Nye's Quadrant

[Crick]

You don't think GCMs adjust absorptivity coefficients for the frequency of the radiation they're dealing with? I do.

 

[IanC]

You don't think GCMs adjust absorptivity coefficients for the frequency of the radiation they're dealing with? I do.

Who was that comment directed at, and what was the context?

 

[Crick]

SSSD claiming that GCMs treat energy from atmospheric IR emission and direct solar radiation, to the Earth's surface, identically.

 

[IanC]

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/ne...s-treated-the-same-the-ground-is-not-the-sky/

Quote-
The theory underlying the alarm about CO2 is built around a bizarre idea that blocking outgoing energy in the CO2 pipe is equivalent to getting an increase in sunlight. The very architecture of all the mainstream climate models assumes that the Earth’s climate responds to all radiation imbalances or “forcings” as if they were all like extra sunlight. (We call that extra absorbed solar radiation (ASR) to be more precise. It’s all about the sunlight that makes it through to the surface.)

Extra sunlight adds heat directly to the Earth’s surface, and maybe the climate models have correctly estimated the feedbacks from clouds and evaporation and what-not to surface warming. But it is obvious, in a way even a child could comprehend, that this is not the same as blocking outgoing radiation in the upper atmosphere, which is the effect of increasing CO2. Why would the Earth’s climate respond to this in an identical way? Why would we think that evaporation, humidity, winds and clouds would all change in the same direction and by the same magnitude, whether the warming occurred by adding heat to the ground or by blocking heat from escaping to space from the upper atmosphere? -end quote.

The article goes on to show a climate model computational schematic, and Hansen's own words about treating CO2 forcing in the same fashion as solar forcing.

The whole series is worth a read, although I don't think it is perfect. It spends a lot of time on the hotspot, and why it cannot and does not exist as the models predict.

 

[IanC]

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/ne...s-treated-the-same-the-ground-is-not-the-sky/

Quote-
The theory underlying the alarm about CO2 is built around a bizarre idea that blocking outgoing energy in the CO2 pipe is equivalent to getting an increase in sunlight. The very architecture of all the mainstream climate models assumes that the Earth’s climate responds to all radiation imbalances or “forcings” as if they were all like extra sunlight. (We call that extra absorbed solar radiation (ASR) to be more precise. It’s all about the sunlight that makes it through to the surface.)

Extra sunlight adds heat directly to the Earth’s surface, and maybe the climate models have correctly estimated the feedbacks from clouds and evaporation and what-not to surface warming. But it is obvious, in a way even a child could comprehend, that this is not the same as blocking outgoing radiation in the upper atmosphere, which is the effect of increasing CO2. Why would the Earth’s climate respond to this in an identical way? Why would we think that evaporation, humidity, winds and clouds would all change in the same direction and by the same magnitude, whether the warming occurred by adding heat to the ground or by blocking heat from escaping to space from the upper atmosphere? -end quote.

The article goes on to show a climate model computational schematic, and Hansen's own words about treating CO2 forcing in the same fashion as solar forcing.

The whole series is worth a read, although I don't think it is perfect. It spends a lot of time on the hotspot, and why it cannot and does not exist as the models predict.

Bump for SSDD. Here is a critique of the missing hotspot. I believe I started a thread at the time giving a short explanation of the different chapters. Why do you keep asking me to defend the missing hotspot? I am obviously antagonistic towards the AGW viewpoint.

 

[SSDD]

Bump for SSDD. Here is a critique of the missing hotspot. I believe I started a thread at the time giving a short explanation of the different chapters. Why do you keep asking me to defend the missing hotspot? I am obviously antagonistic towards the AGW viewpoint.

The bottom line is that both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis failed...they made predictions that didn't happen...failure...now, in real science, what do we do with hypotheses that experience predictive failures?

 

[IanC]

And the only reason why Malaysia does not plunge down to almost - 160 C at night as the shady side of the ISS is at, is because the atmosphere over Malaysia is a massive heat reservoir because it has mass

And that is what I have been saying over and over again while you guys keep saying no no no.

Energy is stored in the atmosphere. In both kinetic and potential form.

Heat moves from one object to another according to temperature differential.

With no GHGs the atmosphere would only receive energy from the surface by conduction and much of the surface energy would just freely escape to space by radiation, the ratio of conduction/radiation would be determined the most efficient loss of energy possible.

If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, certain band of surface IR are absorbed and converted into stored energy by molecular collision. Some but not all of this energy is released at high altitude as IR. The atmosphere is warmer because of this extra stored energy at surface levels and cooler at the top.

If you add water, then you get even more surface radiation being intercepted by the atmosphere. Plus you get an extra means of warming the atmosphere with the water cycle depositing energy at the cloudtops by moving energy by evaporation/convection/precipitation. The total stored energy of the atmosphere has again increased. The ratio between conduction/radiation/conversation is still being determined by the most efficient means of expelling energy.

How does the atmosphere 'warm' the surface? By changing the equilibrium, the temperature gradient. Solar input causes higher surface temperature when less surface output is possible.

There are two ways that the atmosphere returns energy to the surface. One is mass mediated. Air molecules are striking the surface and imparting their kinetic energy. The other is radiation, some by GHGs if they emit very close to the surface and the IR is not immediately reabsorbed, and the radiation produced by the latent heat release at the cloudtops during precipitation (less the GHG bands, and only the radiation going in the right direction)

The energy loss to space is always very close to the amount of solar input. Otherwise the globe would be warming or cooling.

Disturbing the amount of CO2 causes the CO2 specific IR to be captured in a smaller volume of air near the surface. By definition putting the same amount of energy into a smaller volume will increase the temperature. Which of course means more energy returned to the surface by molecular collision.

I personally do not think this disturbance in saturation point makes a big change but it does cause a little change in the equilibriums of various routes of energy escape.

You can change temperature of a specific point along the pathway of energy travel without changing the actual inputs and outputs. Throw a towel over your cable box and it will warm up. Where did the extra energy come from? It came from the energy not released to the environment while the towel/box came back to equilibrium. The same amount of energy would be released after the power to the cable box was turned off.

As usual you are sooo close to how it really works and then just inches from the finish line you blow it. I know what you are trying to say about the towel on the breaker box, but an insulator impeding heat conduction is not experimental proof of "back radiation". The plastic covering the copper wires is already doing more than a towel covering the box would...and CO2 has nothing in common with a towel..except that a towel that can`t expand like a warmed gas has to is solid matter in physical contact with a heat source. All that matters in that case is what the "R" factor of a heat insulator is...in addition to that Spencer f-ed up too with that analogy because as you well know when wires heat up their resistance goes up proportionally and that means the amps drop and with it the watts of the heat source...so please forget about that towel over "the cable box" because I would have to go along with a series of events that reality excludes.
Now back to reality...use a block of copper at high temperature and no atmosphere.
It radiates heat and cools down following the StB equation.
Now use 2 blocks that touch each other and have the same combined mass and temperature as the other single unit..they cool down at exactly the same rate while in direct contact as the single block. Now separate them and behold...they still cool down as fast as the single block even though they "back-radiate" at each other and no you are not allowed the argument that we now have increased the surface area because back-radiation "experts" claim this area does not dissipate the system`s heat because for these 2 faces E=5.67*10^(-8)*(T1^4 - T2^4) and E=0 because T1=T2.
Now you need to throw in your towel,...lets up the anti and use your towel to cover one of the 2 blocks...do you really expect an engineer to believe that the covered block stayed warmer longer because the bare block, already cooler block was "heating" it ?

I like these thought experiments. It allows you to separate out the basic mechanisms.

Let's change your block for a sphere so that shape doesn't interfere. What happens when you put this sphere of homogenous temperature into a cooler environment? Let's use deep space so that we can ignore radiation coming back from the environment.

It immediately starts to lose energy via radiation and the temperature cools at the surface. This causes a temperature differential that 'wicks' away interior energy to the surface by conduction, leading to a temperature gradient from the centre to the surface. This all happens most quickly at the beginning and slows to a trickle as more and more energy is lost, until it is all gone.

The initial state of consistent temperature throughout is very seldom seen in reality. It is a highly ordered state that entropy attacks immediately. The S-B equations are built around
ideal conditions, steady temperature being one of them.

All objects cool if they do not have an input of energy. The rate of cooling can be affected by local conditions but there is always energy loss to the environment.

For example the sphere may be split into two objects, an interior and an exterior, separated by just enough distance to stop conduction. Conduction is far more efficient at transferring energy than radiation, therefore the interior will stay warm longer and the temperature differential between the exterior and interior pieces will be larger. It will take longer for all the energy to be lost.

At this point you could cry foul! There are now two objects, the interior powering the exterior. But was this not always the case except for the initial condition of homogenous temperature? An artificial case where entropy was taken out of the system by adding order.

TBC