Energy Budgets Without Backradiation

[IanC]

for SSDD-

What do we see? Out of 51% absorbed by the Earth from incoming 100%,
30% is transported to the Atmosphere by convection/latent heat = thermodynamics
15% is radiated to the Atmosphere = radiation
6% is radiated directly to outer space.
The 45% transported from the Earth to the Atmosphere is radiated to outer space together
with the 19% of incoming absorbed by the Atmosphere = 64%.


The Atmosphere acts an air conditioner cooling/warming the Earth by combination of thermodynamics and radiation, with the following basic specifications:
Earth temperature T_E = 15 C
Atmosphere temperature T_A = -18 C (at 5 km altitude)

lapse rate = 6.5 C/km.
Here T_A = -18 C is the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature required to radiate 64%. The lapse rate is set by the thermodynamics, and the lapse rate determines T_E = + 15 C. The temperature drop from + 15 C to -18 C determines the 15 % radiated from Earth to Atmosphere.


Thermodynamics and radiation thus together act as an air conditioner, with thermodynamics setting the lapse rate and T_E which determines the cooling by radiation.



We see that in this analysis "backradiation" does not appear, and thus can be dismissed to
the realm of fiction, without any role to play in climate science nor at NASA.



Suppose now that absorption properties of the Atmosphere changes so that instead of 6%
only 5% is radiated directly, that is a 20% change of Atmosphere absorption by some
"greenhouse gas", a large change. To compensate, either thermodynamics or radiation, or a combination thereof, will have to take care of that extra 1% to be transported away from the Earth, with the following basic options:


Increasing thermodynamics from 30% to 31%:
more convection/latent heat
tends to decrease the lapse rate and thus T_E
decreasing T_E decreases radiation.

Increasing radiation from 15% to 16%:
requires increasing lapse rate
increasing lapse rate = less/more convection/latent heat
less/more convection/latent heat decreases/increases thermodynamics,
where increasing T_E may correspond to both decreasing (bigger lapse rate) and increasing (more vigorous) thermodynamics.



We thus see a dynamics of competing forces to balance the extra 1%:
more thermodynamics with decreasing T_E and decreasing radiation

more radiation with increasing T_E and decreasing/increasing thermodynamics.
Which mechanism will win? Will T_E decrease or increase? Cooling or warming? Only a more careful analysis can tell.


As a first guess, it is tempting to put the money on thermodynamics with little/no increase of T_E , because of the starting point with 30% thermodynamics and 15% radiation, and the fact that increasing T_E may stimulate compensating more vigorous thermodynamics.



Again: radiation-only cannot give any scientifically based indication of global warming (or cooling) from a marginal increase of "greenhouse gases". CO2 alarmism is based on radiation-only including "backradiation" and thus lacks scientific rationale.

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: Energy Budgets Without Backradiation


here is the global energy budget that I kept asking you for when you first arrived at USMB.

I certainly have more than a few bones to pick with it, but I would like to know if this is a fair representation of your views on the subject.

 

[SSDD]

I like this one better:

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

And I like the N & Z proposal better than the one from Johnson, although it is less comprehensive than the one from Postma....Both, however can be applied to every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere and accurately predict the temperature while the "greenhouse" model used by climate science can only predict the temperature of earth with constant tweaking and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperature of other planets in the solar system with atmospheres. That, in and of itself should be enough to cause the greenhouse model to be discarded out of hand in favor of a model that can.

Unified Theory of Climate

Unified Theory of Climate

That one still looks like a flat earth to me and I just can't buy that a 2D model can produce output that faithfully represents a 3D earth.

 

[mamooth]

Sky Dragon kooks are funny. The contortions they go into, the level of self-delusion, all priceless.

 

[SSDD]

Sky Dragon kooks are funny. The contortions they go into, the level of self-delusion, all priceless.

The irony drips hairball...it literally drips.

 

[IanC]

I like this one better:

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

And I like the N & Z proposal better than the one from Johnson, although it is less comprehensive than the one from Postma....Both, however can be applied to every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere and accurately predict the temperature while the "greenhouse" model used by climate science can only predict the temperature of earth with constant tweaking and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperature of other planets in the solar system with atmospheres. That, in and of itself should be enough to cause the greenhouse model to be discarded out of hand in favor of a model that can.

Unified Theory of Climate

Unified Theory of Climate

That one still looks like a flat earth to me and I just can't buy that a 2D model can produce output that faithfully represents a 3D earth.

ok. whatever.

I was just trying to get you to explain your point of view. I personally think that pressure issues, etc have a much larger impact on temperature equilibriums than is presently given in CO2 theory explanations for the public. I am not going to be the spokesman for it though. any takers?

 

[SSDD]

ok. whatever.

I was just trying to get you to explain your point of view. I personally think that pressure issues, etc have a much larger impact on temperature equilibriums than is presently given in CO2 theory explanations for the public. I am not going to be the spokesman for it though. any takers?

My point of view is that the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science is a steaming pile of shit, if for no other reason than it can't predict the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere. That alone, aside from all of the other problems it has should be ample reason for any thinking person to reject it out of hand. If it accurately represented what is happening when energy enters our system, it would work on any planet with an atmosphere...it doesn't.

More importantly than what I think, why do you accept it even though it can't come close to accurately predicting the temperatures of the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres? It's junk science.

 

[IanC]

I don't accept CO2 theory as it stands. But I believe increased CO2 does have an effect, mostly at the boundary.

I would just like a slayer to come out with a few specific points to show everyone that you're not completely nuts. For instance, the dim earth scenario is easily defeated by simple math and should solvable by calculus. Baby steps.

 

[SSDD]

I don't accept CO2 theory as it stands. But I believe increased CO2 does have an effect, mostly at the boundary.

It has an effect in that it adds mass to the atmosphere. The idea that a radiative gas impedes the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself is just silly. The earth would be a warmer place without the so called greenhouse gasses as then the atmosphere could only cool itself via convection and conduction. Take out the radiative gasses.....take away the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself...add radiative gasses improve the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

would just like a slayer to come out with a few specific points to show everyone that you're not completely nuts.

How much more specific do you wan't than Postma's model atmosphere? It is a hell of a lot more specific than trenberth's flat earth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sky Dragon kooks are funny. The contortions they go into, the level of self-delusion, all priceless.

Whats the relationship again between changes in CO2 and temperature? Is it lineal? exponential?

A 100ppm change in CO2 cause how much change in temperature? .00000000000001 degrees? 5 degrees?

If a 100ppm change in CO2 cause a .1 degree change in temperature does a 200PPM increase cause a .2 degree change?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?

What do Mann's tree rings suggest?

 

[IanC]

I don't accept CO2 theory as it stands. But I believe increased CO2 does have an effect, mostly at the boundary.

It has an effect in that it adds mass to the atmosphere. The idea that a radiative gas impedes the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself is just silly. The earth would be a warmer place without the so called greenhouse gasses as then the atmosphere could only cool itself via convection and conduction. Take out the radiative gasses.....take away the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself...add radiative gasses improve the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

would just like a slayer to come out with a few specific points to show everyone that you're not completely nuts.

How much more specific do you wan't than Postma's model atmosphere? It is a hell of a lot more specific than trenberth's flat earth.

So post up why you think radiation that absorbed and dispersed in all directions is more effective than if the radiation simply escaped to space at the speed of light.

Tell the forum about Postma's position. No one is going to search it out for themselves.

I agree that the pressure due to an atmosphere is a large factor in determining the surface temp but you seem to be saying it is the only factor.

 

[IanC]

Sky Dragon kooks are funny. The contortions they go into, the level of self-delusion, all priceless.

Whats the relationship again between changes in CO2 and temperature? Is it lineal? exponential?

A 100ppm change in CO2 cause how much change in temperature? .00000000000001 degrees? 5 degrees?

If a 100ppm change in CO2 cause a .1 degree change in temperature does a 200PPM increase cause a .2 degree change?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?

What do Mann's tree rings suggest?

Doubling the amount of CO2 is calculated to add 1C but only if everything else remains the same. therefore 100ppm has a different effect depending on the initial value. Warmers multiply that effect by positve feedbacks. Skeptics do not.

 

[SSDD]

So post up why you think radiation that absorbed and dispersed in all directions is more effective than if the radiation simply escaped to space at the speed of light.

I gave you a link to Postma's model atmosphere...Read it for yourself.

the forum about Postma's position. No one is going to search it out for themselves.

Doesn't really matter to me whether they do or they don't. The warmers won't look at all, and the luke warmers...well, they believe in the same magic...they just don't think it is as powerful as the alarmists.

agree that the pressure due to an atmosphere is a large factor in determining the surface temp but you seem to be saying it is the only factor.

No, there is the sun....and paper after paper keeps confirming Svenmark's theory. Looking to trace gasses in the atmosphere for the temperature control knob for the climate is a waste of time. N&Z accurately predicted the temperature of every planet in the solar system with nothing more than the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation...the greenhouse hypothesis can't even come close to doing that so what is the point in believing it?

 

[SSDD]

Doubling the amount of CO2 is calculated to add 1C but only if everything else remains the same. therefore 100ppm has a different effect depending on the initial value. Warmers multiply that effect by positve feedbacks. Skeptics do not.

Calculated based on what observation?

 

[IanC]

Whatever. I thought you would like to discuss it but obviously you don't. Sorry I brought it up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sky Dragon kooks are funny. The contortions they go into, the level of self-delusion, all priceless.

Whats the relationship again between changes in CO2 and temperature? Is it lineal? exponential?

A 100ppm change in CO2 cause how much change in temperature? .00000000000001 degrees? 5 degrees?

If a 100ppm change in CO2 cause a .1 degree change in temperature does a 200PPM increase cause a .2 degree change?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?

What do Mann's tree rings suggest?

Doubling the amount of CO2 is calculated to add 1C but only if everything else remains the same. therefore 100ppm has a different effect depending on the initial value. Warmers multiply that effect by positve feedbacks. Skeptics do not.

In the past, a 1C increase was followed be a doubling of CO2?

 

[IanC]

Whats the relationship again between changes in CO2 and temperature? Is it lineal? exponential?

A 100ppm change in CO2 cause how much change in temperature? .00000000000001 degrees? 5 degrees?

If a 100ppm change in CO2 cause a .1 degree change in temperature does a 200PPM increase cause a .2 degree change?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?

What do Mann's tree rings suggest?

Doubling the amount of CO2 is calculated to add 1C but only if everything else remains the same. therefore 100ppm has a different effect depending on the initial value. Warmers multiply that effect by positve feedbacks. Skeptics do not.

In the past, a 1C increase was followed be a doubling of CO2?

This is the first time a species has pulled out buried carbon and burned it to produce CO2. Its not like you can compare it to the past.

 

[Abraham3]

Ian, do you believe that positive feedbacks will not take place?

 

[westwall]

Sky Dragon kooks are funny. The contortions they go into, the level of self-delusion, all priceless.

Whats the relationship again between changes in CO2 and temperature? Is it lineal? exponential?

A 100ppm change in CO2 cause how much change in temperature? .00000000000001 degrees? 5 degrees?

If a 100ppm change in CO2 cause a .1 degree change in temperature does a 200PPM increase cause a .2 degree change?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?

What do Mann's tree rings suggest?

Doubling the amount of CO2 is calculated to add 1C but only if everything else remains the same. therefore 100ppm has a different effect depending on the initial value. Warmers multiply that effect by positve feedbacks. Skeptics do not.

One thing I have never seen is what was the zero point for atmospheric CO2? Logically it should be zero CO2 in the atmosphere and then the GHG effect grows from there. Thus if one carries it to its conclusion (and the fact that it is KNOWN that the effect is logarithmic) then we arrive at the realization that all of the measurable CO2 GHG effect has already occurred.

 

[IanC]

Whats the relationship again between changes in CO2 and temperature? Is it lineal? exponential?

A 100ppm change in CO2 cause how much change in temperature? .00000000000001 degrees? 5 degrees?

If a 100ppm change in CO2 cause a .1 degree change in temperature does a 200PPM increase cause a .2 degree change?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?

What do Mann's tree rings suggest?

Doubling the amount of CO2 is calculated to add 1C but only if everything else remains the same. therefore 100ppm has a different effect depending on the initial value. Warmers multiply that effect by positve feedbacks. Skeptics do not.

One thing I have never seen is what was the zero point for atmospheric CO2? Logically it should be zero CO2 in the atmosphere and then the GHG effect grows from there. Thus if one carries it to its conclusion (and the fact that it is KNOWN that the effect is logarithmic) then we arrive at the realization that all of the measurable CO2 GHG effect has already occurred.

we are into the ninth doubling. The greenhouse effect is about 33C. CO2's portion is estimated at up to 25%. So it could be in the ballpark.

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe that positive feedbacks will not take place?

I am pretty certain that physical constraints preclude any runaway warming.