Roy Spencer's blog for Aug 16

[SSDD]

Continuing to look at Roy's line of thinking...He followed his quaint little failed experiment with with what he calls a time dependent model of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. He attaches an excel spread sheet. Someone far better at math than me took the time to examine his work and damned if it isn't interesting.

His relevant equation is:

B12 = B11 + ($C$2-C11+$C$5*0.0000000567*E11*E11*E11*E11)*$C$3/$C$4

In a form that looks like real math, the equation reads:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + ασTAtmo(i)4)*dT/Cp

and that can be simplified just a bit by making the atmospheric flux FAtmo = ασTAtmo(i)4 which is then:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + FAtmo(i))*dT/Cp

He is adding the atmospheric flux directly into the equation as heat..or whatever other weasel word you care to use to describe it. That is, in fact, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics....ALL OF THEM.

Aside from that, even if the equation described an actual physical occurrence, he still fails....If the input of heat from the sun is described as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output { FSun – FSurf(i) } why then would not heat input from the atmosphere be described as the difference between the atmospheric flux and the surface flux { FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i) } rather than being added straight in without regard to the temperature of the surface?

If you modify his excel spread sheet to add the "imaginary" heat back in in the more appropriate way as is the case with incoming energy from the sun and the resulting surface output you get:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + [(FSun – FSurf(i)) + (FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i))]*dT/Cp

= TSurf(i) + [FSun + FAtmo(i) – 2*FSurf(i)]*dT/Cp

The final surface temperature is -47C....if you are asking yourself why the resulting temperature is so cold...the answer is because none of it makes any sense at all. It is a failed mathematical model...which requires all sorts of fudge to make it work. Such is the nature of climate pseudoscience.

 

[Crick]

Since you've never taken any manner of class in thermodynamics, I'd be a little hesitant, were I you, to tell us what does and does not violate "all of them". I'm also amazed you'd be willing to admit that you seem to have no familiarity with Excel and need help with an equation that involves nothing more complex than multiplication and division. Finally, your assumption that contemporary climate modeling makes use of equations as simplified as Spencer's is another failure all on its own. Good work SID.

 

[jc456]

Since you've never taken any manner of class in thermodynamics, I'd be a little hesitant, were I you, to tell us what does and does not violate "all of them". I'm also amazed you'd be willing to admit that you seem to have no familiarity with Excel and need help with an equation that involves nothing more complex than multiplication and division. Finally, your assumption that contemporary climate modeling makes use of equations as simplified as Spencer's is another failure all on its own. Good work SID.

so you admit the math was wrong. Thanks!

 

[Crick]

I didn't say that, did I. I'm curious where SSDD got Fatmo=alph sigma Tatmo(i)^4, but not curious enough to look

 

[jc456]

I didn't say that, did I. I'm curious where SSDD got Fatmo=alph sigma Tatmo(i)^4, but not curious enough to look

you didn't say the math was correct. That seemed odd to me see.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Continuing to look at Roy's line of thinking...He followed his quaint little failed experiment with with what he calls a time dependent model of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. He attaches an excel spread sheet. Someone far better at math than me took the time to examine his work and damned if it isn't interesting.

His relevant equation is:

B12 = B11 + ($C$2-C11+$C$5*0.0000000567*E11*E11*E11*E11)*$C$3/$C$4

In a form that looks like real math, the equation reads:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + ασTAtmo(i)4)*dT/Cp

and that can be simplified just a bit by making the atmospheric flux FAtmo = ασTAtmo(i)4 which is then:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + FAtmo(i))*dT/Cp

He is adding the atmospheric flux directly into the equation as heat..or whatever other weasel word you care to use to describe it. That is, in fact, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics....ALL OF THEM.

Aside from that, even if the equation described an actual physical occurrence, he still fails....If the input of heat from the sun is described as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output { FSun – FSurf(i) } why then would not heat input from the atmosphere be described as the difference between the atmospheric flux and the surface flux { FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i) } rather than being added straight in without regard to the temperature of the surface?

If you modify his excel spread sheet to add the "imaginary" heat back in in the more appropriate way as is the case with incoming energy from the sun and the resulting surface output you get:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + [(FSun – FSurf(i)) + (FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i))]*dT/Cp

= TSurf(i) + [FSun + FAtmo(i) – 2*FSurf(i)]*dT/Cp

The final surface temperature is -47C....if you are asking yourself why the resulting temperature is so cold...the answer is because none of it makes any sense at all. It is a failed mathematical model...which requires all sorts of fudge to make it work. Such is the nature of climate pseudoscience.

Bingo!

The math doesn't add up..

Re-injecting the energy at surface is a circular logical failure. Like I previously said, I dont agree with many of his assumptions, which are also present in the IPCC models. I know where his assumptions and their origins came. As your math shows, the insertion of energy as a function of Flux +/- must be determined before any resulting attempt of intermediary energy input determination .

 

[Crick]

Bingo!

The math doesn't add up..

Re-injecting the energy at surface is a circular logical failure. Like I previously said, I dont agree with many of his assumptions, which are also present in the IPCC models. I know where his assumptions and their origins came. As your math shows, the insertion of energy as a function of Flux +/- must be determined before any resulting attempt of intermediary energy input determination .

HAHAHAHAHAAaaaaa "intermediary energy input determination". Pathetic.

I can see why none of you SERIOUS deniers like Spencer's work here. If I didn't know better, I'd say he'd been reading this very site.

Roy Spencer says
Now, the downwelling IR flux (the dashed line in Fig. 2, above) is what a few of our friends claim does not exist. They claim that there is no “greenhouse effect”, and that the sky (which is almost always colder than the surface) cannot emit IR in the direction of the surface because that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

But, of course, it is the net IR (the sum of upwelling from the warmer surface plus the downwelling from the cooler sky) which must flow from higher to lower temperature, which it does.

So, what, in their minds, is actually being “measured” by these instruments for downwelling IR? Whatever it is, Fig. 3 clearly shows it’s closely related to the humidity of the atmosphere (correlations up to 0.88 for mid-tropospheric humidity), but not very well related to temperature variations in the atmosphere. Barring some sort of conspiracy between all of the atmospheric radiation experts in the world (as well as most of us “skeptics”) it is difficult to imagine how such a “fictitious” measurement, so sensitive to atmospheric humidity, could be constructed by mistake.[End Spencer]



Perfect!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Bingo!

The math doesn't add up..

Re-injecting the energy at surface is a circular logical failure. Like I previously said, I dont agree with many of his assumptions, which are also present in the IPCC models. I know where his assumptions and their origins came. As your math shows, the insertion of energy as a function of Flux +/- must be determined before any resulting attempt of intermediary energy input determination .

HAHAHAHAHAAaaaaa "intermediary energy input determination". Pathetic.

I can see why none of you SERIOUS deniers like Spencer's work here. If I didn't know better, I'd say he'd been reading this very site.

Roy Spencer says
Now, the downwelling IR flux (the dashed line in Fig. 2, above) is what a few of our friends claim does not exist. They claim that there is no “greenhouse effect”, and that the sky (which is almost always colder than the surface) cannot emit IR in the direction of the surface because that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

But, of course, it is the net IR (the sum of upwelling from the warmer surface plus the downwelling from the cooler sky) which must flow from higher to lower temperature, which it does.

So, what, in their minds, is actually being “measured” by these instruments for downwelling IR? Whatever it is, Fig. 3 clearly shows it’s closely related to the humidity of the atmosphere (correlations up to 0.88 for mid-tropospheric humidity), but not very well related to temperature variations in the atmosphere. Barring some sort of conspiracy between all of the atmospheric radiation experts in the world (as well as most of us “skeptics”) it is difficult to imagine how such a “fictitious” measurement, so sensitive to atmospheric humidity, could be constructed by mistake.[End Spencer]



Perfect!

You seriously don't have a dam clue do you... intermediary=reflected or retarded release.

 

[Crick]

No it doesn't

the definition of intermediary

noun, plural intermediaries.
1.
an intermediate agent or agency; a go-between or mediator.
2.
a medium or means.
3.
an intermediate form or stage.
adjective
4.
being between; intermediate.
5.
acting between persons, parties, etc.; serving as an intermediate agentor agency:
an intermediary power.

Idiot.

 

[Crick]

Bingo!

The math doesn't add up..

Re-injecting the energy at surface is a circular logical failure. Like I previously said, I dont agree with many of his assumptions, which are also present in the IPCC models. I know where his assumptions and their origins came. As your math shows, the insertion of energy as a function of Flux +/- must be determined before any resulting attempt of intermediary energy input determination .

HAHAHAHAHAAaaaaa "intermediary energy input determination". Pathetic.

I can see why none of you SERIOUS deniers like Spencer's work here. If I didn't know better, I'd say he'd been reading this very site.

Roy Spencer says
Now, the downwelling IR flux (the dashed line in Fig. 2, above) is what a few of our friends claim does not exist. They claim that there is no “greenhouse effect”, and that the sky (which is almost always colder than the surface) cannot emit IR in the direction of the surface because that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

But, of course, it is the net IR (the sum of upwelling from the warmer surface plus the downwelling from the cooler sky) which must flow from higher to lower temperature, which it does.

So, what, in their minds, is actually being “measured” by these instruments for downwelling IR? Whatever it is, Fig. 3 clearly shows it’s closely related to the humidity of the atmosphere (correlations up to 0.88 for mid-tropospheric humidity), but not very well related to temperature variations in the atmosphere. Barring some sort of conspiracy between all of the atmospheric radiation experts in the world (as well as most of us “skeptics”) it is difficult to imagine how such a “fictitious” measurement, so sensitive to atmospheric humidity, could be constructed by mistake.[End Spencer]

Perfect!

You seriously don't have a dam clue do you... intermediary=reflected or retarded release.

It's YOU that don't have a damn clue. Roy Spencer is about as denier as you can get in actual climate science and he described you to a fucking-T when telling us who his results show to be the fools with whom he's been forced to climb in bed.

 

[jc456]

Continuing to look at Roy's line of thinking...He followed his quaint little failed experiment with with what he calls a time dependent model of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. He attaches an excel spread sheet. Someone far better at math than me took the time to examine his work and damned if it isn't interesting.

His relevant equation is:

B12 = B11 + ($C$2-C11+$C$5*0.0000000567*E11*E11*E11*E11)*$C$3/$C$4

In a form that looks like real math, the equation reads:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + ασTAtmo(i)4)*dT/Cp

and that can be simplified just a bit by making the atmospheric flux FAtmo = ασTAtmo(i)4 which is then:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + FAtmo(i))*dT/Cp

He is adding the atmospheric flux directly into the equation as heat..or whatever other weasel word you care to use to describe it. That is, in fact, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics....ALL OF THEM.

Aside from that, even if the equation described an actual physical occurrence, he still fails....If the input of heat from the sun is described as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output { FSun – FSurf(i) } why then would not heat input from the atmosphere be described as the difference between the atmospheric flux and the surface flux { FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i) } rather than being added straight in without regard to the temperature of the surface?

If you modify his excel spread sheet to add the "imaginary" heat back in in the more appropriate way as is the case with incoming energy from the sun and the resulting surface output you get:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + [(FSun – FSurf(i)) + (FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i))]*dT/Cp

= TSurf(i) + [FSun + FAtmo(i) – 2*FSurf(i)]*dT/Cp

The final surface temperature is -47C....if you are asking yourself why the resulting temperature is so cold...the answer is because none of it makes any sense at all. It is a failed mathematical model...which requires all sorts of fudge to make it work. Such is the nature of climate pseudoscience.

Bingo!

The math doesn't add up..

Re-injecting the energy at surface is a circular logical failure. Like I previously said, I dont agree with many of his assumptions, which are also present in the IPCC models. I know where his assumptions and their origins came. As your math shows, the insertion of energy as a function of Flux +/- must be determined before any resulting attempt of intermediary energy input determination .

and re-injecting energy at the surface, if one agreed with this bullshit, would then cause thermal runaway. There is no other option for it. I get it from there and I return it to there after more came in so now I have more from there so I have to now give more back to there and on and on and on and boom blow'd up sir.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No it doesn't

the definition of intermediary

noun, plural intermediaries.
1.
an intermediate agent or agency; a go-between or mediator.
2.
a medium or means.
3.
an intermediate form or stage.
adjective
4.
being between; intermediate.
5.
acting between persons, parties, etc.; serving as an intermediate agentor agency:
an intermediary power.

Idiot.

LOL.. you dont have a dam clue..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Continuing to look at Roy's line of thinking...He followed his quaint little failed experiment with with what he calls a time dependent model of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. He attaches an excel spread sheet. Someone far better at math than me took the time to examine his work and damned if it isn't interesting.

His relevant equation is:

B12 = B11 + ($C$2-C11+$C$5*0.0000000567*E11*E11*E11*E11)*$C$3/$C$4

In a form that looks like real math, the equation reads:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + ασTAtmo(i)4)*dT/Cp

and that can be simplified just a bit by making the atmospheric flux FAtmo = ασTAtmo(i)4 which is then:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + FAtmo(i))*dT/Cp

He is adding the atmospheric flux directly into the equation as heat..or whatever other weasel word you care to use to describe it. That is, in fact, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics....ALL OF THEM.

Aside from that, even if the equation described an actual physical occurrence, he still fails....If the input of heat from the sun is described as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output { FSun – FSurf(i) } why then would not heat input from the atmosphere be described as the difference between the atmospheric flux and the surface flux { FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i) } rather than being added straight in without regard to the temperature of the surface?

If you modify his excel spread sheet to add the "imaginary" heat back in in the more appropriate way as is the case with incoming energy from the sun and the resulting surface output you get:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + [(FSun – FSurf(i)) + (FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i))]*dT/Cp

= TSurf(i) + [FSun + FAtmo(i) – 2*FSurf(i)]*dT/Cp

The final surface temperature is -47C....if you are asking yourself why the resulting temperature is so cold...the answer is because none of it makes any sense at all. It is a failed mathematical model...which requires all sorts of fudge to make it work. Such is the nature of climate pseudoscience.

Bingo!

The math doesn't add up..

Re-injecting the energy at surface is a circular logical failure. Like I previously said, I dont agree with many of his assumptions, which are also present in the IPCC models. I know where his assumptions and their origins came. As your math shows, the insertion of energy as a function of Flux +/- must be determined before any resulting attempt of intermediary energy input determination .

and re-injecting energy at the surface, if one agreed with this bullshit, would then cause thermal runaway. There is no other option for it. I get it from there and I return it to there after more came in so now I have more from there so I have to now give more back to there and on and on and on and boom blow'd up sir.

essentially correct.. The intermediary is CO2 or other ghg's. The problem is, were not re-injecting heat were slowing its release. This requires work and work requires the expenditure of energy. Water vapor absorbs heat but is warmed just 1/4 of the input temperature. The ratio of 4/1is the amount of energy water needs as compared to air to warm its mass. this ratio is also why convection can dissipate all heat energy that CO2 can slow from release.. The result is no thermal increase and no atmospheric hot spot...

The earth has shown us that it can handle upwards of 7000ppm and maintain its temperature within it historical bounds. Dang those paleo records...

 

[IanC]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

 

[mamooth]

The earth has shown us that it can handle upwards of 7000ppm and maintain its temperature within it historical bounds. Dang those paleo records...

When the sun was significantly cooler, of course.

The paleorecords prove the greenhouse theory. Earth would have been a snowball without that CO2. It was a snowball when the sun was young and Earth didn't have that CO2.

 

[jc456]

Continuing to look at Roy's line of thinking...He followed his quaint little failed experiment with with what he calls a time dependent model of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. He attaches an excel spread sheet. Someone far better at math than me took the time to examine his work and damned if it isn't interesting.

His relevant equation is:

B12 = B11 + ($C$2-C11+$C$5*0.0000000567*E11*E11*E11*E11)*$C$3/$C$4

In a form that looks like real math, the equation reads:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + ασTAtmo(i)4)*dT/Cp

and that can be simplified just a bit by making the atmospheric flux FAtmo = ασTAtmo(i)4 which is then:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + FAtmo(i))*dT/Cp

He is adding the atmospheric flux directly into the equation as heat..or whatever other weasel word you care to use to describe it. That is, in fact, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics....ALL OF THEM.

Aside from that, even if the equation described an actual physical occurrence, he still fails....If the input of heat from the sun is described as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output { FSun – FSurf(i) } why then would not heat input from the atmosphere be described as the difference between the atmospheric flux and the surface flux { FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i) } rather than being added straight in without regard to the temperature of the surface?

If you modify his excel spread sheet to add the "imaginary" heat back in in the more appropriate way as is the case with incoming energy from the sun and the resulting surface output you get:

TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + [(FSun – FSurf(i)) + (FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i))]*dT/Cp

= TSurf(i) + [FSun + FAtmo(i) – 2*FSurf(i)]*dT/Cp

The final surface temperature is -47C....if you are asking yourself why the resulting temperature is so cold...the answer is because none of it makes any sense at all. It is a failed mathematical model...which requires all sorts of fudge to make it work. Such is the nature of climate pseudoscience.

Bingo!

The math doesn't add up..

Re-injecting the energy at surface is a circular logical failure. Like I previously said, I dont agree with many of his assumptions, which are also present in the IPCC models. I know where his assumptions and their origins came. As your math shows, the insertion of energy as a function of Flux +/- must be determined before any resulting attempt of intermediary energy input determination .

and re-injecting energy at the surface, if one agreed with this bullshit, would then cause thermal runaway. There is no other option for it. I get it from there and I return it to there after more came in so now I have more from there so I have to now give more back to there and on and on and on and boom blow'd up sir.

essentially correct.. The intermediary is CO2 or other ghg's. The problem is, were not re-injecting heat were slowing its release. This requires work and work requires the expenditure of energy. Water vapor absorbs heat but is warmed just 1/4 of the input temperature. The ratio of 4/1is the amount of energy water needs as compared to air to warm its mass. this ratio is also why convection can dissipate all heat energy that CO2 can slow from release.. The result is no thermal increase and no atmospheric hot spot...

The earth has shown us that it can handle upwards of 7000ppm and maintain its temperature within it historical bounds. Dang those paleo records...

This, exactly button

 

[jc456]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

 

[IanC]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

 

[jc456]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Edit: BTW, I've stated that already!

 

[IanC]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Not exactly specific.

So you are arguing that the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4+1/8...=2 is incorrect?

I think you should buff up your math.

Xeno's Paradox may help you grasp the situation. Hahahaha but I doubt it. You have neither the curiosity, or the intelligence to grasp much of anything.