Jo Nova energy balance

[IanC]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out. water vapour lifting surface energy up to the cloud tops through water cycle/convection. CO2 radiation from high in the atmosphere when the concentration gets low enough that the 15 micron escapes rather than gets absorbed.

Evans' explanations are more thorough than mine, talking about the feedbacks and where they happen. But it still boils down to what route does the energy retarded by extra CO2 take to escape. CO2 theory as per IPCC thinks the majority goes into heating the surface (extra ASR if you will), while I, and many other skeptics, think that only a small portion goes into heating the surface. Rather, the energy re-routes through different pipes.

if you are interested, there are 9 articles up so far at Jo Nova. it's kinda like Science of Doom, with different parts discussed separately. the latest one New Science 9: Error 3: All Radiation Imbalances Treated the Same — The Ground is not the sky! « JoNova

 

[Billy_Bob]

excellent! Some good reading here!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The alarmists will not acknowledge other energy transport systems because to acknowledge them means their all powerful CO2 can not do what it is they say it is.

Its kind of funny to see some of the alarmists posts and how they refuse to remove their blinders...

 

[mamooth]

I'm not sure where deniers come up with the crazy idea that convection is ignored, being that it's so completely contrary to reality. Chalk it up as another one of their cherished myths. Trenberth's 2008 diagram shows 17w/m2 from thermal convection, and 80 W/m2 from evapotranspiration.

See, right there. Convection, taken into account and quantified. Compare that 97 w/m2 sum to the 40w/m2 of direct radiation from ground to space, and you see how mainstream climate science says straight out that convection is the dominant heat transfer mechanism in the troposphere. However, convection only carries heat from the lower troposphere to the upper troposphere. It can't take the heat any higher. After that, it's all radiation and greenhouse gases.

Oh, the latest Dale Evans / Jo Nova nonsense is getting ripped apart by just about everyone.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/201...s-what-do-you-mean-about-partial-derivatives/

Force F from outer space

Not even partially correct

moyhu: On partial derivatives

 

[IanC]

edit to repost Trenberth's cartoon (straight from SkS I might add, I would have used a more neutral site but it is from mamooth)

161 solar = 97 water cycle + (396-333)63 radiation
63 = 40 atm window + 23 random kinetic

this is just to the cloud top

78 solar +97 WC + 23 IR = 198 delivered to cloudtop (161 + 78 solar - 40 AW =199)

phase change in clouds produces another 30 that escapes through atm window, 199 -30 = 169

that 169 is radiated to space at different heights by GHGs

(to close the circle....341 solar = 102 reflected and 70 atm win and 169 GHG IR)


as anyone can see, there are various routes for the energy to escape, active at different heights. a change in equilibrium caused by increased CO2 will be different depending on what height you are measuring. Evans described these differences by using the term partial derivatives, and explained how climate models treat all energy paths as equal. does down welling IR physically heat the surface? no, it may cause conditions to allow solar heating to come to a higher equilibrium temp but the IR does not do the heating. does a change in CO2 concentration have a big effect at the surface where it is already near saturation? does it cause a bigger effect above the trophosphere where the amount controls the height at which 15 micron IR finally escapes? yes. do the changes move backwards through the cloud tops and on to the surface? doubtful.

read Evans' stuff, and read the criticisms too. I find that there is too much arguing over lexicon in the criticisms and not enough debating the central idea but I want you to make up your own mind.

 

[flacaltenn]

OMG -- STILL referencing Trenberth? Add up the exchange at the surface --- He has 161W/m2 coming in and 160 going out. Giving him that lucky guess of 0.9 retained as surface warming.

So where is all that ocean storage man? You can't retain heat at the surface AND find the SAME AMOUNT 700m under the sea. He NOW says 90% of that surface imbalance goes into the sea. Which virtually shows how fake his "balance" number is..

Regardless ---- Convection is WAAAAY underestimated. In all the thermo problems I've ever encountered, where there is a material boundary in contact with air -- There aren't many where the IR blackbody radiation dominates over the convection cooling . Especially with forced air flow (weather, rotational energy, etc) MAYBE a powered source like a light bulb or a heated plate, but NOT passive re-radiators of heat.

In reality, there is a different thermal equilibrium for every material on the planet. The oceans, the deserts, the polar regions --- ALL of the different climate zones have different balances between convective and radiative cooling. In the case of the hard surface, there IS a different thermal equilibrium for different depths of ground based on material composition. And the Seas cool much more easily from convection than they do from IR loss. This "blackbody" guess is a Sesame Street estimate not based on any real knowledge of the different properties of the different climate zones on the planet.

That's why most engineers and scientists leave thermo with knowledge of only conductive and convective heat transfers. Because in MOST typical problems --- you get close enough to the answers without even knowing that radiative transfer is taking place. Which explains that persistent problem of schooled people not even KNOWING how to account for bi-directional calculations of radiative transfer. Or denying the "back-radiation" part of the GreenHouse effect..

 

[IanC]

OMG -- STILL referencing Trenberth? Add up the exchange at the surface --- He has 161W/m2 coming in and 160 going out. Giving him that lucky guess of 0.9 retained as surface warming.

So where is all that ocean storage man? You can't retain heat at the surface AND find the SAME AMOUNT 700m under the sea. He NOW says 90% of that surface imbalance goes into the sea. Which virtually shows how fake his "balance" number is..

Regardless ---- Convection is WAAAAY underestimated. In all the thermo problems I've ever encountered, where there is a material boundary in contact with air -- There aren't many where the IR blackbody radiation dominates over the convection cooling . Especially with forced air flow (weather, rotational energy, etc) MAYBE a powered source like a light bulb or a heated plate, but NOT passive re-radiators of heat.

In reality, there is a different thermal equilibrium for every material on the planet. The oceans, the deserts, the polar regions --- ALL of the different climate zones have different balances between convective and radiative cooling. In the case of the hard surface, there IS a different thermal equilibrium for different depths of ground based on material composition. And the Seas cool much more easily from convection than they do from IR loss. This "blackbody" guess is a Sesame Street estimate not based on any real knowledge of the different properties of the different climate zones on the planet.

That's why most engineers and scientists leave thermo with knowledge of only conductive and convective heat transfers. Because in MOST typical problems --- you get close enough to the answers without even knowing that radiative transfer is taking place. Which explains that persistent problem of schooled people not even KNOWING how to account for bi-directional calculations of radiative transfer. Or denying the "back-radiation" part of the GreenHouse effect..

yup, I agree with you.

I think the general public has a very difficult time in understanding how generalities about climate science are one type of information and specifics are another. the two may seem to be mutually exclusive even when they are not.

 

[SSDD]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out

Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

 

[IanC]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out

Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

obviously at the surface.

are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)

 

[SSDD]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out

Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

obviously at the surface.

are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)

If the hotspot were at the surface do you really think that such massive fraud would be necessary to give the illusion of warming in the surface data record? Steadily increasing CO2 according to the magic would cause steadily increasing temperatures...even for those who believe in the magic just isn't as strong.

 

[waltky]

SSDD wrote: Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

El Nino

 

[IanC]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out

Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

obviously at the surface.

are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)

If the hotspot were at the surface do you really think that such massive fraud would be necessary to give the illusion of warming in the surface data record?

the hotspot at the surface is obviously there. that is why we have life on this planet. almost completely caused and controlled by water in its various forms but CO2 plays a part as well.

 

[IanC]

SSDD wrote: Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

El Nino

granny needs more meds.

or less

 

[SSDD]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out

Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

obviously at the surface.

are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)

If the hotspot were at the surface do you really think that such massive fraud would be necessary to give the illusion of warming in the surface data record?

the hotspot at the surface is obviously there. that is why we have life on this planet. almost completely caused and controlled by water in its various forms but CO2 plays a part as well.

And according to the magic...more CO2=more warming. No doubt we have more CO2...what we don't have is more warming...if the magic worked as described and even if it weren't as strong as described...more CO2 would equal more warming.... Not happening. The magic clearly doesn't work as described...or more likely there isn't any magic and the greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply isn't the answer for why the temperature on this planet is what it is....perhaps it would be better to look to explanations that not only explain the temperature here, but accurately predict the temperatures of every other planet in the solar system that have atmospheres.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out

Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

obviously at the surface.

are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)

The satellite data shows no surface hot spot..

 

[SSDD]

I have been arguing a similar type of explanation for years. a bottleneck at the surface with only 10 micron radiation getting out

Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

obviously at the surface.

are you confusing the predicted mid trophospheric hotspot caused by extra evaporation, hence the positive feedback assumed, for something else? (its not there, btw)

The satellite data shows no surface hot spot..

Of course it doesn't...no data show a hot spot anywhere....by definition a bottleneck, even a very weak one would produce a hot spot....or at least a warmer spot....it isn't materializing and if it were limited strictly to the near surface it would become evident with a far smaller increase in CO2 than we have seen in the past half century.

He can't give up the magic...when it doesn't materialize then they switch to faith...faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models whether their output look anything like reality or not.

 

[flacaltenn]

OMG -- STILL referencing Trenberth? Add up the exchange at the surface --- He has 161W/m2 coming in and 160 going out. Giving him that lucky guess of 0.9 retained as surface warming.

So where is all that ocean storage man? You can't retain heat at the surface AND find the SAME AMOUNT 700m under the sea. He NOW says 90% of that surface imbalance goes into the sea. Which virtually shows how fake his "balance" number is..

Regardless ---- Convection is WAAAAY underestimated. In all the thermo problems I've ever encountered, where there is a material boundary in contact with air -- There aren't many where the IR blackbody radiation dominates over the convection cooling . Especially with forced air flow (weather, rotational energy, etc) MAYBE a powered source like a light bulb or a heated plate, but NOT passive re-radiators of heat.

In reality, there is a different thermal equilibrium for every material on the planet. The oceans, the deserts, the polar regions --- ALL of the different climate zones have different balances between convective and radiative cooling. In the case of the hard surface, there IS a different thermal equilibrium for different depths of ground based on material composition. And the Seas cool much more easily from convection than they do from IR loss. This "blackbody" guess is a Sesame Street estimate not based on any real knowledge of the different properties of the different climate zones on the planet.

That's why most engineers and scientists leave thermo with knowledge of only conductive and convective heat transfers. Because in MOST typical problems --- you get close enough to the answers without even knowing that radiative transfer is taking place. Which explains that persistent problem of schooled people not even KNOWING how to account for bi-directional calculations of radiative transfer. Or denying the "back-radiation" part of the GreenHouse effect..

yup, I agree with you.

I think the general public has a very difficult time in understanding how generalities about climate science are one type of information and specifics are another. the two may seem to be mutually exclusive even when they are not.

Ian --- There is SO MUCH wrong with all these "GLOBAL" assumptions about climate sensitivity and energy balance. And they are NOT GETTING FIXED or even elaborated. Because NO ONE wants to divulge the methodologies for the modeling that represents the REAL knowledge and assumptions about how the climate system works.

I have no doubt that many more folks than Evans have peaked into these assumptions and that maybe a dialogue ensues. Should be done without the GOAL of embarrassing anybody. After all, this is one of the most MULTI-disciplinary sections of active science. And it takes COLLABORATION to get it right.

Hopefully, everyone will learn a bit and the "leaders" in climate science will have to start speaking the language of System Control theory and analysis -- in order to build better models. Ones where the feedbacks and pathways are modeled MATHEMATICALLY correct..

 

[Billy_Bob]

SSDD wrote: Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

El Nino

El Nino is NOT caused by CO2... The shear ignorance of this post is hilarious..

Please provide evidence for your assumption...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD wrote: Bottleneck, by definition, demands a hot spot...where is it?

El Nino

El Nino is NOT caused by CO2... The shear ignorance of this post is hilarious..

Please provide evidence for your assumption...

Thats the good thing about assumptions...you don't need no steeenking evidence.....like the assumption that energy spontaneously transfers from cool to warm.

 

[waltky]

SSDD wrote: Thats the good thing about assumptions...you don't need no steeenking evidence.....like the assumption that energy spontaneously transfers from cool to warm.

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... ever take a cold one outta the refrigerator an' leave it out?...

... Dat's right - it gets warm...

... it don't get colder...