Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > GHG Theory step by step

Testing.I've been locked out.

Aug 10, 2017 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Schrodinger's cat

"The models always show massive warming compared with observation."

That turns out not to be the case.

Look at the two graphs here

The first graph shows 180 model runs using one of the four IPCC emission scenarios. Measured natural forcings were used up to 2005 and randomised thereafter. The observed data fits within the range of possible outcomes projected by the models.

For ARS the model runs were updated by using measured forcings up to 2012. The second graph shows their output in the dark grey area. Compared with observation the model projections are not running "massively warm"; they are running cool.

Supertroll

I do not want to know the mass of the Earth. I would like to know how commenters such as Radical rodent and yourself, who complain about the poor science done by the climate scientists, would approach a problem on the same scale.

Aug 10, 2017 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Nigel Lawson does not debate, he tells propoganda lies.

Aug 10, 2017 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Aug 10, 2017 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered Commenter Entropic man

I assume our posts crossed, but IPCC Climate science started with a conclusion, and is failing to find observable evidence,.Back dating the scientific evidence for the theory is not working too well either.

Aug 10, 2017 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Minty, I suspect we are at loggerheads over a matter of semantics – I maintain that a fact is, and is subject to interpretation, and, while the interpretation may change, the underlying fact does not; you insist that the fact is our interpretation of the situation. The way I view it, “facts” (i.e. our interpretation of it) should always be subject to scrutiny, until we have reached a conclusion that cannot be disproved. Many of the “facts” that we adhere to today could well be the subject of mirth in the future, as more is discovered, the true fact gets uncovered, and the flaws in our interpretation are revealed – unless, of course, we are moving into a post-science era, when no questioning of established “facts” is allowed; this, as you have obviously noticed, is precisely where climate “science” is heading.

Entropic man: regarding the mass of the Earth, there are so many assumptions that will have to be made, that the final figure may well have nothing to do with reality. However, having been done, and done by someone who just so happens to be highly respected in some scientific field, this number may well become enshrined as the definitive figure, and any questioning of it equivalent to apostasy, so that many might feel discouraged from offering any corrections. I suspect that, in this totally hypothetical situation, you will be one of the defenders of the figure.

Nigel Lawson does not debate, he tells propoganda lies. [sic]
An excellent demonstration of my point...

Aug 10, 2017 at 5:57 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM- I daresay models exist which have been tweaked to hindcast correctly. Usually this can be achieved by using unrealistic starting parameters or by loading up the aerosol levels to counteract the high CO2 climate sensitivity.

The fact remains that the majority of the all important CMIP5 models run hot.

Continuing with our thread, a fundamental problem with the warming by heat trapping is that the heat is present as kinetic energy in an unconstrained atmosphere. The molecules are not just going to sit there vibrating furiously. The heat trapping has never been proven in a realistic experiment.

The difference in temperature between the near surface and troposphere is entirely to be expected and does not require radiative physics or GHG to explain it. The lapse rate explanation for the elevated surface temperature is particularly unconvincing.

The GHG hypothesis has become honed and refined by thousands of eager disciples but it still suffers from these fundamental problems.

I notice that the gravity mechanism has now been incorporated in recent text books so perhaps the science is less settled than some people assume.

Aug 10, 2017 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Aug 10, 2017 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered Commenter Schrodinger's Cat

So is it time for the computer models to be reverse engineered to match the observed data, rather than the other way around? This may be the only way to save Climate Scientists from their own denial that they ever got anything wrong.

Until this thread, I had never appreciated how much approximated uncertainty went into Lapse Rates.

Aug 10, 2017 at 7:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Schrodinger's cat

a fundamental problem with the warming by heat trapping is that the heat is present as kinetic energy in an unconstrained atmosphere. The molecules are not just going to sit there vibrating furiously.

Rhoda made the same mistake. The energy does not "sit there vibrating furiously". It is reradiated and absorbed by the surface,. A small amount is absorbed by direct collision between gas molecules and the surface.

I notice that the gravity mechanism has now been incorporated in recent text books

Reference, please.

Gravity theories have their own problems. They say that lowering the atmosphere liberates gravitational potential energy which warms the surface.

First problem.The mechanism by which the atmosphere is lowered is unspecified. The mechanism by which the energy is transferred to the surface is unspecified. Nothing in current physics would explain either process.

Second problem.Convection would carry the warm air upwards away from the surface. For it to work, a gravity theory would require a permanent temperature inversion, which we do not see.

Third problem. You can only do it once. You lower the atmosphere. The gravitational potential energy warms the surface. The heat then radiates away and the surface cools. You cannot maintain a warm surface because the atmosphere has been lowered and you cannot lower it again.

Fourth problem. If you tried to maintain a warm surface the only way to do it would be to raise and lower the atmosphere repeatedly. The theory does not specify the mechanism. Nor does it specify where the energy required to do the work would come from.

Fifth problem. If you try to do all this using this using current physics you have to create energy from nothing in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, an automatic disqualifier of any scientific theory. Gravity theories are impossible for the same reason that perpetual motion machines are impossible.

Aug 10, 2017 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Oh yes, sixth problem. Gravity theories do not explain why Earth's atmosphere cools from the surface to a height of 12km and then warms as you go from 12km to 40km.

Aug 10, 2017 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

And a seventh problem.

Lowering the whole atmosphere by 1 metre would produce 10 Joules/square metre of potential energy. That would be 5.1 × 10^15 Joules worldwide.

To produce the observed rate of increase in ocean heat content requires 3× 10^22 Joules per year worldwide. To match this using a gravity theory would require the whole atmosphere to power by 3 × 10^22/5.1 × 10 ^15. = 5.9 ×10^6 metres.

Lowering the whole atmosphere by 5100km each year to produce a warming rate of 0.02C/year is an absurdity. Gravity theories are far too weak to produce the observed warming.

Aug 10, 2017 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Aug 10, 2017 at 9:48 PM | Entropic man

How many panicking alarmists are helping you with the settled science tonight?

Does Santer 2008 on Lapse Rates hold no appeal at all?

Aug 10, 2017 at 9:54 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

Who needs help? Anyone with a working knowledge of physics could work out the problems of a gravity theory.

I find the level of ignorance at BH quaint . You folk talk earnestly about the problems with climate science while showing an ignorance of physics which would embarass a fourth former.

Aug 10, 2017 at 10:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Aug 10, 2017 at 10:29 PM | Entropic man

You remain in complete Denial of Climate Scientists getting anything wrong.

How old were you when you first learned that in ages past the temperature had been warmer and cooler?

Were you teaching Science when you decided you agreed with Mann and Climate Science that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age?

Aug 10, 2017 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

At long last, you seem to be admitting that the whole scenario is a lot more complex than you have previously liked to admit, Entropic man. Obviously, you find that a bit scary, which is why you like to have it trimmed down to just one culprit for any climate change.

I am not sure that the gravity mechanism can yet be called a theory, though. People are noticing that a planet’s atmospheric temperature seems to be more closely linked with its distance from the Sun and the density of its atmosphere. As yet, I have not seen any particular hypothesis as to why this should be (doubt! – another scary scenario for you, there), only that it has been noticed. As we have seen, the natural fluctuations within this scenario can quite adequately explain almost all changes in climate that we have observed, by either direct or by proxy readings.

Anyway, to address just one of your points, point four: raising and lowering of atmosphere is quite simply done by convection; the energy for this is derived from the Sun. And you call the ignorance of others quaint!

(By the way - what observed increase in ocean heat content? Surely, you are not referring to the utterly unmeasurable 0.02°C that has been claimed for the entire 1.4 billion cubic kilometres, are you?)

Aug 10, 2017 at 11:34 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Oops! Made an error in that last calculation. My 9.48pm calculation should have read

Lowering the whole atmosphere by 1 metre would produce 67 Joules/square metre of potential energy. That would be 3.4 × 10^16 Joules worldwide.

To produce the observed rate of increase in ocean heat content requires 3× 10^22 Joules per year worldwide. To match this using a gravity theory would require the whole atmosphere to power by 3 × 10^22/3.4 × 10 ^16. = 8.8 ×10^5 metres.

Lowering the whole atmosphere by 880km each year to produce a warming rate of 0.02C/year is an absurdity. Gravity theories are far too weak to produce the observed warming.

Aug 10, 2017 at 11:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical rodent

Increasing distance from the Sun reduces insolation. All else being equal, this would reduce the energy budget of more distant planets regardless of GHGs or whatever other mechanism is warming them. This Is trivial physics with no need for gravity theories to explain it.

Density of atmosphere alone has no effect on temperature. If you were able to compress an atmosphere it would warm temporarily in accordance with the ideal gas law, then cool. The surface would stabilise at whatever temperature produces insolation-albedo = OLR.

Titan has an atmosphere four times as dense as Earth and a surface cool enough for lakes of liquid methane, -179C. If the gravity theories were correct, it would be a lot warmer.

Aug 11, 2017 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical Rodent

Convection won't power a gravity theory.It only carries an average of 3.4 × 10^5 Joules/year upwards, far too small and in the wrong direction. Downward movement is adiabatic and carries no net thermal energy at all. The gain in potential energy as air rises is balanced by the loss of potential energy audit falls, so the net potential energy stays almost constant.

The current Argo floats are just sensitive to measure a 0.02C temperature difference but are not the primary source .

Changes in ocean temperature, ocean heat content and thermal expansion are linked through specific heat and the coefficient of expansion. Measure one and you can calculate the other two.

Aug 11, 2017 at 8:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"I find the level of ignorance at BH quaint . You folk talk earnestly about the problems with climate science while showing an ignorance of physics which would embarass a fourth former."

And yet you can't see a problem with the way you use averages. I find your mathematical ability wanting. And your comprehension of the opposing argument. And they way you shift effortlessly from one position to another. You started off here, back on page one, claiming there is no lapse rate in the absence of GHG.

Aug 11, 2017 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

It only carries an average of 3.4 × 10^5 Joules/year upwards…
Source, please.
The current Argo floats are just sensitive to measure a 0.02C temperature difference…
Your faith in instruments in such a hostile environment is quite quaint, too. How are they calibrated, and how often are they re-calibrated?
Changes in ocean temperature, ocean heat content and thermal expansion are linked through specific heat and the coefficient of expansion. Measure one and you can calculate the other two.
How? By assuming no other factors have any effect? Assumptions, dear boy. Assumptions. Yet you call yourself a scientist. Quaint.

Aug 11, 2017 at 10:09 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Aug 11, 2017 at 9:24 AM | rhoda

Following Climate Gate, Climate Scientists did admit to communication problems.

Since then, they have stuck their fingers more tightly in their ears, shouted louder, and demanded to be taken seriously.

Aug 11, 2017 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I could be wrong, but I always believed you needed two knowns in a three-variable problem to determine the single unknown.

Aug 11, 2017 at 12:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Aug 11, 2017 at 12:45 PM | Supertroll

Not if you have already decided the answer.

Aug 11, 2017 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Gwen. Oh deary me, I need reeducating into this new fangled modelling science where the answer is known before you begin. Perhaps EM is correct and my inability to master basic climate numbers is quaint.

I viewed some of this discussion about lapse rate with some incredulity believing that this phenomenon was basically the same as that of a geothermal gradient (obviously with more bells an whistles) with values determined mainly by energy input and heat conductivity of the medium. I don't ever think geophysicists have called upon the need for GHGs to set up a heat gradient.

Aug 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Radical rodent, supertroll

That you have to ask for explainations rather illustrates my point

Aug 11, 2017 at 7:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Aug 11, 2017 at 7:31 PM | Entropic man

We all look forward to Mann explaining his Hockey Stick. Will that then make your point?

Or will it prove most (?) of Climate Science to be equally bent?

As you (and most of Climate Science) are reluctant to defend Mann's Hockey Stick, would you care to explain your concerns? That would help to illustrate your point, and add colour to this thread.

Can it be assumed you are happy with Santer regarding Lapse Rates, despite concerns about his use of statistics?

Meanwhile, back at the thread .....

Sun power is variable, but Climate Science assumes it is constant.
Have all issues of concern been raised and expressed about sun beams penetrating the outer layers of atmosphere, before they encounter water vapour, whether or not visible to the naked eye as clouds?

Aug 11, 2017 at 8:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie