff .
      So on a simplistic and scientific level in one sense temperature is determined by density.
      But that is not how it is used by people when they take only density and try to predict temperature.
      The other elements, GHG of course, are a very important element in which density you are predicting your temperature on. Straight density of an atmosphere just does not do it.
      Atmospheres have varying compositions which cause wildly different results for the same, loosely used term, density.

      • My meaning was that memes – or even simple empirical or analytic formula –
        cannot define heat flux in globally coupled flow fields. It is moreover quite misguided to misinterpret the ideal gas law and find that temperature in the atmosphere is determined by pressure. Temperature is purely a function of energy content at some geopotential altitude. How that energy gets there is another thing.

  39. Climate change: Paris Agreement makes too little difference
    Bjorn Lomborg, The Weekend Australian

    Excerpt:
    “Using the best peer-reviewed energy-economic models, we can calculate the cost for major economies and find a global price tag from this. In total the loss in gross domestic product growth from Paris adds up to $US1 trillion to $US2 trillion every year by 2030, and for every year the rest of the century. This makes Paris the most expensive treaty in history.

    It is the equivalent of taking $US150 to $US300 off every person on the planet every year. It’s reasonable for taxpayers to ask whether keeping this money would mean it could be better spent on schools, hospitals or care for the elderly.

    In the developing world, there are definitely better ways to allocate that money. The world’s ¬climate-vulnerable are almost invariably the worst off today. Climate is a First World concern; the vast majority of the planet’s inhabitants face more immediate problems. The UN’s largest global poll of nearly 10 million people’s priorities reveals climate change comes last for most of the world’s population, behind education, health, food and 12 other, more pressing, issues.

    Analysis by Copenhagen Consensus has highlighted many phenomenal development investments where a fraction of the Paris treaty’s budget would help vulnerable communities much more today than carbon cuts would in 100 years: things such as stepping up investment in combating tuberculosis, nutritional investments for young children, vaccinations and achieving universal access to family planning.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/climate-change-paris-agreement-makes-too-little-difference/news-story/2a375b85f996e169611d2aafd81bcbee

    • Another excerpt from Bjorn Lomborg article

      “As for flooding, the UN tells us it even doesn’t know whether global warming makes the frequency and magnitude of flooding worse or better.
      This simply means all the pundits claiming “this is global warming” and “we knew” are wrong. And they also neglect to mention the fact the number of strong hurricanes hitting the US has dropped during the past 140 years.
      Now, many commentators will point out that climate catastrophes are getting more expensive. This is true. But it is not because of climate; it is because more people live by the seashore, with more property. Adjusted for population and wealth, US hurricane damage costs decreased slightly between 1900 and 2013. Not surprisingly, that is why the UN finds that losses adjusted for population and wealth “have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”. Globally, the relative cost of climate-related disasters to GDP has declined almost 50 per cent since 1990.”
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/climate-change-paris-agreement-makes-too-little-difference/news-story/2a375b85f996e169611d2aafd81bcbee

    • And another excerpt:

      “This is why far fewer Americans die in hurricanes today than they did 100 years ago. They are simply much richer and their society much more resilient.
      What’s more, the idea that today’s carbon cuts are the solution to tomorrow’s storms doesn’t stack up. Remember, even if every nation including the US extended its Paris Agreement promises past 2030 and kept them going throughout the century, temperatures would drop by less than 0.2C. The hugely expensive treaty will have no meaningful impact on hurricanes, and what tiny change it will achieve will not be felt for generations.
      Indeed, one peer-reviewed article finds that any realistically achievable climate policy “can have at best only a very small and perhaps imperceptible effect on global tropical cyclone damage”.
      Instead, adaptation can be up to 52 times more effective. This means creating better, more common sense zoning laws so houses aren’t built in harm’s way. It means setting aside more wetlands to prevent flood surges. It means building better infrastructure, including dykes and levees.
      And it means remembering the simple, cheap policies such as subway covers that New York City discovered it was lacking when Superstorm Sandy hit.
      It is estimated that better building codes could have avoided about 87 per cent of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. It’s truly absurd that commentators cheer on the Paris Agreement — which would avoid next to no damage, 100 years from now — instead of focusing on these planning and construction laws.
      This holds true also if we look at poorer countries. Climate is not the only challenge facing them and, as the UN survey shows, is probably their least important challenge. It is a cruel reality that natural disasters often afflict the poorest, most vulnerable members of society the most. But the world’s poor clearly tell us they want their children to stop dying from infectious diseases, they want enough food and a better education. Achieving these things means that, aside from the direct benefits, we make the planet’s most vulnerable richer and more resilient against many challenges, climate included.
      This is why we have seen a dramatic drop in deaths from climate across the world, despite the claims of green campaigners. In the 1920s, deaths from floods, droughts, storms, wildfires and extreme temperatures cost on average 500,000 lives a year. Today, because billions have been pulled out of poverty and we have increased resilience, the average death toll has dropped by 95 per cent to less than 25,000. The personal risk has decreased almost 99 per cent.
      We face a stark choice: if we want to help tomorrow’s hurricane and flood victims, do we want to focus on very expensive climate policies that will take forever and provide almost no help, or do we want to spend less, to help more, faster? We need to realise that core development spending and poverty reduction are key parts of our global warming response.”

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/climate-change-paris-agreement-makes-too-little-difference/news-story/2a375b85f996e169611d2aafd81bcbee

  40. I always find it questionable that Lomberg can calculate to a fraction of a degree. But there are certainly better things to do than wasting scarce resources on expensive energy. Not that I think that Paris was anything but energy smoke and mirrors. No one is doing anything but business as usual – Paris costs not a red cent.

    http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/outcomedocument_col.pdf

    All have climate implications in one way or another – including critical energy innovation. At a cost of some $2 trillion to 2030 for goals that have a benefit to cost ratio greater than 15 – or merely by reallocating resources that are currently pissed up against a wall.

    As for mega-flood and mega-drought – they are inevitable.

    In which can be seen Hurst effects if Peter had the slightest clue what to look for. Greenhouse gases are just another wild card in this system.

    Peter likes to quote Lomberg – but they are not on the same page at all.

  41. Richard Tol (2013), Figure 3 top panel:

    Figure 3. The global average sectoral economic impact of climate change in the 20th and 21st century as a function of time (top panel) and temperature (bottom panel).

    You can also see Figure 3 top and bottom panels here (free access): http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf
    What the top and bottom panels of Figure 3 show:

    1. All impact sectors, other than energy, sum to net benefits up to about 4C increase in GMST (i.e. percent GDP is positive).

    2. Energy consumption is the only impact sector projected to have substantial negative impacts up to about +4C GMST increase (relative to 1990).

    3. However, the economic impact of global warming on energy consumption was positive from 1900 to 2010 (about 0.8C GMST increase relative to 1900). This section of the chart from 1900 to 2010 is from empirical data, not models. But the energy consumption trend turns sharply negative from 2010 to 2100 – this section of the chart is a model projection.

    4. The marked change of trend – from positive to negative impact – when the model projections continue after the end of the empirical data, invites questions about whether the energy impact functions are correct.

    The energy impact functions are documented in FUND3.9 Documentation, pp9-10, here: http://www.fund-model.org/versions .

    Note that the energy impact functions are calibrated against just one study which was conducted over 20 years ago. The two referenced papers
    (Downing et al., 1995, and Downing et al., 1996) are not readily available.

    Recent empirical data and studies suggest the economic impact of global warming on energy consumption would be positive or negligible, rather than the substantial negative impact projected in Tol (2013).

    In this case, global warming would be net-beneficial, for the world, not detrimental.

    In which case, climate policies to mitigate CO2 emissions would be detrimental, not beneficial.

  42. So Pete copies and pastes himself. It must have been especially profound and pompous. We are definitively on different pages.

    • “So Pete copies and pastes himself. It must have been especially profound and pompous. We are definitively on different pages.”
      Do you ever have anything useful or even interesting to post?

  43. There are some good letters in the Australian today regarding Lombor’s weekend article. These show that at least some people understand what is important and relevant regarding ‘climate policy’. And the number is clearly growing, at last

    If only politicians could see the sense of Lomborg
    First letter:

    How fortunate we are to have the weekend article by Bjorn Lomborg (“Clinging to Paris isn’t really cool”, 14/10). It has so much common sense, and so much understanding.
    Highlighting of the unreachable goals embedded in the Paris agreement set the tone for his excellent critique of climate policies worldwide. He rightly emphasises the futility of renewable subsidies and directs attention to the need for innovation to lead the march away from fossil fuels.
    To think that universities here in Australia walked away from his offer to base a branch of his consensus centre in Perth or Adelaide because he said there were important questions about how to approach the debate.
    It’s unfortunate we don’t see more of this man in our local debate on energy and climate change,
    Simon Gamble

    Second letter:

    The propaganda slogan “climate change is real” is used by those who believe they should impose their catastrophic views and draconian “solutions” on us.
    Any leader, policy maker or citizen who can’t see the point Bjorn Lomborg is making about emissions is an imbecile. We are destroying our economy because we are pressured into it by the UN, vested interests and green loonies. It might be a bit warmer in 2100, but it might not be a problem. We will not prosper in the future by regressing to a lower standard of living now.
    The government should get some spine and recognise that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Someone has to call this climate change nonsense for what it is, and get on with fixing the problem by burning coal and axing the renewable energy target.
    Bill Shorten’s offer of bipartisanship on the clean energy target is a political exercise, making the government squirm a bit more before adopting another catastrophic policy.
    David Bidstrup, Plympton Park, SA

  44. If only politicians could see the sense of Lomborg

    Third letter:

    Bjorn Lomborg highlights a great global con — the political response to climate change. His approach of looking for cost-effective ways of dealing with the world’s problems is just too practical and sensible to gain any traction.
    The proposal to establish in Australia a government-funded equivalent of Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre was seen as outrageous by the left and the Greens. Imagine Nobel laureates applying logical analysis to climate change?
    The proposal was rejected by two universities after a strong anti-Lomborg campaign. Perhaps it threatened the climate change political agenda. The big danger we face in Australia is the shutting down of sensible climate change debate by the Greens and left-wing of politics. What do they want to hide from voters?
    L Smith, Kenmore, Qld

    Fourth letter:

    What a powerful article by Bjorn Lomborg. One sentence stands out: “According to the UN’s own climate model, the difference between a world with all the promised Paris cuts and one without them is just 0.05C.”
    So all the billions of dollars being spent on reducing carbon emissions and subsidising wind and solar power, is a waste of money.
    Chas Barter, Lower Mitcham, Vic

  45. How Australia’s electricity bills have increased over the past decade:

  46. We know what Lomberg is in favor of.

    People

    Lower chronic child malnutrition by 40%
    Halve malaria infection
    Reduce tuberculosis deaths by 90%
    Avoid 1.1 million HIV infections through circumcision
    Cut early death from chronic diseases by 1/3
    Reduce newborn mortality by 70%
    Increase immunization to reduce child deaths by 25%
    Make family planning available to everyone
    Eliminate violence against women and girls

    Planet

    Phase out fossil fuel subsidies
    Halve coral reef loss
    Tax pollution damage from energy
    Cut indoor air pollution by 20%

    Prosperity

    Reduce trade restrictions (full Doha)
    Improve gender equality in ownership, business and politics
    Boost agricultural yield increase by 40%
    Increase girls’ education by 2 years
    Achieve universal primary education in sub-Saharan Africa
    Triple preschool in sub-Saharan Africa

    This is not remotely Peter Lang’s agenda. The former has a solid rationale – you may not like it but it is solidly documented. The latter focuses on distorting the reality of energy markets in Australia. We know what the sources of price rises are. Peter gives it himself.

    Again this doesn’t register. It is always the evils of wind and solar that are his obsession. It is a policy for a non policy. I find it all outrageously disingenuous. And Lomberg cannot calculate future temps to 0.05 degrees. I think Peter needs a reality check.

  47. Economist, Professor Judith Sloan: “It’s a fallacy to say environmental interventions play a small part in driving up power prices.

    ACCC blinded on electricity prices by its focus on market forces
    October 17, 2017
    JUDITH SLOAN

    Here’s a piece of advice: if you want to know the real causes of high electricity prices; don’t rely on the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission.
    To be sure, its staff can put together attractive charts and the like, but the ACCC approaches this issue from a particular (biased) point of view: it must be market power.

    And:

    “Green schemes” do not sit alone in driving up electricity prices; they drive coal-fired plants, in particular, to the wall. It is simply a logical fallacy to say environmental interventions such as the Renewable Energy Target play only a small part in driving up prices when it is the RET that is causing low-cost plants to exit the market.

    • So your reference is not reliable, you will willfully ignore all the other elements of the Copenhagen Consensus and rely on off the cuff remarks from Judith Sloan to justify on pretty thin grounds.

      Rising energy costs are the result of multiple political failures – in gas markets, generation planning, network maintenance and speculative price gauging. Where I live subsidies for wind and solar are some 10% of my bill. To argue that closure of relatively small and decrepit coal plants in a period of low demand materially changes this is economically naive for someone of Sloan’s standing. While these were in fact cheap supplies – the plants were well past their use by date and they did not sell into the market at an appreciable discount. The failures included not replacing these with 1 or 2 modern HELE coal plants as an interim measure – until a 21st century cost competitive power source emerges. As it will within a decade or two.

      “Climate change can’t be solved on the backs of the world’s poorest people,” said Daniel Sarewitz, coauthor and director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. “The key to solving for both climate and poverty is helping nations build innovative energy systems that can deliver cheap, clean, and reliable power.”

      Peter’s obsession with the evils of wind and solar leads to a complete failure of objective and inclusive analysis. In the meantime – the 40% increase in agricultural productivity goal of Lomborg implies a 21st century agricultural revolution. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems. Climate and ecologies are chaotic – and this implies that these systems are both unpredictable and vulnerable to small changes. Small changes initiate large and rapid changes in internal dynamics. It is the key reason why caution is warranted when changing such a fundamental system as the atmosphere. An example – carbon dioxide increase allows plants to reduce the size and number of stomata. Plants can access the same amount of carbon dioxide for growth and lose less water resulting in a change in terrestrial hydrology. It is impossible to foresee the ramifications of this. But it is possible to return most of the atmospheric carbon increase to vegetation and soils in ways that improve agricultural productivity, enhance food security, conserve biodiversity and create more flood and drought tolerant food production systems. While buying time for the development of 21st century energy systems to supply cheap and abundant energy for the essential needs of humanity.

      Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.

      Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology. Many countries have committed to increasing soil carbon by 0.4% per year. As a global objective and given the highest priority it is a solution to critical problems of biodiversity loss, development, food security and resilience to drought and flood.

      An environmental scientist is trained in multi-disciplinary ways to solve messy human problems at the boundaries of the natural world. You can’t get there with linear thinking. This document argues cogently for a oblique, multi-pronged approach.

      In this essay, the reader will not find a detailed critique of the Kyoto mechanisms. Nor will the reader find a proposal for a different single solution in place of Kyoto. We have refrained from this because climate change is not a discrete problem amenable to any single shot solution, be it Kyoto or any other. Climate change is the result of a particular development path and its globally interlaced supply system of fossil energy. No single intervention can change such a complex nexus (although as the earlier sections have shown, the attempt to do so has produced unintended and unwelcome effects). There is no simple silver bullet.

      Instead, we suggest that in cases like this, the best line of attack is not head-on. We suggest that the policy response to climate change should assemble instead a portfolio of approaches—silver buckshot, rather than silver bullet—that would move us in the right direction, even though it is impossible to predict which of these approaches might stimulate the necessary fundamental change. This is a process of social learning in which we must be always alert to maintain our trajectory towards the goal by constant course corrections and improvements which, by definition, cannot be prescribed precisely beforehand.
      http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/66/

  48. After reading the full text of what The Australian’s leading article called Tony Abbott’s “provocative” London speech, in my considered opinion it is one of the most outstanding speeches in years by any Australian politician. Make no mistake: it will ring around the world, and is already doing so. A (real) political leader, someone of stature domestically and internationally, has pointed to the global warming alarmists and declared that, like the emperor, they have no clothes. –John Stone, The Australian, 16 October 2017

    “John Stone is a former secretary to the Treasury”

    • Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, the atmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood.

      Palaeontology indicates that over millions of years there have been warmer periods and cooler periods that don’t correlate with carbon dioxide concentrations. The Jurassic warm period and the ice ages occurred without any human contribution at all. The medieval warm period when crops were grown in Greenland and the mini-ice age when the Thames froze over occurred well before industrial activities added to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

      Prudence and respect for the planet would suggest taking care not lightly to increase carbon dioxide emissions; but the evidence suggests that other factors such as sun spot cycles and oscillations in the Earth’s orbit are at least as important for climate change as this trace gas – which, far from being pollution, is actually essential for life to exist.

      Certainly, no big change has accompanied the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past century from roughly 300 to roughly 400 parts per million or from 0.03 to 0.04 per cent.

      Contrary to the breathless assertions that climate change is behind every weather event, in Australia, the floods are not bigger, the bushfires are not worse, the droughts are not deeper or longer, and the cyclones are not more severe than they were in the 1800s. Sometimes, they do more damage but that’s because there’s more to destroy, not because their intensity has increased. More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen despite frequent reports from climate alarmists that this is imminent.

      It may be that a tipping point will be reached soon and that the world might start to warm rapidly but so far reality has stubbornly refused to conform to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer modelling. Even the high-priests of climate change now seem to concede that there was a pause in warming between the 1990s and 2014.

      All this has been obvious for decades – but Tony Abbott is yesterday’s man. A failed leader with divisive values and a lack of vision. The

    • Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, the atmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood.

      Palaeontology indicates that over millions of years there have been warmer periods and cooler periods that don’t correlate with carbon dioxide concentrations. The Jurassic warm period and the ice ages occurred without any human contribution at all. The medieval warm period when crops were grown in Greenland and the mini-ice age when the Thames froze over occurred well before industrial activities added to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

      Prudence and respect for the planet would suggest taking care not lightly to increase carbon dioxide emissions; but the evidence suggests that other factors such as sun spot cycles and oscillations in the Earth’s orbit are at least as important for climate change as this trace gas – which, far from being pollution, is actually essential for life to exist.

      Certainly, no big change has accompanied the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past century from roughly 300 to roughly 400 parts per million or from 0.03 to 0.04 per cent.

      Contrary to the breathless assertions that climate change is behind every weather event, in Australia, the floods are not bigger, the bushfires are not worse, the droughts are not deeper or longer, and the cyclones are not more severe than they were in the 1800s. Sometimes, they do more damage but that’s because there’s more to destroy, not because their intensity has increased. More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen despite frequent reports from climate alarmists that this is imminent.

      It may be that a tipping point will be reached soon and that the world might start to warm rapidly but so far reality has stubbornly refused to conform to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer modelling. Even the high-priests of climate change now seem to concede that there was a pause in warming between the 1990s and 2014.

      Some of this has been obvious for decades – but Tony Abbott is yesterday’s man. A failed leader with divisive values and a lack of vision. There are tipping points. Four in the Pacific Ocean last century – and the potential for an AMOC led tipping point this century. The consequences could be profound and prudence does indeed suggest caution. But that is never the case with these people. Instead we have a feral science of Manly Beach photography.

      In the 20th century droughts in Australia were more intense and longer, in the 15th century cyclones were more frequent and intense. This is internal variability in a globally coupled spatio/temporal chaotic flow field – and greenhouse gases may perturb the patterns of quasi standing waves a little or a lot – it depends.

      From my perspective we have two sides of a debate who are equally incompetent. But the rest of the world is moving forward with practical responses. If conservatives want a say in practical responses they need to be proactive and actually have some. Otherwise they go unlamented the way of the dodo.

      • Sorry, IPCC physics has been fraudulent since 1976. The 33 K GHE claim is false, based on fake physics buried in the text of R D Cess 1976, backed up in the same year by fake ‘negative convection’ in GISS 2d modelling, admitted by Hansen to an AIP interviewer 25 years later.

        The real physics is defined by self-absorption of atmospheric GHG molecules. The self-absorbed GHGs near the surface turn off about 60% of surface radiant exitance because of the equal IR density of states across the boundary. That transfers each band’s IR emitting surface to be at whatever altitude loses self-absorption, about 20 km for CO2 15 micron. There is no atmospheric heating from surface IR.

        Furthermore, subject to constant tsi, there can be no GHG warming of the surface; the temperature is held constant by negative feedback from the very strong dependence of partial self absorption by 16-23 micron water vapour GHG bands. plus other feedbacks including 15% more green Earth.

        For 40 years we have had a group of scientists connected with various state organisations who have been pushing the GHG warming concept to trace [CO2] variation, when it doesn’t exist. The true PID control system is subtle with new physics including enhanced extinction factor for rain clouds missed by van der Hulst and Hansen in the late 1960.

        This is a new phlogiston: that theory collapsed in 3 years; same for CESS’ claims, which no professional accepts, no matter the insults of those who have ridden the grant gravy train for 40 years and made terrible mistakes. E.g., Goody and Yung’s bidirectional photon diffusion theory failed to understand the Planck 1913 assumed a vacuum and that a pyrgeometer signal, >95% from a theoretical calculation of internal reference S-B emission, is a radiant exitance, not an energy flux.

      • In his famous 1974 commencement address at Caltech, Richard Feynman provided an inspiring counterexample of how science ought to be practiced. He began by warning against self-deception, the original sin of science, saying that “the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” To avoid self-deception scientists must bend over backward to report data that cast doubt on their theories. Feynman applied this principle specifically to scientists who talk to the public:

        I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
        (The above summary of Feynman’s views on the challenge of objectivity in science is taken from Phillip Johnson’s afterward in “Mere Creation”, W.A. Dembski ed., InterVarsity Press, 1998.)

        I have been patient – no more. I am not making the same corrections to the same erroneous notions. You are quite wrong on every point – and quite clever people have been known to self deceive – but at some stage further discussion is fruitless.

      • Once again, this is bonkers, highlighted by this phrase “There is no atmospheric heating from surface IR.” There is.

      • Right on cue – the poster boy for self deception.

      • I do not claim I am right out of authority, but when the official science is based on provable fraud and made 5 mistakes in the basic physics I do think I have a right to be heard, rather than shouted down.

        The real data show se level fall and new CO2 sinks: the rest appears to be weather.

      • @Jim D:

        If surface IR radiant exitance is turned by equal and opposite IR radiance (about a mean) by adjacent self-absorbed GHG; i.e. a uniform IR emitting density of stated there can be no net heating of the atmosphere by thermalisation. The 40% atmospheric window radiant exitance has no heating effect.

        Prove that the surface radiant exitance detected by pyrgeometer is from the surface rather than GHGs near the surface and I’ll accept I’m wrong.

        I could be wrong, but I do not believe anything without experimental proof. You may stick to yor apparent religious belief, but now ‘Jim Jones’ James Hansen has fled, don’t drink the Kool-ade!

      • Alexander Davidson: Prove that the surface radiant exitance detected by pyrgeometer is from the surface rather than GHGs near the surface and I’ll accept I’m wrong.

        Again you conflate two issues: (a) whether the surface radiates LWIR (consider the desert, or an asphalt road, under summer sunshine); and (b) whether the amount of upward LWIR can be accurately measured at a given time and place (and what is the amount of measurement error?)

      • AD says “Prove that the surface radiant exitance detected by pyrgeometer is from the surface rather than GHGs near the surface and I’ll accept I’m wrong.”
        Would you admit you are wrong if the wavelengths emitted from the surface are not only the GHG ones? How about checking the online MODTRAN program where you can see what wavelengths are emitted.
        http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
        The surface emits an almost blackbody spectrum that is seen high up in the atmosphere. GHGs can only emit in their own bands.

      • @Jim D

        You are now being very silly. The ~40% S-B real surface radiative exitance in the atmospheric window goes to space directly or with intermediate processing by clouds. it’s because there are no GHG bands capable of absorbing those wavelengths, or partially self absorbed ‘radiative overflow’.

        This is because no GHG absorption implies no GHG radiant exitance from the gas near the surface. Check it out with MODTRAN.

      • Will Janoschka

        Jim D | October 17, 2017 at 6:09 am |
        “Once again, this is bonkers, highlighted by this phrase “There is no atmospheric heating from surface IR.” There is.”

        Sorry Jim,
        “There is no atmospheric heating from surface IR.” Nor can there be; The radiative exitance of the whole atmosphere to space is just to great!
        Atmospheric sensible\latent heat may be increased via conduction\convection\insolation. Such ‘heat’ (entropy) can be only reduced by such spontaneous entropy transfer from Earth’s atmosphere to lower radiance space via broadband EMR flux..
        All the best!-will-

      • David Springer

        I knew the late Phillip Johnson. Dembski was a mentor for several years and I was his blog administrator during that time as well as a very frequent contributor. It’s where I really got involved in the catastrophic global warming hoax.

      • AD, as I have said before, it is the edges of the bands that are critical. When you double CO2 the downward flux changes by 1%, and that occurs mostly in the wing of the 15 micron band next to the window region. It may be imperceptible to you, but MODTRAN shows it and it gives you the 4 W/m2 TOA change that explains the forcing change. Maybe you disagree that the 15 micron wings expand, and therefore with radiative transfer theory. I don’t know. There are many places you can find out about this effect on the spectrum, and you seem to have missed all of them.

      • Will, the IR radiation to space is far less than that from the surface into the atmosphere. That convergence of energy is a heating term. By itself, upwards IR is a heating term.

      • Will makes sense now – another master of narrative radiative transfer.

        This is made to roughly balance – observations are not that precise. It assumes an energy imbalance of 0.9W/m2 at toa and the same imbalance appears at the surface implying ocean heating. I find both ideas problematic as oceans must lose heat from the interior at a greater rate than the rate of increase of greenhouse gas forcing. Thermal inertia seems moot. Nor is it as interesting as measured energy dynamics at toa – that include large variations due to ocean and atmosphere circulation.

        But we may otherwise assume that the numbers – derived in a number of ways – are as correct as they can be. At least I would. The energy pathways seem comprehensive enough. The Skydragon problem is with downward IR. More greenhouse gases result in more interactions with IR photons. This increases photon scattering – the increase is measurable by taking snapshots at different times from space through a narrow aperture. From which it is inferred that there is more radiation downward. After that –
        it is little more than an accounting of little energy packets moving into, around and out of the planet. And although the math of the Schrödinger equation for projecting a probability density function of particle location as a wave function through space and time is a little difficult for me – it is not hugely relevant to anything but alternate universes. Now I suppose someone will claim mastery of this universe – as a contrast to my obtuseness.

  49. “There was movement at the station
    Because the word had got around
    … ”
    From Banjo Patterson’s poem the “Man from Snowy River”
    http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/patersonab/poetry/snowy.html

    Well, at long last, the word is starting to get around regarding the cause of the doubling of electricity prices in Australia, and what needs to be done about it (but it will take decades to undo the damage a decade of really bad climate alarmist’s advocacy and policies have done.

    Wind and solar subsidies to be phased out

    Subsidies for new renewable energy supplies would also end with the Renewable Energy Target’s expiration in 2020. As ­expected the government will not adopt the recommendation by Chief Scientist Alan Finkel to ­replace it with a Clean Energy Target.

    The Australian, 17 October 2017

  50. The most interesting of them all is this one: Narrowing the climate field: the symbolic power of authors in the IPCC’s Assessments [link]

    Two guys — two — have the most influence in all these appointments.

  51. So many ducks lining up in a row.
    Arctic ice almost behaving normally
    ENSO 3.4 dropping! Wow JCH what is the temp like this month!
    EPA helping people instead of….
    Penguins, poor things, dying in the Antarctic because of too much ice.
    A pause in sea level rise for 2 years.
    Unfortunately I am old enough to remember recent downturns which turned into upturns , need another 2 years at least to be interested.
    Share market rising.
    Is this the Trump effect???

    • Lol. The 7-day forecast is loaded with big numbers. Your really do not get it. I don’t have anything to worry about because of some puny little ultra warm La Niña. Just like last time, that’ll get you and your ilk nothing. You have to have the return of the Divine Wind: a miracle.

      • The penguin situation was apparently set in motion when a huge iceberg calved in 1987. Some disasters take place in slow motion.

        And there is no pause in SLR for two years. That’s hilarious. The rate of SLR remains well above 3.29 mm/yr, the rate for the satellite era, and has remained above the satellite era rate for an all-time record number of months in a row.

      • Pause in SLR for about 2 years:

        It’s probably short term.

      • It most likely is short term. But the point is for several months there has been a change in the SLR rise. JCH must have a streak of masochism lurking deep in his psyche-he likes to be easily proven wrong. He has been shown this graph before. To little avail.

        I’m eagerly waiting for an update of the CU graph. The current graph is getting old, really old. Only a conspiracy theorist would attribute malevolent intentions for leaving the December 2016 data unchanged for this long. I’m sure they are well aware of the NASA graph. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.

      • Re: Ragnaar
        Re: “Pause in SLR for about 2 years”

        Nope. Just a classic case of end point bias:

        “Unusually cold winters, a slowing in upward global temperatures, or an increase in Arctic sea ice extent are often falsely cast as here-and-now disconfirmation of the scientific consensus on climate change. Such conclusions are examples of “end point bias,” the well documented psychological tendency to interpret a recent short-term fluctuation as a reversal of a long-term trend.”
        http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1241814?scroll=top&needAccess=true

        Actually do some statistical tests to see if your “pause” is statistically significant. The tools are available and have been applied to so-called “pauses” in warming, in papers such as:

        “Global temperature evolution: recent trends and some pitfalls”
        “Lack of evidence for a slowdown in global temperature”
        “The global warming hiatus: Slowdown or redistribution?”
        “Has there been a hiatus?”
        “Debunking the climate hiatus”
        “An apparent hiatus in global warming?”
        “Change points of global temperature”

      • David Springer

        Good news!

        Satellite trend since records began in 1979: 0.12C to 0.14C per decade.

        Not alarming. No worries.

      • The satellite era is there to look at. SL frequently rises above the satellite era’s trend line and frequently falls below it. It has not fallen below it for a record number of months in a row, and in this record setting the delusional see light at the end of their tunnel of abject lunacy.

        In August 2015 the rate of SLR was 3.17 mm/yr. The rate of SLR in August 2017 is 3.29mm/yr. That appears to be the highest satellite-era rate of SLR in the AVISO data.

      • The sea-level rise rate is over 3 mm/yr which is twice the average of the 20th century, so at least they have moved on from this not accelerating.

  52. Of course it usually beckons then fades.

  53. Good news!

    Satellite trend since records began in 1979: 0.12C to 0.14C per decade.

    Not alarming. No worries.

    • The alarming thing is how much the satellite data varies among its varieties. Two out of three groups use the same data to get something close to the surface warming rate near 0.2 C per decade. UAH usually lags RSS in its adjustments so an upward revision must be forthcoming.

  54. Chart: Electricity prices versus installed capacity of renewables per capita in Australia, USA and selected European countries:

    http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/80c924aa7cf0f40e03bdc983af817511?width=650

    Trend: 0.02 c/kWh per additional kW of capacity
    US best. Australian way out of line. A clear demonstration of the consequences of a decade of irrational energy policies.

    • As the first thing I read this morning I started out with misreading that as:
      “Electricity prices versus intellectual capacity …” #:-)
      I guess that curve would have looked something similar. :) :)

  55. Understanding the detectability of potential changes to the 100-year peak storm surge

    As I was saying, so to speak.

    We next use extreme value theory (Fisher and Tippett 1928; Coles 2001) to statistically model the frequency and intensity of extreme, but rare, events. Specifically, we use a maximum likelihood estimate (Nelder and Mead 1965) for the parameters in the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distribution (Eq. 1). (See supplemental material for justification of using this approach.)

    It seems they do not study the possibility of false positives, that is “detecting” a change from an extreme when there is no change in the underlying distribution.

    The paper is open access, but they claim that the supplementary material is only available to authorized persons.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s