Bishop Hill Climatologists respond
Feb 1, 2012 "Travesty" Trenberth et al are in the Wall Street Journal today, taking issue with last week's letter suggesting that panic over global warming is not required. Presumably, the message from the scientific establishment is that panic is a necessity.
It's pretty dull stuff - "97% of climatologists whose funders expressed a preference" - that kind of thing. But I was struck by this:
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record.
I do wish people would make it clear where the differences lie. Otherwise we will get nowhere. Sceptics note that the temperature has flatlined since the turn of the millennium. Upholders say this means nothing, it's just a pause, and the long-term trend remains upward. Fine. Maybe we should talk about model falsification or something.
But take a look at that sentence again. I don't see how the long-term trend (normally assessed over 30 years) can not have been abated to some extent by a 10-year flatlining. Is the maths they use in climatology a bit different?
Reader Comments (160)
MDGNN
Many thanks for your patient explanations.
Russell: show me where I have claimed that the radiated photons from body 1 [T2 <T2] aren't absorbed by body 2.
Climate science makes the elementary error of imagining that the photons from body 1 which have been absorbed in quantised vibrational states at body 2 are simultaneously converted to increased molecular kinetic energy in body 2, heat to non-scientists.
This is not the case. They form part of the general pool of indistinguishable [at a particular quantised energy] activated states which can either decay to heat energy or be emitted to space as IR photons. Since T2>T1, the balance is towards the latter so none of the energy from body 1 can be converted to net heat in body 2.
The reverse, the absorption on or in body 1 of the larger flux of photons from body 2 does lead to conversion to net heat energy in body 2. This is because the balance of energy transfer is from quantised vibrational states to molecular kinetic energy.
If you wish to study this further, I suggest you consult an undergraduate physics’ text on statistical thermodynamics. An engineering book will dress it all up in S-B equations, emissivities and q2-q1 and climate scientists won’t learn why they made the mistake!
Apologies T1<T2
Russell: show me where I have claimed that the radiated photons from body 1 [T2 <T2] aren't absorbed by body 2.
Feb 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM | mydogsgotnonose
MDGNN - I think you will find it was Martin A who challenged you with the above question, NOT Russell.
Also in your post of Feb 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM , you appear to have grouped me with Martin A, Niall etc as challenging your answers, which I have not
Perhaps it's the way I arrange my responses in my posts but please be aware I have only been concerned by the troll lik , goading repeat questions directed at your explanation with no equivalent degree of argument to counter what you say.
Look at any chem engrg textbook dealing with heat transfer and it will explain that radiation from BB1 is absorbed by BB2 and at the same time radiation from BB2 is absorbed by BB1.
The net flow of power will be the difference between the two flows and will be given by a formula like q(T2^4 - T1^4).
Feb 3, 2012 at 9:31 PM | Martin A
Martin, is the above your proof for or against 'back radiation, which seems to be the point of MDGNN,s posts.
If neither of the above then what's the point of continually goading the guy.
Bearing in mind, of course, that this thread is about the science of climate, not philosophy.
RKS: I have tried to show that the engineering way of calculating net energy flow and my quantum mechanical analysis of the physics are completely compatible. The problem with the engineering approach though is that it cannot cope with the real variation of emissivity and absorptivity as the IR density of states is affected by the very peaky emission/absorption of IR by GHG.
So, I have been developing the science on the hoof from my use of Hottell charts, invented in the 1960s at MIT. The problem with the warmists is that if you point out their ludicrous double-counting of energy is physically impossible they attack the messenger.
Somewhere in the heat transfer coding in the models is a formulation of heat transport which is a common mistake for all the models. I don't know who is responsible but the refusal by that individual to accept that he/she has been wrong, is destroying the entire science.
As for our resident warmist, who appears under the name Russell, explain to me how the Trenberth-Kiehl diagram of 1997 can claim that all energy from the earth's surface can be IR from an average temperature of 15°C when the amount of IR that reaches the earth's surface after 30% albedo, the only energy input apart from radioactive decay and tidal friction to reach the surface, corresponds to an average temperature of -18°C!
I shall be very interested to see how that conjuring up of an energy source really works! And I've seen the game being played against technical experts but political innocents like me and learnt how to deal with it!
I shall be very interested to see how that conjuring up of an energy source really works! And I've seen the game being played against technical experts but political innocents like me and learnt how to deal with it!
Feb 5, 2012 at 8:10 AM | mydogsgotnonose
MDGNN
Thanks for your informative and educational posts.
Like you, I have yet to see a sensible explanation as to how the surface of the Earth can radiate 390W/m^2 whilst the Earth only receives 324 W/m^2 from the Sun.
Keep up the good work but beware of time wasters who repeatedly ask you the same question.
They're not stupid, just mischief makers.
MDGNN - My own analysis of the simple greenhouse model does not seem to me to involve any violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, positive feedback or other impossible features.
I'm bit by bit getting to understand what you are saying. Each time I eventually grasp a point that you make, it seems consistent with my analysis. So I have not yet pinned down where my analysis and your views differ.
I'm very interested to understand your ideas and reconcile with my own analysis, but without being continually barracked from the cheap seats.
Would you be willing to continue a discussion in private? If so, maybe you could forward a suitable email address via Andrew or perhaps suggest some other method of corresponding.
Regards,
Martin A
I'm late following up here but I too would be keen on more discussion on this. As Martin says every time MDGNN explains what he's talking about I feel that I'm one more step towards understanding, but I still don't have the big picture.
MDGNN, if you want to convince people generally you're going to have to come up with an explanation that the likes of Martin and I can understand.
I can be got at nial@usa.net . If you both contact me I can put you in touch with each other for further discussion.
RKS, why are you so convinced Martin's trolling?
RKS, why are you so convinced Martin's trolling?
Feb 6, 2012 at 10:08 PM | Nial
See post from Martin A below :-
"OK - I take it you cannot. Any more than MDGNN could come up with a text that explains his unconventional views of radiation.
Feb 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM | Martin A"
If that 'challenge', after all the effort by MDGNN to provide an answer doesn't seem like trolling, I don't know what is.