Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Next
Comments 100251 to 100300:
-
steve anthoney at 08:16 AM on 28 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
I'm not against reducing energy dependence, being more efficient or saving the planet's resources, as that all seems quite sensible. I am against "leading by example" if it's not a good example. Trying to deal with an effect if the underlying cause is not dealt with, and is increasing at an alarming rate, isn't going to help. I take the point that the developed world has the highest emissions, but as the rest of the world develops, their emissions will increase too. By the time the population reaches 15 or 20 billion, many more will be highly developed, using plenty of fossil fuel and with not much of the stuff left (maybe that's when we'll stop using it !!) I know there are no easy answers, as disease and pestilence (and maybe war to a lesser extent) have been the only things to reduce populations significantly in the past. However if we keep bleating about carbon footprint whilst ignore population growth we will achieve exactly nothing, or worse. -
co2isnotevil at 08:16 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR, re 389 I refer to to post 387 which disputes your point. -
co2isnotevil at 08:15 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e, You said the gain does include feedback and that is certainly correct, but you seem to have implied that it does not. The surface gain of 1.6 is a 25 year average extracted from satellite data with nearly 100% surface coverage at 3 hour samples over that period. This certainly includes the effects of any feedback that operates on time scales of decades or less. Even the albedo effect of glacial ice is included as the gain is the average of summer and winter where the ebb and flow of the seasonal snowpack emulates the transitions between glacial and interglacial epochs. In fact, it's the increased reflectivity of the N hemisphere in winter that results in lower temperatures, even though perihelion is in Jan and temperatures should be higher. The S hemisphere operates differently because most of the surface where snow falls is water, where the snow immediately melts and can't accumulate to reflect solar power. Understanding this asymmetry is crucial to understanding how the precession of perihelion affects the climate. -
co2isnotevil at 08:06 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR, You are incorrect because the IPCC incorrectly defines incremental absorption at the top of the troposphere as the forcing. This is because they fail to acknowledge that the atmosphere itself is a BB (actually gray) and radiates absorbed power away both up and down. Only half of the incremental absorption arrives at the surface to influence its temperature. You must get past the false authority of the IPCC before you will ever be able to understand how the climate operates. Are you trying to say that a heated gas will not radiate BB radiation? Are you trying to say that when the atmosphere absorbs power, it never leaves? Are you trying to say that all of the BB radiation of the atmosphere is directed to the surface and none into space? Which of these falsities reflects your logic? -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
co2isnotevil - "Can you describe the physical mechanism for how a thermal will influence the radiative balance?" Yes. See the posting here. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
co2isnotevil> The surface gain multiplies this by 1.6 for a total of 3 W/m^2 which presents a post feedback rise of 0.6C You're not listening to what KR is telling you. Your gain value does include any climate feedbacks, it is just a quantification of the strength of the greenhouse effect for a particular time period. The feedbacks are themselves an increase in the greenhouse effect on top of the original CO2 increase, which acts to increase the gain in addition to the direct increase from CO2. -
co2isnotevil at 07:59 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, The 396 Wm^2 actually comes from Trentbert's picture and corresponds to the surface radiation at an average temperature of 289K. The satellite measured average temperature is only about 287K corresponding to about 385 W/m^2 shown in div2.html. In neither case does it include thermals and latent heat. As I pointed out earlier, evaporation and weather as well as thermals comprise circulation currents which move energy around the Earth's thermal mass, between the oceans and clouds (evaporation) and within the atmosphere (thermals). Consider that hot air rising from a thermal is replaced with cold air beneath creating a vertical circulation current. What goes up must come down and what Trentbert does is lump in the energy returned to the surface as weather and originating from the latent heat of evaporation as 'back radiation' as well as the return flux from thermals. This is highly misleading and why so many are so confused. The simple fact is that relative to the radiative balance of the planet, only radiation matters. Is there any question that at the boundary of the Earth and space only EM energy arrives and leaves? Can you describe the physical mechanism for how a thermal will influence the radiative balance? If you really think evaporation/weather matters to the balance, then why don't you consider other oceanic and atmospheric circulation currents? -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
co2isnotevil - A 3.7 W/m^2 imbalance caused by doubling CO2 (not halved, mind you, that's nonsense) will require a 1.2C rise in temperature in order for the Earth/atmosphere to radiate the extra 3.7 W/m^2 to space. That's a 6.6 W/m*2 increase in surface IR, a 6.6 W/m^2 (+/- depending again on evaporation and thermal effects) increase in surface air IR and temperature. A 3C rise will occur only due to climate sensitivity, primarily additional water vapor. Arguing against the 3.7 W/m^2 CO2 doubling forcing based on climate sensitivity, while avoiding mentioning climate sensitivity as you have, is a ridiculous argument. RW1 - Exactly right. The effective emissivity drives the temperature in the absence of solar variations. Solar variations are discussed on It's the sun - those do not correlate with recent temperature changes. -
RW1 at 07:47 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR, "RW1 - The surface of the Earth is close to being a decent black-body, with an emissivity of 0.96 to 0.99. However, the effective emissivity with cloud cover and GHG's is 0.612." Those numbers are for the whole atmosphere - not the surface. At a temperature of 289K where "e" = 0.612, the calculated power is 242 W/m^2, which is pretty close to 255K temperature as seen from space. -
Gordon Parish at 07:43 AM on 28 December 2010The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the AGU Fall Meeting
AGU's position statement on climate change can be found here: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml -
co2isnotevil at 07:42 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR, The 3.8 W/m^ of incremental absorption will have only a direct effect on the surface of 1.9 W/m^2, corresponding to only about 0.4C. The surface gain multiplies this by 1.6 for a total of 3 W/m^2 which presents a post feedback rise of 0.6C, which is consistent with values presented by Lindzen, Spencer and others who have arrived at similar values by orthogonal means. Actually, doubling CO2 increases the 1.6 surface gain by about 1%, but for all intents and purposes this can be considered negligible. This is the fundamental problem. What you think of as feedback is really gain. This is a result of Hansen et all (1984) assuming unit open loop gain and which has since permeated all of pedantic climate science. The consequence is that positive feedback is required to achieve the measured surface gain and because few climate scientists, if any, actually understand control theory, the idea of positive feedback makes it scary. -
muoncounter at 07:41 AM on 28 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
#97: "Is there any point in reducing my "carbon footprint"... " Some would call it 'leading by example' and argue its the right thing to do. Some would say you'd be contributing to wider causes (energy independence included). But if not, I suppose we could all say the same thing and justify going on with business as usual. The climate forecasts for that scenario are very unpretty. You should be aware that the developed world has the highest emissions per capita. Most of the population growth is in places where the per capita rate is much smaller. Here is a prior thread for this discussion. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
co2isnotevil: "There is about 3.8 W/m^2 of incremental absorption by doubling CO2 ... Only half of this affects the surface" Absolutely, completely... incorrect. This has been repeatedly pointed out since comment #7. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:38 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
co2isnotevil, a question for you. Do you, like RW1, believe that the 396 W/m^2 shown in http://www.palisad.com/co2/div2/div2.html includes latent heat transfer and thermals? If so, show any scientific source that confirms that SB includes nonradiative transfer. If not, please correct RW1's misconception and then explain why latent heat and thermal transfer to the atmosphere can be ignored (along with solar heating of the atmosphere) -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - The surface of the Earth is close to being a decent black-body, with an emissivity of 0.96 to 0.99. However, the effective emissivity with cloud cover and GHG's is 0.612. The temperature (at dynamic equilibrium) of the surface of the Earth is determined by input energy from the sun to the surface and atmosphere and the effective emissivity of the Earth, which notably changes due to GHG concentration. Without GHG's it would be at least 33C colder, for example. Again, as stated here: don't talk about 3C warming from a 3.7 W/m^2 CO2 forcing unless you include the feedback that raises 1.2C forcing to 3C temperature change. That's the climate sensitivity, which (primarily through water vapor effects) is expected to multiply the forcing by ~2.5. You seem to keep mixing the total forcing+feedback to try to argue against the forcing. -
co2isnotevil at 07:28 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR, The difference between a BB and a grey body is well known and included in any radiative analysis. Inferring that I don't understand this tells me that you aren't paying attention. The fact that you're missing is that the surface is almost an ideal BB radiator, especially in the LW IR. The Earth itself, as seen from space, is a grey body because the atmosphere is between the surface and space. Perhaps it would also help if you understood that the theoretical maximum blocking of surface power by the atmosphere is 50%. You can test this yourself by comparing the power radiated by the coldest cloud tops and the power radiated by the surface beneath them. This will never be less than 1/2. Venus is somewhat different because the thermal mass of the planet is primarily energized CO2 above the surface, while on Earth, it's ground state water below the surface. You also don't seem to understand the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. If the surface temperature increases by from 287K to 300K (a 3C rise), it's emitted power must increase by 16 W/m^2. Conservation of energy tells us that this power flux must be coming from somewhere. There is about 3.8 W/m^2 of incremental absorption by doubling CO2 (run modtran yourself if you don't believe me). Only half of this affects the surface, so I ask you, in order to satisfy COE, where is the extra 14.2 W/m^2 coming from? If you think it's the feedback, then I suggest you go back and study Bode and basic thermodynamics. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Mea culpa - I believe I have misinterpreted a couple of things in the last post. A 3C warming (total, from whatever source) of the surface will result in 16.8 W/m^2 increase (14C to 17C) in surface IR. At dynamic equilibrium this means an additional 16.8 W/m^2 of backradiation, +/- depending on what's changed in terms of thermal and evaporation pathways. The emissive levels in the troposphere would likely be higher, too, lots of other changes. We would still expect a power flow of ~240 W/m^2 from the sun and ~240 W/m^2 out to space as IR - the surface temperature will be driven by the input energy and total emissivity required to radiate that energy. A single 'gain' factor doesn't encompass the details of that. However - The 3.7 W/m^2 forcing from doubling CO2 will result in a direct forcing of only 1.2C. The value of 3C surface warming includes current estimates for climate sensitivity (look, actual relevance to the thread!). Hence arguing that 3.7 W/m^2 of direct forcing can't cause 16 W/m^2 of direct + feedback is mixing apples and oranges, and is a bad argument. We know what the direct forcing for a CO2 doubling will be. The climate sensitivity is rather more debatable, but appears to be ~3C for that doubling. And that means ~3C for 1.2C of solar forcing, if the insolation changes that much. Argue the forcing, or argue the sensitivity. Claiming the sensitivity issue(s) invalidate the forcing is really pointless. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:24 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
co2isnotevil, in your first paragraph in 374, the Pc calculation doesn't matter, nor does Pe. As I pointed out in 208, that tangent is dropped and "gain" is determined solely from Ps. That's one of my lessons learned, don't follow tangents and don't start them. In this case I was following a tangent in the paper. As for "gain" itself, that has more than adequately been addressed above such as in 210. -
muoncounter at 07:24 AM on 28 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
47: "no starting or ending point can ever be wrong. Also, any period length is allowed" Sorry, but you are incorrect. See the thread on statistical significance and the thread on misuse of significance tests for starters. Significance of measurement is a fundamental point in every science; misuse in any form is a serious and very common flaw. But you obviously understand that; why else would you bring up your 'longest cold spell'? -
steve anthoney at 07:23 AM on 28 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Is there any point in reducing my "carbon footprint" by 50% (even if I could) if the Earths population is set to double in the next 50 or 100 years ? Surely carbon use is an effect and population growth a cause, and not one which politicians will relish tackling ? -
RW1 at 07:23 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR, "The Earth is not a black-body radiator, but a 'gray-body'" But the surface of the earth is very close to a perfect black body radiator. This is why S-B (where emissivity "e" = 1) is used to calculate equivalent surface power to temperature and vice versa. "is that it takes 16 W/m^2 of incremental surface power for a 3C rise in surface temperature" is absolutely incorrect. 3.Y W/m^2 at TOA accounts for a 1.2C CO2 forcing, and feedbacks are expected to raise that to 3C. A raw forcing of 3C from CO2 would require 9.25 W/m^2, and from that we would expect 7.5C of rise with feedback. Your 'amplification factor' is nonsense." From S-B, at a surface power of 396, it takes 16 W/m^2 of additional power to increase the surface temperature 3 C. (396 + 16 = 412 W/m^2; 412 W/m^2 = 292K; 292K-288K = 3C). -
Argus at 07:02 AM on 28 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Norman (#15, #19, #22) had the audacity to point out a recent period of time, where he saw, if not a cooling trend, at least not a clear warming trend. For this 'felony' he was ridiculed by other writers (e.g. ##23-28). - "Norman, I was driving back down south for Christmas and halfway along I drove over a mountain pass. From this I have concluded that driving south is all downhill." He was accused of "cherry-picking of the highest order", or "blatant cherrypicking" (whichever is worst). He committed a climate faux pas. He is probably not ever coming back to this forum (re: #27). But Norman also got pieces of friendly advice in several comments, like, - please, take a look at other 12-year periods as well, or - please, use a longer period than 12 years. Specifically he was encouraged to not use 1998 as the starting point (because it was a warm year), but instead use another year, like 1997 or 1999 (because those were colder years). Voila, no trend! My experiences, from reading countless posts and comments on this website, tell me that if the purpose is to show something that is connected to warming (whether it be temperature curves, polar ice melting, or coral depletion) - no starting or ending point can ever be wrong. Also, any period length is allowed: 10 years, 12, 17, 30, or 87 years - all are OK. It doesn't matter as long as the cause is to show warming. However, if you want to present a trend that is connected to cooling, or even to warming at a slower rate, there are many important rules that you have to follow. Basically, don't go there! By the way, here in Stockholm, Sweden, we have now had the longest continuous cold spell since the winter of 1788-1789 (yes, we have a long unbroken series of temperature measurements, starting in 1756). But hey, that's only where I live, and that's not very global is it? -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
co2isnotevil - Your post here has far more incorrect statements than correct ones (if any). The Earth is not a black-body radiator, but a 'gray-body', as seen in the TOA spectra (Figure 1 here). The 'gain' is a variant result, not an input, and doesn't actually relate to the visible light input power and thermal IR output power physics. "is that it takes 16 W/m^2 of incremental surface power for a 3C rise in surface temperature" is absolutely incorrect. 3.Y W/m^2 at TOA accounts for a 1.2C CO2 forcing, and feedbacks are expected to raise that to 3C. A raw forcing of 3C from CO2 would require 9.25 W/m^2, and from that we would expect 7.5C of rise with feedback. Your 'amplification factor' is nonsense. http://www.palisad.com/co2 consists of exceedingly bad numbers (as I noted here), misinformation, and a collection of denier themes that can be found searching the top 20 skeptic arguments here. That's not a good source, but rather a quick trip into irrelevancy. I could go on, but I quite frankly don't see any point in it. -
muoncounter at 07:00 AM on 28 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
See also the Extreme weather thread, especially the Hansen quote here. -
co2isnotevil at 06:47 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Bibliovermis, re #233 and many that followed Forcing has no implicit time over which it occurs, only a time by which the system responds, known as the time constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant The climate is readily modeled as a first order LTI as, Pi = Po + dE/dt, where Pi is the power arriving from the Sun, Po is the power leaving the planet and E is the total energy stored in the Earth's thermal mass. When dE/dt is positive, the planet warms and when negative, it cools. Po is dependent on reflectivity and the temperature of the thermal mass and other factors dependent on E, collectively lumped into tau, thus fitting the general form of an LTI described by the above wikipedia entry as, dE/dt + 1/tau E = (1-r)Pi, where r is the reflectivity and (1-r)Pi is the forcing function f(t). This is where the definition of forcing actually comes from. In fact, GHG absorption influences the time constant and is not even properly considered forcing. Only power from the Sun can actually force the climate system, what the IPCC considers forcings simply modify the systems response. This is yet another manifestation of the confusion between gain and feedback where forcing and the response to forcing are similarly confused. The response of such a system to an immediate change is called it's impulse response and takes the form of the decaying exponential exp(-t/tau). If the forcing function is a sinusoid of the form exp(-jwt), the steady state solution (after at least 4-5 periods) is a delayed sinusoid of the form exp(-jwt)/(jw+1/tau). There's a second differential equation which relates the capacity and transfer characters of a thermal mass to dT/dt and F (also shown in the above wikipedia entry), where the flux F, is equal to dE/dt. The linear relationship between dE/dt and dT/dt is often misapplied to infer a linear relationship between 'forcing' and temperature, justifying a linear sensitivity, except that dE/dt is not the forcing, Pi is the forcing function and dE/dt is the response to that forcing. Finally, solar power is far from constant. It has latitude specific daily and seasonal variability all of which are easily represented as functions of the form exp(-jwt) and from which the time constants can be inferred by measuring the response to such stimulus. If indeed this was not relevant, there would be no differences in the climate between night and day, summer and winter or even latitude. There are also long and short term solar cycles and Milankovitch forcings affecting solar variability. It's not the average magnitude of solar radiation, but how that intersects with hemispheric and seasonal specific reflectivity. -
co2isnotevil at 06:46 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, re #208 #211 The Ps and Pc values come from the raw ISCCP data. These are converted to surface and cloud top temperatures with a lookup table implementation of SB. The ISCCP defines the surface to be an ideal BB radiator with an equivalent temperature, but since in the IR, the Earth is nearly a perfect BB radiator, this is a good approximation and SB exactly defines the relationship between radiated power and equivalent temperature. Pw is generally small, but is the power converted by the Carnot engine driving weather into the work of weather. It may actually be 0 in the steady state, where the energy driving weather nominally comes from the latent heat of evaporation. The seasonal variability of the gain has more to do with seasonally variable surface reflectivity than anything else. The 1.6 value is a yearly average, so any seasonal gain variability averages out. The bottom line is that it takes 16 W/m^2 of incremental surface power for a 3C rise in surface temperature. Of the 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental absorption from doubling CO2, 1.9 W/m^2 actually affects the surface. This requires an average amplification of over 8. While the peak at the poles can even exceed 8, the average is all that matters relative to the long term effect of doubling CO2. The only way to reconcile this discrepancy is to treat power from GHG absorption as being many times more powerful at affecting surface temperatures than power from the Sun. Obviously, I can't accept this. A view of the gain as a scatter plot is here. http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ga.png The convergence of the surface gain to 1.6 is quite clear. Some of the higher gain values at the poles are the result of accounting for power transferred from mid latitudes, which tends to push mid and lower latitude gains down. While this appears to be a criticism of L&C, from the scatter plot, the average behavior of each 2.5 degree slice of latitude (green and blue dots) shows a very consistent interpolation between the equator and the poles. Note that for display purposes only, the individual gain data points were truncated to 12. -
co2isnotevil at 06:44 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, re 302 A is simply the radiative input from the surface to the atmosphere. The atmosphere then radiates this absorbed power up and down according to the laws of BB radiation. Is it your contention that a heated gas does not radiate as a black body? Also consider that evaporation/precipitation is a closed loop which redistributes energy from the tropics to the poles. Why is this any different than an oceanic or atmospheric circulation that does the same thing? You must keep in mind that a portion (albeit small) of the planets thermal mass is in the atmosphere and that circulation currents are what move energy around the entire thermal mass, including between the oceans and the atmosphere (actually clouds). -
kdfv at 06:27 AM on 28 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
#189 The significance is that the record cold in the uk is happening with vastly increased CO2. This seems to go against the trend.Moderator Response: Nope. Use the Search field to find the post It's Freaking Cold. -
kdfv at 06:24 AM on 28 December 2010We're heading into an ice age
#188 Are these the only years, because they have a big significance. The first three were a long time ago. -
Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
RSVP - I posted my "box example" to illustrate greenhouse gas warming: the GHG box plate warms at some rate, while the non-GHG box plate (and gas) do not warm at all. I'll note that "I assume the top is temperature controlled and much cooler than backplate in order to approximate something like an open sky" is something I did not say - please do not introduce strawmen. In a single-plane GHG example (which the box example is, as there isn't enough room for convective lapse rates) the IR leaving the GHG layer will equal that going back to the surface. In the actual™ climate, however, by the time the greenhouse gases thin enough to emit to space, the lapse rate means that those layers are very cold, and hence emit much less than surface level GHG's. Hence there is a big difference between IR traded around at ground level and that emitted to space. Which is a big part of the Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming discussed on this topic. -
RW1 at 05:59 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, "So you believe that the S-B formula accounts for evaporative cooling and conduction?" No. "There are no applicable factors in the formula to account for those." Correct. It determines radiation only." No, the S-B formula determines the equivalent temperature at the surface from the total power at the surface (and vice versa). -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:43 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
"The 396 W/m^2 power flux at the surface already accounts for the thermals and latent heat transfer - that is why the diagram shows them in the atmosphere away from the surface and not at the surface." So you believe that the S-B formula accounts for evaporative cooling and conduction? There are no applicable factors in the formula to account for those. It determines radiation only. Ok, archiesteel was right, (110, 120, 134, ...). The fact is, RW1, that you didn't show us your incorrect website until post 150. Lesson learned for me: read the offending website completely, determine the most basic errors, don't go on tangents, don't allow tangents, and keep my promise to stop responding. -
RW1 at 05:30 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, "The total power flux (or heat transfer) from the surface is the radiated power plus conducted power producing thermals, plus latent transfer from evaporated cooling. As you agreed in #346, the earth conducts heat to the atmosphere. That has to be added to the radiative transfer to get the total." Why do you think this? The 396 W/m^2 power flux at the surface already accounts for the thermals and latent heat transfer - that is why the diagram shows them in the atmosphere away from the surface and not at the surface. If there was no conduction and convection, the surface would be warmer than it is - over 30 C (396 + 17 + 80 = 493; 493 W/m^2 = 305.4K). Does this clarify things? -
RSVP at 05:24 AM on 28 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
KR #89 For purposes of the discussion, I think you would allow the heat source to be substituted with a heating filament. One that is embedded in the backplane. This is not necessary as the lamp will do, however, it might be helpful for illustrating what follows. I would agree that that backplane would heat faster as you say if it were covered with an ideal layer of insulation. However, it is my understanding that this GHG only insulates partially, and as the featured article explains, passes energy off to surrounding molecules in the gas mixture. This being the case, and these in turn having their own thermal interia, will in fact require an instantaneous portion of the energy coming from the source, such that the temperature of the backplane will take longer to reach its maximum, as opposed to heating faster as you say above. So it is not clear to me which of these two factors wins out. Furthermore, it would seem that the larger the cylinder (and greater its volume regardless of GHG concentration), the more it would tend to do what I say, vs what you say. The backradiation should never be greater than the GHG upward radiation, since I assume the top is temperature controlled and much cooler than backplate in order to approximate something like an open sky, a factor independent of the fact the area of heat emission is now greater than the that of the plate on its own due to radiative contributions from the "GHGs". -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, Ok, you're just being obtuse, and I doubt you are here for serious conversation. If you can't be bothered to look up the definition of power, then this conversation is pointless. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - You make a curious statement here: "There is no distinction between "thermal radiation" and power - they are one in the same" I suppose I should now junk my car (thermal expansion power from exothermic reactions, not to mention thermal conduction to convective cooling at the radiator) and electric razor (electric power), as they cannot use energy to accomplish work??? You're wandering very far afield. Power is the net movement of energy accomplishing work. Temperature is the result of energy sitting still (present in an object as molecular motion). -
RW1 at 05:08 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e, "You asked us how power at the surface could be larger than power input from the sun, I answered your question, did you understand my explanation or not?" No, I asked how 239 W/m^2 of the surface power cannot be be from the Sun? -
RW1 at 05:04 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e, "No total power is total power, it includes radiation as well as convective heat transfer. Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to thermal radiation not to power in general. Thus, the temperature estimate does not change, as you are deriving it only from the radiative component of total power." There is no distinction between "thermal radiation" and power - they are one in the same. Thermal radiation is measured in W/m^2, which is an equivalent power. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, You asked us how power at the surface could be larger than power input from the sun, I answered your question, did you understand my explanation or not? -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:02 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
"No, 396 W/m^2 is the total power at the surface. The "total power" at the surface is same thing as the radiated power at the surface (so is the "power flux"). If it wasn't, the temperature could not be 289K" RW1, that is simply incorrect. The total power flux (or heat transfer) from the surface is the radiated power plus conducted power producing thermals, plus latent transfer from evaporated cooling. As you agreed in #346, the earth conducts heat to the atmosphere. That has to be added to the radiative transfer to get the total. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 >396 W/m^2 is the total power at the surface ... If it wasn't, the temperature could not be 289K. No total power is total power, it includes radiation as well as convective heat transfer. Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to thermal radiation not to power in general. Thus, the temperature estimate does not change, as you are deriving it only from the radiative component of total power. -
RW1 at 04:56 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e, "I am explaining to you how the gross radiation emitted by the surface can be greater than the net input from the sun, even though there are no other sources of energy other than the sun." We all know this already. -
RW1 at 04:53 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, "RW1 (#353), the 396 in your post is not "total power at the surface" it is just the radiated power. It is missing the other transfers. KR showed the power equation in #327" No, 396 W/m^2 is the total power at the surface. The "total power" at the surface is same thing as the radiated power at the surface (so is the "power flux"). If it wasn't, the temperature could not be 289K. -
archiesteel at 04:52 AM on 28 December 2010Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@NETDR: posting about the PDO seems off-topic, but since moderators are allowing it allow me to respond. The PDO is a cycle, and as such it's overall trend curve is flat. The temperature increase, however shows a definite positive trend. Therefore, the current warming is not some sort of post-PDO bounce. In fact, the past 30 years show a strong positive trend for temperature, while the PDO index has been going down."This periodic "failure to warm" makes the case for Catastrophic AGW look very thin !" There is no "failure to warm." "But that is just a coincidence ! RIGHT ?" Don't shout, please. It does not add to your already damaged credibility. While there is some degree of apparent correlation, it does seem it is CO2 that overrides the PDO, not the other way around. Facts simply do not agree with your interpretation of the PDO data.
Moderator Response: You're right, rhis now has gone thoroughly off topic. Comments after this one must go on the PDO thread. No complaining that so-and-so got to post here, so you should be able to follow up here. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, I am explaining to you how the gross radiation emitted by the surface can be greater than the net input from the sun, even though there are no other sources of energy other than the sun. Did my explanation make sense or no? -
Phila at 04:48 AM on 28 December 2010Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
NETDR: This periodic "failure to warm" makes the case for Catastrophic AGW look very thin ! This claim makes no sense whatsoever. Please show your work. -
RW1 at 04:44 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e, "I want to make sure this is clear: every single Watt in Trenberth's diagram comes from the sun. You cannot differentiate between what portion is or isn't from the sun, because it is all from the sun. The reason you see numbers larger than the net solar input, is because the energy can move back and forth multiple times within the system, inflating the gross internal numbers. This is the essence of the greenhouse effect." What's your point? -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:41 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 (#353), the 396 in your post is not "total power at the surface" it is just the radiated power. It is missing the other transfers. KR showed the power equation in #327 -
RW1 at 04:40 AM on 28 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
e, "Did you read my earlier post? The 396 represents the "same" power bouncing back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere. All of that energy comes from the sun. You're trying to compare gross internal exchanges with the net input at TOA, it's apples and oranges." How do you figure? Is not 239 W/m^2 from the Sun less than 396 W/m^2 at the surface? -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, I want to make sure this is clear: every single Watt in Trenberth's diagram comes from the sun. You cannot differentiate between what portion is or isn't from the sun, because it is all from the sun. The reason you see numbers larger than the net solar input, is because the energy can move back and forth multiple times within the system, inflating the gross internal numbers. This is the essence of the greenhouse effect.
Prev 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Next
