Bishop Hill Ridley response to Romm
Dec 22, 2012 Climate: sensitivity This is a guest post by Matt Ridley.
Joe Romm of ThinkProgress described my Wall Street Journal op-ed as:
riddled with basic math and science errors
Yet he fails to find a single basic math or science error in my piece.
He says I :
can’t do simple math
and then fails to produce a single example of my failing to do simple math.
He says I apparently don’t know the difference between water vapor and clouds. He produces no evidence for this absurd claim, which is wrong. Water vapor is a gas; clouds are droplets of liquid water that condense from water vapor. I do know the difference.
He quotes a scientist as saying
it is very clear water vapor…is an amplifying effect. It is a very strong warmer for the climate.
I agree. My piece states:
water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas.
So there is no confusion there. At least not on my part.
However, I do discuss the possibility that clouds, formed from water vapor, either amplify or damp warming – and nobody at this stage knows which. This is the point that my physicist informant was making: the consequence of increased temperatures and water vapor in the atmosphere may be changes in clouds that have a cooling effect. You will find few who disagree with this. As the IPCC AR4 said:
Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty.
Joe Romm disagrees with this consensus, saying
The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is likely positive.
He gives no backing for this dogmatic conclusion. By contrast, Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Tech says:
The key point is this. The cloud forcing values are derived from climate models; we have already seen that climate models have some fundamental problems in how clouds are treated (e.g. aerosol-cloud interactions, moist thermodynamics). So, climate model derived values of cloud forcing should be taken with a grain of salt. Empirically based determinations of cloud forcing are needed. At AGU, I spoke with a scientist that has completed such a study, with the paper almost ready for submission. Punchline: negative cloud feedback.
Joe Romm quotes Robert Kaufman as saying
I know of no evidence that would suggest that the temperature effect of sulfur emissions are small.
My piece never claimed that aerosols arising from sulfur emissions had a small effect, however as Nic Lewis points out, in the draft AR5 report,
Table 8.7 shows that the best estimate for total aerosol RF (RFari+aci) has fallen from −1.2 W/m² to −0.7 W/m² since AR4, largely due to a reduction in RFaci, the uncertainty band for which has also been hugely reduced. It gives a higher figure, −0.9 W/m², for AFari+aci. However, −0.9 W/m² is not what the observations indicate: it is a composite of observational, GCM-simulation/aerosol model derived, and inverse estimates.”
With regard to the rate of ocean heat absorption, which I wrote was fairly modest, Joe Romm quotes Kevin Trenberth as writing:
On the contrary there is now very good evidence that a lot of heat is going into the deep ocean in unprecedented ways…
and then provides a link to an article citing a study estimating the Earth's current heat absorption as 0.5 W/m². So what "fairly modest" figure does Nic Lewis use? Actually slightly higher: 0.52 W/m²!
Romm then says:
Ridley apparently doesn’t have the first clue what the climate sensitivity means
This is not true. I define sensitivity clearly as the temperature change for a doubling of CO2. I am not talking about the Transient Climate Response, which relates to temperature change only over a 70 year period. There is no confusion at my end.
Romm then says that
Schlesinger notes that an aggressive program of carbon mitigation can limit warming to 2°C and avoid the worst impacts
and that
“It is worth pointing out that there is a healthy debate about Schlesinger’s low estimate”.
So maybe there is some confusion at Romm’s end about what Schlesinger concludes. This is what his paper says (in "Causes of the Global Warming Observed since the 19th Century" in Atmospheric and Climate Science 2012) –
"Additionally, our estimates of climate sensitivity using our SCM and the four instrumental temperature records range from about 1.5°C to 2.0°C. These are on the low end of the estimates in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. So, while we find that most of the observed warming is due to human emissions of LLGHGs, future warming based on these estimations will grow more slowly compared to that under the IPCC’s “likely” range of climate sensitivity, from 2.0°C to 4.5°C."
Many other recent papers have come to similar conclusions: For example, Schmittner et al. in Science Dec. 11, 2011 URL:
Combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K as the 66% probability range, which can be widened using alternate assumptions or data subsets). Assuming that paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
Meanwhile for transient climate response, similar low estimates are also now being made. See for example Gillett et al.'s 2012 article "Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations" in Geophysical Research Letters:
Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8°C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming under the Representative Concentration Pathways.
Or Padilla et al.'s 2011 article "Probabilistic estimated of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability" in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association at URL::
For uncertainty assumptions best supported by global surface temperature data up to the present time, this paper finds a most likely present-day estimate of the transient climate sensitivity to be 1.6 K, with 90% confidence the response will fall between 1.3 and 2.6 K, and it is estimated that this interval may be 45% smaller by the year 2030. The authors calculate that emissions levels equivalent to forcing of less than 475 ppmv CO2 concentration are needed to ensure that the transient temperature response will not exceed 2 K with 95% confidence.
Mr Romm seems confused about methane outgassing feedbacks, arguing that even if climate sensitivity is low, these may dominate. Suffice to say that in this he has drifted a long way from the consensus.
Mr Romm seems determined to rule out even the possibility of low climate sensitivity in the teeth of strong evidence. I can see why he wishes to do so, his job depending on there being a dangerous future. I do not understand where he gets his certainty.
Finally, Mr Romm throws the term “anti-science” at me, again with no evidence. I cited peer reviewed papers and made the scientific argument that the latest data be considered in estimating sensitivity. That is pro science. What is anti-science is to make false accusations and try to shut down legitimate debate. Hard working people all over the world are now risking their lives as well as their wallets for the consequences of current climate policy (see Indur Goklany’s paper “Could biofuel policies increase death and disease in developing countries?”). They have a right to ask that those who determine the science behind such policies are open-minded. On the evidence of MrRomm’s astonishing outburst, my doubts about this are growing.
Reader Comments (110)
Joseph Romm: "...the most basic is pointed out in the figure at the top of my post..."
We can be forgiven for missing it then. Would you like to share it here with a wider audience?
You expected an intelligent, reasoned and cogent argument from Romm ??
The key point is that the milk (or CD in the process of being sacrificed, or whatever else you are heating in the microwave) is heated because it intercepts EM radiation. Exactly what goes on inside its molecules will depend on what it is that is being heated.
In a µwave oven, the radiation is generated by a magnetron, as we all know. But the thing you are heating has no way of knowing what generated the radiation - for all it knows, the radiation came from a black body.
Both you and I know that having 700 watts of power coming from a black body at 0.02°K is a bit implausible - although not precluded by any laws of physics. The cup of milk does not have our insight into the unlikelihood of the radiation having come from a black body and heats up anyway.
Fact: 36.4% of recent global warming from neurotic steam emanating from Joe Romm's ears.
From Wikipedia
"Romm has long had an interest in comedy"
Is this an example?
I've been busy helping a relative settle in to their new home in the West Country and have just looked in to BH. I want to express my appreciation to Nic, Matt, Andrew and many others for two outstanding threads on this blog. The centre of gravity of the whole debate seems to me to have decisively changed. What a New Year to look forward to.
Removed all the O/T stuff.
Clearly there are disparate views on climate sensitivity-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates-1-1-%c2%b1-0-4-c-for-a-doubling-of-co2/
Whatever the predicted feedback sensitivity is, I sense someone is about to get Joshed for Christmas.
You can tell how much sites like this freak out the Romms, Schmidts and Manns of the world. The fact that he's had to come here to try to defend his blinkered paid for views must be infuriating for him. Great stuff!
Tickled me, Judith Curry's response to a question about Romms latest:
'Also, I would be interested in anyone parsing Joe Romm’s push-back to Matt Ridley’s recent WSJ piece and ‘global lukewarming’ in general:'
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/22/open-thread-weekend-5/#comment-279086
curryja | December 22, 2012 at 11:37 am | Reply
+10 for Ridley
-100 for Romm
Some have flexed their muscles, tried to shake and shape our world. But now it is becoming evident that the strong arm of the scientific method is once again cradling our involvement with this precious globe.
At Professor Mandia's blog, where he has posted a response to Ridley's WSJ article, with a bolded list of what we have been told for over the last decade, I have a single comment asking if he can explain how Australia can be drought free.
The leader of the 'Climate Response Team' has not responded. Yet.
[ http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/wall-street-journal-wolf-to-its-little-piggies-trust-me/ ]
Re my post at 1:05pm
"Can anyone explain how a cooler object, say, the earth's atmosphere, can cause net warming of a warmer object, say, the earth's surface"?
@Philip Foster gets the underlying scientific laws behind that seemingly naive and innocent question. @Ian E obviously has special needs (magnetron in a microwave oven, ffs).
I'm suggesting that, in the macro sense, the surface of the earth is warmer than the atmosphere. Therefore, if the atmosphere caused net warming of the surface, that would violate the 2nd and 1st laws of thermodynamics. I cannot fathom why it has got to the point where the plausible bollocks known as 'back radiation', never having been observed in nature, ends up with our having the crap taxed out of us and deciding how slowly kids in developing countries die for want of reliable energy and fresh water on tap.
People really need to read Mr Miatello's paper. If you are physics-savvy it will take about 30 minutes. It rather demolishes the notion that the earth's atmosphere acts as a greenhouse. The dominant actor is the water cycle and the massive heat transfers which occur when water changes state. CO2 doesn't change state, it merely wobbles insignificantly and immediately re-radiates any increased energy from interacting with terrestrial LW radiation.
The atmosphere doesn't heat the surface - it cools it, as designed, some might say.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
(Sorry - haven't figured out how to make that url active on this site - much easier on Disqus)
So Romm WAS a physicist now turned polemicist ... he apparently has no skill at either pursuit. Indeed, it would seem that he would be better described as an expert self diagnosing proctologist.
Piker, one who does things in a small way. See, I can use the internet, too.
Follow that yellow brick road of reasoning you are following above, and you'll run into a strawman searching for a brain.
================
I think the phrase...
... deserves a plaque of its own.
Corporate journalists have never once flinched in their support for AGW. That is the clue to the whole subject. They are dishonest.
A large number of troll posts and responses removed. Please DNFTT, it only encourages them.
The ever-pleasant Joe includes this statement which nobody seems to have addressed:
I cannot really locate anything that Matt wrote to which this might refer, except possibly this statement:
I believe that Matt's definition is in fact for ECR, not TCR (though could be wrong).
What I don't believe, and certainly don't believe that Joe could believe, or indeed that anyone could believe, is that this is one of the "most amusing and amazing blunders ... ever seen in the blogosphere."
Is perhaps Dear Joe yet again overcome by his own self importance?
Looks like "therealviffer" is yet another incarnation of the Doug Cotton/Spartacus is free/.... clone. Would the Bish do us all a favour and assign it to the same bucket as ZDB please?
@steveta
Instead of tackling the mailman, why don't you deal with the mail?
Read it yourself. Warning: contains sums and science.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
Oh my.
"I think that Tim Worstall would sum Joe Romm up with one word and I would not disagree"
Has my potty mouth become that famous already?
Nic and Matt: The IPCC's models seem to do a poor job with clouds and water vapor. As it returns out, there are an increasing number of reports showing discrepancies between predicted and observed precipitation. Models certainly aren't going to have the correct amount of water vapor in the atmosphere or the right clouds, if precipitation is incorrect. So all of these problems may be related. A package of related weaknesses may be more effective than isolated problems.
Models estimate that water vapor will increase according to the Clausius-Clapeyron eqn, but that precipitation will not, but observed precipitation seems to be tracking with C-C. Some refs:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2472.1
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031460.shtml
http://sa.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Science-2012-Durack-455-8.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00347.1
Most applications of the C-C eqn in climate change are suspect because this eqn applies only when water vapor is in EQUILIBRIUM with liquid water, ie that atmosphere is saturated (100% relative humidity). One might anticipate that this equation has relevance near the surface of bodies of water and convective regions with rain and clouds, but the absolute humidity in subsiding regions appears to depend on how high, cold and dry the air in subsiding regions became before it began to descend.
That brings up a crucial aspect in physical Earth processes - constantly striving for equilibrium but never attaining it. If it ever did, it would be a dead planet.
Frank
Thanks for your comments and links regarding water vapour and precipitation.
New SOD post:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/12/23/clouds-water-vapor-part-five-back-of-the-envelope-calcs-from-pierrehumbert/#comments
comments from Frank Rizzo - eagerly picked up by ConnollEy - and others suggest that there is terminology creep happening here. Probably something for Nic to look at, now that he has scared the alarmnsts to death.
As a life-long science-based "denier", I'm taking it as a disguised pat on the back that I have been censored on this esteemed blog.
Nic writes "Frank - Thanks for your comments and links regarding water vapour and precipitation", yet, the exact same important relationship to which I have drawn attention gets me censored? For steveta, and for the record, I have no idea to whom the 'Doug Cotton/Spartacus' slur refers.
My recently censored post invited someone not to attack the mailman, but to deal with the mail, which is here:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
For the busy reader, the reference contends that the atmosphere cools the surface, predominantly because of the water cycle. It concludes that the atmosphere cannot induce net warming of the surface. Why not read it, then, by all means, critique it?
Diogenes,
You know what is interesting here? It's interesting seeing all the time and effort from "The Team" being out in to destroying any attemp at questioning their work.
The real tragedy here is that I'd "Tge Team" and their supporters had but in just a fraction of the time, effort and money they invest in protecting their work in to actually making sure what they were producing was accurate then I'm sure climate science today would be significantly more advanced.
Instead, all their protectionism has actually dove is to retard the growth of understanding in to his the celibate works BECAUSE they aren't actually interested in the truth.
Mailman
Uhhhh, Mailman? Please get some more coffee into yourself, that 2nd paragraph..... just boggles the mind :P
Otter -
Think of decoding the message (apparently entered on a "smartphone") as akin to doing your morning crossword. ;) Remember that errors are often to adjacent keys in the usual qwerty arrangement.
Hints: "I'd"->"if"; "dove"->"done"; "his the celibate"->"how the climate"
Mailman - that is definitely the impression I get from Connolley's interventions - stop the questioning, if necessary by censoring and banning, rather than wondering whether you have an answer.
Haha...sorry, fat fingers and an iPhone don't go together :) so let me try again;
The real tragedy here is that if "The Team" and their supporters had put in just a fraction of the time, effort and money they invest in protecting their work in to actually making sure what they were producing was accurate then I'm sure climate science today would be significantly more advanced.
Instead, all their protectionism has actually done is to retard the growth of understanding in to the science that underpins the climate...most likely BECAUSE they aren't actually interested in the truth but instead more interested in protecting their positions regardless of the truth.
Gee, hope that makes more sense now? :)
Regards
Mailman
It seems to me that AlecM and recently therealviffer are getting a very rough ride on BH even though they are fellow travellers so to speak.
My take on why this should be is that perhaps they are so pumped up by what they know that they tend to approach convincing others in a very heavy handed way. It seems so simple; a statement of the bleeding obvious to those who have not yet grasped it should work right? Well apparently not and for good reasons I suppose.
The bleeding obvious to an expert in thermodynamics may well be one of life's great mysteries to a layman or to an expert in another field and therefore some education may well be needed before the obvious starts to bleed.
I followed therealviffer's suggestion and read part of the paper by Miatello. The abstract almost prevented me from reading on because it was far too complicated for me to ever understand but I carried on. After the abstract the paper was very readable and dealt with simple equations relating to specific heat and the laws of thermodynamics. Quite early on the paper makes a case against the atmosphere being able to warm the surface of the earth.
To me the point is this; if a process is provably impossible then it seems utterly pointless to discuss the mechanism by which this impossible process operates? This thread is about Matt Ridley's ideas on a process that according to the laws of thermodynamics, seems to be impossible.
I do not believe that the laws of thermodynamics got to be The Laws of Thermodynamics without endless experiments which proved them and also we all know that there is no experimental evidence that the GHE even exists. All of this seems perfectly to justify therealviffer in saying I cannot fathom why it has got to the point where the plausible bollocks known as 'back radiation', never having been observed in nature, ends up with our having the crap taxed out of us
Back radiation is a hypothetical mechanism which has been suggested and which is backed by no experimental evidence and which the laws of thermodynamics show to be impossible.
It seems to me that AlecM and recently therealviffer are getting a very rough ride on BH even though they are fellow travellers so to speak.
My take on why this should be is that perhaps they are so pumped up by what they know that they tend to approach convincing others in a very heavy handed way. It seems so simple; a statement of the bleeding obvious to those who have not yet grasped it should work right? Well apparently not and for good reasons I suppose.
The bleeding obvious to an expert in thermodynamics may well be one of life's great mysteries to a layman or to an expert in another field and therefore some education may well be needed before the obvious starts to bleed.
I followed therealviffer's suggestion and read part of the paper by Miatello. The abstract almost prevented me from reading on because it was far too complicated for me to ever understand but I carried on. After the abstract the paper was very readable and dealt with simple equations relating to specific heat and the laws of thermodynamics. Quite early on the paper makes a case against the atmosphere being able to warm the surface of the earth.
To me the point is this; if a process is provably impossible then it seems utterly pointless to discuss the mechanism by which this impossible process operates? This thread is about Matt Ridley's ideas on a process that according to the laws of thermodynamics, seems to be impossible.
I do not believe that the laws of thermodynamics got to be The Laws of Thermodynamics without endless experiments which proved them and also we all know that there is no experimental evidence that the GHE even exists. All of this seems perfectly to justify therealviffer in saying I cannot fathom why it has got to the point where the plausible bollocks known as 'back radiation', never having been observed in nature, ends up with our having the crap taxed out of us
Back radiation is a hypothetical mechanism which has been suggested and which is backed by no experimental evidence and which the laws of thermodynamics show to be impossible.
Well, Dung, the problem with all the second law people of whom realviffer is the latest is that what they point out as impossible is not the mechanism in play. If as realviffer says the atmosphere can only cool the surface, then any variation in its ablity to cool will result in a temperature (or do I mean heat content?) change in the surface. So a change in the atmosphere will have an effect on surface temperature. So it looks like that cool atmosphere is warming or cooling the surface but in fact it is insulating better or worse. Which is not to say the claimant does not have a proper view of the processes involved, but that to state them as a violation of the second law ruins the case.
Rhoda - good point. But if as AlecM & therealviffer contend, the atmosphere is cooling the surface by convection and evaporation of water, and the radiative properties of CO2 (and other GHGs) are totally insignificant, then their alleged violation of the second law (by CO2's magic properties) is understandable?
Rhoda
By all means throw the book at me for in such a way I learn but as I understand it the laws of thermodynamics include all mechanisms ie they represent the net result of all mechanisms. Talking about one mechanism can not change the net result?
Well, put it another way. The sun heats everything in the system (leaving aside geothermal and nuclear effects, reputed to be negligible). There's your second law in action. Energy flowinfg from the sun to the earth. Warmer to cooler, in other words. How it settles down in the earth system, how it chases equilibrium and what the flows of energy are within that system are secondary. The second law applies over the system as a whole. My fridge is cooling the milk and warming the kitchen walls all at the same time, but the thermodynamic police have never come around complaining of any breach.
I find it hard to visualise what is happening within a body of gas when photons of energy act as pin balls and are flying around in all directions >.<
Anyway here is to all laypeople willing to expose themselves to ridicule by trying to think out loud ^.^
Conduction occurs at the boundary layer; earth/atmosphere, this is heat energy not radiated energy.
Convection takes place within the body of the atmosphere and both of these mechanisms obey the laws of thermodynamics (heat will only flow from the warmer body to the cooler body).
Radiation is effectively instant ie at the speed of light, measuring the IR of the earth is measuring the net radiation after any exchanges have taken place, does CO2 in the atmosphere change the IR radiation of the earth? If it does not then there is no GHE and surely this would be a doddle to prove by experiment?
A chamber containg a thermostatically controlled radiant heat source at the top and an adjacent IR sensor. Keep the temperature constant and change the level of CO2 in the chamber.
Hmmm
Perhaps it should be the heat source that remains constant and air with a known CO2 level (and constant temperature) should pass through the chamber at a constant speed, the IR sensor in the ceiling measures IR from the floor surface (soil perhaps).
The CO2 level of the air passing through could then be varied.
Dung - I too followed therealviffer's suggestion and I started to read the cited paper by Miatello. [Even though therealviffer said it should take ~30mins to read. For a paper with ~40 pages, this seemed optimistic. 45 seconds per page?]
But I quickly lost interest. The Miatello paper seems to me to be taking a mistaken explanation for the greenhouse effect and then arguing why it doesn't work. It seems reminiscent of stuff in "Slaying the Skydragon". I don't know where the idea of "back radiation warms the earth" originated. www.realclimate.org perhaps?
A simple model describing a greenhouse effect can be analysed using well established physical principles: the theory of black body radiation and the notion that, in equilibrium, incoming power = outgoing power. The model involves a spherical black body surrounded by a shell that scatters long wavelength IR but is transparent to visible light and short wavelength IR.
Analysing the simplified model does not contradict any laws of physics - it involves straightforward application of known physical principles.
However, the model grossly oversimplifies effects that exist in the interaction of the earth with solar radiation or it ignores them altogether. To me, a simple model like that therefore presents, at very best, a plausibility argument that there is a greenhouse effect.
So I agree completely that the model's description of a greenhouse effect should not be a basis for wide-reaching legislation. But invoking the laws of thermodynamics to say that the greenhouse effect does not exist seems erroneous to me.
Martin A:
Rhoda Klapp:
These are both very helpful explanations but do they really belong, after all this time, on this thread?
Worth recalling that steveta had another suggestion:
When I read that three days ago I thoroughly agreed. But it does presuppose that mydog has shape-shifted again. Has this BH phenomenon ever been fully honest and open about this behaviour? Dung seemed to suggest that he should feel rather hard done by. But doesn't this kind of activity penalise everyone else, including those not using real names? Why no complaint about this, except from steveta?
"Why no complaint about this, except from steveta?"
I'll have a go at answering this. Is it because most of us think:
- yes it is possible that such posts reduce the credibility of this blog, and possibly also are made with this purpose in mind;
- but we also value free speech, not least because sometimes what are considered crackpot theories turn out to be right e.g. plate tectonics;
- notwithstanding this, we agree it sometimes IS right to ban certain topics, as for example Anthony Watts has banned chemtrails at WUWT;
- however, ultimately, we have confidence in the blog author to make this call when necessary.
Should we discuss it here? I think there ought to be such a discussion until it is resolved, but this probably is not the right post for it. My particular problem is that if I don't believe 'the second law is being broken' then I am invited to believe 'CO2 traps radiation and we know exactly how that will affect the weather and the climate'. I am inclined to think the truth lies somewhere in between and it doesn't hurt to discuss it with all options open. With comments from pests limited by good manners not by some sceptic form of political correctness which does not allow some approaches in case it makes us all look bad or stupid..
Richard Drake
You have morphed into a new species of troll. Normal trolls appear to have as their soul aim, the disruption of a blog, they use insults, divertionary tactics and higher end ones quote SKS or some such but can not be pinned down in a discussion.
You on the other hand are a troll on a mission. You obsess about people posting under assumed names and are willing to disrupt any conversation on any subject to raise that obsession over and over and over again. On top of all that you have the nerve to tell others discussing scientific issues raised in on topic debate that THEY are off topic. I do believe that the Bish should consider banning you.
However His Grace will continue to run this blog according to his own ideas of what he wants it to be.
The Bishop is having a well earned rest and so there are no new topics at the moment. This thread would have died if new topics had taken over but it still lives and in the Christmas spirit and good cheer that has been flying around over Christmas why not continue it? ^.^
Martin A
In my simpleton mind the GHE states that adding GH gases to the atmosphere (all other things being equal) will raise temperature and that as temperature rises so more water vapour is added to the atmosphere. The current GHE theory states that water vapour will warm the atmosphere even further.
However all our real world problems are focussed on CO2 so lets ignore the rest and concentrate on that.
The GHE depends upon warming of the atmosphere not warming of the earth, the atmosphere must warm if water vapour is to increase. But radiation (by the earth and by CO2 and by the sun) does not warm the atmosphere. Considering CO2 alone; we know that IR radiation received by a CO2 molecule is immediately re radiated although at a different wavelength. The only way that the atmosphere is warmed is by conduction at the surface and then by convection.
Now if CO2 is only 0.0387% of atmospheric gases you are going to need an effing brilliant thermometer to notice any effect. If the effect of CO2 is soo small then the amount of water vapour added to the atmosphere will also be so small as to be boyond our ability to measure.
Dung
"Considering CO2 alone; we know that IR radiation received by a CO2 molecule is immediately re radiated although at a different wavelength." If this happens, then the molecule has lost (or gained) energy since the radiated photon has different energy from the absorbed photon.
Rather than get into a discussion here that might be tediously uninteresting for others, let me email you the simple model and see if we agree on it. (I think I have your email address somewhere, if I can find it).
I'll re-post my Dec 26, 2012 at 5:43 PM posting above on "unthreaded".
Thanks Martin for agreeing to move the discussion of general greenhouse theory to another thread or email. As you no doubt picked up, that was the point of my remarks yesterday.
SJF: Thoughtful reply, thanks. But I take it you don't mind Martin's latest initiative, even if it wasn't explicitly requested by the host? We need as much as we can to save the guy the bother. With this in mind, when the Bish - twice or more than twice (I wasn't watching closely) - removed what he considered off-topic posts from this thread, before Christmas, did they by chance include:
1) any by AlecM?
2) any questioning conventional ideas of the greenhouse effect?
I have a strong suspicion the answers are yes and yes. If the Bish then takes a well-earned break and someone insists on
1) defending AlecM and his doppleganger therealviffer
2) beginning yet another discussion of greenhouse theory
then all I have done, in a mild manner, is to try to defend the Bish's implicit position. That to me isn't a crime but it can of course be ineffectual. Hence my gratitude to Martin.
The radical view though is that I should be banned. But Dung has always wanted this. I'm glad he's now made it clear. Note that unlike banning someone willing to use multiple pseudonyms, like AlecM, it's a simple matter for Bishop Hill to ban Richard Drake, because I will never use another handle. Another wrinkle on the asymmetric nature of different people's involvement here that may be worth meditation.
Dung,
I do not find Richard Drake's comments relentlessly off topic. Do you?