Simple Greenhouse Proofs

A reported increase in the longwave downward radiation in the Swiss Alps, proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct radiation observations according to this paper, “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect”, by Rolf Philipona, Bruno Durr, Christoph Marty, Atsumu Ohmura and Martin Wild.

Supposed direct observational proofs of the enhanced greenhouse effect have been reviewed here in the past.

  1. Rahmstorf, who claimed climate responding faster than expected on the basis of a dubious graph with no statistical test;
  2. Harries who claimed to detect the greenhouse effect from CO2 spectral brightening but whose later (underreported) publications were much more equivocal;
  3. Soden, whose claims to have detected increase in specific water vapor from
    spectral brightening were reported as proof in the IPCC AR4, despite conflicting evidence.

Any comments on this radiative proof from the radiation experts here?

  • jae

    Hope I can comment, despite being an amateur on radiation. I started reading it and choked on my Coke while reading the first sentence in the Introduction. :)

  • jae

    Hope I can comment, despite being an amateur on radiation. I started reading it and choked on my Coke while reading the first sentence in the Introduction. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    jae, I would recommend reading this article carefully. Note the authors, including Martin Wild, and Atsumo Ohmura. Then look at this text in section 3:

    For a 10% increase of CO2, including respective increases of other greenhouse gases and water vapour feedback, the ECHAM-4 GCM calculates an increase over land in the northern hemisphere of LDRcf of +4.6 Wm-2 and a SDRcf decrease of -1.4 Wm-2. These flux changes induce temperature and absolute humidity increases of +0.74C and +4.4% respectively. Table 2 shows that these model predicted flux and climate parameter changes are in good agreement with ASRB measured variations over the eight years time period.

    [9] However, the CO2 increase from 1995 to 2002 was not 10%, but only 12 ppm or 3.3% in central Europe. Hence, although changes of radiative fluxes and subsequent climatic changes observed at the surface are in due proportion with model predicted variations, they are about three times larger than expected from greenhouse gas increases.

    Is this not precisely the result that Lindzen finds in Lindzen 2007? The greenhouse effect is observed, but at 1/3 the magnitude of what is expected.

    At least half of the increases may therefore not be explicable by direct effects of increased GHGs and associated feedbacks on temperature and humidity, but are rather due to circulation changes over central Europe.1

    But they seem to spin the wording, especially in the headings, and in the conclusion, to make it sound as if CO2 is causing 3x the warming we were expecting! I’m puzzled; I wonder if this is to throw their bosses off the scent so their research continues to be published, and they keep their jobs?

    Meanwhile, with respect to Miskolczi’s theory, note that they still don’t have measurements of AA to go with their new improved measurements of ED. They do seem to assume that surface heating is caused by downward longwave radiation, whereas M seems to say that it is not. Perhaps someone like might to comment on this.

  • Alex Harvey

    jae, I would recommend reading this article carefully. Note the authors, including Martin Wild, and Atsumo Ohmura. Then look at this text in section 3:

    For a 10% increase of CO2, including respective increases of other greenhouse gases and water vapour feedback, the ECHAM-4 GCM calculates an increase over land in the northern hemisphere of LDRcf of +4.6 Wm-2 and a SDRcf decrease of -1.4 Wm-2. These flux changes induce temperature and absolute humidity increases of +0.74C and +4.4% respectively. Table 2 shows that these model predicted flux and climate parameter changes are in good agreement with ASRB measured variations over the eight years time period.

    [9] However, the CO2 increase from 1995 to 2002 was not 10%, but only 12 ppm or 3.3% in central Europe. Hence, although changes of radiative fluxes and subsequent climatic changes observed at the surface are in due proportion with model predicted variations, they are about three times larger than expected from greenhouse gas increases.

    Is this not precisely the result that Lindzen finds in Lindzen 2007? The greenhouse effect is observed, but at 1/3 the magnitude of what is expected.

    At least half of the increases may therefore not be explicable by direct effects of increased GHGs and associated feedbacks on temperature and humidity, but are rather due to circulation changes over central Europe.1

    But they seem to spin the wording, especially in the headings, and in the conclusion, to make it sound as if CO2 is causing 3x the warming we were expecting! I’m puzzled; I wonder if this is to throw their bosses off the scent so their research continues to be published, and they keep their jobs?

    Meanwhile, with respect to Miskolczi’s theory, note that they still don’t have measurements of AA to go with their new improved measurements of ED. They do seem to assume that surface heating is caused by downward longwave radiation, whereas M seems to say that it is not. Perhaps someone like might to comment on this.

  • Anonymous

    Wild et al 2001 on Downward Longwave Radiation by Steve McIntyre on April 13th, 2005

    Wild et al. [2001], a blue-chip study, shows that the downward longwave radiation in cold, dry climates is dramatically under-estimated in the GCMs used in IPCC TAR, as shown in the following excerpt from their Figure 4 (from one of the best GCMs). The bias is systemic.

    Noted recently here and raised again here for discussion.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    Wild et al 2001 on Downward Longwave Radiation by Steve McIntyre on April 13th, 2005

    Wild et al. [2001], a blue-chip study, shows that the downward longwave radiation in cold, dry climates is dramatically under-estimated in the GCMs used in IPCC TAR, as shown in the following excerpt from their Figure 4 (from one of the best GCMs). The bias is systemic.

    Noted recently here and raised again here for discussion.

  • Alex Harvey

    David, here is the link to the Wild et al. [2001] article again: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/14/15/pdf/i1520-0442-14-15-3227.pdf

    There are also a lot of other interesting articles that cite this article (find it in google scholar and then click the link ‘cited by 22′). I note that Atsumu Ohmura, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute for Climate Research, is linked to a lot of this literature. Keep in mind Ozawa & Ohmura 1997, and their theory of convection as deriving from the MEP, whilst reading all this. I am finding it all quite intriguing…

  • Alex Harvey

    David, here is the link to the Wild et al. [2001] article again: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/14/15/pdf/i1520-0442-14-15-3227.pdf

    There are also a lot of other interesting articles that cite this article (find it in google scholar and then click the link ‘cited by 22′). I note that Atsumu Ohmura, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute for Climate Research, is linked to a lot of this literature. Keep in mind Ozawa & Ohmura 1997, and their theory of convection as deriving from the MEP, whilst reading all this. I am finding it all quite intriguing…

  • Anonymous

    Here is the link for that Alex. It is intriguing as Wild seems to have had a change of heart. Would be good to get him on here to explain it all, if we could phrase some questions.

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    Here is the link for that Alex. It is intriguing as Wild seems to have had a change of heart. Would be good to get him on here to explain it all, if we could phrase some questions.

  • Louis Hissink

    In addition atmsopheric electrical currents, whose existence is only now being recognised, are also sources of IR radiation.

    This should complicate matters somewhat?

    :-)

  • Louis Hissink

    In addition atmsopheric electrical currents, whose existence is only now being recognised, are also sources of IR radiation.

    This should complicate matters somewhat?
    :-)

  • Gary Moran

    Is this not precisely the result that Lindzen finds in Lindzen 2007? The greenhouse effect is observed, but at 1/3 the magnitude of what is expected.

    Surely this is the other way round, the effect is 3 * greater than expected given the GHG increase?

  • Gary Moran

    Is this not precisely the result that Lindzen finds in Lindzen 2007? The greenhouse effect is observed, but at 1/3 the magnitude of what is expected.

    Surely this is the other way round, the effect is 3 * greater than expected given the GHG increase?

  • Gary Moran

    [QUOTE]Is this not precisely the result that Lindzen finds in Lindzen 2007? The greenhouse effect is observed, but at 1/3 the magnitude of what is expected.[/QUOTE]

    Surely this is the other way round, the effect is 3 * greater than expected given the GHG increase?

  • Gary Moran

    [QUOTE]Is this not precisely the result that Lindzen finds in Lindzen 2007? The greenhouse effect is observed, but at 1/3 the magnitude of what is expected.[/QUOTE]

    Surely this is the other way round, the effect is 3 * greater than expected given the GHG increase?

  • Alex Harvey

    Gary # 7:

    Actually, I’m far more confused about what they’re saying after reading it several more times than I had first thought. I hope an expert will comment with their own thoughts.

  • Alex Harvey

    Gary # 7:

    Actually, I’m far more confused about what they’re saying after reading it several more times than I had first thought. I hope an expert will comment with their own thoughts.

  • Alex Harvey

    To Jan,

    Perhaps you can help.

    I concede that I have misread, or perhaps refused to accept, what Philipona et al. [2004] is stating in the sections I quoted above.

    I went back and checked, by the way, that there is nothing much new in this analysis of P et al. that wasn’t in the Wild et al. [2001], other than the fact that whereas P et al look at a specific latitude (=46N), W et al look at all latitudes, so P et al get away with failing to mention in this paper that ECHAM4 actually overestimates ED (DLR) in the tropics, but underestimates it at mid- to high-latitudes.

    But is P et al really saying that GCMs have been underestimating GHG surface temperature forcing by a factor of 3? Or is this spin, for funding agency’s eyes only, as my gut is telling me? In the case of the former, I suppose, this would be a nice antidote to the recent conclusions of Douglass, Lindzen, etc., that the tropospheric hotspot is only 1/3 of the required magnitude. All of a sudden, 1/3 of the required magnitude becomes exactly the magnitude required!

    Meanwhile, Ferenc has written (Supplement and background information for Miskolczi’s greenhouse papers, part I / ‘draft1′):

    Since AA=ED the IR atmospheric back radiation can not be responsible for the excess surface warming. Further on, this relationship is not consistent with the theoretical expectations of the semi-infinite classic Eddington solution. We recognized that there is something wrong with our knowledge and understanding of the greenhouse effect and we had to go back to the roots of the greenhouse theory.

    We all seem to agree that AA cannot be less than ED; not many people want to accept that AA = ED. So, the consensus at present is that AA > ED. I would have thought, and this is why I was excited to find Wild et al. 2001, that the discovery that ED is greater than the models predicted would mean that it must be much closer to AA than previously expected. I suppose, if AA = ED implies, as Ferenc says, that the surface is not heated by IR backradiation, then ED being very close to AA would imply less surface heating than if ED is not as close to AA.

    Have I completely misunderstood this? If I haven’t misunderstood this, can we not say that P et al’s lack of detail on their AA measurements / calculations is a bit of a problem for their pro-AGW conclusion?

  • Alex Harvey

    To Jan,

    Perhaps you can help.

    I concede that I have misread, or perhaps refused to accept, what Philipona et al. [2004] is stating in the sections I quoted above.

    I went back and checked, by the way, that there is nothing much new in this analysis of P et al. that wasn’t in the Wild et al. [2001], other than the fact that whereas P et al look at a specific latitude (=46N), W et al look at all latitudes, so P et al get away with failing to mention in this paper that ECHAM4 actually overestimates ED (DLR) in the tropics, but underestimates it at mid- to high-latitudes.

    But is P et al really saying that GCMs have been underestimating GHG surface temperature forcing by a factor of 3? Or is this spin, for funding agency’s eyes only, as my gut is telling me? In the case of the former, I suppose, this would be a nice antidote to the recent conclusions of Douglass, Lindzen, etc., that the tropospheric hotspot is only 1/3 of the required magnitude. All of a sudden, 1/3 of the required magnitude becomes exactly the magnitude required!

    Meanwhile, Ferenc has written (Supplement and background information for Miskolczi’s greenhouse papers, part I / ‘draft1′):

    Since AA=ED the IR atmospheric back radiation can not be responsible for the excess surface warming. Further on, this relationship is not consistent with the theoretical expectations of the semi-infinite classic Eddington solution. We recognized that there is something wrong with our knowledge and understanding of the greenhouse effect and we had to go back to the roots of the greenhouse theory.

    We all seem to agree that AA cannot be less than ED; not many people want to accept that AA = ED. So, the consensus at present is that AA > ED. I would have thought, and this is why I was excited to find Wild et al. 2001, that the discovery that ED is greater than the models predicted would mean that it must be much closer to AA than previously expected. I suppose, if AA = ED implies, as Ferenc says, that the surface is not heated by IR backradiation, then ED being very close to AA would imply less surface heating than if ED is not as close to AA.

    Have I completely misunderstood this? If I haven’t misunderstood this, can we not say that P et al’s lack of detail on their AA measurements / calculations is a bit of a problem for their pro-AGW conclusion?

  • http://signals.auditblogs.com/ UC

    “Rahmstorf, who claimed climate responding faster than expected on the basis of a dubious graph with no statistical test”

    JeanS updated that graph with 2008 data,

    http://i42.tinypic.com/2hnpf0o.jpg

  • http://signals.auditblogs.com/ UC

    “Rahmstorf, who claimed climate responding faster than expected on the basis of a dubious graph with no statistical test”

    JeanS updated that graph with 2008 data,

    http://i42.tinypic.com/2hnpf0o.jpg

  • Anonymous

    I hope someone writes to Science/Nature about this, as the Rahmstorf paper seems to be becoming one of the most widely cited in history. When I took on Rahmstorf at RC and showed he an no understanding of the statistical methods he was using and the blowout in uncertainty on the ends of these smoothings, all he could say was “see you in print”.

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    I hope someone writes to Science/Nature about this, as the Rahmstorf paper seems to be becoming one of the most widely cited in history. When I took on Rahmstorf at RC and showed he an no understanding of the statistical methods he was using and the blowout in uncertainty on the ends of these smoothings, all he could say was “see you in print”.

  • Jan Pompe

    David #12

    I don’t understand Eq (1) and why ΔtA should be the residuals and 2/3 the temperature trend due to advection. Where does the number 2/3 come from? It looks like a guess (heuristic?) to me but if the residuals most perplexing perhaps because I’m statistically challenged. I think you’ll be able to help me with this part.

    With regard to the 2/3 AND the measured reduction in in insolation of 2 W/m^2 I’d expect a first order effect of a reduction in surface temperature to be given by

    $$ Delta t_{surface} = frac {Delta SDR} {4 sigma T_{av}^3}$$

    so IMO that 2/3 number does not make sense I’d expect the ratio to be greater than 1.

  • Jan Pompe

    David #12

    I don’t understand Eq (1) and why ΔtA should be the residuals and 2/3 the temperature trend due to advection. Where does the number 2/3 come from? It looks like a guess (heuristic?) to me but if the residuals most perplexing perhaps because I’m statistically challenged. I think you’ll be able to help me with this part.

    With regard to the 2/3 AND the measured reduction in in insolation of 2 W/m^2 I’d expect a first order effect of a reduction in surface temperature to be given by

    $$ \Delta t_{surface} = \frac {\Delta SDR} {4 \sigma T_{av}^3}$$

    so IMO that 2/3 number does not make sense I’d expect the ratio to be greater than 1.

  • Jan Pompe

    Re #13

    That was in Phillipona’s paper.

  • Jan Pompe

    Re #13

    That was in Phillipona’s paper.

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #10

    If AA>ED then the surface is cooling due to that radiative component if ED>AA at a given location like the Swiss Alps then the extra heat is coming from advection of warm moist air from the Mediterranean or perhaps the Atlantic and it can warm the surface. I am, however, more inclined to think that it’s the sun with the surface needing to play catchup until equilibrium is achieved.

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #10

    If AA>ED then the surface is cooling due to that radiative component if ED>AA at a given location like the Swiss Alps then the extra heat is coming from advection of warm moist air from the Mediterranean or perhaps the Atlantic and it can warm the surface. I am, however, more inclined to think that it’s the sun with the surface needing to play catchup until equilibrium is achieved.

  • Alex Harvey

    Jan #15,

    If AA>ED then the surface is cooling due to that radiative component if ED>AA at a given location like the Swiss Alps then the extra heat is coming from advection of warm moist air from the Mediterranean or perhaps the Atlantic and it can warm the surface.

    I don’t understand this at all.

    If ED (=downward longwave radiation / DLR) is the amount of LW emitted downwards by the atmosphere, and AA is the amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere, how can we consider ED > AA as a possibility? How can more be emitted than was absorbed? And what has advection (=K, a flux of non-radiative origin) got to do with this?

    As far as where the extra heat, as distinct from LW flux, is coming from, the authors happily admit in para. 9 that it comes from the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) — advection as you say — and they see no problem with this for their analysis as the T increases are acknowledged by them to be ‘considerably larger than global average’ in central Europe (para. 5).

    [Aside: In this way, I still say, the analysis is consistent with Lindzen [2007] because we still have 2/3 (or at least more than 1/2) of the overall (LW + SW + non-radiative) temperature increase at the surface caused by a process — the NOA — that GCMs do not currently model. As such, again, this is not consistent with the IPCC Summary for Policy-makers position “…Only if the human input of greenhouse gases is included does the simulated climate agree with what has been recently observed…” (cited in Lindzen, 2007, p. 944).]

  • Alex Harvey

    Jan #15,

    If AA>ED then the surface is cooling due to that radiative component if ED>AA at a given location like the Swiss Alps then the extra heat is coming from advection of warm moist air from the Mediterranean or perhaps the Atlantic and it can warm the surface.

    I don’t understand this at all.

    If ED (=downward longwave radiation / DLR) is the amount of LW emitted downwards by the atmosphere, and AA is the amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere, how can we consider ED > AA as a possibility? How can more be emitted than was absorbed? And what has advection (=K, a flux of non-radiative origin) got to do with this?

    As far as where the extra heat, as distinct from LW flux, is coming from, the authors happily admit in para. 9 that it comes from the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) — advection as you say — and they see no problem with this for their analysis as the T increases are acknowledged by them to be ‘considerably larger than global average’ in central Europe (para. 5).

    [Aside: In this way, I still say, the analysis is consistent with Lindzen [2007] because we still have 2/3 (or at least more than 1/2) of the overall (LW + SW + non-radiative) temperature increase at the surface caused by a process — the NOA — that GCMs do not currently model. As such, again, this is not consistent with the IPCC Summary for Policy-makers position “…Only if the human input of greenhouse gases is included does the simulated climate agree with what has been recently observed…” (cited in Lindzen, 2007, p. 944).]

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #16

    If ED (=downward longwave radiation / DLR) is the amount of LW emitted downwards by the atmosphere, and AA is the amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere, how can we consider ED > AA as a possibility?

    Remember here we are looking at a fraction of the earth’s surface and advection can bring warmer air from a warmer place. Until it cools to local equilibrium temperature ED>AA. It will radiate according to its temperature and absorb according to it’s temperature and the radiation is always there.

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #16

    If ED (=downward longwave radiation / DLR) is the amount of LW emitted downwards by the atmosphere, and AA is the amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere, how can we consider ED > AA as a possibility?

    Remember here we are looking at a fraction of the earth’s surface and advection can bring warmer air from a warmer place. Until it cools to local equilibrium temperature ED>AA. It will radiate according to its temperature and absorb according to it’s temperature and the radiation is always there.

  • Alex Harvey

    Jan # 17,

    I see, I thought the AA = ED law was meant to hold both locally AND in the global average (I seem to have misunderstood Ferenc’s comment here http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine/#comment-168865).

    But in any case, don’t we still need to know the local AA, in both the standard and in M theory, before we can be making actual conclusions about the measured strength of the enhanced greenhouse effect? [And what about the tropospheric hotspot: I thought that was the signature of greenhouse warming.] In their conclusion, they state very simply that they’ve ‘proved the “theory” of greenhouse warming with direct observations’ (why is “theory” in quotes?) but they make no mention of magnitude — so I still want to know, was it more or less than the GCMs predicted?

    Is the magnitude of ED alone really a measure of the strength of the greenhouse effect — in anyone’s theory?

  • Alex Harvey

    Jan # 17,

    I see, I thought the AA = ED law was meant to hold both locally AND in the global average (I seem to have misunderstood Ferenc’s comment here http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-heat-engine/#comment-168865).

    But in any case, don’t we still need to know the local AA, in both the standard and in M theory, before we can be making actual conclusions about the measured strength of the enhanced greenhouse effect? [And what about the tropospheric hotspot: I thought that was the signature of greenhouse warming.] In their conclusion, they state very simply that they’ve ‘proved the “theory” of greenhouse warming with direct observations’ (why is “theory” in quotes?) but they make no mention of magnitude — so I still want to know, was it more or less than the GCMs predicted?

    Is the magnitude of ED alone really a measure of the strength of the greenhouse effect — in anyone’s theory?

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #18

    We sometimes forget that M’s is a static or equilibrium model. In this model K has done it’s work and there is nothing more for it to do, and we have a picture of the radiative balance under those circumstances. We can’t really compare directly M’s model with the the results of P’s paper which discusses dynamic conditions but we can apply what we have learnt from it for example Aa=Ed and re-examine P’s in that light.

    I agree we need to know Aa but we also need a better way to gauge the effect of advection on temperature that plucking number like 2/3 from the air. Taking the measurements over a period which is a fraction of the period of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and a rising SST portion of it is not going to help.

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #18

    We sometimes forget that M’s is a static or equilibrium model. In this model K has done it’s work and there is nothing more for it to do, and we have a picture of the radiative balance under those circumstances. We can’t really compare directly M’s model with the the results of P’s paper which discusses dynamic conditions but we can apply what we have learnt from it for example Aa=Ed and re-examine P’s in that light.

    I agree we need to know Aa but we also need a better way to gauge the effect of advection on temperature that plucking number like 2/3 from the air. Taking the measurements over a period which is a fraction of the period of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and a rising SST portion of it is not going to help.

  • Anonymous

    Jan: I don’t know where 2/3s comes from. I am very uncomfortable with these magic rations, like 2/3 (invert it an you get M’s 1.5 ;-) ). It seems like numerology.

  • http://landshape.org/enm davids

    Jan: I don’t know where 2/3s comes from. I am very uncomfortable with these magic rations, like 2/3 (invert it an you get M’s 1.5 ;-) ). It seems like numerology.

  • Jan Pompe

    David #20

    Numerology? I think you are too polite. IMO it’s fairly obvious it’s a wild guess plucked out of nowhere as opposed to M’s 1.5 where there is some reasoning to follow whether we agree with it or not.

    For me a more important objection is the use of trends over a fraction of the period of cyclic source of a significant signal like the Atlantic mutli-decadal oscillation. Especially since that one is in a positive going part of the cycle during the entire period of the study. I don’t see any where in the study where there is a proper accounting of the effect of advection from the Atalantic apart from the 2/3 guess.

    If data over a complete cycle even just of temperature alone for the stations involved from say 1940 to 2005 would we not have a better basis for a smarter statistician than I am to do that accounting?

  • Jan Pompe

    David #20

    Numerology? I think you are too polite. IMO it’s fairly obvious it’s a wild guess plucked out of nowhere as opposed to M’s 1.5 where there is some reasoning to follow whether we agree with it or not.

    For me a more important objection is the use of trends over a fraction of the period of cyclic source of a significant signal like the Atlantic mutli-decadal oscillation. Especially since that one is in a positive going part of the cycle during the entire period of the study. I don’t see any where in the study where there is a proper accounting of the effect of advection from the Atalantic apart from the 2/3 guess.

    If data over a complete cycle even just of temperature alone for the stations involved from say 1940 to 2005 would we not have a better basis for a smarter statistician than I am to do that accounting?

  • Alex Harvey

    Jan #19,

    With respect to M theory, okay, understood. Ferenc is talking about the global average of equilibrium situations, and he discarded atmospheric profiles that weren’t in equilibrium, in order to produce Fig. 2, this being the bit I am forgetting, as you say.

  • Alex Harvey

    Jan #19,

    With respect to M theory, okay, understood. Ferenc is talking about the global average of equilibrium situations, and he discarded atmospheric profiles that weren’t in equilibrium, in order to produce Fig. 2, this being the bit I am forgetting, as you say.

  • Ferenc Miskolczi

    #22 Alex

    Alex, there were no profiles discarded based on the equilibrium condition. InFig 2. M7 there were no extra selection criteria over the 228 profiles. If youselect those situations (out of the 228 profile) where the olr/f=su is stisfied you are getting wery few cases (as indicated in Fig. 25 M4 open circles). The olr/f=su is rarely stisfied locally. It must, however be satisfied for the local and global climatic averages. The main reason is the stochastic variation of the local h2o (around the local climatic average).

  • Ferenc Miskolczi

    #22 Alex

    Alex, there were no profiles discarded based on the equilibrium condition. InFig 2. M7 there were no extra selection criteria over the 228 profiles. If youselect those situations (out of the 228 profile) where the olr/f=su is stisfied you are getting wery few cases (as indicated in Fig. 25 M4 open circles). The olr/f=su is rarely stisfied locally. It must, however be satisfied for the local and global climatic averages. The main reason is the stochastic variation of the local h2o (around the local climatic average).

  • Ferenc Miskolczi

    # Alex

    ‘Is the magnitude of ED alone really a measure of the strength of the greenhouse effect — in anyone’s theory?’

    From the TIGR results:

    g=(Su-OLR)/Su=(379.6-251.2)/379.6=0.338
    g=(Ed-Eu)/Su=Ed(1-1/(2A))=310.4(1-1/(2*0.8455))/379.6=0.3341
    A=1-Ta=1-0.1545=1-exp(-1.86756)=0.8455

    Ed alone is useless….

    GCMs are not the proper tools to study the long term planetary greenhouse effect. Their Ed simulations worh nothing, since they model is tuned to give the Ed~344 Wm-2 global average.

    The measured (BSRN) Ed=344 Wm-2 is realistic, HARTCODE gives about the same global average using a 0.62 % cloud cover at 2km altitude.

    The general problem here is the fact that those experts talk about greenhouse effect without the correct computation of tau_A….

  • Ferenc Miskolczi

    # Alex

    ‘Is the magnitude of ED alone really a measure of the strength of the greenhouse effect — in anyone’s theory?’

    From the TIGR results:

    g=(Su-OLR)/Su=(379.6-251.2)/379.6=0.338
    g=(Ed-Eu)/Su=Ed(1-1/(2A))=310.4(1-1/(2*0.8455))/379.6=0.3341
    A=1-Ta=1-0.1545=1-exp(-1.86756)=0.8455

    Ed alone is useless….

    GCMs are not the proper tools to study the long term planetary greenhouse effect. Their Ed simulations worh nothing, since they model is tuned to give the Ed~344 Wm-2 global average.

    The measured (BSRN) Ed=344 Wm-2 is realistic, HARTCODE gives about the same global average using a 0.62 % cloud cover at 2km altitude.

    The general problem here is the fact that those experts talk about greenhouse effect without the correct computation of tau_A….

  • jae

    Ferenc: Lurking, but VERY, VERY interested. Learning, I think. Thanks.

  • jae

    Ferenc: Lurking, but VERY, VERY interested. Learning, I think. Thanks.

  • Ferenc Miskolczi

    #25 jae

    jae, this is out of topic, but the other day you commented that Lindzen’s theory is compatible with the new equations, or at least it can coexists with them. Could you explain me this a bit deeper? In short, what he wants to say with respect to the global energy balance and what is his proofs? You can mail me to fmiskolczi@cox.net….Thanks…

  • Ferenc Miskolczi

    #25 jae

    jae, this is out of topic, but the other day you commented that Lindzen’s theory is compatible with the new equations, or at least it can coexists with them. Could you explain me this a bit deeper? In short, what he wants to say with respect to the global energy balance and what is his proofs? You can mail me to fmiskolczi@cox.net….Thanks…

  • Alex Harvey

    Ferenc,

    Many thanks for your input & clarifications.

    I am still digesting the equations, which seem to follow from the Gn = G / Su = (Sg – OLR) / Sg, of Ramanathan & Inamdar 1997, which unfortunately I don’t have, cited in M7, p. 3.

    So even in R&I, the “greenhouse factor” isn’t some linear function of just Ed, so it must be just innuendo, this association of 3x underestimation of LW down, with the conclusion, “this proves the theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect.” I can’t help feeling we’re supposed to read this, and draw the wrong conclusion that the greenhouse effect is stronger than we thought by a factor of 3. Thankyou, this is exactly what I was trying to understand.

    How can scientists be WRONG in their predictions about a quantity, in this case Ed, and not just slightly wrong, but quite wrong, then perform some manipulations that apparently statisticians here can’t follow, and then conclude, “Therefore, our theory is correct.” Surely, THIS is a circular argument. The only new “evidence” is just more evidence that scientists and models were wrong, and yet a triumphant conclusion follows, “therefore, we were right.”

    Of course I’m sure they had little choice…the forces of the status quo presumably need to be balanced. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    Ferenc,

    Many thanks for your input & clarifications.

    I am still digesting the equations, which seem to follow from the Gn = G / Su = (Sg – OLR) / Sg, of Ramanathan & Inamdar 1997, which unfortunately I don’t have, cited in M7, p. 3.

    So even in R&I, the “greenhouse factor” isn’t some linear function of just Ed, so it must be just innuendo, this association of 3x underestimation of LW down, with the conclusion, “this proves the theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect.” I can’t help feeling we’re supposed to read this, and draw the wrong conclusion that the greenhouse effect is stronger than we thought by a factor of 3. Thankyou, this is exactly what I was trying to understand.

    How can scientists be WRONG in their predictions about a quantity, in this case Ed, and not just slightly wrong, but quite wrong, then perform some manipulations that apparently statisticians here can’t follow, and then conclude, “Therefore, our theory is correct.” Surely, THIS is a circular argument. The only new “evidence” is just more evidence that scientists and models were wrong, and yet a triumphant conclusion follows, “therefore, we were right.”

    Of course I’m sure they had little choice…the forces of the status quo presumably need to be balanced. :)

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #27

    I am still digesting the equations, which seem to follow from the Gn = G / Su = (Sg – OLR) / Sg, of Ramanathan & Inamdar 1997, which unfortunately I don’t have, cited in M7, p. 3.

    Check your mail box.

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #27

    I am still digesting the equations, which seem to follow from the Gn = G / Su = (Sg – OLR) / Sg, of Ramanathan & Inamdar 1997, which unfortunately I don’t have, cited in M7, p. 3.

    Check your mail box.

  • jae

    Ferenc, 26: I don’t have any detailed information connecting your work and Lindzen’s. Your work shows that there are some mechanisms/special properties of the atmosphere, which may not be well understood, but which work to keep optical depth, cloudiness, and greenhous gas levels at an optimum. I was just making a general observation that Lindzen’s “Iris” mechanism, wherein cloudiness is somehow self-regulated, may be part of the mechanisms involved. Spencer’s work seems to show the same type of cloud self-regulation.

  • jae

    Ferenc, 26: I don’t have any detailed information connecting your work and Lindzen’s. Your work shows that there are some mechanisms/special properties of the atmosphere, which may not be well understood, but which work to keep optical depth, cloudiness, and greenhous gas levels at an optimum. I was just making a general observation that Lindzen’s “Iris” mechanism, wherein cloudiness is somehow self-regulated, may be part of the mechanisms involved. Spencer’s work seems to show the same type of cloud self-regulation.

  • jae
  • jae
  • Alex Harvey

    I am wondering if there is more in common with Roy Spencer’s argument that causes and effects are conflated in GCM models. In Philipona et al., we have here (A) an increase in downward LW flux, and (B) an increase in temperature at the surface. It seems that the model and theory just assume that increased LW down causes increased surface temperature. How do we know that increased surface temperature doesn’t cause the increased LW down? I don’t know if Spencer considered this particular scenario, but it’s a thought…

  • Alex Harvey

    I am wondering if there is more in common with Roy Spencer’s argument that causes and effects are conflated in GCM models. In Philipona et al., we have here (A) an increase in downward LW flux, and (B) an increase in temperature at the surface. It seems that the model and theory just assume that increased LW down causes increased surface temperature. How do we know that increased surface temperature doesn’t cause the increased LW down? I don’t know if Spencer considered this particular scenario, but it’s a thought…

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #31

    It seems that the model and theory just assume that increased LW down causes increased surface temperature. How do we know that increased surface temperature doesn’t cause the increased LW down?

    How do we know they don’t rise and fall together due to an underlying cause for both?

  • Jan Pompe

    Alex #31

    It seems that the model and theory just assume that increased LW down causes increased surface temperature. How do we know that increased surface temperature doesn’t cause the increased LW down?

    How do we know they don’t rise and fall together due to an underlying cause for both?

  • Jan Pompe

    jae #29

    I was just making a general observation that Lindzen’s “Iris” mechanism, wherein cloudiness is somehow self-regulated, may be part of the mechanisms involved.

    It certainly looks to me like Richard Lindzen is on a similar general track. might have to follow up on some of his references.

    Hat tip to Alex for the link to Lindzens article.

  • Jan Pompe

    jae #29

    I was just making a general observation that Lindzen’s “Iris” mechanism, wherein cloudiness is somehow self-regulated, may be part of the mechanisms involved.

    It certainly looks to me like Richard Lindzen is on a similar general track. might have to follow up on some of his references.

    Hat tip to Alex for the link to Lindzens article.

  • jae

    jan:

    “How do we know they don’t rise and fall together due to an underlying cause for both?”

    That is where my intuition points me. Perhaps we sometimes make things much more complicated than need be.

  • jae

    jan:

    “How do we know they don’t rise and fall together due to an underlying cause for both?”

    That is where my intuition points me. Perhaps we sometimes make things much more complicated than need be.

  • Alex Harvey

    jae, 34:

    Getting the arrows of causality around the right away isn’t over-complicating things in my book, and it also suggests that if M’s Kirchhoff law is correct, I think that Roy Spencer would be interested to know this. Proof of M’s Kirchhoff law, from what I have understood of its implications on the atmosphere’s role in heating the surface, is also proof of Spencer’s theory that cause & effect are conflated in GCM models. This is important; Spencer might be pleased to cite this result, and we’d all be a big step closer to seeing the wider scientific community start looking at this theory a little more carefully.

  • Alex Harvey

    jae, 34:

    Getting the arrows of causality around the right away isn’t over-complicating things in my book, and it also suggests that if M’s Kirchhoff law is correct, I think that Roy Spencer would be interested to know this. Proof of M’s Kirchhoff law, from what I have understood of its implications on the atmosphere’s role in heating the surface, is also proof of Spencer’s theory that cause & effect are conflated in GCM models. This is important; Spencer might be pleased to cite this result, and we’d all be a big step closer to seeing the wider scientific community start looking at this theory a little more carefully.

  • Alex Harvey

    By the way, looks like they fixed the little bug that was causing LW downward fluxes to be out by a factor of 3. :)

    http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/models/jclimate-mpim-2006/wild_roeckner_jclim_2006.pdf

  • Alex Harvey

    By the way, looks like they fixed the little bug that was causing LW downward fluxes to be out by a factor of 3. :)

    http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/models/jclimate-mpim-2006/wild_roeckner_jclim_2006.pdf

  • Jan Pompe

    jae #34

    That is where my intuition points me. Perhaps we sometimes make things much more complicated than need be.

    I think people sometimes forget that the heat comes in at 1366W/m^2 (Effective T~393K) at the TOA and not the ~ 235 W/m^2 (Effective T ~ 254K) averaged over the globe with globally averaged cloud albedo.

    We get a higher portion of it at the tropics than we do at the poles and the wind and ocean currents take their time distributing it meaning the system is never in equilibrium but always chasing it. Doesn’t mean we can use equilibrium models to learn something from them about how the system works but we must keep in mind they are models and do not accurately describe reality.

  • Jan Pompe

    jae #34

    That is where my intuition points me. Perhaps we sometimes make things much more complicated than need be.

    I think people sometimes forget that the heat comes in at 1366W/m^2 (Effective T~393K) at the TOA and not the ~ 235 W/m^2 (Effective T ~ 254K) averaged over the globe with globally averaged cloud albedo.

    We get a higher portion of it at the tropics than we do at the poles and the wind and ocean currents take their time distributing it meaning the system is never in equilibrium but always chasing it. Doesn’t mean we can use equilibrium models to learn something from them about how the system works but we must keep in mind they are models and do not accurately describe reality.

  • Alex Harvey

    North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) one minute, Global Dimming the next

    David #20, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over Philipona et al. 2004′s magic 2/3.

    I have just read the latest Philipona et al. paper, this time Philipona, R.,K. Behrens, andC. Ruckstuhl (2009), How declining aerosols and rising greenhouse gases forced rapid warming in Europe since the 1980s, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36 (thanks again, Jan).

    Avaible here: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EMS2008/00072/EMS2008-A-00072.pdf

    Just get a load of this! As we have seen, back in 2004, lead author Philipona showed that GCMs got LW down wrong by a factor of three, and discovered that 2/3 of the temperature trend in Europe since 1980 was probably caused by the North Atlantic Oscillation (para 9):

    At least half of the increases may … not be explicable by direct effects of increased GHGs and associated feedbacks on temperature and humidity, but are rather due to circulation changes over central Europe. On the northern hemisphere, non-uniform warming with differing decadal and marked seasonal and regional variations is often related to changes of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) [Hurrell, 1995].

    Later, para 10:

    …two thirds of the temperature trend that is due to warm air advection…

    (I almost forgot to add, thus proving the theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect.)

    But now, but now, listen to this:

    Philipona et al. 2009, para 15:

    Of the rapid temperature rise since the 1980s … about two thirds are shown by our analysis to be likely forced by aerosol decline and related solar brightening that strongly reinforced anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.

    There, much better. Out, damned NAO! See, not a single mention of it anywhere in the paper, and certainly no citation for that bad, bad Hurrell, 1995, who put the idea into P’s head in a moment of weakness. No citation to Philipona et al. 2004 either; that could be problematic. How could the IPCC in the forthcoming AR5 cite any nonsense about a mysterious ‘NAO’ that no state-of-the-art GCM has ever predicted causing 2/3 of the warming since 1980 in Europe?

    I’m sorry, I shouldn’t speculate, but what the *&*&#$ is going on here????

  • Alex Harvey

    North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) one minute, Global Dimming the next

    David #20, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over Philipona et al. 2004′s magic 2/3.

    I have just read the latest Philipona et al. paper, this time Philipona, R.,K. Behrens, andC. Ruckstuhl (2009), How declining aerosols and rising greenhouse gases forced rapid warming in Europe since the 1980s, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36 (thanks again, Jan).

    Avaible here: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EMS2008/00072/EMS2008-A-00072.pdf

    Just get a load of this! As we have seen, back in 2004, lead author Philipona showed that GCMs got LW down wrong by a factor of three, and discovered that 2/3 of the temperature trend in Europe since 1980 was probably caused by the North Atlantic Oscillation (para 9):

    At least half of the increases may … not be explicable by direct effects of increased GHGs and associated feedbacks on temperature and humidity, but are rather due to circulation changes over central Europe. On the northern hemisphere, non-uniform warming with differing decadal and marked seasonal and regional variations is often related to changes of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) [Hurrell, 1995].

    Later, para 10:

    …two thirds of the temperature trend that is due to warm air advection…

    (I almost forgot to add, thus proving the theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect.)

    But now, but now, listen to this:

    Philipona et al. 2009, para 15:

    Of the rapid temperature rise since the 1980s … about two thirds are shown by our analysis to be likely forced by aerosol decline and related solar brightening that strongly reinforced anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.

    There, much better. Out, damned NAO! See, not a single mention of it anywhere in the paper, and certainly no citation for that bad, bad Hurrell, 1995, who put the idea into P’s head in a moment of weakness. No citation to Philipona et al. 2004 either; that could be problematic. How could the IPCC in the forthcoming AR5 cite any nonsense about a mysterious ‘NAO’ that no state-of-the-art GCM has ever predicted causing 2/3 of the warming since 1980 in Europe?

    I’m sorry, I shouldn’t speculate, but what the *&*&#$ is going on here????

  • jae

    Alex: LOL. I wonder how these geniuses are going to explain the last 10 years of cooler temperatures…Did Europe go backwards on pollution control, so that solar dimming is now again a problem? Or could the NAO have something to do with it? It’s like the jokers that run the GCMs. They have said for years that only CO2 could possibly explain the rise in temperatures during the 90s (arrogantly presuming, of course, that everything else is perfectly accounted for in the models). Now, they have no explanation as to why temperatures have been dropping, except to babble about natural variation (a concept which is not allowed when temperatures are increasing).

  • jae

    Alex: LOL. I wonder how these geniuses are going to explain the last 10 years of cooler temperatures…Did Europe go backwards on pollution control, so that solar dimming is now again a problem? Or could the NAO have something to do with it? It’s like the jokers that run the GCMs. They have said for years that only CO2 could possibly explain the rise in temperatures during the 90s (arrogantly presuming, of course, that everything else is perfectly accounted for in the models). Now, they have no explanation as to why temperatures have been dropping, except to babble about natural variation (a concept which is not allowed when temperatures are increasing).

  • Alex Harvey

    jae: Well, I’m no statistician, but if you take just a look at their Fig. 3, anyone could see that they had to use the year 1980 to make this all work out. If they’d divided the range at 1982 instead of 1980, their politically-correct conclusion would disappear along with their aerosols.

  • Alex Harvey

    jae: Well, I’m no statistician, but if you take just a look at their Fig. 3, anyone could see that they had to use the year 1980 to make this all work out. If they’d divided the range at 1982 instead of 1980, their politically-correct conclusion would disappear along with their aerosols.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Just popped back for a quick lurk. Still at it fellows! Will it never end?

    As for me I’m still squirming over past gems of tortured dogma from Jan such as:

    “Whether you choose to name atmospheric outward flux EU or K doesn’t matter because they are algebraically equal. Eu and K each have one value but 2 degrees of freedom each EU = (F+P) + (ST – AA) and K = HL + HS where HL and HS are latent and sensible heat respectively. So your precious convection is not hidden in ST or TA but out in the open as if for constant F0, EU is also constant then it is obvious that to keep it constant when τ is increased and leads to increased HS, then HS must decrease. If that decreases you end up with less water vapour in the atmosphere and low pan evaporation rates and τ returning to it’s original value. That is negative feedback at its best.”

    BTW I’d been reading up on Budyko’s ice-albedo feedback theory etc when I came across this interesting little (2000) paper by some obscure Egyptians scientists published in a Spanish meteorological journal (deja vu rules OK).

    http://www.biblioteca.org.ar/LIBROS/90618.pdf

    Check out the dSu/dAc = 143 W/m^2 and d(Fo-F)/dAc= 64 W/m^2 stuff (where Ac = cloud cover from surface)

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Just popped back for a quick lurk. Still at it fellows! Will it never end?

    As for me I’m still squirming over past gems of tortured dogma from Jan such as:

    “Whether you choose to name atmospheric outward flux EU or K doesn’t matter because they are algebraically equal. Eu and K each have one value but 2 degrees of freedom each EU = (F+P) + (ST – AA) and K = HL + HS where HL and HS are latent and sensible heat respectively. So your precious convection is not hidden in ST or TA but out in the open as if for constant F0, EU is also constant then it is obvious that to keep it constant when Ï„ is increased and leads to increased HS, then HS must decrease. If that decreases you end up with less water vapour in the atmosphere and low pan evaporation rates and Ï„ returning to it’s original value. That is negative feedback at its best.”

    BTW I’d been reading up on Budyko’s ice-albedo feedback theory etc when I came across this interesting little (2000) paper by some obscure Egyptians scientists published in a Spanish meteorological journal (deja vu rules OK).

    http://www.biblioteca.org.ar/LIBROS/90618.pdf

    Check out the dSu/dAc = 143 W/m^2 and d(Fo-F)/dAc= 64 W/m^2 stuff (where Ac = cloud cover from surface)

  • Jan Pompe

    Hmmmm

    EU = (F+P) + (ST – AA)

    I wonder where I said that? It doesn’t look right and I can’t find it. Though the rest of the text sounds familiar.

    $$E_U = left( F+P right) + K$$ it should be and $$K = H_S – S_L$$ or non-radiative factors.

    The corrected equation just derives from M07 Eqns (1) & (4). In a sort of trial balance FM on page 24 tackles it from another angle:

    Based on Eq. (28) [$$S_U = frac {OLR} f$$] we may also give a simple interpretation of $$E_U$$: $$E_U = S_U f – S_U T_A$$. Since the total converted $$F^0 + P^0$$ to OLR is $$S_U f$$, and $$S_U T_A$$ is the transmitted part of the surface radiation, the $$S_U F – S_U T_A$$ difference is the contribution to the OLR from all other energy transfer processes which are not related to LW absorption : $$E_U = F + P +K$$. Substituting this last equation into the energy balance equation at the lower boundary, and using Eq. (3) we get: $$E_D – A_A =0$$ . This is the proof of the Kirchhoff law for the surface-atmosphere system. The validity of the Kirchhoff law requires the thermal equilibrium at the surface. Note, that in obtaining Eq. (28) the Kirchhoff law was not used (see Appendix B). [My comment in brackets and all emphasis mine]

    That’s an interesting paper in the abstract

    It was found that there was an inverse relationship between longwave radiation and the planetary albedo at both the surface and the top of the atmosphere.

    We more or less expect this but then in concluding remarks 5):

    The effect of heat absorbed and emitted through $$Delta SW$$ and $$Delta LW$$, indicates a remarkable flux increase with cloud cover. These values on average vary at different locations in mid latitude regions having the values: $$frac {partial SW} {partial A_c} = 64 Wm^{-2}$$ and $$frac {partial LW} {partial A_c} = 143 Wm^{-2}$$.

    This is counter intuitive, so looking at their equations 13 to 14 it is quite clear that $$Delta SW$$ and $$Delta LW$$ are differences in the fluxes between the TOA and BOA ie the fluxes don’t increase but the differences in fluxes increase with cloud cover. That is for shortwave $$ frac {partial Delta SW} {partial A_c} = 64 Wm^{-2}$$ which makes some more sense.

  • Jan Pompe

    Hmmmm

    EU = (F+P) + (ST – AA)

    I wonder where I said that? It doesn’t look right and I can’t find it. Though the rest of the text sounds familiar.

    $$E_U = \left( F+P \right) + K$$ it should be and $$K = H_S – S_L$$ or non-radiative factors.

    The corrected equation just derives from M07 Eqns (1) & (4). In a sort of trial balance FM on page 24 tackles it from another angle:

    Based on Eq. (28) [$$S_U = \frac {OLR} f$$] we may also give a simple interpretation of $$E_U$$: $$E_U = S_U f – S_U T_A$$. Since the total converted $$F^0 + P^0$$ to OLR is $$S_U f$$, and $$S_U T_A$$ is the transmitted part of the surface radiation, the $$S_U F – S_U T_A$$ difference is the contribution to the OLR from all other energy transfer processes which are not related to LW absorption : $$E_U = F + P +K$$. Substituting this last equation into the energy balance equation at the lower boundary, and using Eq. (3) we get: $$E_D – A_A =0$$ . This is the proof of the Kirchhoff law for the surface-atmosphere system. The validity of the Kirchhoff law requires the thermal equilibrium at the surface. Note, that in obtaining Eq. (28) the Kirchhoff law was not used (see Appendix B). [My comment in brackets and all emphasis mine]

    That’s an interesting paper in the abstract

    It was found that there was an inverse relationship between longwave radiation and the planetary albedo at both the surface and the top of the atmosphere.

    We more or less expect this but then in concluding remarks 5):

    The effect of heat absorbed and emitted through $$\Delta SW$$ and $$\Delta LW$$, indicates a remarkable flux increase with cloud cover. These values on average vary at different locations in mid latitude regions having the values: $$\frac {\partial SW} {\partial A_c} = 64 Wm^{-2}$$ and $$\frac {\partial LW} {\partial A_c} = 143 Wm^{-2}$$.

    This is counter intuitive, so looking at their equations 13 to 14 it is quite clear that $$\Delta SW$$ and $$\Delta LW$$ are differences in the fluxes between the TOA and BOA ie the fluxes don’t increase but the differences in fluxes increase with cloud cover. That is for shortwave $$ \frac {\partial \Delta SW} {\partial A_c} = 64 Wm^{-2}$$ which makes some more sense.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #42

    “Hmmmm

    EU = (F+P) + (ST – AA)

    I wonder where I said that? It doesn’t look right and I can’t find it. Though the rest of the text sounds familiar.”

    It should sound familiar. That was Jan #240 in podium mode in Greenhouse Heat Engine #4. In fact the whole quoted paragraph was a farrago. Take the statement: “Whether you choose to name atmospheric outward flux Eu or K doesn’t matter because they are algebraically equal.” Also garbage.

    Then there was your confusion between the effect of your own HS and HL – BTW completely ignoring all my prior hard work pointing out that K is comprised of 3 components not two i.e. ~80 W/m^2 latent (HL), ~20 W/m^2 sensible (HS; which BTW does nothing to affect water vapour profile contrary to your claim) and ~20 W/m^2 zonal and meridional heat transfer (from surface to atmosphere and tropics to poles).

    Taking the equally silly line EU = (F+P) + (ST – AA) which followed it – where did that equation come from? It doesn’t appear in M4 or M7 or drafdt1.pdf! If F ~ 60 W/m^2 and St ~ 60 W/m^2 and Aa = Ed ~ 310 W/m^2 then this makes Eu = 60 + 60 – 310 ~ – 190 W/m^2!!!

    Sure, accepting M Theory we have : Eu = F + K + P + Aa – Ed (net atmosphere) and Fo + Po + Ed – F – K – P – Aa – St = 0 (net surface) therefore if P, Po = 0 and Aa = Ed (as per M) then Fo – Eu – St = 0 therefore Eu = Fo – St therefore Fo – St = F + K i.e. OLR – St = F + K i.e. ~ 240 – 60 ~ 180 ~ 60 + 120 This at least adds up reasonably well and is the non-LW radiative part of the OLR (St being the LW radiative part). No mystery there – just another way of saying Eu = F + K. You won’t find a reference or justification for K ~ 120 W/m^2 anywhere in M4 or M7 please note.

    The mystery is why didn’t Ferenc himself ever correct this stuff? Or why did you yourself not pick it up and acknowledge as a wrong? Lengthy self-serving later quotes do not gainsay an annoying propensity to mix clearly wrong whole paragraph-long lectures with good stuff and then just roll on like steam train without back tracking to acknowledge those errors (which are a good bit more than a few mere typos).

    Hmmmm “This is counter intuitive, so looking at their equations 13 to 14 it is quite clear that Delta SW and Delta LW are differences in the fluxes between the TOA and BOA i.e the fluxes don’t increase but the differences in fluxes increase with cloud cover…… ”

    I am glad you at least read it. Now the challenge is just try expressing the differences in fluxes in an M-type formalism (without mucking up the signs).

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #42

    “Hmmmm

    EU = (F+P) + (ST – AA)

    I wonder where I said that? It doesn’t look right and I can’t find it. Though the rest of the text sounds familiar.”

    It should sound familiar. That was Jan #240 in podium mode in Greenhouse Heat Engine #4. In fact the whole quoted paragraph was a farrago. Take the statement: “Whether you choose to name atmospheric outward flux Eu or K doesn’t matter because they are algebraically equal.” Also garbage.

    Then there was your confusion between the effect of your own HS and HL – BTW completely ignoring all my prior hard work pointing out that K is comprised of 3 components not two i.e. ~80 W/m^2 latent (HL), ~20 W/m^2 sensible (HS; which BTW does nothing to affect water vapour profile contrary to your claim) and ~20 W/m^2 zonal and meridional heat transfer (from surface to atmosphere and tropics to poles).

    Taking the equally silly line EU = (F+P) + (ST – AA) which followed it – where did that equation come from? It doesn’t appear in M4 or M7 or drafdt1.pdf! If F ~ 60 W/m^2 and St ~ 60 W/m^2 and Aa = Ed ~ 310 W/m^2 then this makes Eu = 60 + 60 – 310 ~ – 190 W/m^2!!!

    Sure, accepting M Theory we have : Eu = F + K + P + Aa – Ed (net atmosphere) and Fo + Po + Ed – F – K – P – Aa – St = 0 (net surface) therefore if P, Po = 0 and Aa = Ed (as per M) then Fo – Eu – St = 0 therefore Eu = Fo – St therefore Fo – St = F + K i.e. OLR – St = F + K i.e. ~ 240 – 60 ~ 180 ~ 60 + 120 This at least adds up reasonably well and is the non-LW radiative part of the OLR (St being the LW radiative part). No mystery there – just another way of saying Eu = F + K. You won’t find a reference or justification for K ~ 120 W/m^2 anywhere in M4 or M7 please note.

    The mystery is why didn’t Ferenc himself ever correct this stuff? Or why did you yourself not pick it up and acknowledge as a wrong? Lengthy self-serving later quotes do not gainsay an annoying propensity to mix clearly wrong whole paragraph-long lectures with good stuff and then just roll on like steam train without back tracking to acknowledge those errors (which are a good bit more than a few mere typos).

    Hmmmm “This is counter intuitive, so looking at their equations 13 to 14 it is quite clear that Delta SW and Delta LW are differences in the fluxes between the TOA and BOA i.e the fluxes don’t increase but the differences in fluxes increase with cloud cover…… ”

    I am glad you at least read it. Now the challenge is just try expressing the differences in fluxes in an M-type formalism (without mucking up the signs).

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #43

    It should sound familiar. That was Jan #240 in podium mode in Greenhouse Heat Engine #4.

    Greenhouse Heat Engine #4 only goes to 24 and #24o in GHE #3 is a comment by franko I’ve tried key word searches in several threads and haven’t found it. Obviously there is an error in that equation I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that but I’m trying to find it so I can get to the context because I’m wondering what I was thinking (ST-AA) makes no sense.

    Then there was your confusion between the effect of your own HS and HL – BTW completely ignoring all my prior hard work pointing out that K is comprised of 3 components not two i.e. ~80 W/m^2 latent (HL), ~20 W/m^2 sensible (HS; which BTW does nothing to affect water vapour profile contrary to your claim) and ~20 W/m^2 zonal and meridional heat transfer (from surface to atmosphere and tropics to poles).

    So we have latent heat ~80W/m^2 and ~20 W/m^2 gobal average from surface to atmosphere so both leaving the surface (i.e. cooling it) global average remember and that eventually radiates to space. That zonal and meridional ~20W/m^2 cools one place the tropics and warms another the poles it does not contribute to the globally averaged radiative energy budget and is already included in the ~ 100W/m^2 Hs +Hl unless of course the tropics is not part of the globe.

    You won’t find a reference or justification for K ~ 120 W/m^2 anywhere in M4 or M7 please note.

    Nor is there any reason we should, there is no reason to assume that $$S_T =F$$ that I can see. $$E_U = F^0 -S_T = OLR – S_T = F+K $$ 0r $$240 [OLR] – 60 [S_T] approx 180 approx 80[F] + 100[K]$$

    I am glad you at least read it.

    As interesting as I found the paper it’s scope is not the same as M&M04 or M07 which examine the affect of IR absorbers in the atmosphere on the radiation budget holding albedo (and consequently cloud cover) constant while the W&H paper explores the effect of variations in cloud cover holding all else constant. I’m sure one day someone will integrate it all into a coherent model but that someone is not likely to be me.

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #43

    It should sound familiar. That was Jan #240 in podium mode in Greenhouse Heat Engine #4.

    Greenhouse Heat Engine #4 only goes to 24 and #24o in GHE #3 is a comment by franko I’ve tried key word searches in several threads and haven’t found it. Obviously there is an error in that equation I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that but I’m trying to find it so I can get to the context because I’m wondering what I was thinking (ST-AA) makes no sense.

    Then there was your confusion between the effect of your own HS and HL – BTW completely ignoring all my prior hard work pointing out that K is comprised of 3 components not two i.e. ~80 W/m^2 latent (HL), ~20 W/m^2 sensible (HS; which BTW does nothing to affect water vapour profile contrary to your claim) and ~20 W/m^2 zonal and meridional heat transfer (from surface to atmosphere and tropics to poles).

    So we have latent heat ~80W/m^2 and ~20 W/m^2 gobal average from surface to atmosphere so both leaving the surface (i.e. cooling it) global average remember and that eventually radiates to space. That zonal and meridional ~20W/m^2 cools one place the tropics and warms another the poles it does not contribute to the globally averaged radiative energy budget and is already included in the ~ 100W/m^2 Hs +Hl unless of course the tropics is not part of the globe.

    You won’t find a reference or justification for K ~ 120 W/m^2 anywhere in M4 or M7 please note.

    Nor is there any reason we should, there is no reason to assume that $$S_T =F$$ that I can see. $$E_U = F^0 -S_T = OLR – S_T = F+K $$ 0r $$240 [OLR] – 60 [S_T] \approx 180 \approx 80[F] + 100[K]$$

    I am glad you at least read it.

    As interesting as I found the paper it’s scope is not the same as M&M04 or M07 which examine the affect of IR absorbers in the atmosphere on the radiation budget holding albedo (and consequently cloud cover) constant while the W&H paper explores the effect of variations in cloud cover holding all else constant. I’m sure one day someone will integrate it all into a coherent model but that someone is not likely to be me.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Yes, I did get the thread wrong. I’ve just now sent you the complete diatribe by direct email (as you did me). Perhaps then you’ll remember it?

    “….I’m wondering what I was thinking (ST-AA) makes no sense.” Yeah me too.

    “Nor is there any reason we should, there is no reason to assume that S_T =F that I can see. ” Yeah me too. They are certainly similar in magnitude i.e. S_T ~ F (as recourse to any good textbook or relevant paper will show).
    But perhaps there is an underlying reason why they are similar in magnitude? After all the whole system clearly displays autocorrelation between outgoing LW and incoming SW terms.

    “As interesting as I found the paper it’s scope is not the same as M&M04 or M07 which examine the affect of IR absorbers in the atmosphere on the radiation budget holding albedo (and consequently cloud cover) constant while the W&H paper explores the effect of variations in cloud cover holding all else constant.”

    Another copout. After all cloud cover increases with increasing water vapor column amount. I also suggest going back and reading Section 5.2 Global average profiles in M7 viz: ” Cloudy computations also show that Eu – and consequently K – has a maximum around this level, which is favorable for cloud formation. ” or ” OLRA – 2Su/3 ~ -15 W/m^2 is fairly good estimate of the global average cloud forcing. The estimated beta ~ 0.6 is the required cloud cover (at this level) to balance OLRA , which looks realistic. ”

    That’s all Miskolczi (possibly at his finest BTW) – not you, not me.

    “I’m sure one day someone will integrate it all into a coherent model but that someone is not likely to be me.”

    This from someone who pretends to engage in open ended discussion yet is then always so keen to jump up and vigorously ‘straighten people out’ on what M Theory does or does not mean (not always correctly as I’ve just demonstrated) and just as vigorously resists to the max any attempts to tweak M theory or tighten up the formalism with respect to the critical SW F and non-radiative K components yet when it comes to the crunch has to be oh so coy.

    Bah humbug.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Yes, I did get the thread wrong. I’ve just now sent you the complete diatribe by direct email (as you did me). Perhaps then you’ll remember it?

    “….I’m wondering what I was thinking (ST-AA) makes no sense.” Yeah me too.

    “Nor is there any reason we should, there is no reason to assume that S_T =F that I can see. ” Yeah me too. They are certainly similar in magnitude i.e. S_T ~ F (as recourse to any good textbook or relevant paper will show).
    But perhaps there is an underlying reason why they are similar in magnitude? After all the whole system clearly displays autocorrelation between outgoing LW and incoming SW terms.

    “As interesting as I found the paper it’s scope is not the same as M&M04 or M07 which examine the affect of IR absorbers in the atmosphere on the radiation budget holding albedo (and consequently cloud cover) constant while the W&H paper explores the effect of variations in cloud cover holding all else constant.”

    Another copout. After all cloud cover increases with increasing water vapor column amount. I also suggest going back and reading Section 5.2 Global average profiles in M7 viz: ” Cloudy computations also show that Eu – and consequently K – has a maximum around this level, which is favorable for cloud formation. ” or ” OLRA – 2Su/3 ~ -15 W/m^2 is fairly good estimate of the global average cloud forcing. The estimated beta ~ 0.6 is the required cloud cover (at this level) to balance OLRA , which looks realistic. ”

    That’s all Miskolczi (possibly at his finest BTW) – not you, not me.

    “I’m sure one day someone will integrate it all into a coherent model but that someone is not likely to be me.”

    This from someone who pretends to engage in open ended discussion yet is then always so keen to jump up and vigorously ‘straighten people out’ on what M Theory does or does not mean (not always correctly as I’ve just demonstrated) and just as vigorously resists to the max any attempts to tweak M theory or tighten up the formalism with respect to the critical SW F and non-radiative K components yet when it comes to the crunch has to be oh so coy.

    Bah humbug.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #44

    “So we have latent heat ~80W/m^2 and ~20 W/m^2 gobal average from surface to atmosphere so both leaving the surface (i.e. cooling it) global average remember and that eventually radiates to space. That zonal and meridional ~20W/m^2 cools one place the tropics and warms another the poles it does not contribute to the globally averaged radiative energy budget and is already included in the ~ 100W/m^2 Hs +Hl unless of course the tropics is not part of the globe.”

    As well as transferring heat from the tropics to the poles (putting aside juvenile cheap shot re tropics), zonal and meridional winds also extract a net ~15 W/m^2 from the surface via non-convective cooling and drying effects (and producing frictional dissipation, orographic and wave cloud formation) etc. As the so-called thermal engineer here you should definitely know all about that. The remainder of the K term (~2 – 5 W/m^2) is largely comprised of frictional losses from falling rain. Thus K totals about 120 W/m^2.

    Presumably this is also why Miskolczi assigns a K/St ratio of ~2 in his draft1.pdf (Fig. 18E). However, as you disagree I’m sure you will tell him/us why?

    The highest estimate of F I have seen in the literature is about 68 -70 W/m^2. Your value of ~80 W/m^2 is not a value which I have ever seen and it is inconsistent with the mean SW tau which we discussed some time back (you may recall). Please produce a citation and/or tell us how you reconcile it with the known SW tau.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #44

    “So we have latent heat ~80W/m^2 and ~20 W/m^2 gobal average from surface to atmosphere so both leaving the surface (i.e. cooling it) global average remember and that eventually radiates to space. That zonal and meridional ~20W/m^2 cools one place the tropics and warms another the poles it does not contribute to the globally averaged radiative energy budget and is already included in the ~ 100W/m^2 Hs +Hl unless of course the tropics is not part of the globe.”

    As well as transferring heat from the tropics to the poles (putting aside juvenile cheap shot re tropics), zonal and meridional winds also extract a net ~15 W/m^2 from the surface via non-convective cooling and drying effects (and producing frictional dissipation, orographic and wave cloud formation) etc. As the so-called thermal engineer here you should definitely know all about that. The remainder of the K term (~2 – 5 W/m^2) is largely comprised of frictional losses from falling rain. Thus K totals about 120 W/m^2.

    Presumably this is also why Miskolczi assigns a K/St ratio of ~2 in his draft1.pdf (Fig. 18E). However, as you disagree I’m sure you will tell him/us why?

    The highest estimate of F I have seen in the literature is about 68 -70 W/m^2. Your value of ~80 W/m^2 is not a value which I have ever seen and it is inconsistent with the mean SW tau which we discussed some time back (you may recall). Please produce a citation and/or tell us how you reconcile it with the known SW tau.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #46

    K is vertical globally average term from surface to atmosphere and you want to add a horizontal term so please show us all where horizontal movement has a vertical component.

    Try not to be so rude while you are at it please.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #46

    K is vertical globally average term from surface to atmosphere and you want to add a horizontal term so please show us all where horizontal movement has a vertical component.

    Try not to be so rude while you are at it please.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    No, K = the sum of all non-radiative heat transfers from the surface.

    To quote M7 (page 3): ” The net thermal energy to the atmosphere of non-radiative origin is K.”

    Further down on page 3 M also says: ” Note, that the K term is not restricted to strict vertical transfer. Due to the permanent motion of the atmosphere K represents a statistical or climatic average.”

    Horizontal air movements, commonly known as winds typically exhibit a vertical component when the airstream runs into a mass of cooler air and is forced upwards or when it runs into hills or mountains.

    Non-vertical, non-radiative heat transfer to the atmosphere is clearly contained in the K term NOT in the Po term which M7 defines as “total thermal energy from the planetary interior to the surface-atmosphere system.” Thus P0 would presumably take into account ocean upwelling/downwelling effects, geothermal etc.

    Miskolczi’s model is not exclusively 1D in any sense. It is also trivially self-evident that it is a globally averaged model.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    No, K = the sum of all non-radiative heat transfers from the surface.

    To quote M7 (page 3): ” The net thermal energy to the atmosphere of non-radiative origin is K.”

    Further down on page 3 M also says: ” Note, that the K term is not restricted to strict vertical transfer. Due to the permanent motion of the atmosphere K represents a statistical or climatic average.”

    Horizontal air movements, commonly known as winds typically exhibit a vertical component when the airstream runs into a mass of cooler air and is forced upwards or when it runs into hills or mountains.

    Non-vertical, non-radiative heat transfer to the atmosphere is clearly contained in the K term NOT in the Po term which M7 defines as “total thermal energy from the planetary interior to the surface-atmosphere system.” Thus P0 would presumably take into account ocean upwelling/downwelling effects, geothermal etc.

    Miskolczi’s model is not exclusively 1D in any sense. It is also trivially self-evident that it is a globally averaged model.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #48

    No, K = the sum of all non-radiative heat transfers from the surface.

    To quote M7 (page 3): ” The net thermal energy to the atmosphere of non-radiative origin is K.”

    My point exactly once the heat is in the atmosphere movement within the atmosphere does not add to it. Now it if the atmosphere is warmed more at the poles there will be a thermal potential difference between the tropics and the poles that will lead to a net movement towards the poles i.e. wind turbulence will cause friction losses i.e. some of the net movement is randomised.

    There is and can be no increase in the energy content of the atmosphere due to the horizontal or even vertical movement of heat within the atmosphere we can only get an increase in entropy from it.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #48

    No, K = the sum of all non-radiative heat transfers from the surface.

    To quote M7 (page 3): ” The net thermal energy to the atmosphere of non-radiative origin is K.”

    My point exactly once the heat is in the atmosphere movement within the atmosphere does not add to it. Now it if the atmosphere is warmed more at the poles there will be a thermal potential difference between the tropics and the poles that will lead to a net movement towards the poles i.e. wind turbulence will cause friction losses i.e. some of the net movement is randomised.

    There is and can be no increase in the energy content of the atmosphere due to the horizontal or even vertical movement of heat within the atmosphere we can only get an increase in entropy from it.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    I can quote Misckolczi back at you at length to show he does not regard his K term as made up of just vertical latent and sensible heat components.

    I can clearly explain what I believe that extra (minor) portion is. You can blithely ignore that completely.

    I am obviously not talking about conservative within-atmosphere transfer of heat from tropics to poles and made that crystal clear.

    I also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds). Inspection of the literature suggests this about 13% of total K and frictional heat loss from falling rain about 3% of total K.

    Classic Pompe! Never any progress to be had with you, eh Jan. Rigor mortis set in long ago. I suggest Haiti for a suitable holiday destination – they used to do a nice line in your type of guy.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    I can quote Misckolczi back at you at length to show he does not regard his K term as made up of just vertical latent and sensible heat components.

    I can clearly explain what I believe that extra (minor) portion is. You can blithely ignore that completely.

    I am obviously not talking about conservative within-atmosphere transfer of heat from tropics to poles and made that crystal clear.

    I also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds). Inspection of the literature suggests this about 13% of total K and frictional heat loss from falling rain about 3% of total K.

    Classic Pompe! Never any progress to be had with you, eh Jan. Rigor mortis set in long ago. I suggest Haiti for a suitable holiday destination – they used to do a nice line in your type of guy.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #50

    Classic Pompe! Never any progress to be had with you, eh Jan. Rigor mortis set in long ago. I suggest Haiti for a suitable holiday destination – they used to do a nice line in your type of guy.

    Is it possible for you to stop making such childish remarks?

    I am perfectly aware that M07 has:

    (b) — The temperature or source function profile is the result of the
    equilibrium between the IR radiation field and all other sinks and sources of
    thermal energy, (latent heat transfer, convection, conduction, advection,
    turbulent mixing, short wave absorption, etc.). Note, that the Kterm is not
    restricted to strict vertical heat transfer. Due to the permanent motion of the atmosphere K represents a statistical or climatic average.

    The emphasised sentence should make it crystal clear that:

    I also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds).

    is already included in K

    And

    Inspection of the literature suggests this about 13% of total K and frictional heat loss from falling rain about 3% of total K.

    both the 13% and the 3% are still only a portion of K they don’t add to it.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #50

    Classic Pompe! Never any progress to be had with you, eh Jan. Rigor mortis set in long ago. I suggest Haiti for a suitable holiday destination – they used to do a nice line in your type of guy.

    Is it possible for you to stop making such childish remarks?

    I am perfectly aware that M07 has:

    (b) — The temperature or source function profile is the result of the
    equilibrium between the IR radiation field and all other sinks and sources of
    thermal energy, (latent heat transfer, convection, conduction, advection,
    turbulent mixing, short wave absorption, etc.). Note, that the Kterm is not
    restricted to strict vertical heat transfer. Due to the permanent motion of the atmosphere K represents a statistical or climatic average.

    The emphasised sentence should make it crystal clear that:

    I also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds).

    is already included in K

    And

    Inspection of the literature suggests this about 13% of total K and frictional heat loss from falling rain about 3% of total K.

    both the 13% and the 3% are still only a portion of K they don’t add to it.

  • jae

    What jan says :)

  • jae

    What jan says :)

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #51

    “..both the 13% and the 3% are still only a portion of K they don’t add to it.”

    Holds belly, doubled-up with laughter. What language is this? Nebbish?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #51

    “..both the 13% and the 3% are still only a portion of K they don’t add to it.”

    Holds belly, doubled-up with laughter. What language is this? Nebbish?

  • jan pompe

    Steve #53

    “..both the 13% and the 3% are still only a portion of K they don’t add to it.”

    Holds belly, doubled-up with laughter. What language is this? Nebbish?

    Don’t you understand energy conservation? It’s not hard.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #53

    “..both the 13% and the 3% are still only a portion of K they don’t add to it.”

    Holds belly, doubled-up with laughter. What language is this? Nebbish?

    Don’t you understand energy conservation? It’s not hard.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    15/120 ~13%, 4/120 ~ 3%. Arithmetic. Its not hard.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    15/120 ~13%, 4/120 ~ 3%. Arithmetic. Its not hard.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #45

    15/120 ~13%, 4/120 ~ 3%. Arithmetic. Its not hard.

    It’s what it means that seems to be the difficult part.

    Whether you think K is 120W/m^2 (wherever the heck you got that number from) of K&T 97 102 W/m^2 that % symbol means its a fraction of the whole which include all non-radiative modes the energy leaves the surface to enter the atmosphere. Conversion between energy types does not change the total. For instance the frictional heat lost by falling rain was obtained by K in the first place and converted to potential energy.

    Now kindly explain how rearranging the apples in a barrel changes the quantity of apples in the barrel.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #45

    15/120 ~13%, 4/120 ~ 3%. Arithmetic. Its not hard.

    It’s what it means that seems to be the difficult part.

    Whether you think K is 120W/m^2 (wherever the heck you got that number from) of K&T 97 102 W/m^2 that % symbol means its a fraction of the whole which include all non-radiative modes the energy leaves the surface to enter the atmosphere. Conversion between energy types does not change the total. For instance the frictional heat lost by falling rain was obtained by K in the first place and converted to potential energy.

    Now kindly explain how rearranging the apples in a barrel changes the quantity of apples in the barrel.

  • jan pompe

    #56

    which include all non-radiative modes the energy leaves the surface to enter the atmosphere.

    I should mention “and leave the atmosphere” also.

  • jan pompe

    #56

    which include all non-radiative modes the energy leaves the surface to enter the atmosphere.

    I should mention “and leave the atmosphere” also.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Funny, in other circumstances you would be the first to deride K&T 97 of course. I repeat:

    Presumably this is also why Miskolczi assigns a K/St ratio of ~2 in his draft1.pdf (Fig. 18E). However, as you disagree I’m sure you will tell him/us why?

    The highest estimate of F I have seen in the literature is about 68 -70 W/m^2. Your value of ~80 W/m^2 is not a value which I have ever seen and it is inconsistent with the mean SW tau which we discussed some time back (you may recall). Please produce a citation and/or tell us how you reconcile it with the known SW tau.

    You didn’t fess-up on either of these. Don’t want to offend the master?

    Far be it from me to rank myself with Neal King. I spent about 100 days quietly lurking following you both all over the blogosphere. Neal is a fine mathematician but that is all you did with him too – a never ending (and ultimately totally mind numbing) exercise in ‘slip sliding away…..’.

    You wriggled away when I challenged you to try the fairly simple task of expressing the W&H 2000 middle latitude expressions in a Miskolczi formalism. Now I’m going to slip slide away myself to look again at that.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Funny, in other circumstances you would be the first to deride K&T 97 of course. I repeat:

    Presumably this is also why Miskolczi assigns a K/St ratio of ~2 in his draft1.pdf (Fig. 18E). However, as you disagree I’m sure you will tell him/us why?

    The highest estimate of F I have seen in the literature is about 68 -70 W/m^2. Your value of ~80 W/m^2 is not a value which I have ever seen and it is inconsistent with the mean SW tau which we discussed some time back (you may recall). Please produce a citation and/or tell us how you reconcile it with the known SW tau.

    You didn’t fess-up on either of these. Don’t want to offend the master?

    Far be it from me to rank myself with Neal King. I spent about 100 days quietly lurking following you both all over the blogosphere. Neal is a fine mathematician but that is all you did with him too – a never ending (and ultimately totally mind numbing) exercise in ‘slip sliding away…..’.

    You wriggled away when I challenged you to try the fairly simple task of expressing the W&H 2000 middle latitude expressions in a Miskolczi formalism. Now I’m going to slip slide away myself to look again at that.

  • jan pompe

    Steve

    “Presumably this is also why Miskolczi assigns a K/St ratio of ~2 in his draft1.pdf (Fig. 18E). However, as you disagree I’m sure you will tell him/us why?”

    I’ve already e-mailed Miskolczi regarding Fig 18 and there will be some changes at the very least some explanations on the axes which will come out with part 2. I’m content to wait until that appears before I’ll comment further. I’m sure I’ve told you all this so what is your game?

    Now I’m going to slip slide away myself to look again at that.

    If you don’t think it’s a waste of time then go for it.

  • jan pompe

    Steve

    “Presumably this is also why Miskolczi assigns a K/St ratio of ~2 in his draft1.pdf (Fig. 18E). However, as you disagree I’m sure you will tell him/us why?”

    I’ve already e-mailed Miskolczi regarding Fig 18 and there will be some changes at the very least some explanations on the axes which will come out with part 2. I’m content to wait until that appears before I’ll comment further. I’m sure I’ve told you all this so what is your game?

    Now I’m going to slip slide away myself to look again at that.

    If you don’t think it’s a waste of time then go for it.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    While I for one appreciate the dedication and persistence of those debating on this thread, it has become fairly cryptic now and relies upon a new reader going back to the start to comprehend it.

    Are we reaching a stage where a summay catch-up is possible, so the main areas of agreement and difference can be clearly elucidated?

    It remains the case that F. Miskolczi has made an important contribution in a field rather short in fresh ideas and we need to know if he is right, mainly right or can be proven right or wrong.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    While I for one appreciate the dedication and persistence of those debating on this thread, it has become fairly cryptic now and relies upon a new reader going back to the start to comprehend it.

    Are we reaching a stage where a summay catch-up is possible, so the main areas of agreement and difference can be clearly elucidated?

    It remains the case that F. Miskolczi has made an important contribution in a field rather short in fresh ideas and we need to know if he is right, mainly right or can be proven right or wrong.

  • jae

    jan and Steve: You guys got me confused (more than usual, that is). Isn’t K 102 wm-2 in the K&T scheme? K includes ALL non-radiative energy transfers, including convection, friction, and latent heat. And it doesn’t matter if it’s up, down, or blowing in the wind.

    Geoff: I may be wrong, but I don’t think we have moved a mm closer toward establishing validity to M’s ideas in the last several months! Just arguing about peripheral details. As far as I know, M has not been proved incorrect on any of his major ideas. We need some new physics sharks here, perhaps.

  • jae

    jan and Steve: You guys got me confused (more than usual, that is). Isn’t K 102 wm-2 in the K&T scheme? K includes ALL non-radiative energy transfers, including convection, friction, and latent heat. And it doesn’t matter if it’s up, down, or blowing in the wind.

    Geoff: I may be wrong, but I don’t think we have moved a mm closer toward establishing validity to M’s ideas in the last several months! Just arguing about peripheral details. As far as I know, M has not been proved incorrect on any of his major ideas. We need some new physics sharks here, perhaps.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #59

    “I’m content to wait until that appears before I’ll comment further. I’m sure I’ve told you all this so what is your game?”

    Yes, we certainly agreed that the method of presentation of Fig 18 was confusing – especially to those coming up to speed on M Theory. However that was all about presentation only and at no point did we/you dispute the approximate ratios such as K/St ~2. So please explain why you did not object to that at the time? There are also some other approximate ratios in Figure 18E which could also be open to question. You did not question those either?

    So it is disingenuous for you to now infer that amendments to Fig 18 suggested by you to M were substantive rather than simply in the method of presentation.

    “If you don’t think it’s a waste of time then go for it.”

    This is the sort of stuff you spout time and again. What really bugs me about your attitude to M Theory in this blog Jan is that you invariably leave no space for anyone to suggest developments, improvements, modification or tweaks to M Theory even amongst those of us who have a whole lot of sympathy and even a decent measure of technical belief in Fernenc’s work.

    It is not an open ended discussion because as far as you are concerned you have obtained the received truth from the prophet M and it is complete and definitive in its present form. Even your language frequently betrays how you see this e.g. ” ….I’ve told you all this so what is your game?”.

    As someone who did pure, high level academic science research for around 12 years and has worked in applied science for the other part of a 35 year career I find that you have an extremely quaint and totalitarian attitude to how science is meant to be done. It is plain to me and to many here that you often post excellent commentary in some instances and on other occasions post stuff which ranges from confused gobbledegook to completely wrong. I’m not saying we aren’t all periodically guilty of the same thing.

    But the point is that for you everything you say is the TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE TRUTH and must be taken as such (even when it is mumbo jumbo) and that then is the end of the matter. FINIS – no further ideas, theory upgrading, mathematical development, nothing.

    Well I for one think the way you do this ‘science’ sucks big time and it goes part the way to explaining why we are still locked into a tiny incestuous cabal which is going nowhere rapidly. This is the practice of small exclusive religions – a social environment which is seemingly made for you (and you make it).

    It is not at all the nature of real science though – a point you seem incapable of comprehending.

    I agree with Geoff #40

    “It remains the case that F. Miskolczi has made an important contribution in a field rather short in fresh ideas and we need to know if he is right, mainly right or can be proven right or wrong.”

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #59

    “I’m content to wait until that appears before I’ll comment further. I’m sure I’ve told you all this so what is your game?”

    Yes, we certainly agreed that the method of presentation of Fig 18 was confusing – especially to those coming up to speed on M Theory. However that was all about presentation only and at no point did we/you dispute the approximate ratios such as K/St ~2. So please explain why you did not object to that at the time? There are also some other approximate ratios in Figure 18E which could also be open to question. You did not question those either?

    So it is disingenuous for you to now infer that amendments to Fig 18 suggested by you to M were substantive rather than simply in the method of presentation.

    “If you don’t think it’s a waste of time then go for it.”

    This is the sort of stuff you spout time and again. What really bugs me about your attitude to M Theory in this blog Jan is that you invariably leave no space for anyone to suggest developments, improvements, modification or tweaks to M Theory even amongst those of us who have a whole lot of sympathy and even a decent measure of technical belief in Fernenc’s work.

    It is not an open ended discussion because as far as you are concerned you have obtained the received truth from the prophet M and it is complete and definitive in its present form. Even your language frequently betrays how you see this e.g. ” ….I’ve told you all this so what is your game?”.

    As someone who did pure, high level academic science research for around 12 years and has worked in applied science for the other part of a 35 year career I find that you have an extremely quaint and totalitarian attitude to how science is meant to be done. It is plain to me and to many here that you often post excellent commentary in some instances and on other occasions post stuff which ranges from confused gobbledegook to completely wrong. I’m not saying we aren’t all periodically guilty of the same thing.

    But the point is that for you everything you say is the TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE TRUTH and must be taken as such (even when it is mumbo jumbo) and that then is the end of the matter. FINIS – no further ideas, theory upgrading, mathematical development, nothing.

    Well I for one think the way you do this ‘science’ sucks big time and it goes part the way to explaining why we are still locked into a tiny incestuous cabal which is going nowhere rapidly. This is the practice of small exclusive religions – a social environment which is seemingly made for you (and you make it).

    It is not at all the nature of real science though – a point you seem incapable of comprehending.

    I agree with Geoff #40

    “It remains the case that F. Miskolczi has made an important contribution in a field rather short in fresh ideas and we need to know if he is right, mainly right or can be proven right or wrong.”

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    If we went along with the old USST 76 atmosphere estimate for Eu (=F+K) then we got Eu = 169 W/m2. Similarly with K&L97 if we go along with K = 102 W/m2 we get 170 W/m^2 for Eu (F = 68 W/m^2 if memory serves me correctly). This means that if it is accepted that Su = 2Eu as per M Theory then Su ~ 340 W/m^2.

    But this causes grief with the OLRA – 2SuE/3 ~ -15 W/m^2 global average cloud forcing estimate (for beta ~0.6) as this gives ~ 250 – 227 ~ + 23W/m^2! Thus we are out by almost 40 W/m^2.

    Hopefully Jan or jae have a really nice answer for this problem to allow them have their cake and eat it too (assuming they accept M7 Eqns. 8, 9 and 28 of course ;-)

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    If we went along with the old USST 76 atmosphere estimate for Eu (=F+K) then we got Eu = 169 W/m2. Similarly with K&L97 if we go along with K = 102 W/m2 we get 170 W/m^2 for Eu (F = 68 W/m^2 if memory serves me correctly). This means that if it is accepted that Su = 2Eu as per M Theory then Su ~ 340 W/m^2.

    But this causes grief with the OLRA – 2SuE/3 ~ -15 W/m^2 global average cloud forcing estimate (for beta ~0.6) as this gives ~ 250 – 227 ~ + 23W/m^2! Thus we are out by almost 40 W/m^2.

    Hopefully Jan or jae have a really nice answer for this problem to allow them have their cake and eat it too (assuming they accept M7 Eqns. 8, 9 and 28 of course ;-)

  • jan pompe

    jae #61

    Isn’t K 102 wm-2 in the K&T scheme? K includes ALL non-radiative energy transfers, including convection, friction, and latent heat. And it doesn’t matter if it’s up, down, or blowing in the wind.

    Yes I agree but K&T scheme and Miskolczi turn up different numbers but k&T is useful because they tabulate results from different researchers some of which show quite a deal of variation and one can’t possible agree with them all.

    If we use the TIGR profile data (or just use M07 sect 7 & 8) the

    $$OLR = 250 Wm^{-2}$$ see fig 11.

    $$S_U = frac {OLR} f = frac {2 times OLR} {1 + 1.87 +exp(-1.87))} = 378 W m^{-2}$$ See fig 12

    $$S_T = S_U times exp(-1.87) = 58 W m^{-2}$$

    Then
    $$E_U = OLR – S_T = 250 – 58 = 192 W/m^{-2}$$

    and
    $$2 times E_U = 384 W/m^2$$ not too far from the measured TIGR average ~383.6 Wm^2 for <T > =286.6K.

    now if Steve is right about it $$ K = 2S_T = 116$$

    The only thing that M 7 has to say about the value of F is this at the top of page 26

    Unfortunately, our static model can not deal with the dynamical factors represented by the variables K and F. The decomposition of $$E_U$$ into its several components is beyond the scope of this study

    F is not evaluated and the means to evaluate are not given in the paper so going to K&T 97 who give values from various different researchers for Satm (F) in Table 1 ranging from 65 – 86 W/m^2 (So much for Steve’s “Your value of ~80 W/m^2 is not a value which I have ever seen“) so take your pick. That rather large range tends to suggest quite a bit of uncertainty in any case and make a breakdown of EU into it’s component parts rather difficult.

    I’m sure though that one can be found in that list so that $$K + F = E_U$$ exactly in fact a value in the middle say 75.5 +116 looks pretty close to 192 to me.

    The whole point is to obtain a better mathematical description that will obtain the surface temperature/radiative flux from the OLR and atmospheric absorber effects than the current standard Schwarzschild-Milne equations do then I think he has achieved that and you can see the comparison in M7 fig 12.

    You can also see in fig 12 the greatest divergence is in the tropical zones but this may be due to a lack of profiles (this was availability rather than selection) in that zone and that needs to be checked in order to do that he needs TIGR 3 profiles and does not have that as I found out this morning.

    For my part I’m still stuck on finding different ways to test empirically equation 4 and I would like to poke around the virial some more but it’s a question of available time and I have already spent far more time on this post than I would have liked.

  • jan pompe

    jae #61

    Isn’t K 102 wm-2 in the K&T scheme? K includes ALL non-radiative energy transfers, including convection, friction, and latent heat. And it doesn’t matter if it’s up, down, or blowing in the wind.

    Yes I agree but K&T scheme and Miskolczi turn up different numbers but k&T is useful because they tabulate results from different researchers some of which show quite a deal of variation and one can’t possible agree with them all.

    If we use the TIGR profile data (or just use M07 sect 7 & 8) the

    $$OLR = 250 Wm^{-2}$$ see fig 11.

    $$S_U = \frac {OLR} f = \frac {2 \times OLR} {1 + 1.87 +exp(-1.87))} = 378 W m^{-2}$$ See fig 12

    $$S_T = S_U \times exp(-1.87) = 58 W m^{-2}$$

    Then
    $$E_U = OLR – S_T = 250 – 58 = 192 W/m^{-2}$$

    and
    $$2 \times E_U = 384 W/m^2$$ not too far from the measured TIGR average ~383.6 Wm^2 for <T > =286.6K.

    now if Steve is right about it $$ K = 2S_T = 116$$

    The only thing that M 7 has to say about the value of F is this at the top of page 26

    Unfortunately, our static model can not deal with the dynamical factors represented by the variables K and F. The decomposition of $$E_U$$ into its several components is beyond the scope of this study

    F is not evaluated and the means to evaluate are not given in the paper so going to K&T 97 who give values from various different researchers for Satm (F) in Table 1 ranging from 65 – 86 W/m^2 (So much for Steve’s “Your value of ~80 W/m^2 is not a value which I have ever seen“) so take your pick. That rather large range tends to suggest quite a bit of uncertainty in any case and make a breakdown of EU into it’s component parts rather difficult.

    I’m sure though that one can be found in that list so that $$K + F = E_U$$ exactly in fact a value in the middle say 75.5 +116 looks pretty close to 192 to me.

    The whole point is to obtain a better mathematical description that will obtain the surface temperature/radiative flux from the OLR and atmospheric absorber effects than the current standard Schwarzschild-Milne equations do then I think he has achieved that and you can see the comparison in M7 fig 12.

    You can also see in fig 12 the greatest divergence is in the tropical zones but this may be due to a lack of profiles (this was availability rather than selection) in that zone and that needs to be checked in order to do that he needs TIGR 3 profiles and does not have that as I found out this morning.

    For my part I’m still stuck on finding different ways to test empirically equation 4 and I would like to poke around the virial some more but it’s a question of available time and I have already spent far more time on this post than I would have liked.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #64

    “F is not evaluated and the means to evaluate are not given in the paper so going to K&T 97 who give values from various different researchers for Satm (F) in Table 1 ranging from 65 – 86 W/m^2 (So much for Steve’s “Your value of ~80 W/m^2 is not a value which I have ever seen“) so take your pick. That rather large range tends to suggest quite a bit of uncertainty in any case and make a breakdown of EU into it’s component parts rather difficult.”

    K&T97 is rather an old paper. It is also one which has come in for a lot of criticism on NM, including by Miskolczi and youself. Putting that aside (!), clearly my memory that it had ‘opted’ for 68 W/m^2 for F may be faulty. But the middle value of the range you quote is 75.5 as you say – so let’s agree to opt for 76 W/m^2 (at least pre-1998 ;-) . It is my impression that about 70 is the upper limit of more recent papers published over the last decade but I am happy to stand corrected.

    Needless to say, it still didn’t take you more than a few extra seconds to figure out, weasel like, that even 76 W/m^2 would still not ‘get you over the line’ regarding the ~15 W/m^2 negative forcing by clouds. Hence you then immediately say next:

    “I’m sure though that one can be found in that list so that K + F = E_U exactly in fact a value in the middle say 75.5 +116 looks pretty close to 192 to me. ”

    Looks pretty close to 192 to you does it? Of course it would!

    But hang on a minute! Haven’t you just spent a whole bunch of posts really lambasting me for proposing K should about 120 W/m^2 (and impugning my motives for the extra 15 + 3-5 for the extra bit over 100 W/m^2), with jae’s support that is about 100 W/m^2 (jae quoting 102 from K&T 97).

    So where does your extra 14 – 16 W/m^2 (on top of 100 – 102 W/m^2) for K come from to get you up to 192 W/m^2 for E_U?

    I won’t quote the rest of your post. It’s just your usual pedantic posturing to hide the fact that you just sneakily adopted 116 W/m^2 for K in the face of having jackboot-like rejected anything over 102 W/m^2 from me in your last half dozen posts!!

    And this from the guy who generally steadfastly ‘refuses’ to mess around with refining our understanding of the (to my mind critical) non LW IR terms of M Theory!

    Fair crack of the whip, Jan. There you are doing it yet again! One rule for yourself, another rule for the rest. The sophistry just rolls on like a stream train. How many hundreds of examples do we need, for chrissakes?

    I’m sure you’ll slip slide away from this little corker as well – boring and predictable as it is – it is precisely what I’ve come to expect from you.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #64

    “F is not evaluated and the means to evaluate are not given in the paper so going to K&T 97 who give values from various different researchers for Satm (F) in Table 1 ranging from 65 – 86 W/m^2 (So much for Steve’s “Your value of ~80 W/m^2 is not a value which I have ever seen“) so take your pick. That rather large range tends to suggest quite a bit of uncertainty in any case and make a breakdown of EU into it’s component parts rather difficult.”

    K&T97 is rather an old paper. It is also one which has come in for a lot of criticism on NM, including by Miskolczi and youself. Putting that aside (!), clearly my memory that it had ‘opted’ for 68 W/m^2 for F may be faulty. But the middle value of the range you quote is 75.5 as you say – so let’s agree to opt for 76 W/m^2 (at least pre-1998 ;-) . It is my impression that about 70 is the upper limit of more recent papers published over the last decade but I am happy to stand corrected.

    Needless to say, it still didn’t take you more than a few extra seconds to figure out, weasel like, that even 76 W/m^2 would still not ‘get you over the line’ regarding the ~15 W/m^2 negative forcing by clouds. Hence you then immediately say next:

    “I’m sure though that one can be found in that list so that K + F = E_U exactly in fact a value in the middle say 75.5 +116 looks pretty close to 192 to me. ”

    Looks pretty close to 192 to you does it? Of course it would!

    But hang on a minute! Haven’t you just spent a whole bunch of posts really lambasting me for proposing K should about 120 W/m^2 (and impugning my motives for the extra 15 + 3-5 for the extra bit over 100 W/m^2), with jae’s support that is about 100 W/m^2 (jae quoting 102 from K&T 97).

    So where does your extra 14 – 16 W/m^2 (on top of 100 – 102 W/m^2) for K come from to get you up to 192 W/m^2 for E_U?

    I won’t quote the rest of your post. It’s just your usual pedantic posturing to hide the fact that you just sneakily adopted 116 W/m^2 for K in the face of having jackboot-like rejected anything over 102 W/m^2 from me in your last half dozen posts!!

    And this from the guy who generally steadfastly ‘refuses’ to mess around with refining our understanding of the (to my mind critical) non LW IR terms of M Theory!

    Fair crack of the whip, Jan. There you are doing it yet again! One rule for yourself, another rule for the rest. The sophistry just rolls on like a stream train. How many hundreds of examples do we need, for chrissakes?

    I’m sure you’ll slip slide away from this little corker as well – boring and predictable as it is – it is precisely what I’ve come to expect from you.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Quick scan of papers in my files dated around a decade or so ago.

    Ramanathan et al. (1995) F = 52 W/m^2
    Kiehl (1998) F = 54 W/m^2
    Braswell and Lindzen (1998) F = 61 W/m^2
    Collins (2001) F = 49 W/m^2

    The lower values may have the known underestimation bias in CCM2 of ~20 W/m^2 and the higher values may have the known underestimation bias in CCM3 of ~15 W/m^2 so an absolute UPPER BOUND to F is definitely around 75 – 76 W/m^2. If Eu really is 192 W/m^2 this means that K >=116 W/m^2. Just trying to box Jan in a little bit more, but of course we are dealing with an Houdini here who vaporizes whole boxes with the mere wave of a hand (;-)

    On a more constructive note:

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ken/PUB/swabs.pdf

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Quick scan of papers in my files dated around a decade or so ago.

    Ramanathan et al. (1995) F = 52 W/m^2
    Kiehl (1998) F = 54 W/m^2
    Braswell and Lindzen (1998) F = 61 W/m^2
    Collins (2001) F = 49 W/m^2

    The lower values may have the known underestimation bias in CCM2 of ~20 W/m^2 and the higher values may have the known underestimation bias in CCM3 of ~15 W/m^2 so an absolute UPPER BOUND to F is definitely around 75 – 76 W/m^2. If Eu really is 192 W/m^2 this means that K >=116 W/m^2. Just trying to box Jan in a little bit more, but of course we are dealing with an Houdini here who vaporizes whole boxes with the mere wave of a hand (;-)

    On a more constructive note:

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ken/PUB/swabs.pdf

  • jan pompe

    Steve #65

    I am happy to stand corrected.

    Thank you.

    Looks pretty close to 192 to you does it? Of course it would!

    Well is it close or not?

    Needless to say, it still didn’t take you more than a few extra seconds to figure out, weasel like, that even 76 W/m^2 would still not ‘get you over the line’ regarding the ~15 W/m^2 negative forcing by clouds. Hence you then immediately say next:

    Has it not occurred to you that I haven’t even looked at cloud forcing?

    There is a reason assumption at the top of the list:

    (a) — The available SW flux is totally absorbed in the system. In the process of thermalization $$F^0$$ is instantly converted to isotropic upward and downward LW radiation. The absorption of the SW photons and emission of the LW radiation are based on independent microphysical processes.

    While the paper glosses over this stuff that you think is crucial I don’t don’t think it’s essential to the main thrust of the paper where by and large cloud effects are ignored. Future work perhaps but for now I’m just not interested.
    No weasels here that’s just your perception and I really can’t help that.

    <blockquoteBut hang on a minute! Haven’t you just spent a whole bunch of posts really lambasting me for proposing K should about 120 W/m^2

    No Steve there is something faulty with your perceptions again. I disagreed that horizontal transport is additional to K, it’s not, it’s part of what ever the total value is. It’s pretty clear jae understood, it but why didn’t you?

  • jan pompe

    Steve #65

    I am happy to stand corrected.

    Thank you.

    Looks pretty close to 192 to you does it? Of course it would!

    Well is it close or not?

    Needless to say, it still didn’t take you more than a few extra seconds to figure out, weasel like, that even 76 W/m^2 would still not ‘get you over the line’ regarding the ~15 W/m^2 negative forcing by clouds. Hence you then immediately say next:

    Has it not occurred to you that I haven’t even looked at cloud forcing?

    There is a reason assumption at the top of the list:

    (a) — The available SW flux is totally absorbed in the system. In the process of thermalization $$F^0$$ is instantly converted to isotropic upward and downward LW radiation. The absorption of the SW photons and emission of the LW radiation are based on independent microphysical processes.

    While the paper glosses over this stuff that you think is crucial I don’t don’t think it’s essential to the main thrust of the paper where by and large cloud effects are ignored. Future work perhaps but for now I’m just not interested.
    No weasels here that’s just your perception and I really can’t help that.

    <blockquoteBut hang on a minute! Haven’t you just spent a whole bunch of posts really lambasting me for proposing K should about 120 W/m^2

    No Steve there is something faulty with your perceptions again. I disagreed that horizontal transport is additional to K, it’s not, it’s part of what ever the total value is. It’s pretty clear jae understood, it but why didn’t you?

  • jan pompe

    Steve #66

    Just trying to box Jan in a little bit more, but of course we are dealing with an Houdini here who vaporizes whole boxes with the mere wave of a hand (;-)

    No you are a 60 year old who can’t recognise when someone else doesn’t want to play his silly games.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #66

    Just trying to box Jan in a little bit more, but of course we are dealing with an Houdini here who vaporizes whole boxes with the mere wave of a hand (;-)

    No you are a 60 year old who can’t recognise when someone else doesn’t want to play his silly games.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Steve #43

    “Sure, accepting M Theory we have : Eu = F + K + P + Aa – Ed (net atmosphere) and Fo + Po + Ed – F – K – P – Aa – St = 0 (net surface) therefore if P, Po = 0 and Aa = Ed (as per M) then Fo – Eu – St = 0 therefore Eu = Fo – St therefore Fo – St = F + K i.e. OLR – St = F + K i.e. ~ 240 – 60 ~ 180 ~ 60 + 120 This at least adds up reasonably well and is the non-LW radiative part of the OLR (St being the LW radiative part). No mystery there – just another way of saying Eu = F + K. You won’t find a reference or justification for K ~ 120 W/m^2 anywhere in M4 or M7 please note.

    Presumably this is also why Miskolczi assigns a K/St ratio of ~2 in his draft1.pdf (Fig. 18E). However, as you disagree I’m sure you will tell him/us why?”

    Steve #46

    “As well as transferring heat from the tropics to the poles (putting aside juvenile cheap shot re tropics), zonal and meridional winds also extract a net ~15 W/m^2 from the surface via non-convective cooling and drying effects (and producing frictional dissipation, orographic and wave cloud formation) etc. As the so-called thermal engineer here you should definitely know all about that. The remainder of the K term (~2 – 5 W/m^2) is largely comprised of frictional losses from falling rain. Thus K totals about 120 W/m^2.”

    Jan #67

    “No Steve there is something faulty with your perceptions again. I disagreed that horizontal transport is additional to K, it’s not, it’s part of what ever the total value is. It’s pretty clear jae understood, it but why didn’t you?”

    Mate, you just gotta be totally twisted.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Steve #43

    “Sure, accepting M Theory we have : Eu = F + K + P + Aa – Ed (net atmosphere) and Fo + Po + Ed – F – K – P – Aa – St = 0 (net surface) therefore if P, Po = 0 and Aa = Ed (as per M) then Fo – Eu – St = 0 therefore Eu = Fo – St therefore Fo – St = F + K i.e. OLR – St = F + K i.e. ~ 240 – 60 ~ 180 ~ 60 + 120 This at least adds up reasonably well and is the non-LW radiative part of the OLR (St being the LW radiative part). No mystery there – just another way of saying Eu = F + K. You won’t find a reference or justification for K ~ 120 W/m^2 anywhere in M4 or M7 please note.

    Presumably this is also why Miskolczi assigns a K/St ratio of ~2 in his draft1.pdf (Fig. 18E). However, as you disagree I’m sure you will tell him/us why?”

    Steve #46

    “As well as transferring heat from the tropics to the poles (putting aside juvenile cheap shot re tropics), zonal and meridional winds also extract a net ~15 W/m^2 from the surface via non-convective cooling and drying effects (and producing frictional dissipation, orographic and wave cloud formation) etc. As the so-called thermal engineer here you should definitely know all about that. The remainder of the K term (~2 – 5 W/m^2) is largely comprised of frictional losses from falling rain. Thus K totals about 120 W/m^2.”

    Jan #67

    “No Steve there is something faulty with your perceptions again. I disagreed that horizontal transport is additional to K, it’s not, it’s part of what ever the total value is. It’s pretty clear jae understood, it but why didn’t you?”

    Mate, you just gotta be totally twisted.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Steve #48

    “Non-vertical, non-radiative heat transfer to the atmosphere is clearly contained in the K term NOT in the Po term which M7 defines as “total thermal energy from the planetary interior to the surface-atmosphere system.” Thus P0 would presumably take into account ocean upwelling/downwelling effects, geothermal etc.”

    Steve #50

    “I also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds). Inspection of the literature suggests this about 13% of total K and frictional heat loss from falling rain about 3% of total K.”

    Jan #67

    “No Steve there is something faulty with your perceptions again. I disagreed that horizontal transport is additional to K, it’s not, it’s part of what ever the total value is. It’s pretty clear jae understood, it but why didn’t you?”

    Faulty perceptions? Fawlty Towers more like.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Steve #48

    “Non-vertical, non-radiative heat transfer to the atmosphere is clearly contained in the K term NOT in the Po term which M7 defines as “total thermal energy from the planetary interior to the surface-atmosphere system.” Thus P0 would presumably take into account ocean upwelling/downwelling effects, geothermal etc.”

    Steve #50

    “I also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds). Inspection of the literature suggests this about 13% of total K and frictional heat loss from falling rain about 3% of total K.”

    Jan #67

    “No Steve there is something faulty with your perceptions again. I disagreed that horizontal transport is additional to K, it’s not, it’s part of what ever the total value is. It’s pretty clear jae understood, it but why didn’t you?”

    Faulty perceptions? Fawlty Towers more like.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #69

    As well as transferring heat from the tropics to the poles (putting aside juvenile cheap shot re tropics), zonal and meridional winds also extract a net ~15 W/m^2 from the surface via non-convective cooling and drying effects (and producing frictional dissipation, orographic and wave cloud formation) etc. As the so-called thermal engineer here you should definitely know all about that. The remainder of the K term (~2 – 5 W/m^2) is largely comprised of frictional losses from falling rain.

    This extra 17 – 20 W/m^2 you want to add to just what exactly?

  • jan pompe

    Steve #69

    As well as transferring heat from the tropics to the poles (putting aside juvenile cheap shot re tropics), zonal and meridional winds also extract a net ~15 W/m^2 from the surface via non-convective cooling and drying effects (and producing frictional dissipation, orographic and wave cloud formation) etc. As the so-called thermal engineer here you should definitely know all about that. The remainder of the K term (~2 – 5 W/m^2) is largely comprised of frictional losses from falling rain.

    This extra 17 – 20 W/m^2 you want to add to just what exactly?

  • jan pompe

    Steve #70

    also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds). Inspection of the literature suggests this about 13% of total K and frictional heat loss from falling rain about 3% of total K.”

    you want to add this 18% to what value of K obtained from where?

  • jan pompe

    Steve #70

    also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds). Inspection of the literature suggests this about 13% of total K and frictional heat loss from falling rain about 3% of total K.”

    you want to add this 18% to what value of K obtained from where?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Oi! Gevalt!

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Oi! Gevalt!

  • jan pompe

    Steve #73

    Oi! Gevalt!

    Never mind the yiddish lesson just answer.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #73

    Oi! Gevalt!

    Never mind the yiddish lesson just answer.

  • Alex Harvey

    Dear Steve & Jan,

    Can I suggest that this stuff really isn’t worth drawing pistols at ten paces over. I understand the frustration, but I don’t think anyone’s mistakes, tangents, misunderstandings, are deliberate efforts to mislead, weasel, slip, slide or even speak Nebbish.

    May I recommend that both of you look at the following diagram:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6465299,00.jpg

  • Alex Harvey

    Dear Steve & Jan,

    Can I suggest that this stuff really isn’t worth drawing pistols at ten paces over. I understand the frustration, but I don’t think anyone’s mistakes, tangents, misunderstandings, are deliberate efforts to mislead, weasel, slip, slide or even speak Nebbish.

    May I recommend that both of you look at the following diagram:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6465299,00.jpg

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    I’m very sorry for you if you are genuinely that dense, Jan.

    I have been suggesting all along in, in what for me was simple plain English (not Yiddish – I got that from Mutti as you did perhaps too) that there is a problem with the K term in M Theory IF (as your yourself have suggested – but M hasn’t) it is only comprised of sensible and latent heat component totaling only ~100 W/m^2. For E-U = F + K and S-U = 2E+u etc etc then K has to ~120 W/m^2. OR E-U = F + K + what?

    Therefore an all embracing non-radiative K would have to INCLUDE a ‘missing’ component/term adding to ~20 W/m^2. I have proposed what I think it might be. In that aspect I could be wrong.

    NOWHERE, NOWHERE in any of my posts have I EVER EVER suggested an ADDITIONAL term separate from K. How you deduced that (if you are not simply yanking my chain in the name of mental cruelty) is totally beyond me. The fawlty perception is entirely yours.

    Now please, please, I’ve gotta open a cold beer!

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    I’m very sorry for you if you are genuinely that dense, Jan.

    I have been suggesting all along in, in what for me was simple plain English (not Yiddish – I got that from Mutti as you did perhaps too) that there is a problem with the K term in M Theory IF (as your yourself have suggested – but M hasn’t) it is only comprised of sensible and latent heat component totaling only ~100 W/m^2. For E-U = F + K and S-U = 2E+u etc etc then K has to ~120 W/m^2. OR E-U = F + K + what?

    Therefore an all embracing non-radiative K would have to INCLUDE a ‘missing’ component/term adding to ~20 W/m^2. I have proposed what I think it might be. In that aspect I could be wrong.

    NOWHERE, NOWHERE in any of my posts have I EVER EVER suggested an ADDITIONAL term separate from K. How you deduced that (if you are not simply yanking my chain in the name of mental cruelty) is totally beyond me. The fawlty perception is entirely yours.

    Now please, please, I’ve gotta open a cold beer!

  • jan pompe

    Steve #76

    that there is a problem with the K term in M Theory IF (as your yourself have suggested – but M hasn’t) it is only comprised of sensible and latent heat component totaling only ~100 W/m^2.

    It’s where that number 100W/m^2 that bother’s me and adding another 20W/m^2 to that number. I don’t think it’s necessary.

    What we are dealing with here is averages over time and space the net effect will be 116W/m^2 according to the numbers in M7 derived from the TIGR profiles not 100 W/m^2. Then 2E_U = 2 x 192 =384 again shown in #64.

    The numbers are internally consistent as I showed in #64 so I don’t think there isn’t a problem there.

    Which is why I asked what value of K are you wanting to add your extra to and where it came from more particularly where it came from. It was obviously not Ferenc’s paper.

    As for the value of F whatever it turns out to be eventually I expect it will be constant as there will always be enough N2 and O2 to scatter and absorb the short wave. New K&T has it at 78 it think it needs more work yet.

    Now I’m not going to press you for an answer but want you to think about

    also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds).

    and how this is NOT sensible heat (cooling) and latent heat (drying) even though it is assisted by lateral air movements.

    yes i did enjoy a beer thanks. feel free to do the same and BTW

    I don’t think i ever suggested this:

    NOWHERE, NOWHERE in any of my posts have I EVER EVER suggested an ADDITIONAL term separate from K.

    What I was saying that the cooling and the drying were not separate from sensible and latent heat therefore already included in K I didn’t think that you were suggesting to add an extra term.

    FYI all who are interested

    New Kiehl Trenberth and Fasullo This time if you look at the cartoon at the end they have a .9W/m^2 continuous warming signal in it.

    I hope you didn’t run out of cold beer tomorrow promises to be warmer.

  • jan pompe

    Steve #76

    that there is a problem with the K term in M Theory IF (as your yourself have suggested – but M hasn’t) it is only comprised of sensible and latent heat component totaling only ~100 W/m^2.

    It’s where that number 100W/m^2 that bother’s me and adding another 20W/m^2 to that number. I don’t think it’s necessary.

    What we are dealing with here is averages over time and space the net effect will be 116W/m^2 according to the numbers in M7 derived from the TIGR profiles not 100 W/m^2. Then 2E_U = 2 x 192 =384 again shown in #64.

    The numbers are internally consistent as I showed in #64 so I don’t think there isn’t a problem there.

    Which is why I asked what value of K are you wanting to add your extra to and where it came from more particularly where it came from. It was obviously not Ferenc’s paper.

    As for the value of F whatever it turns out to be eventually I expect it will be constant as there will always be enough N2 and O2 to scatter and absorb the short wave. New K&T has it at 78 it think it needs more work yet.

    Now I’m not going to press you for an answer but want you to think about

    also made it perfectly clear I am talking about cooling and drying transferring heat FROM THE SURFACE the surface during lateral air movement (winds).

    and how this is NOT sensible heat (cooling) and latent heat (drying) even though it is assisted by lateral air movements.

    yes i did enjoy a beer thanks. feel free to do the same and BTW

    I don’t think i ever suggested this:

    NOWHERE, NOWHERE in any of my posts have I EVER EVER suggested an ADDITIONAL term separate from K.

    What I was saying that the cooling and the drying were not separate from sensible and latent heat therefore already included in K I didn’t think that you were suggesting to add an extra term.

    FYI all who are interested

    New Kiehl Trenberth and Fasullo This time if you look at the cartoon at the end they have a .9W/m^2 continuous warming signal in it.

    I hope you didn’t run out of cold beer tomorrow promises to be warmer.

  • jan pompe

    Alex #75

    LOL

  • jan pompe

    Alex #75

    LOL

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #77

    “It’s where that number 100W/m^2 that bother’s me and adding another 20W/m^2 to that number. I don’t think it’s necessary.

    What we are dealing with here is averages over time and space the net effect will be 116W/m^2 according to the numbers in M7 derived from the TIGR profiles not 100 W/m^2. Then 2E_U = 2 x 192 =384 again shown in #64.”

    I’m sorry but I beg to think it is necessary (or some functional M Thoery compatible equivalent).

    It doesn’t really matter how you get to an E_U of 192. Even if one accepts Kiehl Trenberth and Fasullo (2008) and sets F at 78 W/m^2 then this means that to get an E_U of 192 then K still has to be 114 W/m^2. If you have a problem (as I do with a ‘K’ that is comprised of only (your) H_S and H_L then the highest value for K seen in the literature is some 102 W/m^2. 102 + 78 still only = 180. For OLR = 250 this gives a positive cloud forcing of ~ 10 W/m^2. This means that there is still a shortfall in E_U of 12 W/m^2 to get to the OLRA – 2S_UE/3 ~ -15 W/m^2 given on page 19 (Section 5.2) in M7.

    I happen to believe that the last paragraph on page 19 in M7 is a brillinat statement by Ferenc of how the system works. Allow me to quote it:

    The OLRA – 2S_UE /3 ≈ − 15 W m-2 is a fairly good estimate of the global
    average cloud forcing. The estimated β ≈ 0.6 is the required cloud cover (at this level) to balance OLRA , which looks realistic. We believe that the β parameter is governed by the maximum entropy principle, the system tries to convert as much SW radiation to LW radiation as possible, while obeying the 2OLR/(3 f ) = F0 + P0 condition. The cloud altitude, where the clear-sky OLRE = OLRA = ED depends only on the SW characteristics of the system (surface and cloud albedo, SW solar input) and alone, is a very important climate parameter.”

    Higher up on the same page Miskolczi also says (significantly) that:

    “Since the Earth-atmosphere system must have a way to reduce the clear
    sky OLRE to the observed OLRA we assume the existence of an effective
    cloud layer at about 2.05 km altitude. The corresponding optical depth is
    τA = 1.47 . Fig. 6 shows the dependences of the OLR and ED on the cloud top altitude and EU on the cloud bottom altitude. At this cloud level the source function is SC = 332.8 W m-2. We also assume that the cloud layer is in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding air and radiates as a perfect blackbody. Clear sky simulations show that at this level the A
    OLR ≈ OLR ≈ ED and the layer is close to the radiative equilibrium. Cloudy computations also show that EU – and consequently K – has a maximum around this level, which is favorable for cloud formation.”

    Note that up at the cloud layer according to M S_C = 333 W/m^2 Two thirds of this is only 222 W/m^2 BTW!

    Even with the most modern upwards revised F of 78 W/m^ and the most optimistic H-S + H_L of 102 W/m^2 we still have a short fall in K of the order of 12 W/m^2 just to get to ~6 W/m^2 global forcing by the (approx. 60%) cloud cover (assuming global mean OLR = 250 W/m^2 as per M4). Thus if you don’t like the idea that K is higher than (say) 100 W/m^2 you do need another extra term Q of about 14 W/m^2 to any significant negative forcing (say >6 W/m^2) at 60% cloud cover.

    If you don’t want to permit a total K term of the order of 115 – 116 W/m^2 then there is no negative cloud forcing at all and Miskolczi does not have a convenient explanation for homeostasis or static equilibrium (or whatever term you prefer this week).

    I am pouring over K, T & F (2008) and I thank you for the reference.

    But us having both said all this I hope you also downloaded Takahashi (2008) who has a very nice discussion (p5) of the problems of accurately estimation SW absorption in the atmosphere. SW absorption is not at all just about O2 and N2 absorption bands. Let me quote from Takahashi (2008):

    “It is only recently that climate models are converging towards producing realistic (sufficiently strong) tropospheric clear-sky shortwave absorption (Wild et al., 2006). Although the physics behind this absorption are well understood from fi rst principles, subtle de ficiencies in the depiction of the spectroscopic properties of water vapor have substantial consequences for the clear-sky absorption of shortwave radiation (e.g. Collins et al.,
    2006b). Furthermore, the convergence in present-day absorption does not necessarily translate to the climate change case and, as shown by Collins et al. (2006a), there is relatively large inter-model discrepancies in the
    changes in clear-sky surface shortwave flux associated with water vapor.”

    On top of this there is the global SW dimming caused by an increased flux of biogenic organic and inorganic aerosols getting into the atmosphere. The Eurocentric suggestion by Phillipona et al over many years that it was/is all direct industrial aerosol pollution is nonsense – including from a careful reading of the literature.

    BTW I hope you have noticed during this current (relatively clear sky high summer insolation) heat wave in the Sydney area just how dense the ‘smog’ is. I have recently been in the Shoalhaven Valley area as usual working on my block and the biogenic ‘smog’ is as thick all across Morton and Budawang National Parks as it is in the Sydney Basin. Those trees are just pumping it out (under current conditions) I’ll bet the cyanobacteria all along our coastal shelf are doing just the same as lateral coastal air visibility is down to about 5 km or less.

    So perhaps the ‘problem’ is not with K (although increased aerosol concentration does enhance latent heat release due to more rapid nucleation) but more with the global mean size of the SW absorption term F? Either way there is a ‘problem’.

    Interestingly using the deltaLW/delta cloud cover and deltaSW/delta cloud cover mid-latitude ratios from that little W&H 2000 paper seem to give a hint of where the problem lies. I’ll save that for another time.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #77

    “It’s where that number 100W/m^2 that bother’s me and adding another 20W/m^2 to that number. I don’t think it’s necessary.

    What we are dealing with here is averages over time and space the net effect will be 116W/m^2 according to the numbers in M7 derived from the TIGR profiles not 100 W/m^2. Then 2E_U = 2 x 192 =384 again shown in #64.”

    I’m sorry but I beg to think it is necessary (or some functional M Thoery compatible equivalent).

    It doesn’t really matter how you get to an E_U of 192. Even if one accepts Kiehl Trenberth and Fasullo (2008) and sets F at 78 W/m^2 then this means that to get an E_U of 192 then K still has to be 114 W/m^2. If you have a problem (as I do with a ‘K’ that is comprised of only (your) H_S and H_L then the highest value for K seen in the literature is some 102 W/m^2. 102 + 78 still only = 180. For OLR = 250 this gives a positive cloud forcing of ~ 10 W/m^2. This means that there is still a shortfall in E_U of 12 W/m^2 to get to the OLRA – 2S_UE/3 ~ -15 W/m^2 given on page 19 (Section 5.2) in M7.

    I happen to believe that the last paragraph on page 19 in M7 is a brillinat statement by Ferenc of how the system works. Allow me to quote it:

    The OLRA – 2S_UE /3 ≈ − 15 W m-2 is a fairly good estimate of the global
    average cloud forcing. The estimated β ≈ 0.6 is the required cloud cover (at this level) to balance OLRA , which looks realistic. We believe that the β parameter is governed by the maximum entropy principle, the system tries to convert as much SW radiation to LW radiation as possible, while obeying the 2OLR/(3 f ) = F0 + P0 condition. The cloud altitude, where the clear-sky OLRE = OLRA = ED depends only on the SW characteristics of the system (surface and cloud albedo, SW solar input) and alone, is a very important climate parameter.”

    Higher up on the same page Miskolczi also says (significantly) that:

    “Since the Earth-atmosphere system must have a way to reduce the clear
    sky OLRE to the observed OLRA we assume the existence of an effective
    cloud layer at about 2.05 km altitude. The corresponding optical depth is
    Ï„A = 1.47 . Fig. 6 shows the dependences of the OLR and ED on the cloud top altitude and EU on the cloud bottom altitude. At this cloud level the source function is SC = 332.8 W m-2. We also assume that the cloud layer is in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding air and radiates as a perfect blackbody. Clear sky simulations show that at this level the A
    OLR ≈ OLR ≈ ED and the layer is close to the radiative equilibrium. Cloudy computations also show that EU – and consequently K – has a maximum around this level, which is favorable for cloud formation.”

    Note that up at the cloud layer according to M S_C = 333 W/m^2 Two thirds of this is only 222 W/m^2 BTW!

    Even with the most modern upwards revised F of 78 W/m^ and the most optimistic H-S + H_L of 102 W/m^2 we still have a short fall in K of the order of 12 W/m^2 just to get to ~6 W/m^2 global forcing by the (approx. 60%) cloud cover (assuming global mean OLR = 250 W/m^2 as per M4). Thus if you don’t like the idea that K is higher than (say) 100 W/m^2 you do need another extra term Q of about 14 W/m^2 to any significant negative forcing (say >6 W/m^2) at 60% cloud cover.

    If you don’t want to permit a total K term of the order of 115 – 116 W/m^2 then there is no negative cloud forcing at all and Miskolczi does not have a convenient explanation for homeostasis or static equilibrium (or whatever term you prefer this week).

    I am pouring over K, T & F (2008) and I thank you for the reference.

    But us having both said all this I hope you also downloaded Takahashi (2008) who has a very nice discussion (p5) of the problems of accurately estimation SW absorption in the atmosphere. SW absorption is not at all just about O2 and N2 absorption bands. Let me quote from Takahashi (2008):

    “It is only recently that climate models are converging towards producing realistic (sufficiently strong) tropospheric clear-sky shortwave absorption (Wild et al., 2006). Although the physics behind this absorption are well understood from fi rst principles, subtle de ficiencies in the depiction of the spectroscopic properties of water vapor have substantial consequences for the clear-sky absorption of shortwave radiation (e.g. Collins et al.,
    2006b). Furthermore, the convergence in present-day absorption does not necessarily translate to the climate change case and, as shown by Collins et al. (2006a), there is relatively large inter-model discrepancies in the
    changes in clear-sky surface shortwave flux associated with water vapor.”

    On top of this there is the global SW dimming caused by an increased flux of biogenic organic and inorganic aerosols getting into the atmosphere. The Eurocentric suggestion by Phillipona et al over many years that it was/is all direct industrial aerosol pollution is nonsense – including from a careful reading of the literature.

    BTW I hope you have noticed during this current (relatively clear sky high summer insolation) heat wave in the Sydney area just how dense the ‘smog’ is. I have recently been in the Shoalhaven Valley area as usual working on my block and the biogenic ‘smog’ is as thick all across Morton and Budawang National Parks as it is in the Sydney Basin. Those trees are just pumping it out (under current conditions) I’ll bet the cyanobacteria all along our coastal shelf are doing just the same as lateral coastal air visibility is down to about 5 km or less.

    So perhaps the ‘problem’ is not with K (although increased aerosol concentration does enhance latent heat release due to more rapid nucleation) but more with the global mean size of the SW absorption term F? Either way there is a ‘problem’.

    Interestingly using the deltaLW/delta cloud cover and deltaSW/delta cloud cover mid-latitude ratios from that little W&H 2000 paper seem to give a hint of where the problem lies. I’ll save that for another time.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Steve or Jan,

    To save us labouring through the new Trenbeth, it would be a great service for you to make some dot points where it appears to advance understanding. There are so many issues going on at once that the generalist is kept very busy.

    Steve, Remember that it was before 1800 that the Blue Mountains were named, it is thought because of biogenic emissions like eucalyptus oils.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Steve or Jan,

    To save us labouring through the new Trenbeth, it would be a great service for you to make some dot points where it appears to advance understanding. There are so many issues going on at once that the generalist is kept very busy.

    Steve, Remember that it was before 1800 that the Blue Mountains were named, it is thought because of biogenic emissions like eucalyptus oils.

  • Jan Pompe

    Geoff #80

    I’ve only just skimmed through the paper and it’s a preprint so I’m not sure if it will stay the same as I mentioned to Steve I’m not to happy to get into a flap over something that might not yet be finished. I did a double take on the .9W/m^2 in the cartoon that I have not, while doing a quick search, been able to find explained in the text.

    That’s 28 Mega Joules cumulatively absorbed per square metre over the course of a year today at one o’clock well see what 17 MJ not cumulatively absorbed over 6 hours (that’s assuming 800W/m^2 incoming and not counting outgoing). One can only wonder how long this thermal imbalance is supposed to have been going on.

    However I do think it’s best to wait to see the final result and hope that someone who they’ll listen to will point out what I consider an obvious problem with their budget as it stands.

  • Jan Pompe

    Geoff #80

    I’ve only just skimmed through the paper and it’s a preprint so I’m not sure if it will stay the same as I mentioned to Steve I’m not to happy to get into a flap over something that might not yet be finished. I did a double take on the .9W/m^2 in the cartoon that I have not, while doing a quick search, been able to find explained in the text.

    That’s 28 Mega Joules cumulatively absorbed per square metre over the course of a year today at one o’clock well see what 17 MJ not cumulatively absorbed over 6 hours (that’s assuming 800W/m^2 incoming and not counting outgoing). One can only wonder how long this thermal imbalance is supposed to have been going on.

    However I do think it’s best to wait to see the final result and hope that someone who they’ll listen to will point out what I consider an obvious problem with their budget as it stands.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Jan #81

    I skimmed it too. It is prudent to delay detailed comment until the final version (and a good scientific principle also).

    I suspect I say for many readers that we hope that the dialogue between you and Herb and BPL etc does not give rise to personal differences. The dialogue could result in a most productive consensus and we hope that civility is not threatened to the point of extinction. You guys have a lot to teach we generalists.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Jan #81

    I skimmed it too. It is prudent to delay detailed comment until the final version (and a good scientific principle also).

    I suspect I say for many readers that we hope that the dialogue between you and Herb and BPL etc does not give rise to personal differences. The dialogue could result in a most productive consensus and we hope that civility is not threatened to the point of extinction. You guys have a lot to teach we generalists.

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #79

    There is I think some cross over of purpose.

    If you have a problem (as I do with a ‘K’ that is comprised of only (your) H_S and H_L

    My issue is that your cooling and drying, due to lateral movement of wind are still only sensible heat ($$H_S$$) and latent heat ($$H_L$$) respectively i.e. vertical components. The the lateral movements of wind represent an energy that has as it’s source the sensible, latent and radiant heat even the lightning and thunder as far as I can see has the same three sources. Therefore I suggest we get Ferenc to clarify this too:

    Note, that the Kterm is not restricted to strict vertical heat transfer. Due to the permanent motion of the atmosphere K represents a statistical or climatic average.

    You want to do it or shall I.

    Geoff #81 I’m sure Steve and I have the same aims just somewhat different personalities and different focuses and priorities & despite all apparent appearances here I quite like the guy. Just wish he wasn’t quite so ornery and he probably thinks the same about me.

    There are a lot of problems in the paper with regard to clarity. I think a bigger problem looms than the value F & K and how Ferenc has (or hasn’t) dealt with them, and that is with how he has determined the boundary condition for the integral equation in appendix B which has it’s roots in Kirchhoff’s law and thermodynamic and hydrostatic equilibrium that is to say in Equations 4 and 8. If it’s going to unravel it’s going to be there IMHO. There is an awful lot invested in the semi-infinite/semi-grey mathematical model it will die hard if die it must.

    I’f Steve has some insight s to offer there I’d be only to happy to hear/see or otherwise find out about them.

    I’ll look at the rest of Steve’s post after I’ve recovered from the beer that I’m about to consume.

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #79

    There is I think some cross over of purpose.

    If you have a problem (as I do with a ‘K’ that is comprised of only (your) H_S and H_L

    My issue is that your cooling and drying, due to lateral movement of wind are still only sensible heat ($$H_S$$) and latent heat ($$H_L$$) respectively i.e. vertical components. The the lateral movements of wind represent an energy that has as it’s source the sensible, latent and radiant heat even the lightning and thunder as far as I can see has the same three sources. Therefore I suggest we get Ferenc to clarify this too:

    Note, that the Kterm is not restricted to strict vertical heat transfer. Due to the permanent motion of the atmosphere K represents a statistical or climatic average.

    You want to do it or shall I.

    Geoff #81 I’m sure Steve and I have the same aims just somewhat different personalities and different focuses and priorities & despite all apparent appearances here I quite like the guy. Just wish he wasn’t quite so ornery and he probably thinks the same about me.

    There are a lot of problems in the paper with regard to clarity. I think a bigger problem looms than the value F & K and how Ferenc has (or hasn’t) dealt with them, and that is with how he has determined the boundary condition for the integral equation in appendix B which has it’s roots in Kirchhoff’s law and thermodynamic and hydrostatic equilibrium that is to say in Equations 4 and 8. If it’s going to unravel it’s going to be there IMHO. There is an awful lot invested in the semi-infinite/semi-grey mathematical model it will die hard if die it must.

    I’f Steve has some insight s to offer there I’d be only to happy to hear/see or otherwise find out about them.

    I’ll look at the rest of Steve’s post after I’ve recovered from the beer that I’m about to consume.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #81

    So it seems that pre-print version of K,T&F (2008) has the following numbers for CERES May 2000 – May 2004:
    Fo = 239.4 W/m^2
    OLR = 238.5
    F = 78.2
    K = 97.0
    S_T = 63.0

    By definition this gives E_U = 78.2 + 97.0 = 175.2

    Thus if we accept Miskolczi’s virial relation S_U = 2 E_U (based on KE/PE arguments of course) then the Miskolczi relation global OLR – 2Su/3 gives 238.5 – (4 x 175.2/3) = 238.5 – 233.5 = +4.9 W/m^2

    So either there is either no net negative global cloud forcing or/and the virial relation S_U = 2E_U doesn’t hold up (noting a bit of both is also possible).

    However, it is also noted that OLR = E_U + S_T in the bounded or semi-transparent atmosphere according to M Theory. Thus E_U = OLR -S_T = 238.5 – 63.0 = 175.5. This agrees very well with the 175.2 estimated via E_U = F + K.

    So it would appear that if we were to accept the pre-print K, L & T (2008) values, the problem to which I have been referring does not lie so much with the estimation of E_U (as F + K) but more likely with the actual virial relation Su = 2E_U itself.

    Another way of looking at this is of course to consider Jan’s ‘proof’ of the virial relation S_U + S_V = 3OLR/2 which set S_V = S_T/2 – E_D/10 as per M& Eqn. 9. Noting that E_U/E_D = 3/5 we then have S_U + S_T/2 – E_D/10 = 350.4 + 31.5 – 29.2 = 352.7

    Thus 2(S_U + S_V)/3 = 235.1

    Thus OLR-2(S_U + S_V)/3 = 238.5 – 235.1 = +3.4 W/m^2 so not much improvement there. Clouds still heating us up!

    Jan #77

    “The numbers are internally consistent as I showed in #64 so I don’t think there isn’t (sic) a problem there. ”

    Now even Jan’s double negative typos are getting prescient (;-)

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #81

    So it seems that pre-print version of K,T&F (2008) has the following numbers for CERES May 2000 – May 2004:
    Fo = 239.4 W/m^2
    OLR = 238.5
    F = 78.2
    K = 97.0
    S_T = 63.0

    By definition this gives E_U = 78.2 + 97.0 = 175.2

    Thus if we accept Miskolczi’s virial relation S_U = 2 E_U (based on KE/PE arguments of course) then the Miskolczi relation global OLR – 2Su/3 gives 238.5 – (4 x 175.2/3) = 238.5 – 233.5 = +4.9 W/m^2

    So either there is either no net negative global cloud forcing or/and the virial relation S_U = 2E_U doesn’t hold up (noting a bit of both is also possible).

    However, it is also noted that OLR = E_U + S_T in the bounded or semi-transparent atmosphere according to M Theory. Thus E_U = OLR -S_T = 238.5 – 63.0 = 175.5. This agrees very well with the 175.2 estimated via E_U = F + K.

    So it would appear that if we were to accept the pre-print K, L & T (2008) values, the problem to which I have been referring does not lie so much with the estimation of E_U (as F + K) but more likely with the actual virial relation Su = 2E_U itself.

    Another way of looking at this is of course to consider Jan’s ‘proof’ of the virial relation S_U + S_V = 3OLR/2 which set S_V = S_T/2 – E_D/10 as per M& Eqn. 9. Noting that E_U/E_D = 3/5 we then have S_U + S_T/2 – E_D/10 = 350.4 + 31.5 – 29.2 = 352.7

    Thus 2(S_U + S_V)/3 = 235.1

    Thus OLR-2(S_U + S_V)/3 = 238.5 – 235.1 = +3.4 W/m^2 so not much improvement there. Clouds still heating us up!

    Jan #77

    “The numbers are internally consistent as I showed in #64 so I don’t think there isn’t (sic) a problem there. ”

    Now even Jan’s double negative typos are getting prescient (;-)

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #84

    I make E_U 199 W/^2 (or 238.5 -40) in this one and S_U 396 W/m^2 2 x E_U = 398 (or 397) which I think is in the ballpark. Its not a difference I would hang a career on.

    Then also the amount in the atmospheric window ($$S_T$$) is 40W/m^2 the 63W/m^2 is made up of Kirchhoff’s law denying upward re-radiation of $$A_A$$ of 23 W/m^2 + 40 W/m^2 $$S_T$$ so its $$OLR – S_T = 238.5 – 40 = 197.5 W/m^2$$. The only thing that both papers agree on is that $$S_U=2E_U$$

    The only thing there is reasonable agreement between sources they cite is that $$S_U approx 396 Wm^{-2}$$.

    For arguments sake let’s say they don’t agree with the Virial I still don’t understand your issue with “negative cloud forcing” in this context.

    What is this?

    OLR – 2Su/3 gives 238.5 – (4 x 175.2/3) = 238.5 – 233.5 = +4.9 W/m^2

    Neither M-7 nor K&T 97 or FKT08 relate F+K to SU in that way. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

    However, it is also noted that OLR = E_U + S_T in the bounded or semi-transparent atmosphere according to M Theory. Thus E_U = OLR -S_T = 238.5 – 63.0 = 175.5. This agrees very well with the 175.2 estimated via E_U = F + K.

    I don’t particularly think hat K&T 97 or FKT08 quite have ST right (I for one think 63 W/m^2 is closer to the truth) but 40 W/m^2 is what they say for that. Now from 97 -> 08 SU, ED, OLR, K (the sum) and presumably tau ($$CO_2 uparrow$$) all change but not ST does that not strike you as a just a little weird? Of course that $$A_A neq E_D$$ does not change either, but we expect that. However that 23 W/m^2 is not where it belongs. Like I said if you are right about $$frac K {S_T} approx 2$$ then in M7 $$K approx 120 W/m^2$$ and there is not 23 W/m^2 A<sub?A uncompensated by ED.

    Now apart from the fact that this is NOT “Jan’s ‘proof’” but Ferenc’s explanation ( who many times is this now that I’ve mentioned it?) what is this

    Another way of looking at this is of course to consider Jan’s ‘proof’ of the virial relation S_U + S_V = 3OLR/2 which set S_V = S_T/2 – E_D/10 as per M& Eqn. 9. Noting that E_U/E_D = 3/5 we then have S_U + S_T/2 – E_D/10 = 350.4 + 31.5 – 29.2 = 352.7

    and why does $$frac {E_U}{E_D} = frac 3 5$$ when in both KT97 & FKT $$S_U neq frac 3 2 OLR$$? You need to go to M&M 04 to find out that OLRs are generally understated (in this case about 12W/m^2) because those early birds carried colour blind spectrometers that generally could not see IR at frequencies below $$400 cm-1$$

    Sometimes, due to technical or engineering constraints, the spectral sensitivity of a detector or instrument design sets the spectral boundaries.

    In fact if you to the archives or various papers you’ll see the $$400 cm-1$$ spectral limit is fairly consistent. The main purpose behind MM4 is to correct for that error. Already in OLR alone you have an error more than three times your 3.4 W/m^2 “cloud forcing and that misplaced 23W/m^2 AA is six time the cloud forcing.

    I would be the first to agree that the fact that $$S_U = 2E_U$$ in both these papers is a fluke but that really doesn’t help us with any of the rest. It certainly doesn’t give me confidence that we can rely on it for the value of either K or F.

    Now even Jan’s double negative typos are getting prescient (;-)

    maybe I know you better than I know myself :- heaven forbid. 8)

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #84

    I make E_U 199 W/^2 (or 238.5 -40) in this one and S_U 396 W/m^2 2 x E_U = 398 (or 397) which I think is in the ballpark. Its not a difference I would hang a career on.

    Then also the amount in the atmospheric window ($$S_T$$) is 40W/m^2 the 63W/m^2 is made up of Kirchhoff’s law denying upward re-radiation of $$A_A$$ of 23 W/m^2 + 40 W/m^2 $$S_T$$ so its $$OLR – S_T = 238.5 – 40 = 197.5 W/m^2$$. The only thing that both papers agree on is that $$S_U=2E_U$$

    The only thing there is reasonable agreement between sources they cite is that $$S_U \approx 396 Wm^{-2}$$.

    For arguments sake let’s say they don’t agree with the Virial I still don’t understand your issue with “negative cloud forcing” in this context.

    What is this?

    OLR – 2Su/3 gives 238.5 – (4 x 175.2/3) = 238.5 – 233.5 = +4.9 W/m^2

    Neither M-7 nor K&T 97 or FKT08 relate F+K to SU in that way. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

    However, it is also noted that OLR = E_U + S_T in the bounded or semi-transparent atmosphere according to M Theory. Thus E_U = OLR -S_T = 238.5 – 63.0 = 175.5. This agrees very well with the 175.2 estimated via E_U = F + K.

    I don’t particularly think hat K&T 97 or FKT08 quite have ST right (I for one think 63 W/m^2 is closer to the truth) but 40 W/m^2 is what they say for that. Now from 97 -> 08 SU, ED, OLR, K (the sum) and presumably tau ($$CO_2 \uparrow$$) all change but not ST does that not strike you as a just a little weird? Of course that $$A_A \neq E_D$$ does not change either, but we expect that. However that 23 W/m^2 is not where it belongs. Like I said if you are right about $$\frac K {S_T} \approx 2$$ then in M7 $$K \approx 120 W/m^2$$ and there is not 23 W/m^2 A<sub?A uncompensated by ED.

    Now apart from the fact that this is NOT “Jan’s ‘proof’” but Ferenc’s explanation ( who many times is this now that I’ve mentioned it?) what is this

    Another way of looking at this is of course to consider Jan’s ‘proof’ of the virial relation S_U + S_V = 3OLR/2 which set S_V = S_T/2 – E_D/10 as per M& Eqn. 9. Noting that E_U/E_D = 3/5 we then have S_U + S_T/2 – E_D/10 = 350.4 + 31.5 – 29.2 = 352.7

    and why does $$\frac {E_U}{E_D} = \frac 3 5$$ when in both KT97 & FKT $$S_U \neq \frac 3 2 OLR$$? You need to go to M&M 04 to find out that OLRs are generally understated (in this case about 12W/m^2) because those early birds carried colour blind spectrometers that generally could not see IR at frequencies below $$400 cm-1$$

    Sometimes, due to technical or engineering constraints, the spectral sensitivity of a detector or instrument design sets the spectral boundaries.

    In fact if you to the archives or various papers you’ll see the $$400 cm-1$$ spectral limit is fairly consistent. The main purpose behind MM4 is to correct for that error. Already in OLR alone you have an error more than three times your 3.4 W/m^2 “cloud forcing and that misplaced 23W/m^2 AA is six time the cloud forcing.

    I would be the first to agree that the fact that $$S_U = 2E_U$$ in both these papers is a fluke but that really doesn’t help us with any of the rest. It certainly doesn’t give me confidence that we can rely on it for the value of either K or F.

    Now even Jan’s double negative typos are getting prescient (;-)

    maybe I know you better than I know myself :- heaven forbid. 8)

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #85

    “I make E_U 199 W/^2 (or 238.5 -40) in this one and S_U 396 W/m^2 2 x E_U = 398 (or 397) which I think is in the ballpark. Its not a difference I would hang a career on.”

    I’ll go along with the last sentence only. You are wrong otherwise. In fact K,T&F (2008) give 63.0 W/m^2 for S_T. It’s there is black and white in Table 2b in the 2nd last column as Net LW (denoted ‘This paper’). BTW, the other 3 studies cited give a bracketing range from 48.5 – 72.8 W/m^2.

    Looks to me like you have simply picked your value of 40 W/m^2 for S_T out of your numerological hat again.

    Given that M7 p211 clearly defines OLR = S_T + E_U then I make E-U = 238.5 – 63.0 = 175.5 W/m^2.

    After all, a value of 63.0 W/m^2 is eminently reasonable for S_T given that M&M4 found 61 W/m^2 for the global value of S_T from the HARTCODE output. M&M4 also got an arithmetic mean of 69 and standard deviation of 13 W/m^2 for S_T. The whole set ranged from 22 through 112. This also makes your mystery value of 40 look a bit sick.

    “Then also the amount in the atmospheric window (S_T) is 40W/m^2 the 63W/m^2 is made up of Kirchhoff’s law denying upward re-radiation of A_A of 23 W/m^2 + 40 W/m^2 S_T so its OLR – S_T = 238.5 – 40 = 197.5 W/m^2. The only thing that both papers agree on is that S_U=2E_U”

    How can A_A (or even A-A/10) be as low as 23 W/m^2? According to M7 A_A = E_D by Kirchoff and by definition E_D = S_U – S_T (M7 p6) so we have from K,T&F (2008) E_D = 396 – 63 = 333 W/m^2. Thus A_A ~ 333 W/m^2. Therefore where do you get your statement above “….denying upward re-radiation of A_A of 23 W/m^2″? This makes nonsense of the general magnitude of A_A (or E_D)!

    BTW, we also know from M7 Eqn 9 (page 7) that supposedly E_U/E-D = 3/5 therefore E_D = 5E-U/3 = 5 x 175.5/3 = 292.5. Thus once again there is no way A_A (or A-A/10) is as low as 23 W/m^2!

    “The only thing there is reasonable agreement between sources they cite is that S_U approx 396 Wm^{-2}.”

    Agreed.

    “For arguments sake let’s say they don’t agree with the Virial I still don’t understand your issue with “negative cloud forcing” in this context.

    What is this?

    OLR – 2Su/3 gives 238.5 – (4 x 175.2/3) = 238.5 – 233.5 = +4.9 W/m^2

    Neither M-7 nor K&T 97 or FKT08 relate F+K to SU in that way. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. ”

    Rubbish. M7 Eqn 5 (page 6) says E_U = F + K + P
    Thus if P0= 0 and thus P = 0 as is usually the case then E_U = F + K.
    Further, as I have quoted at least twice now but here goes yet again (!) M7 page 19:

    “The OLRA − 2SU/3 ≈ − 15 W m-2 is a fairly good estimate of the global
    average cloud forcing. The estimated β ≈ 0.6 is the required cloud cover (at
    this level) to balance OLRA , which looks realistic. We believe that the β
    parameter is governed by the maximum entropy principle, the system tries to convert as much SW radiation to LW radiation as possible, while obeying the 2OLR/(3 f ) = F0 + P0 condition. The cloud altitude, where the clear-sky OLRA = OLR = E_D depends only on the SW characteristics of the system (surface and cloud albedo, SW solar input) and alone, is a very important climate parameter.”

    I don’t know why you still have such a problem with Miskolczi’s own text in M7?

    Put simply – I happen to think that M Theory could well be very much less attractive if it too predicted a positive cloud forcing. I don’t think any genuine sceptics would have a problem with that proposition, do you?

    Furthermore, I had pointed out in Steve #84: OLR = E_U + S_T in the bounded or semi-transparent atmosphere according to M Theory (M7 Section 4.2 Bounded atmosphere page 13). Thus E_U = OLR -S_T = 238.5 – 63.0 = 175.5.

    This agrees very well with the 175.2 estimated via E_U = F + K.

    I would say this further confirms an E_U of about 175 W/m^2, wouldn’t you?

    “I don’t particularly think that K&T 97 or FKT08 quite have ST right (I for one think 63 W/m^2 is closer to the truth) but 40 W/m^2 is what they say for that.”

    No K,T&F (2008) doesn’t say 40 W/m^2.

    “Already in OLR alone you have an error more than three times your 3.4 W/m^2 “cloud forcing and that misplaced 23W/m^2 AA is six time the cloud forcing.”

    Rubbish again. I don’t accept that because A_A does not = 23 W/m^2 as you claim. In fact even A_A (or E_D)/10 does not = 23 W/m^2. As I have shown above A_A = E_D = 333 W/m^2 therefore A_A/10 = 33 W/m^2. So there goes your virial fiddling up the spout.

    Unless K,T&F (2008) is bedevilled by a circular logic to get estimates of F and K and you obviously haven’t demonstrated that yet – although I’d really like to see you put it in plain, logical, easy to follow, non-opaque English if possible, then the fact remains that they get 396 W/m^2 for S_U and 175.2 – 175.5 W/m^2 for E_U.

    Bottom line is that in K,T&F (2008) S_U = 396 W/m^2 and E_U = 175.5 W/m^2 therefore 2E_U = 351 W/m^2 thus S_U does not equal 2E_U and so K,T&F (2008) definitely does not support Misckolczi’s virial relation.

    This much and only this much we can agree on.

    Other than that, most of your #85 post is pretty much your usual obscure, quasi-religious (‘only I have the received truth from on high’) numerological shuffling around of the goal posts as far as I can see.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #85

    “I make E_U 199 W/^2 (or 238.5 -40) in this one and S_U 396 W/m^2 2 x E_U = 398 (or 397) which I think is in the ballpark. Its not a difference I would hang a career on.”

    I’ll go along with the last sentence only. You are wrong otherwise. In fact K,T&F (2008) give 63.0 W/m^2 for S_T. It’s there is black and white in Table 2b in the 2nd last column as Net LW (denoted ‘This paper’). BTW, the other 3 studies cited give a bracketing range from 48.5 – 72.8 W/m^2.

    Looks to me like you have simply picked your value of 40 W/m^2 for S_T out of your numerological hat again.

    Given that M7 p211 clearly defines OLR = S_T + E_U then I make E-U = 238.5 – 63.0 = 175.5 W/m^2.

    After all, a value of 63.0 W/m^2 is eminently reasonable for S_T given that M&M4 found 61 W/m^2 for the global value of S_T from the HARTCODE output. M&M4 also got an arithmetic mean of 69 and standard deviation of 13 W/m^2 for S_T. The whole set ranged from 22 through 112. This also makes your mystery value of 40 look a bit sick.

    “Then also the amount in the atmospheric window (S_T) is 40W/m^2 the 63W/m^2 is made up of Kirchhoff’s law denying upward re-radiation of A_A of 23 W/m^2 + 40 W/m^2 S_T so its OLR – S_T = 238.5 – 40 = 197.5 W/m^2. The only thing that both papers agree on is that S_U=2E_U”

    How can A_A (or even A-A/10) be as low as 23 W/m^2? According to M7 A_A = E_D by Kirchoff and by definition E_D = S_U – S_T (M7 p6) so we have from K,T&F (2008) E_D = 396 – 63 = 333 W/m^2. Thus A_A ~ 333 W/m^2. Therefore where do you get your statement above “….denying upward re-radiation of A_A of 23 W/m^2″? This makes nonsense of the general magnitude of A_A (or E_D)!

    BTW, we also know from M7 Eqn 9 (page 7) that supposedly E_U/E-D = 3/5 therefore E_D = 5E-U/3 = 5 x 175.5/3 = 292.5. Thus once again there is no way A_A (or A-A/10) is as low as 23 W/m^2!

    “The only thing there is reasonable agreement between sources they cite is that S_U \approx 396 Wm^{-2}.”

    Agreed.

    “For arguments sake let’s say they don’t agree with the Virial I still don’t understand your issue with “negative cloud forcing” in this context.

    What is this?

    OLR – 2Su/3 gives 238.5 – (4 x 175.2/3) = 238.5 – 233.5 = +4.9 W/m^2

    Neither M-7 nor K&T 97 or FKT08 relate F+K to SU in that way. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. ”

    Rubbish. M7 Eqn 5 (page 6) says E_U = F + K + P
    Thus if P0= 0 and thus P = 0 as is usually the case then E_U = F + K.
    Further, as I have quoted at least twice now but here goes yet again (!) M7 page 19:

    “The OLRA − 2SU/3 ≈ − 15 W m-2 is a fairly good estimate of the global
    average cloud forcing. The estimated β ≈ 0.6 is the required cloud cover (at
    this level) to balance OLRA , which looks realistic. We believe that the β
    parameter is governed by the maximum entropy principle, the system tries to convert as much SW radiation to LW radiation as possible, while obeying the 2OLR/(3 f ) = F0 + P0 condition. The cloud altitude, where the clear-sky OLRA = OLR = E_D depends only on the SW characteristics of the system (surface and cloud albedo, SW solar input) and alone, is a very important climate parameter.”

    I don’t know why you still have such a problem with Miskolczi’s own text in M7?

    Put simply – I happen to think that M Theory could well be very much less attractive if it too predicted a positive cloud forcing. I don’t think any genuine sceptics would have a problem with that proposition, do you?

    Furthermore, I had pointed out in Steve #84: OLR = E_U + S_T in the bounded or semi-transparent atmosphere according to M Theory (M7 Section 4.2 Bounded atmosphere page 13). Thus E_U = OLR -S_T = 238.5 – 63.0 = 175.5.

    This agrees very well with the 175.2 estimated via E_U = F + K.

    I would say this further confirms an E_U of about 175 W/m^2, wouldn’t you?

    “I don’t particularly think that K&T 97 or FKT08 quite have ST right (I for one think 63 W/m^2 is closer to the truth) but 40 W/m^2 is what they say for that.”

    No K,T&F (2008) doesn’t say 40 W/m^2.

    “Already in OLR alone you have an error more than three times your 3.4 W/m^2 “cloud forcing and that misplaced 23W/m^2 AA is six time the cloud forcing.”

    Rubbish again. I don’t accept that because A_A does not = 23 W/m^2 as you claim. In fact even A_A (or E_D)/10 does not = 23 W/m^2. As I have shown above A_A = E_D = 333 W/m^2 therefore A_A/10 = 33 W/m^2. So there goes your virial fiddling up the spout.

    Unless K,T&F (2008) is bedevilled by a circular logic to get estimates of F and K and you obviously haven’t demonstrated that yet – although I’d really like to see you put it in plain, logical, easy to follow, non-opaque English if possible, then the fact remains that they get 396 W/m^2 for S_U and 175.2 – 175.5 W/m^2 for E_U.

    Bottom line is that in K,T&F (2008) S_U = 396 W/m^2 and E_U = 175.5 W/m^2 therefore 2E_U = 351 W/m^2 thus S_U does not equal 2E_U and so K,T&F (2008) definitely does not support Misckolczi’s virial relation.

    This much and only this much we can agree on.

    Other than that, most of your #85 post is pretty much your usual obscure, quasi-religious (‘only I have the received truth from on high’) numerological shuffling around of the goal posts as far as I can see.

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #86

    In fact K,T&F (2008) give 63.0 W/m^2 for S_T. It’s there is black and white in Table 2b in the 2nd last column as Net LW (denoted ‘This paper’).

    That says LW not what is passing through the window which is what S_T is you need to look at the cartoon to see how they’ve divided that up.

    Looks to me like you have simply picked your value of 40 W/m^2 for S_T out of your numerological hat again.

    Try and look at want the authors are actually trying to tell you instead of putting your own interpretation on it.

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #86

    In fact K,T&F (2008) give 63.0 W/m^2 for S_T. It’s there is black and white in Table 2b in the 2nd last column as Net LW (denoted ‘This paper’).

    That says LW not what is passing through the window which is what S_T is you need to look at the cartoon to see how they’ve divided that up.

    Looks to me like you have simply picked your value of 40 W/m^2 for S_T out of your numerological hat again.

    Try and look at want the authors are actually trying to tell you instead of putting your own interpretation on it.

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #86

    OLR – 2Su/3 gives 238.5 – (4 x 175.2/3) = 238.5 – 233.5 = +4.9 W/m^2

    Here you imply $$S_U = frac {4 E_U} 3 = frac {4 times 175.2} 3$$ somehow I don’t think this comes from M-7 but $$S_U = 2E_U$$ does.

    Could you please explain why if you think this contradicts it

    The OLRA − 2SU/3 ≈ − 15 W m-2 is a fairly good estimate of the global
    average cloud forcing. The estimated β ≈ 0.6 is the required cloud cover (at
    this level) to balance OLRA , which looks realistic. We believe that the β
    parameter is governed by the maximum entropy principle, the system tries to convert as much SW radiation to LW radiation as possible, while obeying the 2OLR/(3 f ) = F0 + P0 condition. The cloud altitude, where the clear-sky OLRA = OLR = E_D depends only on the SW characteristics of the system (surface and cloud albedo, SW solar input) and alone, is a very important climate parameter.

    Please!

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #86

    OLR – 2Su/3 gives 238.5 – (4 x 175.2/3) = 238.5 – 233.5 = +4.9 W/m^2

    Here you imply $$S_U = \frac {4 E_U} 3 = \frac {4 \times 175.2} 3$$ somehow I don’t think this comes from M-7 but $$S_U = 2E_U$$ does.

    Could you please explain why if you think this contradicts it

    The OLRA − 2SU/3 ≈ − 15 W m-2 is a fairly good estimate of the global
    average cloud forcing. The estimated β ≈ 0.6 is the required cloud cover (at
    this level) to balance OLRA , which looks realistic. We believe that the β
    parameter is governed by the maximum entropy principle, the system tries to convert as much SW radiation to LW radiation as possible, while obeying the 2OLR/(3 f ) = F0 + P0 condition. The cloud altitude, where the clear-sky OLRA = OLR = E_D depends only on the SW characteristics of the system (surface and cloud albedo, SW solar input) and alone, is a very important climate parameter.

    Please!

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #87

    “That says LW not what is passing through the window which is what S_T is you need to look at the cartoon to see how they’ve divided that up.”

    I agree it says 40 in the cartoon (Figure 1). But I think this is a mistake (typo)? This is a preprint remember.

    If you look carefully at the cartoon (Figure 1) the total of F + K = 175 W/m^2. But above the clouds they have 169 + 30 = 199 departing (excluding their so called S-T of 40 ‘passing up through the clouds’)! Thus they do not actually have a balance above the clouds. If you subtract 175 from 199 you will get 24. Add 24 to 40 and you get 64. This was good enough for me. I simply assumed that, being a preprint they had stuffed-up the cartoon.

    I also note that the cartoon has 396 for S-U leaving the surface and 333 for the A_A returning to the surface. Regardless of any arguments about whether A-A = E_D etc, this also suggests a net LW component of 63 W/m^2 is passing up through the clouds. So it is looking more and more like S_T = 63, n’est pas?

    BTW, before my posting ( #84) I was also prudent enough to run a search on ’40′ and 40 W/m^2′ through the pdf. You will not find them anywhere. In other words other than in the cartoon there is not one single textual statement to suggest S_T = 40 W/m^2.

    Thus I concluded (quite reasonably I think) that the value of 63 W/m^2 designated ‘Net LW’ in Figure 2b (in the company of other so-called ‘Net LW’ values from other studies) was the actual S_T. Presumably we agree this also closely similar to both the global value, arithmetic means ± one s.d. for S-T given in M&M4.

    Jan #87

    “Try and look at want the authors are actually trying to tell you instead of putting your own interpretation on it.”

    Hmmmm- I can say here Jan is that, on the available evidence (as carefully explained above), and noting it is a preprint I think I have a significantly sounder basis for concluding that FKT (2008) is claiming a value 63.0 for S_T than you have for concluding it is claiming 40 W/m^2 (from a cartoon only).

    So who do you really think rushed to judgement – me or you???

    I’d really like to solve this S-T puzzle first before arguing with you at length about all the other stuff but, strangely enough to you perhaps yes, I do happen to think that IF AND ONLY IF:

    S_U = 2E_U

    then 2S_U/3 should =2x2E_U/3

    = 4E_U/3

    It is after all only just simple arithmetic!

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #87

    “That says LW not what is passing through the window which is what S_T is you need to look at the cartoon to see how they’ve divided that up.”

    I agree it says 40 in the cartoon (Figure 1). But I think this is a mistake (typo)? This is a preprint remember.

    If you look carefully at the cartoon (Figure 1) the total of F + K = 175 W/m^2. But above the clouds they have 169 + 30 = 199 departing (excluding their so called S-T of 40 ‘passing up through the clouds’)! Thus they do not actually have a balance above the clouds. If you subtract 175 from 199 you will get 24. Add 24 to 40 and you get 64. This was good enough for me. I simply assumed that, being a preprint they had stuffed-up the cartoon.

    I also note that the cartoon has 396 for S-U leaving the surface and 333 for the A_A returning to the surface. Regardless of any arguments about whether A-A = E_D etc, this also suggests a net LW component of 63 W/m^2 is passing up through the clouds. So it is looking more and more like S_T = 63, n’est pas?

    BTW, before my posting ( #84) I was also prudent enough to run a search on ’40′ and 40 W/m^2′ through the pdf. You will not find them anywhere. In other words other than in the cartoon there is not one single textual statement to suggest S_T = 40 W/m^2.

    Thus I concluded (quite reasonably I think) that the value of 63 W/m^2 designated ‘Net LW’ in Figure 2b (in the company of other so-called ‘Net LW’ values from other studies) was the actual S_T. Presumably we agree this also closely similar to both the global value, arithmetic means ± one s.d. for S-T given in M&M4.

    Jan #87

    “Try and look at want the authors are actually trying to tell you instead of putting your own interpretation on it.”

    Hmmmm- I can say here Jan is that, on the available evidence (as carefully explained above), and noting it is a preprint I think I have a significantly sounder basis for concluding that FKT (2008) is claiming a value 63.0 for S_T than you have for concluding it is claiming 40 W/m^2 (from a cartoon only).

    So who do you really think rushed to judgement – me or you???

    I’d really like to solve this S-T puzzle first before arguing with you at length about all the other stuff but, strangely enough to you perhaps yes, I do happen to think that IF AND ONLY IF:

    S_U = 2E_U

    then 2S_U/3 should =2x2E_U/3

    = 4E_U/3

    It is after all only just simple arithmetic!

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #89

    So who do you really think rushed to judgement – me or you???

    You Steve it’s your impatience see Jan #81

    as I mentioned to Steve I’m not to happy to get into a flap over something that might not yet be finished.

    I was quite happy to leave it lie until the final comes out. Can you think of another instance where something similar has happened?

    Apart from your impatience there are other issues.

    $$E_U$$ is the radiation from the atmosphere clearly labelled as 169 + 30 =199 W/m^2 in the cartoon, not mentioned in the text either, but consistent with $$E_U = OLR – S_T$$.

    The 40 W/m^2 is actually there in both papers and not mentioned in the text in either in and this paper really only discusses changes from the last one without spelling out how the did things.

    Do you think they are such donkeys to trip over the same stone twice?

    Since they don’t hold with M’s theory we can be fairly sure that they don’t think that $$A_A=E_D$$ they clearly label the absorbed upward ($$A_A$$) as 356 W/m^2 and downward ($$E_D$$) as 333 W/m^2 that’s a difference of 23W/m^2 which they’ve put in the wrong place. It is however counted among the absorbed not what is passing up through the clouds. It is consistent though with an $$S_T = 40 Wm^{-2}$$ and $$A_A neq E_D$$ but $$S_U – A_A = S_T$$.

    They are consistent.

    Personally I think it little more than an interesting curiosity that they have $$S_U approx 2E_U$$ . I wouldn’t be getting into a flap over it and I have no intention of doing so and I don’t particularly like seeing you waste so much time over this. I don’t expect to find compatibility of any sort with M7 in these papers and I consider the line you are following pointless.0

    I’m sure you have better things to do.

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #89

    So who do you really think rushed to judgement – me or you???

    You Steve it’s your impatience see Jan #81

    as I mentioned to Steve I’m not to happy to get into a flap over something that might not yet be finished.

    I was quite happy to leave it lie until the final comes out. Can you think of another instance where something similar has happened?

    Apart from your impatience there are other issues.

    $$E_U$$ is the radiation from the atmosphere clearly labelled as 169 + 30 =199 W/m^2 in the cartoon, not mentioned in the text either, but consistent with $$E_U = OLR – S_T$$.

    The 40 W/m^2 is actually there in both papers and not mentioned in the text in either in and this paper really only discusses changes from the last one without spelling out how the did things.

    Do you think they are such donkeys to trip over the same stone twice?

    Since they don’t hold with M’s theory we can be fairly sure that they don’t think that $$A_A=E_D$$ they clearly label the absorbed upward ($$A_A$$) as 356 W/m^2 and downward ($$E_D$$) as 333 W/m^2 that’s a difference of 23W/m^2 which they’ve put in the wrong place. It is however counted among the absorbed not what is passing up through the clouds. It is consistent though with an $$S_T = 40 Wm^{-2}$$ and $$A_A \neq E_D$$ but $$S_U – A_A = S_T$$.

    They are consistent.

    Personally I think it little more than an interesting curiosity that they have $$S_U \approx 2E_U$$ . I wouldn’t be getting into a flap over it and I have no intention of doing so and I don’t particularly like seeing you waste so much time over this. I don’t expect to find compatibility of any sort with M7 in these papers and I consider the line you are following pointless.0

    I’m sure you have better things to do.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    You Steve it’s your impatience see Jan #81

    ” as I mentioned to Steve I’m not to happy to get into a flap over something that might not yet be finished.”

    In #81 you prove zilch. I think it is you who has impatiently accepted the cartoon of a preprint at the expense of the paper itself.

    Jan #90

    “E_U is the radiation from the atmosphere clearly labelled as 169 + 30 =199 W/m^2 in the cartoon, not mentioned in the text either, but consistent with E_U = OLR – S_T.”

    Hang on. In FKT (2008) Fig. 2b OLR = 239 and S_T = 63 therefore E-U = 176 W/m^2.

    The cartoon clearly shows F0 = 341 – 79 -23 = 238

    This matches the OLR. If OLR – S_T = 239 – 40 = 199 = Eu = F+ K then (PLEASE!) how come F + K adds up to 79 + (17 + 80) = 176 W.m^2? Your logic error #1.

    In a way Jan it is you who really has the math problem because you just can’t abide non-radiative terms and so you can’t even live with non LW radiative equalities like E_U = F + K.

    Tell me, if E_U really is 199 W/m^2 as you say then where does your extra 23 W/m^2 (in E_U; over and above F + K) come from? Tell me that. What exactly is its nature? You need to explain that. If you can’t (or won’t) this is your logic error #2?

    “Personally I think it little more than an interesting curiosity that they have S_U approx 2E_U . ”

    They don’t. It is your wishful thinking. You may think they do by your reading of a partly flawed cartoon which has an obvious inbalance above the clouds (based on F + K) but there is no inbalance in Fig. 2b, nor ironically is there any inbalance in the incoming SW part of the cartoon!

    “Since they don’t hold with M’s theory we can be fairly sure that they don’t think that A_A=E_D they clearly label the absorbed upward (A_A) as 356 W/m^2 and downward (E_D) as 333 W/m^2 that’s a difference of 23W/m^2 which they’ve put in the wrong place. It is however counted among the absorbed not what is passing up through the clouds. It is consistent though with an S_T = 40 Wm^{-2} and A_A neq E_D but S_U – A_A = S_T.

    They are consistent.”

    Well no, actually they are not. I agree they have A_A as 356 and E_D as 333.

    BUT that is still clearly a graphical problem for them because above the cloud they still have a heat flux inbalance. Furthermore, A_A = 356 does not agree with the content of data Table. 5b.

    If not then need to say what the ***** is ‘Net LW’ meant to mean? Where does the 63 W/m^2 come from? What does it signify? Explain me that as well….! Your logic error #3.

    “Do you think they are such donkeys to trip over the same stone twice? ”

    No, I am more inclined to think your interpretation is riddled with logical errors (as identified above). Not real good at constantly juggling a logically consistent dataset are you. I’m thrashing Excel about 5 hours per day.

    Thus I am unconvinced by your old blogster’s vague hand waving references to past consistency by Kiehl et al. and more inclined to think that this is simply a graphical stuff-up by the junior author in the cartoon only. Junior authors do tend to trip over the same stone especially if they are given control over something like a cartoon only. Maybe Kiehl has been too lazy to check this – he is fairly arrogant (having personally seen him on TV in Colorado).

    Yes, I do have better things to do. Check out Takahashi (2008). Web reference previously given. Stuff like delta (H_L + F)/delta T_S = 9/4 and delata H_L /delta T_S = 5/4 etc., viz:

    “The inter-model di fferences in the rate of change in SWabs can not be solely accounted for by di fferences in the radiative transfer schemes or in the modeled changes in the global water vapor content,which suggests that subtler aspects of the change in the water vapor distribution might be important for the change in SWabs. However, the results from the RTMIP project suggest that climate models generally underestimate the change in the clear-sky SWabs by water vapor relative to detailed line-by- line calculations. In the light of the results presented here, this would suggest that the climate models might be overestimating the rate of increase in the global hydrological cycle with global warming.”

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    You Steve it’s your impatience see Jan #81

    ” as I mentioned to Steve I’m not to happy to get into a flap over something that might not yet be finished.”

    In #81 you prove zilch. I think it is you who has impatiently accepted the cartoon of a preprint at the expense of the paper itself.

    Jan #90

    “E_U is the radiation from the atmosphere clearly labelled as 169 + 30 =199 W/m^2 in the cartoon, not mentioned in the text either, but consistent with E_U = OLR – S_T.”

    Hang on. In FKT (2008) Fig. 2b OLR = 239 and S_T = 63 therefore E-U = 176 W/m^2.

    The cartoon clearly shows F0 = 341 – 79 -23 = 238

    This matches the OLR. If OLR – S_T = 239 – 40 = 199 = Eu = F+ K then (PLEASE!) how come F + K adds up to 79 + (17 + 80) = 176 W.m^2? Your logic error #1.

    In a way Jan it is you who really has the math problem because you just can’t abide non-radiative terms and so you can’t even live with non LW radiative equalities like E_U = F + K.

    Tell me, if E_U really is 199 W/m^2 as you say then where does your extra 23 W/m^2 (in E_U; over and above F + K) come from? Tell me that. What exactly is its nature? You need to explain that. If you can’t (or won’t) this is your logic error #2?

    “Personally I think it little more than an interesting curiosity that they have S_U \approx 2E_U . ”

    They don’t. It is your wishful thinking. You may think they do by your reading of a partly flawed cartoon which has an obvious inbalance above the clouds (based on F + K) but there is no inbalance in Fig. 2b, nor ironically is there any inbalance in the incoming SW part of the cartoon!

    “Since they don’t hold with M’s theory we can be fairly sure that they don’t think that A_A=E_D they clearly label the absorbed upward (A_A) as 356 W/m^2 and downward (E_D) as 333 W/m^2 that’s a difference of 23W/m^2 which they’ve put in the wrong place. It is however counted among the absorbed not what is passing up through the clouds. It is consistent though with an S_T = 40 Wm^{-2} and A_A \neq E_D but S_U – A_A = S_T.

    They are consistent.”

    Well no, actually they are not. I agree they have A_A as 356 and E_D as 333.

    BUT that is still clearly a graphical problem for them because above the cloud they still have a heat flux inbalance. Furthermore, A_A = 356 does not agree with the content of data Table. 5b.

    If not then need to say what the ***** is ‘Net LW’ meant to mean? Where does the 63 W/m^2 come from? What does it signify? Explain me that as well….! Your logic error #3.

    “Do you think they are such donkeys to trip over the same stone twice? ”

    No, I am more inclined to think your interpretation is riddled with logical errors (as identified above). Not real good at constantly juggling a logically consistent dataset are you. I’m thrashing Excel about 5 hours per day.

    Thus I am unconvinced by your old blogster’s vague hand waving references to past consistency by Kiehl et al. and more inclined to think that this is simply a graphical stuff-up by the junior author in the cartoon only. Junior authors do tend to trip over the same stone especially if they are given control over something like a cartoon only. Maybe Kiehl has been too lazy to check this – he is fairly arrogant (having personally seen him on TV in Colorado).

    Yes, I do have better things to do. Check out Takahashi (2008). Web reference previously given. Stuff like delta (H_L + F)/delta T_S = 9/4 and delata H_L /delta T_S = 5/4 etc., viz:

    “The inter-model di fferences in the rate of change in SWabs can not be solely accounted for by di fferences in the radiative transfer schemes or in the modeled changes in the global water vapor content,which suggests that subtler aspects of the change in the water vapor distribution might be important for the change in SWabs. However, the results from the RTMIP project suggest that climate models generally underestimate the change in the clear-sky SWabs by water vapor relative to detailed line-by- line calculations. In the light of the results presented here, this would suggest that the climate models might be overestimating the rate of increase in the global hydrological cycle with global warming.”

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #91

    In #81 you prove zilch. I think it is you who has impatiently accepted the cartoon of a preprint at the expense of the paper itself.

    Steve sorry but you are the one who claimed to find a mistake in it.

    Hang on. In FKT (2008) Fig. 2b OLR = 239 and S_T = 63 therefore E-U = 176 W/m^2.

    The cartoon clearly shows F0 = 341 – 79 -23 = 238

    I give up have a good life Steve.

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve #91

    In #81 you prove zilch. I think it is you who has impatiently accepted the cartoon of a preprint at the expense of the paper itself.

    Steve sorry but you are the one who claimed to find a mistake in it.

    Hang on. In FKT (2008) Fig. 2b OLR = 239 and S_T = 63 therefore E-U = 176 W/m^2.

    The cartoon clearly shows F0 = 341 – 79 -23 = 238

    I give up have a good life Steve.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Hot off the presses, the pre-print version of K,T&F (2008) has the following numbers for CERES May 2000 – May 2004 (all from Table 5b):
    Fo = 239.4 W/m^2
    OLR = 238.5 = F0 no problems there
    F = 78.2 consistent with known range of SW tau
    K = 97.0 consistent with literature
    S_T = 63.0 (allowing for error in cartoon but correctly given in Table 5b)
    S_U = 396 no problems there
    E_U = F + K = 175.2 = OLR – S_T = 175.5 down about 20 W/m^2 on K&T (1997)
    A_A = 333 = S_U – S_T no problems there

    Thus
    TauA = ln (S_T/S_U) = 1.838 consistent with Miskolczi
    TA = 1-A = exp(-tauA) = 0.159 consistent with Miskolczi
    OLR/S_U = 238.5/396 = 0.602 = 3/5 i.e. 10% away from Miskolczi General Solution (OLR /S_U = (3 + 2TA)/5 = 0.664). Hmmm could mean a little problem with the surface temperature discontinuity perhaps?

    But the one thing that markedly doesn’t agree with Miskolczi is:

    S_U not equal to 2E_U the so-called virial relation, i.e. here Su/E_U = 396/238.5 = 1.660 ~ 5/3

    Thus OLR not even equal to 3E_U-E_D. However, if the books are cooked by adding 20 W/m^2 to BOTH E_U AND to E_D we get 3×199 – 356 = 241 ~238

    But this is one of those nasty Catch 22′s – can’t simultaneously add 20 W/m^2 to BOTH E_U AND E_D ……..otherwise Kirchoff (A_A = E_D) flies out the window too! Little problem of an overconstrained system I’d say, what with S_U meant to =2E_U and A_A meant to =E_D BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

    TA DAH!

    Remember all that KE/PE ratio stuff back in July, August and September between Neal King, Jan and Nick Stokes (Pliny)? I’m sure Franko does! Strong sense of deja vu building up here. No wonder Jan’s blood pressure is up. Maybe when some things (like matters of ego) are at stake a certain someone might even consider it worthwhile shafting Ferenc himself.

    Someone be really chewing their lip over the ‘problem of the missing 20 W/m^2′. Of course finding that pesky extra 20 W/M^2 needed up there in (say) a 3rd component of K or ….P is just out of the question. Someone else already came up with that solution long ago, so ergo baby, it just didn’t count fer nuthin (;-)

    Tragicomedy or just farce?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Hot off the presses, the pre-print version of K,T&F (2008) has the following numbers for CERES May 2000 – May 2004 (all from Table 5b):
    Fo = 239.4 W/m^2
    OLR = 238.5 = F0 no problems there
    F = 78.2 consistent with known range of SW tau
    K = 97.0 consistent with literature
    S_T = 63.0 (allowing for error in cartoon but correctly given in Table 5b)
    S_U = 396 no problems there
    E_U = F + K = 175.2 = OLR – S_T = 175.5 down about 20 W/m^2 on K&T (1997)
    A_A = 333 = S_U – S_T no problems there

    Thus
    TauA = ln (S_T/S_U) = 1.838 consistent with Miskolczi
    TA = 1-A = exp(-tauA) = 0.159 consistent with Miskolczi
    OLR/S_U = 238.5/396 = 0.602 = 3/5 i.e. 10% away from Miskolczi General Solution (OLR /S_U = (3 + 2TA)/5 = 0.664). Hmmm could mean a little problem with the surface temperature discontinuity perhaps?

    But the one thing that markedly doesn’t agree with Miskolczi is:

    S_U not equal to 2E_U the so-called virial relation, i.e. here Su/E_U = 396/238.5 = 1.660 ~ 5/3

    Thus OLR not even equal to 3E_U-E_D. However, if the books are cooked by adding 20 W/m^2 to BOTH E_U AND to E_D we get 3×199 – 356 = 241 ~238

    But this is one of those nasty Catch 22′s – can’t simultaneously add 20 W/m^2 to BOTH E_U AND E_D ……..otherwise Kirchoff (A_A = E_D) flies out the window too! Little problem of an overconstrained system I’d say, what with S_U meant to =2E_U and A_A meant to =E_D BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

    TA DAH!

    Remember all that KE/PE ratio stuff back in July, August and September between Neal King, Jan and Nick Stokes (Pliny)? I’m sure Franko does! Strong sense of deja vu building up here. No wonder Jan’s blood pressure is up. Maybe when some things (like matters of ego) are at stake a certain someone might even consider it worthwhile shafting Ferenc himself.

    Someone be really chewing their lip over the ‘problem of the missing 20 W/m^2′. Of course finding that pesky extra 20 W/M^2 needed up there in (say) a 3rd component of K or ….P is just out of the question. Someone else already came up with that solution long ago, so ergo baby, it just didn’t count fer nuthin (;-)

    Tragicomedy or just farce?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Typo in my #93 above

    Should read: S_U not equal to 2E_U the so-called virial relation, i.e. here S_U/E_U = 396/175 = 2.263 ~9/4

    What I find amazing about the T,F&K 08 dataset is that of we accept S_T = 63 W/m^2 which BTW is required to get M’s tauA = 1.838 i.e. nearly spot on to his 1.841 for a General Solution AND we force A_A = E_D = 333 on the grounds that:

    (1) the cartoon has a mistake; and that
    (2) Miskolczi knows his surface radiative balance science really well (all my reading supports that),
    then we get S_U/E_U = 2.263 i.e. almost exactly 9/4.

    However, if we accept an S_T of only 40 W/m^2 this puts LW tauA at ln(-40/396) = 2.293 but it does put S_U = 396/195 = 2.031 ~2.00 within error.

    Putting the possible (single) cartoon error aside, the outcome of T,F&K 08) seems to be unequivocally that you can’t have the Kirchoff A_A = E_D AND Virial S_U = 2E_U AND a LW tauA ~1.85 all at the same time.

    So, bottom line Jan would seem to want to have S_U = 2E_U at the expense of getting a LW tauA of 2.293 i.e. a long way from M’s ~1.85 as well as junking Kirchoff A_A = E_D.

    I happen to think that that the so-called S_U = 2E_U virial relation is probably the least important part of Miskolczi Theory. A lot of other stuff in M Theory comes good if one is prepared to junk that relationship as nothing more than empirically approximately correct.

    After all, E_U is essentially comprised of a combination of SW absorption, sensible heat and latent heat fluxes – all linked to S_U via a quite complex system involving cloud density and altitude, aerosol concentrations and types, modes and rates of generation of clouds and aerosols etc etc etc.

    With respect to Miskolczi Theory I am much more comfortable with an 8% error in the S_U=2E_U relation over only a 4 year period than I am with:

    a 7% error in A_A = E_D PLUS a 25% error in mean LW tauA.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Typo in my #93 above

    Should read: S_U not equal to 2E_U the so-called virial relation, i.e. here S_U/E_U = 396/175 = 2.263 ~9/4

    What I find amazing about the T,F&K 08 dataset is that of we accept S_T = 63 W/m^2 which BTW is required to get M’s tauA = 1.838 i.e. nearly spot on to his 1.841 for a General Solution AND we force A_A = E_D = 333 on the grounds that:

    (1) the cartoon has a mistake; and that
    (2) Miskolczi knows his surface radiative balance science really well (all my reading supports that),
    then we get S_U/E_U = 2.263 i.e. almost exactly 9/4.

    However, if we accept an S_T of only 40 W/m^2 this puts LW tauA at ln(-40/396) = 2.293 but it does put S_U = 396/195 = 2.031 ~2.00 within error.

    Putting the possible (single) cartoon error aside, the outcome of T,F&K 08) seems to be unequivocally that you can’t have the Kirchoff A_A = E_D AND Virial S_U = 2E_U AND a LW tauA ~1.85 all at the same time.

    So, bottom line Jan would seem to want to have S_U = 2E_U at the expense of getting a LW tauA of 2.293 i.e. a long way from M’s ~1.85 as well as junking Kirchoff A_A = E_D.

    I happen to think that that the so-called S_U = 2E_U virial relation is probably the least important part of Miskolczi Theory. A lot of other stuff in M Theory comes good if one is prepared to junk that relationship as nothing more than empirically approximately correct.

    After all, E_U is essentially comprised of a combination of SW absorption, sensible heat and latent heat fluxes – all linked to S_U via a quite complex system involving cloud density and altitude, aerosol concentrations and types, modes and rates of generation of clouds and aerosols etc etc etc.

    With respect to Miskolczi Theory I am much more comfortable with an 8% error in the S_U=2E_U relation over only a 4 year period than I am with:

    a 7% error in A_A = E_D PLUS a 25% error in mean LW tauA.

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve #94:

    With respect to Miskolczi Theory I am much more comfortable with an 8% error in the S_U=2E_U relation over only a 4 year period than I am with: a 7% error in A_A = E_D PLUS a 25% error in mean LW tauA.

    What I would really love to see would be a Ferenc Miskolczi audit of the TFK08 energy budget Steve McIntyre-style. SM, with all his experience in obtaining data from difficult places, might even be able to assist.

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve #94:

    With respect to Miskolczi Theory I am much more comfortable with an 8% error in the S_U=2E_U relation over only a 4 year period than I am with: a 7% error in A_A = E_D PLUS a 25% error in mean LW tauA.

    What I would really love to see would be a Ferenc Miskolczi audit of the TFK08 energy budget Steve McIntyre-style. SM, with all his experience in obtaining data from difficult places, might even be able to assist.

  • Alex Harvey

    I would encourage those with suitably-sized brains to consider the recent publication of an article Pelkowski et al. 2008:

    ABSTRACT
    We apply the semi-gray model of our previous paper to the particular case of the Earth’s atmosphere, in order to illustrate quantitatively the inverse problem associated with the direct problem we dealt with before. From given climatological values of the atmosphere’s spherical albedo and transmittance for visible radiation, the single-scattering albedo and the optical thickness in the visible are inferred, while the infrared optical thickness is deduced for given global average surface temperature. Eventually, temperature distributions in terms of the infrared optical depth will be shown for a terrestrial atmosphere assumed to be semi-gray and, locally, in radiative and thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Pelkowski, J.; Chevallier, L.; Rutily, B.; Titaud, O. 2008: Exact results in modeling planetary atmospheres-III The general theory applied to the Earth’s semi-gray atmosphere, JQSRT.

  • Alex Harvey

    I would encourage those with suitably-sized brains to consider the recent publication of an article Pelkowski et al. 2008:

    ABSTRACT
    We apply the semi-gray model of our previous paper to the particular case of the Earth’s atmosphere, in order to illustrate quantitatively the inverse problem associated with the direct problem we dealt with before. From given climatological values of the atmosphere’s spherical albedo and transmittance for visible radiation, the single-scattering albedo and the optical thickness in the visible are inferred, while the infrared optical thickness is deduced for given global average surface temperature. Eventually, temperature distributions in terms of the infrared optical depth will be shown for a terrestrial atmosphere assumed to be semi-gray and, locally, in radiative and thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Pelkowski, J.; Chevallier, L.; Rutily, B.; Titaud, O. 2008: Exact results in modeling planetary atmospheres-III The general theory applied to the Earth’s semi-gray atmosphere, JQSRT.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Alex #85

    “What I would really love to see would be a Ferenc Miskolczi audit of the TFK08 energy budget Steve McIntyre-style.”

    I heartily agree. The M&M04 and M7 papers have concentrated our minds on the overall mechanics of the Earth’s climate system like no others. I am convinced that somewhere in there is the beginning of a great idea.

    We are still learning much about how the Earth’s climate operates and if anyone needed a proof the obvious heat flux balance error of about 24 W/m^2 ‘above the clouds’ in TFK08 while at the same time claiming a net surface absorption of 0.9 W/m^2 is one such.

    Miskolczi Theory deserves to be a work in vigorous progress, not a church with a single high priest.

    I welcome such a timely audit by Ferenc. It would also help to clarify for us his present views.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Alex #85

    “What I would really love to see would be a Ferenc Miskolczi audit of the TFK08 energy budget Steve McIntyre-style.”

    I heartily agree. The M&M04 and M7 papers have concentrated our minds on the overall mechanics of the Earth’s climate system like no others. I am convinced that somewhere in there is the beginning of a great idea.

    We are still learning much about how the Earth’s climate operates and if anyone needed a proof the obvious heat flux balance error of about 24 W/m^2 ‘above the clouds’ in TFK08 while at the same time claiming a net surface absorption of 0.9 W/m^2 is one such.

    Miskolczi Theory deserves to be a work in vigorous progress, not a church with a single high priest.

    I welcome such a timely audit by Ferenc. It would also help to clarify for us his present views.

  • jae

    “I welcome such a timely audit by Ferenc. It would also help to clarify for us his present views.”

    Me, too. Methinks you may be creating strawpeople.

  • jae

    “I welcome such a timely audit by Ferenc. It would also help to clarify for us his present views.”

    Me, too. Methinks you may be creating strawpeople.

  • Alex Harvey

    Responding to my own #96, cringing as I re-read it, I trust the ‘brainsize’ remark was understood to be a joke at my own expense, and no one else’s. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    Responding to my own #96, cringing as I re-read it, I trust the ‘brainsize’ remark was understood to be a joke at my own expense, and no one else’s. :)

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve #97
    There’s no typo in Fig 1. Nor would you expect one – this stuff has been thought about for a long time, and although a preprint, this ms has been reviewed. You’re forgetting that, as well as the 78 W/m2 SW absorbed, and the 17+80 K, there is a nett absorption of 396-333=23 W/m2 LW. Total 198, which, with rounding, balances the 199 W/m2 upward IR.

    And yes, I did register as Pliny at CA.

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve #97
    There’s no typo in Fig 1. Nor would you expect one – this stuff has been thought about for a long time, and although a preprint, this ms has been reviewed. You’re forgetting that, as well as the 78 W/m2 SW absorbed, and the 17+80 K, there is a nett absorption of 396-333=23 W/m2 LW. Total 198, which, with rounding, balances the 199 W/m2 upward IR.

    And yes, I did register as Pliny at CA.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #100

    “….You’re forgetting that, as well as the 78 W/m2 SW absorbed, and the 17+80 K, there is a nett absorption of 396-333=23 W/m2 LW. ”

    Sorry, but I get for 396 – 333 some 63 w/m^2 (;-) However, being reasonable, I guess you probably meant 356 – 333 = 23 W/m^2? So there is still some 23 W/m^2 left over from the fact that A_A does not equal E-D (in M parlance) which passes up through the clouds (and clearly contributes to the OLR)?

    Given that no-one can label each little bit of LW IR (from BOA) it seems to me that S_T is still then 40 + 23 = 63 W/m^2 and hence tauLW = -ln (63/396) = 1.838? As you may have noticed Jan was insisting S_T = 40 W/m^2.

    I’d also be interested in your comment about the difference between the sum of SWabs + sensible + latent = 78 + 17 + 80 = 175 W/m^2 and the 169 W/m^2 contributing to the OLR i.e. this extra 6 W/m^2? Is that why the LW IR passing from the clouds to the OLR is shown as 30 (~ 23 + 6)?

    If so that would tend to make a true S_T neither 63 nor 40 but 40 + 23 – 6 = 57 W/m^2. This would suggest the surface to TOA tauLW = – ln (57/396) = 1.938, n’est pas?

    This is a bit like fishing around inside a good spaghetti bolognaise!

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #100

    “….You’re forgetting that, as well as the 78 W/m2 SW absorbed, and the 17+80 K, there is a nett absorption of 396-333=23 W/m2 LW. ”

    Sorry, but I get for 396 – 333 some 63 w/m^2 (;-) However, being reasonable, I guess you probably meant 356 – 333 = 23 W/m^2? So there is still some 23 W/m^2 left over from the fact that A_A does not equal E-D (in M parlance) which passes up through the clouds (and clearly contributes to the OLR)?

    Given that no-one can label each little bit of LW IR (from BOA) it seems to me that S_T is still then 40 + 23 = 63 W/m^2 and hence tauLW = -ln (63/396) = 1.838? As you may have noticed Jan was insisting S_T = 40 W/m^2.

    I’d also be interested in your comment about the difference between the sum of SWabs + sensible + latent = 78 + 17 + 80 = 175 W/m^2 and the 169 W/m^2 contributing to the OLR i.e. this extra 6 W/m^2? Is that why the LW IR passing from the clouds to the OLR is shown as 30 (~ 23 + 6)?

    If so that would tend to make a true S_T neither 63 nor 40 but 40 + 23 – 6 = 57 W/m^2. This would suggest the surface to TOA tauLW = – ln (57/396) = 1.938, n’est pas?

    This is a bit like fishing around inside a good spaghetti bolognaise!

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    jae #98

    “Methinks you may be creating strawpeople.”

    Heaven forbid! When two or more strawpeople get together they are liable to make hayseeds while the sun shines.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    jae #98

    “Methinks you may be creating strawpeople.”

    Heaven forbid! When two or more strawpeople get together they are liable to make hayseeds while the sun shines.

  • jan pompe

    Nick #100

    There’s no typo in Fig 1. Nor would you expect one – this stuff has been thought about for a long time, and although a preprint, this ms has been reviewed.

    I agree 100%

  • jan pompe

    Nick #100

    There’s no typo in Fig 1. Nor would you expect one – this stuff has been thought about for a long time, and although a preprint, this ms has been reviewed.

    I agree 100%

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve,
    “Given that no-one can label each little bit of LW IR (from BOA) it seems to me that S_T is still then 40 + 23 = 63 W/m^2″
    You can identify the LW by frequency. The 40 W/m2 is in the 8-13 micron atmospheric window, and shows in the spectrum as coming from ground temp. The 23 (yes, I meant 356, thanks) is mostly in other bands; you can, with more difficulty, say something about it from the spectrum. But it isn’t to be included in S_T.

    I think the arithmetic goes like this – there’s a total of 199 (198) W/m2 added to the atmosphere (clouds) plus air, including fluxes from below, and this balances the total upward emission. The reason that that is split into 169+30 is to distinguish what is emitted by clouds (30) and by air (169). These fluxes are seen differently by the satellites. But they are part of the same budget.

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve,
    “Given that no-one can label each little bit of LW IR (from BOA) it seems to me that S_T is still then 40 + 23 = 63 W/m^2″
    You can identify the LW by frequency. The 40 W/m2 is in the 8-13 micron atmospheric window, and shows in the spectrum as coming from ground temp. The 23 (yes, I meant 356, thanks) is mostly in other bands; you can, with more difficulty, say something about it from the spectrum. But it isn’t to be included in S_T.

    I think the arithmetic goes like this – there’s a total of 199 (198) W/m2 added to the atmosphere (clouds) plus air, including fluxes from below, and this balances the total upward emission. The reason that that is split into 169+30 is to distinguish what is emitted by clouds (30) and by air (169). These fluxes are seen differently by the satellites. But they are part of the same budget.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    All good and clear. Thank you.

    But what happens to the 6 W/m^2 discrepancy between the 169 W/m^2 emitted upwards by air above the clouds and the total of SWabs + thermals + latent heat = 78 + 17 + 80 = 175 W/m^2?

    Is this included in the 30 W/m^2 radiated upwards by clouds and if so, why?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    All good and clear. Thank you.

    But what happens to the 6 W/m^2 discrepancy between the 169 W/m^2 emitted upwards by air above the clouds and the total of SWabs + thermals + latent heat = 78 + 17 + 80 = 175 W/m^2?

    Is this included in the 30 W/m^2 radiated upwards by clouds and if so, why?

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve,
    No, it’s all aggregated. The 6 W/m2 in your sum is the difference between the 30 W/m2 up from clouds, and the 23 (356-333) difference in up/down LW. But there’s no reason to associate these numbers particularly. The 23 is just a contribution to the 198 coming in, and the 30 is just a part of the 199 going out.

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve,
    No, it’s all aggregated. The 6 W/m2 in your sum is the difference between the 30 W/m2 up from clouds, and the 23 (356-333) difference in up/down LW. But there’s no reason to associate these numbers particularly. The 23 is just a contribution to the 198 coming in, and the 30 is just a part of the 199 going out.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Re Alex #96,

    I cannot comprehend the purpose of the word “Eventually” in the last line of the Pelkowski extract. Can you illuminate? It is not a customary word in a scientific paper used this way.

    How is the solution to linear algebra going among the regular posters?

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Re Alex #96,

    I cannot comprehend the purpose of the word “Eventually” in the last line of the Pelkowski extract. Can you illuminate? It is not a customary word in a scientific paper used this way.

    How is the solution to linear algebra going among the regular posters?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick Stokes #100, #104, #106

    If as soundly based as it appears this (TFK08) is then a fairly severe blow for Miskolczi Theory.

    It means that a 4 year mean tauA = 2.29 some 22% away from 1.87, that A_A differs from E_D by about 7%, and E_U does not really equal F+K+P (other than approximately) because S_U can only be made to =E_U by means of the use of the emission/back radiation difference between A_A and E_D. Any claim that there is a ‘virial relation ‘ based on a fixed KE/PE = -2 ratio that supports an atmospheric S_U = 2E_U then becomes IMO a hollow claim.

    Is there a ‘superglue’ to stop the M pack of cards collapsing?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick Stokes #100, #104, #106

    If as soundly based as it appears this (TFK08) is then a fairly severe blow for Miskolczi Theory.

    It means that a 4 year mean tauA = 2.29 some 22% away from 1.87, that A_A differs from E_D by about 7%, and E_U does not really equal F+K+P (other than approximately) because S_U can only be made to =E_U by means of the use of the emission/back radiation difference between A_A and E_D. Any claim that there is a ‘virial relation ‘ based on a fixed KE/PE = -2 ratio that supports an atmospheric S_U = 2E_U then becomes IMO a hollow claim.

    Is there a ‘superglue’ to stop the M pack of cards collapsing?

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve #108
    Well, I’ve never been a fan of M theory. TFK08 is not so radically different from K&T97, as their section “Intent of article” explains. When the theory in M theory started to look wobbly, M and Z fell back on a claim that it was empirically substantiated, but the empirical claims were not described at publication level and had no support from actual radiation measurements, relying instead on Hartcode modelling. There is a lot of real empirical information out there.

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve #108
    Well, I’ve never been a fan of M theory. TFK08 is not so radically different from K&T97, as their section “Intent of article” explains. When the theory in M theory started to look wobbly, M and Z fell back on a claim that it was empirically substantiated, but the empirical claims were not described at publication level and had no support from actual radiation measurements, relying instead on Hartcode modelling. There is a lot of real empirical information out there.

  • jae

    “but the empirical claims were not described at publication level and had no support from actual radiation measurements, relying instead on Hartcode modelling. There is a lot of real empirical information out there.”

    ?? I don’t think that is correct. SOME is based on Hartcode, MOST is from radiosonde data, AFIK.

  • jae

    “but the empirical claims were not described at publication level and had no support from actual radiation measurements, relying instead on Hartcode modelling. There is a lot of real empirical information out there.”

    ?? I don’t think that is correct. SOME is based on Hartcode, MOST is from radiosonde data, AFIK.

  • jae

    Nick: I’m kinda shocked by your statements. Have you actually read M’s works?

  • jae

    Nick: I’m kinda shocked by your statements. Have you actually read M’s works?

  • Nick Stokes

    jae Yes, of course I’ve read M’s papers. Probably more than anyone here (do you want to talk about Appendix B?). Anyway, enough to know the empirical data that he uses. The TIGR radiosonde data includes pressure, temperature, and various gas concentrations. There are no measurements of radiation.

  • Nick Stokes

    jae Yes, of course I’ve read M’s papers. Probably more than anyone here (do you want to talk about Appendix B?). Anyway, enough to know the empirical data that he uses. The TIGR radiosonde data includes pressure, temperature, and various gas concentrations. There are no measurements of radiation.

  • jan pompe

    Nick #112

    The TIGR radiosonde data includes pressure, temperature, and various gas concentrations. There are no measurements of radiation.

    So do doubt HARTCODE’s ability to convert that radiosonde data to radiation data?

    It has been pretty well validated as a simple web search will reveal and it is one of the ways the satellite instrument calibration is checked not to mention ground based instruments like pyrgeometers.

    Do we need to go over all that again for you?

  • jan pompe

    Nick #112

    The TIGR radiosonde data includes pressure, temperature, and various gas concentrations. There are no measurements of radiation.

    So do doubt HARTCODE’s ability to convert that radiosonde data to radiation data?

    It has been pretty well validated as a simple web search will reveal and it is one of the ways the satellite instrument calibration is checked not to mention ground based instruments like pyrgeometers.

    Do we need to go over all that again for you?

  • Nick Stokes

    Jan #113
    I was responding to the statement “SOME is based on Hartcode, MOST is from radiosonde data, AFIK.”. You are, as so often, twisting that into something else.

  • Nick Stokes

    Jan #113
    I was responding to the statement “SOME is based on Hartcode, MOST is from radiosonde data, AFIK.”. You are, as so often, twisting that into something else.

  • jan pompe

    Nick #114

    I was responding to the statement “SOME is based on Hartcode, MOST is from radiosonde data, AFIK.”. You are, as so often, twisting that into something else.

    I’m well aware of what you are responding to but what is the issue here is whether HARTCODE + radiosonde can provide radiation data the implication in this sentence

    There are no measurements of radiation.

    that it can’t. At least that is how I understood it are you saying I misunderstood?

  • jan pompe

    Nick #114

    I was responding to the statement “SOME is based on Hartcode, MOST is from radiosonde data, AFIK.”. You are, as so often, twisting that into something else.

    I’m well aware of what you are responding to but what is the issue here is whether HARTCODE + radiosonde can provide radiation data the implication in this sentence

    There are no measurements of radiation.

    that it can’t. At least that is how I understood it are you saying I misunderstood?

  • jae

    Nick is interpreting it correctly; I forgot that the radiosonde data didn’t include the radiation info.

  • jae

    Nick is interpreting it correctly; I forgot that the radiosonde data didn’t include the radiation info.

  • jan pompe

    jae #116

    Nick is interpreting it correctly; I forgot that the radiosonde data didn’t include the radiation info.

    I understood that much. There is however a deeper implication related to an earlier comment by Nick that you also queried:

    When the theory in M theory started to look wobbly, M and Z fell back on a claim that it was empirically substantiated, but the empirical claims were not described at publication level and had no support from actual radiation measurements, relying instead on Hartcode modelling. There is a lot of real empirical information out there.

    implying the work of taking the radiosonde profiles and converting that to radiation data is not empirical work. The principles involved are really no different to obtaining empirical data with radiometers, which uses the effect of temperature on a thermocouple array warmed (or cooled) through a spectrally selective window.

    See this paper or this for some more background or the Michelson interferometer used as a spectrometer by running the varying electromagnetic intensity signal through a fast fourier model to turn the data into a spectrum.

    It just seems to me that Nick has the mistaken impression that the work in M&M04 and M07 does not have an empirical basis to begin with.

  • jan pompe

    jae #116

    Nick is interpreting it correctly; I forgot that the radiosonde data didn’t include the radiation info.

    I understood that much. There is however a deeper implication related to an earlier comment by Nick that you also queried:

    When the theory in M theory started to look wobbly, M and Z fell back on a claim that it was empirically substantiated, but the empirical claims were not described at publication level and had no support from actual radiation measurements, relying instead on Hartcode modelling. There is a lot of real empirical information out there.

    implying the work of taking the radiosonde profiles and converting that to radiation data is not empirical work. The principles involved are really no different to obtaining empirical data with radiometers, which uses the effect of temperature on a thermocouple array warmed (or cooled) through a spectrally selective window.

    See this paper or this for some more background or the Michelson interferometer used as a spectrometer by running the varying electromagnetic intensity signal through a fast fourier model to turn the data into a spectrum.

    It just seems to me that Nick has the mistaken impression that the work in M&M04 and M07 does not have an empirical basis to begin with.

  • Alex Harvey

    Nick #112,

    I’m still interested in Appendix B, as I’ve been discussing it with Jan, and trying to figure it out in the historical context.

    In Collins [2003], p. 254 found here http://bifrost.cwru.edu/personal/collins/astrobook/AbookC10.pdf, Collins’s eqn (10.1.4) corresponds with M’s eqn (B1).

    Then, on p. 256, Collins states that ‘The general classical solution for the two streams can then be written as’ and he introduces eqn. (10.1.5) which differs from M’s (B3) by the equivalent of the Bg * exp(-3/2 tauA) term.

    To justify the removal of this term Collins says:

    One further complication must be dealt with before we can use this description of a stellar atmosphere. In general, stellar atmospheres can be regarded as being infinitely thick. Since the influence of the lower boundary diminishes as exp(tau-tau0), and since this optical depth will exceed several hundred within a few thousand kilometers of the surface for main sequence stars, we can take it to be infinity.

    In other words, the term can be disregarded because the stellar atmosphere exceeds several thousand kilometers in thickness, and tau >several hundred. Anything to the power of minus several hundred is going to be so close to 0 that it seems reasonable to disregard it.

    But surely you would agree that this simplifying assumption is not valid for the earth’s atmosphere, where the tau is closer to 1.87?

  • Alex Harvey

    Nick #112,

    I’m still interested in Appendix B, as I’ve been discussing it with Jan, and trying to figure it out in the historical context.

    In Collins [2003], p. 254 found here http://bifrost.cwru.edu/personal/collins/astrobook/AbookC10.pdf, Collins’s eqn (10.1.4) corresponds with M’s eqn (B1).

    Then, on p. 256, Collins states that ‘The general classical solution for the two streams can then be written as’ and he introduces eqn. (10.1.5) which differs from M’s (B3) by the equivalent of the Bg * exp(-3/2 tauA) term.

    To justify the removal of this term Collins says:

    One further complication must be dealt with before we can use this description of a stellar atmosphere. In general, stellar atmospheres can be regarded as being infinitely thick. Since the influence of the lower boundary diminishes as exp(tau-tau0), and since this optical depth will exceed several hundred within a few thousand kilometers of the surface for main sequence stars, we can take it to be infinity.

    In other words, the term can be disregarded because the stellar atmosphere exceeds several thousand kilometers in thickness, and tau >several hundred. Anything to the power of minus several hundred is going to be so close to 0 that it seems reasonable to disregard it.

    But surely you would agree that this simplifying assumption is not valid for the earth’s atmosphere, where the tau is closer to 1.87?

  • Alex Harvey

    Jan/jae #117 etc:

    The other issue is, is TFK08 purely based on direct measurements of radiation, or are they still using RT codes to get some quantities, such as AA. If they’re still using RT codes like MODTRAN to get AA, then they have no greater claim to being more empirical. Finally, doesn’t the ERBE measurements of MM04 contain direct radiation measurements that M compared his results with?

  • Alex Harvey

    Jan/jae #117 etc:

    The other issue is, is TFK08 purely based on direct measurements of radiation, or are they still using RT codes to get some quantities, such as AA. If they’re still using RT codes like MODTRAN to get AA, then they have no greater claim to being more empirical. Finally, doesn’t the ERBE measurements of MM04 contain direct radiation measurements that M compared his results with?

  • jan pompe

    Alex #119

    The other issue is, is TFK08 purely based on direct measurements of radiation, or are they still using RT codes to get some quantities, such as AA.

    I have no idea if they say in the text I’ve missed it. If there is a direct way to measure $$A_A$ live I don’t know of it. We can of course in a laboratory where the source is hotter than the gas and re-radiation is insignificant.

    Finally, doesn’t the ERBE measurements of MM04 contain direct radiation measurements that M compared his results with?

    I would say so.

  • jan pompe

    Alex #119

    The other issue is, is TFK08 purely based on direct measurements of radiation, or are they still using RT codes to get some quantities, such as AA.

    I have no idea if they say in the text I’ve missed it. If there is a direct way to measure $$A_A$ live I don’t know of it. We can of course in a laboratory where the source is hotter than the gas and re-radiation is insignificant.

    Finally, doesn’t the ERBE measurements of MM04 contain direct radiation measurements that M compared his results with?

    I would say so.

  • Nick Stokes

    Alex #118
    I mentioned App B because I had been puzzling over it. And indeed, it looks like B1 comes from 10.1.4.

    But Collins is describing a very different situation. The energy being radiated is produced by the gas. In fact he says following your quote, that the surface is generally unilluminated. So 10.1.4 cites the source term S. And it has the constant μ, which in B1 would be 2/3.

    But 10.1.4 comes from the inhomogeneous linear equation 10.1.1, and I can’t see any similar eqn in M theory. The nearest is M12, but it has only a constant on the right – so there’s no implied μ. And in fact the equation analogous to 10.1.4 seems to be M15, but it is quite different, reflecting the absence of an energy source.

    It’s true that just before B3 M makes it clear that B is being regarded as the source. It’s possible that this can all be made consistent, but at the moment there is something missing. I can’t see why B1 and its consequences are needed in addition to M12-M15, which seem to stand alone without any “semi-infinite” assumption.

  • Nick Stokes

    Alex #118
    I mentioned App B because I had been puzzling over it. And indeed, it looks like B1 comes from 10.1.4.

    But Collins is describing a very different situation. The energy being radiated is produced by the gas. In fact he says following your quote, that the surface is generally unilluminated. So 10.1.4 cites the source term S. And it has the constant μ, which in B1 would be 2/3.

    But 10.1.4 comes from the inhomogeneous linear equation 10.1.1, and I can’t see any similar eqn in M theory. The nearest is M12, but it has only a constant on the right – so there’s no implied μ. And in fact the equation analogous to 10.1.4 seems to be M15, but it is quite different, reflecting the absence of an energy source.

    It’s true that just before B3 M makes it clear that B is being regarded as the source. It’s possible that this can all be made consistent, but at the moment there is something missing. I can’t see why B1 and its consequences are needed in addition to M12-M15, which seem to stand alone without any “semi-infinite” assumption.

  • Nick Stokes

    Alex #119
    I don’t believe TFK use a RT code, and they don’t quote A_A directly – they give a surface radiation figure and an atmospheric window transmission. The latter could be deduced from analysing the spectrum. You can also say things about the transmitted radiation from directional analysis; in effect it’s the part that transmits surface detail, while E_U is just shine.

  • Nick Stokes

    Alex #119
    I don’t believe TFK use a RT code, and they don’t quote A_A directly – they give a surface radiation figure and an atmospheric window transmission. The latter could be deduced from analysing the spectrum. You can also say things about the transmitted radiation from directional analysis; in effect it’s the part that transmits surface detail, while E_U is just shine.

  • jan pompe

    Nick #121

    It’s possible that this can all be made consistent, but at the moment there is something missing. I can’t see why B1 and its consequences are needed in addition to M12-M15, which seem to stand alone without any “semi-infinite” assumption.

    I’m not sure what you mean “in addition to M12-M15″ it would have that B1 and it’s consequences were “instead of M12 -M15″.

    Would you agree that if the integrals in appendix B were evaluated over the interval $$left(o,infty right)$$ (semi-infinite case) all those $$e ^ {-tilde tau}$$ (missing from M15 – M17) would disappear?

    I could be mistaken but I’m sure we need that exponential term to cope with a transmission window in the atmosphere. As it stands I’m not sure that Eqns M16 and M17 (or Eqns 1 &2 of Lorenz & Mckay ) can cope with an atmospheric IR window See Weaver & Ramanathan (GRL June 1995) “Deductions From a Simple Climate Model: Factors Governing Surface Temperature and Atmospheric Thermal Structure”.

    Abstract here

  • jan pompe

    Nick #121

    It’s possible that this can all be made consistent, but at the moment there is something missing. I can’t see why B1 and its consequences are needed in addition to M12-M15, which seem to stand alone without any “semi-infinite” assumption.

    I’m not sure what you mean “in addition to M12-M15″ it would have that B1 and it’s consequences were “instead of M12 -M15″.

    Would you agree that if the integrals in appendix B were evaluated over the interval $$\left(o,\infty \right)$$ (semi-infinite case) all those $$e ^ {-\tilde \tau}$$ (missing from M15 – M17) would disappear?

    I could be mistaken but I’m sure we need that exponential term to cope with a transmission window in the atmosphere. As it stands I’m not sure that Eqns M16 and M17 (or Eqns 1 &2 of Lorenz & Mckay ) can cope with an atmospheric IR window See Weaver & Ramanathan (GRL June 1995) “Deductions From a Simple Climate Model: Factors Governing Surface Temperature and Atmospheric Thermal Structure”.

    Abstract here

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #123

    “I could be mistaken but I’m sure we need that exponential term to cope with a transmission window in the atmosphere. As it stands I’m not sure that Eqns M16 and M17 (or Eqns 1 &2 of Lorenz & Mckay ) can cope with an atmospheric IR window See Weaver & Ramanathan (GRL June 1995) “Deductions From a Simple Climate Model: Factors Governing Surface Temperature and Atmospheric Thermal Structure”.”

    I got this article about 5 years ago and happily the math in it is quite easy to follow. I am able to send a copy to anyone who emails me. However, the authors do caution that:

    “However, we point out that simple models such as the
    present one cannot be depended upon for quantitative accuracy;
    hence they should be used with extreme care to avoid
    misinterpretations a nd erroneousc onclusions. For example,
    it is well known that water vapor and CO2 absorption do not
    follow semigrey gas models. It is for this reason that we
    focus on the optically thick limit for which the influence of
    the spectral details is expected to be minimal.”

    The paper is a fairly clear approach to a formalism that deals with the window and outlines the consequences of that for a diatomic atmosphere like Earth (and a triatomic atmosphers like Venus).

    The following from R&W97 is interesting:

    “First, the modified SGM shows that the temperature jump
    between the surface and the immediately overlying atmosphere
    vanishes inversely as the total optical depth weighted
    by the size of the spectral window. If we use( 12) with a
    nonzero beta and allow the optical depth to be high somewhere
    in the spectrum (as it is in the centers of the primary
    vibration-rotation bands of CO2 and H2O), we find that the
    discontinuity should be small. Indeed, this has been shown
    to be true for the model of Manabe and Strickler [ 1964], who
    state that the discontinuity is small due to very strong
    absorption near the line centers as well as upward radiation
    from the surface through the nearly transparent regions in
    the line wings and the water vapor window.”

    Beta is the transparent fraction of the total thermal spectrum – the width of the window if you will.

    However, I am not at all sure that M7 Appendix B1 is an acceptable solution to the window issue. This is why I expressed the opinion several times here that Miskolczi would have been much better off presenting his solution as a separate initial paper on the issues of both the window and the surface/atmosphere temperature discontinuity in a mainstream journal first. It is completely unclear how much Miskolczi’s formalism relates to the logic of Manabe and Strickler, 1964 and Ramanathan and Weaver, 1995.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Jan #123

    “I could be mistaken but I’m sure we need that exponential term to cope with a transmission window in the atmosphere. As it stands I’m not sure that Eqns M16 and M17 (or Eqns 1 &2 of Lorenz & Mckay ) can cope with an atmospheric IR window See Weaver & Ramanathan (GRL June 1995) “Deductions From a Simple Climate Model: Factors Governing Surface Temperature and Atmospheric Thermal Structure”.”

    I got this article about 5 years ago and happily the math in it is quite easy to follow. I am able to send a copy to anyone who emails me. However, the authors do caution that:

    “However, we point out that simple models such as the
    present one cannot be depended upon for quantitative accuracy;
    hence they should be used with extreme care to avoid
    misinterpretations a nd erroneousc onclusions. For example,
    it is well known that water vapor and CO2 absorption do not
    follow semigrey gas models. It is for this reason that we
    focus on the optically thick limit for which the influence of
    the spectral details is expected to be minimal.”

    The paper is a fairly clear approach to a formalism that deals with the window and outlines the consequences of that for a diatomic atmosphere like Earth (and a triatomic atmosphers like Venus).

    The following from R&W97 is interesting:

    “First, the modified SGM shows that the temperature jump
    between the surface and the immediately overlying atmosphere
    vanishes inversely as the total optical depth weighted
    by the size of the spectral window. If we use( 12) with a
    nonzero beta and allow the optical depth to be high somewhere
    in the spectrum (as it is in the centers of the primary
    vibration-rotation bands of CO2 and H2O), we find that the
    discontinuity should be small. Indeed, this has been shown
    to be true for the model of Manabe and Strickler [ 1964], who
    state that the discontinuity is small due to very strong
    absorption near the line centers as well as upward radiation
    from the surface through the nearly transparent regions in
    the line wings and the water vapor window.”

    Beta is the transparent fraction of the total thermal spectrum – the width of the window if you will.

    However, I am not at all sure that M7 Appendix B1 is an acceptable solution to the window issue. This is why I expressed the opinion several times here that Miskolczi would have been much better off presenting his solution as a separate initial paper on the issues of both the window and the surface/atmosphere temperature discontinuity in a mainstream journal first. It is completely unclear how much Miskolczi’s formalism relates to the logic of Manabe and Strickler, 1964 and Ramanathan and Weaver, 1995.

  • jae

    Steve, Jan: I confess that you guys have got my mind in such a swirl that I don’t know what’s going on. I wish we could have a few beers together and get on the same playing field, but I think there are a few thousand miles between us. Maybe someone (David?) could summarize just where we are on the Miskolczi File.

  • jae

    Steve, Jan: I confess that you guys have got my mind in such a swirl that I don’t know what’s going on. I wish we could have a few beers together and get on the same playing field, but I think there are a few thousand miles between us. Maybe someone (David?) could summarize just where we are on the Miskolczi File.

  • jan pompe

    jae #125

    Maybe someone (David?) could summarize just where we are on the Miskolczi File.

    my guess is somewhere between the spout and the lightining ;-)

  • jan pompe

    jae #125

    Maybe someone (David?) could summarize just where we are on the Miskolczi File.

    my guess is somewhere between the spout and the lightining ;-)

  • Nick Stokes

    Jan #123

    I’m not sure what you mean “in addition to M12-M15″ it would have that B1 and it’s consequences were “instead of M12 -M15″.

    Would you agree that if the integrals in appendix B were evaluated over the interval left(o,infty right) (semi-infinite case) all those e ^ {-tilde tau} (missing from M15 – M17) would disappear?

    Why instead of? Are M12-15 wrong? They seem to give the quantities needed.

    The exponentials would not disappear on an infinite interval – in fact, they are absolutely needed to make the integral itself finite. See Collins 10.1.6. The reason they are missing in 15-17 is that these are not equations involving I.

    I don’t agree that the exponentials have anything to do with the atmospheric window. They are needed as part of a gray-body model, which the window is never consistent with – that’s one reason why this stuff has no connection with practical atmospheric computations. Any equation which uses average tau as a variable is gray-body. At the window frequencies the OD is zero – so they exponentials would actually go away.

    I think what is happening here is that M12-15 assume radiative equilibrium (~constant H, all assumed following M11). 10.1.4 does not, and B1, derived from it, is potentially more general, because convection and latent heat could be included as sources. But FM doesn’t do that; he just uses B as the source. The equations look different, because they are expressed in terms of I, but it isn’t clear to me that they add anything.

  • Nick Stokes

    Jan #123

    I’m not sure what you mean “in addition to M12-M15″ it would have that B1 and it’s consequences were “instead of M12 -M15″.

    Would you agree that if the integrals in appendix B were evaluated over the interval \left(o,\infty \right) (semi-infinite case) all those e ^ {-\tilde \tau} (missing from M15 – M17) would disappear?

    Why instead of? Are M12-15 wrong? They seem to give the quantities needed.

    The exponentials would not disappear on an infinite interval – in fact, they are absolutely needed to make the integral itself finite. See Collins 10.1.6. The reason they are missing in 15-17 is that these are not equations involving I.

    I don’t agree that the exponentials have anything to do with the atmospheric window. They are needed as part of a gray-body model, which the window is never consistent with – that’s one reason why this stuff has no connection with practical atmospheric computations. Any equation which uses average tau as a variable is gray-body. At the window frequencies the OD is zero – so they exponentials would actually go away.

    I think what is happening here is that M12-15 assume radiative equilibrium (~constant H, all assumed following M11). 10.1.4 does not, and B1, derived from it, is potentially more general, because convection and latent heat could be included as sources. But FM doesn’t do that; he just uses B as the source. The equations look different, because they are expressed in terms of I, but it isn’t clear to me that they add anything.

  • Nick Stokes

    OK, I’ve figured out where App B fits in. As we’ve discussed before, M12 is a first order linear de (a very simple one), and you can only apply one boundary condition (BC). Usually, this is done at TOA, and M15 is the result. There’s good reason for that – TOA is where the assumption of radiative equilibrium really works, and you do know the OLR that has to be matched. The result is a solution of M12 that is valid going downwards, but might not satisfy the BC when you encounter a surface.

    The purpose of App B is to instead use the radiative transfer equations to apply the right BC at the ground. You can do that, but it won’t be right at TOA. That’s serious – you don’t get the right exiting OLR, and there is a global energy imbalance. I think the TOA version, which goes back to Schwarzschild, is much preferable. The ground (and nearby) is exactly where radiative equilibrium is known not to apply, because of large convection and latent heat fluxes. H was assumed constant in both M12-15 and App B because the energy flux must be constant, but the upward energy flux is actually H+K.

    That’s what is wrong with this whole approach. K is small in the upper atmosphere, so M12 works there, and the BC used is correct. Worrying about a discontinuity at the ground is illogical, because by then K matters, and M12 is no longer a good approx. Trying to apply M12 with a ground BC only makes this worse.

  • Nick Stokes

    OK, I’ve figured out where App B fits in. As we’ve discussed before, M12 is a first order linear de (a very simple one), and you can only apply one boundary condition (BC). Usually, this is done at TOA, and M15 is the result. There’s good reason for that – TOA is where the assumption of radiative equilibrium really works, and you do know the OLR that has to be matched. The result is a solution of M12 that is valid going downwards, but might not satisfy the BC when you encounter a surface.

    The purpose of App B is to instead use the radiative transfer equations to apply the right BC at the ground. You can do that, but it won’t be right at TOA. That’s serious – you don’t get the right exiting OLR, and there is a global energy imbalance. I think the TOA version, which goes back to Schwarzschild, is much preferable. The ground (and nearby) is exactly where radiative equilibrium is known not to apply, because of large convection and latent heat fluxes. H was assumed constant in both M12-15 and App B because the energy flux must be constant, but the upward energy flux is actually H+K.

    That’s what is wrong with this whole approach. K is small in the upper atmosphere, so M12 works there, and the BC used is correct. Worrying about a discontinuity at the ground is illogical, because by then K matters, and M12 is no longer a good approx. Trying to apply M12 with a ground BC only makes this worse.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Thanks Nick. Well explained. I always thought it was all about the K term but around here – it was ‘recant heretic or get burned’. Even R&W97 consider lapse rate. BTW, have you seen Ken Takahashi’s two 2008 papers?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Thanks Nick. Well explained. I always thought it was all about the K term but around here – it was ‘recant heretic or get burned’. Even R&W97 consider lapse rate. BTW, have you seen Ken Takahashi’s two 2008 papers?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t really want to start it up with my views, partly becasue I’m not really expert enough in the physics to contribute, and I have other things on. Its OK to let it die here. FM has feedback for the next iteration, we learned a lot about atmospheric radiation physics, had some fun.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    I don’t really want to start it up with my views, partly becasue I’m not really expert enough in the physics to contribute, and I have other things on. Its OK to let it die here. FM has feedback for the next iteration, we learned a lot about atmospheric radiation physics, had some fun.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    This bright fellow has the decency to post his publications as pdfs for those who want to keep learning and his papers are very readable too.

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ken/

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    This bright fellow has the decency to post his publications as pdfs for those who want to keep learning and his papers are very readable too.

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ken/

  • Nick Stokes

    I’m very sympathetic to the idea of calling an end to the discussion. But I’ve realised a solution to a long-term puzzle, and thought I should report it.

    I’ve been puzzled about FM’s use of “semi-infinite” and asked for anyone to explain it, without success. But I see the word is used by Collins. It is not appropriate for the Schwarzschild solution, which is just the TOA solution going down, with no infinite assumption.

    However, what FM has done is to work out the ground BC solution of M12, and shows that it is different (and to that extent, I believe, wrong). He then shows that for an infinitely thick atmosphere, the difference goes away, so he calls M15 a semi-infinite approximation. But it isn’t. Schwarzschild’s solution makes no such assumption. The fact that it becomes consistent with the ground BC solution when the ground is at infinity is interesting, but a separate fact.

  • Nick Stokes

    I’m very sympathetic to the idea of calling an end to the discussion. But I’ve realised a solution to a long-term puzzle, and thought I should report it.

    I’ve been puzzled about FM’s use of “semi-infinite” and asked for anyone to explain it, without success. But I see the word is used by Collins. It is not appropriate for the Schwarzschild solution, which is just the TOA solution going down, with no infinite assumption.

    However, what FM has done is to work out the ground BC solution of M12, and shows that it is different (and to that extent, I believe, wrong). He then shows that for an infinitely thick atmosphere, the difference goes away, so he calls M15 a semi-infinite approximation. But it isn’t. Schwarzschild’s solution makes no such assumption. The fact that it becomes consistent with the ground BC solution when the ground is at infinity is interesting, but a separate fact.

  • jan pompe

    David

    Its OK to let it die here.

    Fair enough. We’ll see what transpires next iteration.

  • jan pompe

    David

    Its OK to let it die here.

    Fair enough. We’ll see what transpires next iteration.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #132

    “He then shows that for an infinitely thick atmosphere, the difference goes away, so he calls M15 a semi-infinite approximation. But it isn’t. Schwarzschild’s solution makes no such assumption. The fact that it becomes consistent with the ground BC solution when the ground is at infinity is interesting, but a separate fact.”

    I’ll ‘fess up. It sucked me in.

    BTW, it is interesting to note that TFK08 gets a 4 year mean LW tauA = 2.29 – say 2.3 (hat tip to Jan ;-) . This is very close to the required LW tau for the maximum partition ratio of convective heat flux/surface upward LW radiation according to MEP (Ozawa and Ohmura, 1997) i.e. K/S_U = 97/396 = 0.245

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #132

    “He then shows that for an infinitely thick atmosphere, the difference goes away, so he calls M15 a semi-infinite approximation. But it isn’t. Schwarzschild’s solution makes no such assumption. The fact that it becomes consistent with the ground BC solution when the ground is at infinity is interesting, but a separate fact.”

    I’ll ‘fess up. It sucked me in.

    BTW, it is interesting to note that TFK08 gets a 4 year mean LW tauA = 2.29 – say 2.3 (hat tip to Jan ;-) . This is very close to the required LW tau for the maximum partition ratio of convective heat flux/surface upward LW radiation according to MEP (Ozawa and Ohmura, 1997) i.e. K/S_U = 97/396 = 0.245

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Re Nick at #132 and others

    Some of us have left the considerable detective work to you folk and would feel anti-climactic if you just dropped it. Is there are chance that the half dozen or fewer main participants can work behindthe dcenes to produce a series of dot points, which would be immensely interesting when we others read Ferenc again.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Re Nick at #132 and others

    Some of us have left the considerable detective work to you folk and would feel anti-climactic if you just dropped it. Is there are chance that the half dozen or fewer main participants can work behindthe dcenes to produce a series of dot points, which would be immensely interesting when we others read Ferenc again.

  • Alex Harvey

    More on Philipona et al.

    Philipona, R., B. Dürr, A. Ohmura, and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.

    Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-by-month analyses show temperature and humidity changes for individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to east are not related to circulation but must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback, enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity (r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r = 0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water vapor feedback.

    Then this:

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0538.html

    “The authors, led by Rolf Philipona of the World Radiation Center in Davos, show experimentally that 70 percent of the rapid temperature increase is very likely caused by water vapor feedback. They indicate that remaining 30 percent is likely due to increasing manmade greenhouse gases.”

    Then at the bottom:

    “Notes for Journalists

    Journalists (only) may obtain a pdf copy of this paper upon request to Jonathan Lifland: jlifland@agu.org. Please provide your name, name of publication, phone, and email address. The paper and this press release are not under embargo.”

    So basically,

    P in 2004: 2/3 of the unpredicted warming was caused by the NAO -> therefore OMG the greenhouse effect is real!
    P in 2005: 2/3 of the unpredicted warming caused by extraordinary water vapour feedback -> therefore OMG the greenhouse effect is real!
    P in 2009: 2/3 of the unpredicted warming caused by anthropogenic-global-un-dimming -> therefore OMG the greenhouse effect is real!

  • Alex Harvey

    More on Philipona et al.

    Philipona, R., B. Dürr, A. Ohmura, and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624.

    Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-by-month analyses show temperature and humidity changes for individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to east are not related to circulation but must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback, enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity (r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r = 0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water vapor feedback.

    Then this:

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0538.html

    “The authors, led by Rolf Philipona of the World Radiation Center in Davos, show experimentally that 70 percent of the rapid temperature increase is very likely caused by water vapor feedback. They indicate that remaining 30 percent is likely due to increasing manmade greenhouse gases.”

    Then at the bottom:

    “Notes for Journalists

    Journalists (only) may obtain a pdf copy of this paper upon request to Jonathan Lifland: jlifland@agu.org. Please provide your name, name of publication, phone, and email address. The paper and this press release are not under embargo.”

    So basically,

    P in 2004: 2/3 of the unpredicted warming was caused by the NAO -> therefore OMG the greenhouse effect is real!
    P in 2005: 2/3 of the unpredicted warming caused by extraordinary water vapour feedback -> therefore OMG the greenhouse effect is real!
    P in 2009: 2/3 of the unpredicted warming caused by anthropogenic-global-un-dimming -> therefore OMG the greenhouse effect is real!

  • Alex Harvey

    Geoff #135,

    By the way, I would be happy to summarise for you in an email where there has been general areas of agreement amongst participants in the Miskolczi discussion. My email address is alexharv074 at gmail dot com.

    Belated thanks to Nick for the response above, and all his other responses, too. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    Geoff #135,

    By the way, I would be happy to summarise for you in an email where there has been general areas of agreement amongst participants in the Miskolczi discussion. My email address is alexharv074 at gmail dot com.

    Belated thanks to Nick for the response above, and all his other responses, too. :)

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Geoff #135

    “Is there are chance that the half dozen or fewer main participants can work behind the scenes to produce a series of dot points, which would be immensely interesting when we others read Ferenc again.”

    This is an easy one. We now know from the 5 years May 2000 – May 2004 of CERES program that all the so-called empirical relations which were established by M&M04 and M07 simply do not exist.

    The pre-print version of K,T&F (2008) has the following numbers for CERES May 2000 – May 2004:
    Fo = 239.4 W/m^2
    OLR = 238.5 W/m^2
    F = 78.2 W/m^2
    K = 17 (H_S) + 80 (H_L) = 97.0 W/m^2
    S_T = 40 W/m^2
    S_U = 396 W/m^2
    E_U = OLR – S_T = 238.5 – 40 = 198.5 W/m^2
    A_A = 356 W/m^2
    E_D = 333 W/m^2

    ‘Dot points’ follow:

    Thus from we have S_T = 0.101 ~ 1/10 Miskolczi said ~1/6 (0.167)

    We have transmittance T_A = S_T/S_U ~1/10 Miskolczi said ~1/6

    We have tauA = -lnS_T/S_U) = 2.29 Miskolczi said ~1.87

    We also have S_U/OLR = 396/238.5 = 1.660 ~ 5/3 Miskolczi said ~3/2 (1.500)

    We also have A_A/E_D = 356/333 = 1.069 ~15/14 Miskolczi said A_A/E_D~ 1

    We also have S_U/E_U = 396/198.5 = 1.995 Miskolczi said S_U = 2E_U

    So of all these so-called ‘empirical relationships’ the only one, the so-called virial relation S_U = 2E_U is the one that appears to hold up to better than 5% deviation.

    The so-called Kirchoff law relation A_A = E_D fares very badly and may be taken as disproven.

    Interestingly, the only relation which appears to hold up to better than 5%, but in an unexpected way, is the very one downplayed by Miskolczi and particularly by Jan that is the one E_U = F + K + P

    Interestingly, if we stick strictly to Miskolczi’s definition and note that the period May 2000 – May 2004 did not include any globally significantly volcanoes, then F + K = 78.2 + 97.0 = 175.2 which differs from OLR – S_T = 238.5 – 40 = 198.5 by 23.3 W/m^2. But this is almost exactly the difference between A_A (the absorbed LW radiation) and E_D (the downwards atmospheric emittance) i.e. A_A – E_D = 356 – 333 = 23!

    As Nick Stokes shows, Miskolczi’s ‘proof’ of the lack of a temperature difference at the surface is no such thing. There is such a difference, and the lack of concordance in the lower troposphere between A_A and E_D is clear confirmation.

    If the participants in the Miskolczi discussion can reach any general degree of agreement it should therefore be that:

    (1) the so-called Miskolczi ‘proof’ of no temperature discontinuity at or very near to the surface is dead in the water; and that

    (2) the A_A/E_D = 1 so-called Kirchoff Law relation ‘discoverd’ by Miskolczi is also dead in the water; but that intriguingly

    (3) the so-called virial relation S_U = 2E_U relation not only appears to be good but that, in the absence of a geothermal P term input (to E_U) then E_U = F + K + A_A – E_D = OLR – S_T = S_U/2

    In other words Equations 1, 2 and 3 in M7 still hold, as they should, because they were and are simple expressions of the energy balance of the atmosphere. But any further assertion that they show a radiative balance of the atmosphere is plain wrong because some of the terms remain non-radiative and E_U is never just = F+K+P i.e. E_U always = F + K + A_A – E_D + P

    It would be interesting to see how Neal King reacts to the finding that S_U still = 2E_U in K,T&F (2008) because it appears to be a linchpin feature of the atmosphere. Whether it is actually equivalent to the ‘total gravitational potential energy equal to two times the internal kinetic energy’ remains an intriguing question.

    This suggests that Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of M07 deserve some continued attention but with a big ‘grain of salt’ as follows:

    If we look at Misckolczi’s so-called additive virial term in M07 i.e. S_V = S_T/2 – E_D/10 we now find that it actually approximates 20 – 33.3 = -13.3 and hence S_U + S_T/2 – E_D/10 = 396 – 13.3 = 383.3 = 1.607 not equal 3OLR/2 so Miskolczi obviously got it wrong with his Eqn. 9.

    This brings crashing down the obviously circular reasoning of M7 Eqn. 10. In actual fact, where E_D ~ 8S_T or LW transmittance T_A ~1/10, Eqn. 9 would not take the form of Eqn.8 at all but actually S_U = 5OLR/3 as I noted above. The way it stands at the moment:

    OLR = S_T + F + K + A_A – E-D

    i.e.

    OLR = 2S_U/20 + 4S_U/20 + 5S-U/20 + 18S_U/20 – 17S_U/20

    = 12S_U/20

    =3S_U/5

    Now there’s some really nice numerology for you – and to better than 5% as well (spot the S_V if you can folks ;-) !

    BTW, as an aside may I recommend the very fine historical novel ‘Creation’ by the wonderful Gore Vidal. It has some truly great stuff about the immensely powerful effects of ‘prophets’, ‘revealed truths’ and ‘high priests’ on the poor and numberless masses in the story of man. Timeless, ageless and ever so true ……at all scales.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Geoff #135

    “Is there are chance that the half dozen or fewer main participants can work behind the scenes to produce a series of dot points, which would be immensely interesting when we others read Ferenc again.”

    This is an easy one. We now know from the 5 years May 2000 – May 2004 of CERES program that all the so-called empirical relations which were established by M&M04 and M07 simply do not exist.

    The pre-print version of K,T&F (2008) has the following numbers for CERES May 2000 – May 2004:
    Fo = 239.4 W/m^2
    OLR = 238.5 W/m^2
    F = 78.2 W/m^2
    K = 17 (H_S) + 80 (H_L) = 97.0 W/m^2
    S_T = 40 W/m^2
    S_U = 396 W/m^2
    E_U = OLR – S_T = 238.5 – 40 = 198.5 W/m^2
    A_A = 356 W/m^2
    E_D = 333 W/m^2

    ‘Dot points’ follow:

    Thus from we have S_T = 0.101 ~ 1/10 Miskolczi said ~1/6 (0.167)

    We have transmittance T_A = S_T/S_U ~1/10 Miskolczi said ~1/6

    We have tauA = -lnS_T/S_U) = 2.29 Miskolczi said ~1.87

    We also have S_U/OLR = 396/238.5 = 1.660 ~ 5/3 Miskolczi said ~3/2 (1.500)

    We also have A_A/E_D = 356/333 = 1.069 ~15/14 Miskolczi said A_A/E_D~ 1

    We also have S_U/E_U = 396/198.5 = 1.995 Miskolczi said S_U = 2E_U

    So of all these so-called ‘empirical relationships’ the only one, the so-called virial relation S_U = 2E_U is the one that appears to hold up to better than 5% deviation.

    The so-called Kirchoff law relation A_A = E_D fares very badly and may be taken as disproven.

    Interestingly, the only relation which appears to hold up to better than 5%, but in an unexpected way, is the very one downplayed by Miskolczi and particularly by Jan that is the one E_U = F + K + P

    Interestingly, if we stick strictly to Miskolczi’s definition and note that the period May 2000 – May 2004 did not include any globally significantly volcanoes, then F + K = 78.2 + 97.0 = 175.2 which differs from OLR – S_T = 238.5 – 40 = 198.5 by 23.3 W/m^2. But this is almost exactly the difference between A_A (the absorbed LW radiation) and E_D (the downwards atmospheric emittance) i.e. A_A – E_D = 356 – 333 = 23!

    As Nick Stokes shows, Miskolczi’s ‘proof’ of the lack of a temperature difference at the surface is no such thing. There is such a difference, and the lack of concordance in the lower troposphere between A_A and E_D is clear confirmation.

    If the participants in the Miskolczi discussion can reach any general degree of agreement it should therefore be that:

    (1) the so-called Miskolczi ‘proof’ of no temperature discontinuity at or very near to the surface is dead in the water; and that

    (2) the A_A/E_D = 1 so-called Kirchoff Law relation ‘discoverd’ by Miskolczi is also dead in the water; but that intriguingly

    (3) the so-called virial relation S_U = 2E_U relation not only appears to be good but that, in the absence of a geothermal P term input (to E_U) then E_U = F + K + A_A – E_D = OLR – S_T = S_U/2

    In other words Equations 1, 2 and 3 in M7 still hold, as they should, because they were and are simple expressions of the energy balance of the atmosphere. But any further assertion that they show a radiative balance of the atmosphere is plain wrong because some of the terms remain non-radiative and E_U is never just = F+K+P i.e. E_U always = F + K + A_A – E_D + P

    It would be interesting to see how Neal King reacts to the finding that S_U still = 2E_U in K,T&F (2008) because it appears to be a linchpin feature of the atmosphere. Whether it is actually equivalent to the ‘total gravitational potential energy equal to two times the internal kinetic energy’ remains an intriguing question.

    This suggests that Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of M07 deserve some continued attention but with a big ‘grain of salt’ as follows:

    If we look at Misckolczi’s so-called additive virial term in M07 i.e. S_V = S_T/2 – E_D/10 we now find that it actually approximates 20 – 33.3 = -13.3 and hence S_U + S_T/2 – E_D/10 = 396 – 13.3 = 383.3 = 1.607 not equal 3OLR/2 so Miskolczi obviously got it wrong with his Eqn. 9.

    This brings crashing down the obviously circular reasoning of M7 Eqn. 10. In actual fact, where E_D ~ 8S_T or LW transmittance T_A ~1/10, Eqn. 9 would not take the form of Eqn.8 at all but actually S_U = 5OLR/3 as I noted above. The way it stands at the moment:

    OLR = S_T + F + K + A_A – E-D

    i.e.

    OLR = 2S_U/20 + 4S_U/20 + 5S-U/20 + 18S_U/20 – 17S_U/20

    = 12S_U/20

    =3S_U/5

    Now there’s some really nice numerology for you – and to better than 5% as well (spot the S_V if you can folks ;-) !

    BTW, as an aside may I recommend the very fine historical novel ‘Creation’ by the wonderful Gore Vidal. It has some truly great stuff about the immensely powerful effects of ‘prophets’, ‘revealed truths’ and ‘high priests’ on the poor and numberless masses in the story of man. Timeless, ageless and ever so true ……at all scales.

  • Anonymous

    That is a very impressive round-up Steve. You know, it just feels like real science, the effort it has taken to get somewhere, the not straying far from empiricism, the dissection of assumptions.

    Am I right in saying that the upshot of the relaxation of the ‘Kirchhoff constraint’, but keeping the ‘Virial constraint’ is that the climate system no longer adjusts back to the stable state with GHG perturbation, but that the instantaneous forcing estimated by FM still holds? These are low of course, a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of less than a degree if I remember, but in line with Spencer and others.

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    That is a very impressive round-up Steve. You know, it just feels like real science, the effort it has taken to get somewhere, the not straying far from empiricism, the dissection of assumptions.

    Am I right in saying that the upshot of the relaxation of the ‘Kirchhoff constraint’, but keeping the ‘Virial constraint’ is that the climate system no longer adjusts back to the stable state with GHG perturbation, but that the instantaneous forcing estimated by FM still holds? These are low of course, a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of less than a degree if I remember, but in line with Spencer and others.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    admin #139

    “You know, it just feels like real science, the effort it has taken to get somewhere, the not straying far from empiricism, the dissection of assumptions.

    …….Am I right in saying that the upshot of the relaxation of the ‘Kirchhoff constraint’, but keeping the ‘Virial constraint’ is that the climate system no longer adjusts back to the stable state with GHG perturbation, but that the instantaneous forcing estimated by FM still holds?”

    Yes, I think so. This is why I still find what Misckolczi has done fascinating.

    As I hope I was able to hint at in my post #138, despite everything, I still think it is not yet over for Miskolczi i.e. the fat lady is not singing yet!

    When I realized that the measured difference between A_A and E_D in K,T&F08 instantly supplied the missing ~20 W/m^2 which I have been trying for months to ‘tack on’ to the K term (to the endless irritation of Jan and the cause of numerous heavy tit-for-tat posts) to supply a plausible net heat balance for the atmosphere, I almost fell off my chair.

    Sticking with M’s formalism (which does not excessively simplify reality to not be able to describe the system adequately) I am therefore still captured by the evident fact that E_U = F + K + A_A – E_D (+ P) = S_ U – S_T = S_U/2 i.e. the so-called virial relation – even by the determinations of K,T&F08!

    Why? How? And how come the AGW orthodoxy haven’t noticed/addressed this issue? I am convinced this relation indicates a sort of homeostasis is buried in the system which can only act to reduce CO2 sensitivity.

    If you scour the literature there have been hints for many years before Spencer that something like this is going on. Lindzen seems to me to be the person who has the strongest sense of it but I also earlier quoted an obscure paper from 2000 by two Egyptian meteorologists which is tantalising in this regard. I suspect Ken Takahashi of NOAA knows it is there too.

    BTW, I take it you have noticed the global SW flux simply reflected off the surface due to surface albedo given by K,T&F08 is also 23 W/m^2 – precisely equal to the global (LW) difference between A_A and E_D given by them! Another coincidence? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    admin #139

    “You know, it just feels like real science, the effort it has taken to get somewhere, the not straying far from empiricism, the dissection of assumptions.

    …….Am I right in saying that the upshot of the relaxation of the ‘Kirchhoff constraint’, but keeping the ‘Virial constraint’ is that the climate system no longer adjusts back to the stable state with GHG perturbation, but that the instantaneous forcing estimated by FM still holds?”

    Yes, I think so. This is why I still find what Misckolczi has done fascinating.

    As I hope I was able to hint at in my post #138, despite everything, I still think it is not yet over for Miskolczi i.e. the fat lady is not singing yet!

    When I realized that the measured difference between A_A and E_D in K,T&F08 instantly supplied the missing ~20 W/m^2 which I have been trying for months to ‘tack on’ to the K term (to the endless irritation of Jan and the cause of numerous heavy tit-for-tat posts) to supply a plausible net heat balance for the atmosphere, I almost fell off my chair.

    Sticking with M’s formalism (which does not excessively simplify reality to not be able to describe the system adequately) I am therefore still captured by the evident fact that E_U = F + K + A_A – E_D (+ P) = S_ U – S_T = S_U/2 i.e. the so-called virial relation – even by the determinations of K,T&F08!

    Why? How? And how come the AGW orthodoxy haven’t noticed/addressed this issue? I am convinced this relation indicates a sort of homeostasis is buried in the system which can only act to reduce CO2 sensitivity.

    If you scour the literature there have been hints for many years before Spencer that something like this is going on. Lindzen seems to me to be the person who has the strongest sense of it but I also earlier quoted an obscure paper from 2000 by two Egyptian meteorologists which is tantalising in this regard. I suspect Ken Takahashi of NOAA knows it is there too.

    BTW, I take it you have noticed the global SW flux simply reflected off the surface due to surface albedo given by K,T&F08 is also 23 W/m^2 – precisely equal to the global (LW) difference between A_A and E_D given by them! Another coincidence? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Re Steve Short #138,

    You sure take a tough line on rejecting balances that are slightly different! I read through your list and put a tick against most and then you came along and gave a fail.
    I do not want to preempt the fat lady in song, but I do not think that you can truly state that
    “(1) the so-called Miskolczi ‘proof’ of no temperature discontinuity at or very near to the surface is dead in the water”

    My reasoning is that the measurement of temperatures at this interface is wide open to interpretation, convention, definition or whatever. There really is no such creature as surface sea temperature. There is a gradient which is mixed to various degrees. With what part of the gradient are you comparing the atmosphere? Likewise, the atmosphere, from mast experiments, is a horrible mishmash until you get above a few hundred m altitude. If you are comparing with a surface compilation like HADCRU, then the extensive literature on blogs about the problems with this are legendary.

    For reasons like this, I’m pleased that the effort will not stop here. Please take my sincere thanks for your combined works to date.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Re Steve Short #138,

    You sure take a tough line on rejecting balances that are slightly different! I read through your list and put a tick against most and then you came along and gave a fail.
    I do not want to preempt the fat lady in song, but I do not think that you can truly state that
    “(1) the so-called Miskolczi ‘proof’ of no temperature discontinuity at or very near to the surface is dead in the water”

    My reasoning is that the measurement of temperatures at this interface is wide open to interpretation, convention, definition or whatever. There really is no such creature as surface sea temperature. There is a gradient which is mixed to various degrees. With what part of the gradient are you comparing the atmosphere? Likewise, the atmosphere, from mast experiments, is a horrible mishmash until you get above a few hundred m altitude. If you are comparing with a surface compilation like HADCRU, then the extensive literature on blogs about the problems with this are legendary.

    For reasons like this, I’m pleased that the effort will not stop here. Please take my sincere thanks for your combined works to date.

  • jae

    Geoff:

    “You sure take a tough line on rejecting balances that are slightly different! I read through your list and put a tick against most and then you came along and gave a fail.”

    Just what I was thinking. Why should we expect the datasets to agree exactly?

  • jae

    Geoff:

    “You sure take a tough line on rejecting balances that are slightly different! I read through your list and put a tick against most and then you came along and gave a fail.”

    Just what I was thinking. Why should we expect the datasets to agree exactly?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Geoff Sherrington #141

    “You sure take a tough line on rejecting balances that are slightly different! ”

    jae #142

    “Just what I was thinking. Why should we expect the datasets to agree exactly?”

    Hhhmmmm….K,T&F08 is a review paper just like K&T97 was. BTW, Nick Stokes previously made this point.

    K,T&F08 compare their 9CERES) estimates (for effectively all the terms I covered) from the 5 year CERES study with three other quite separate studies (i.e. datasets) – the ICCP FD, the NRA and JRA studies. The references for these other three studies/datsets are given. Indeed, for the oceans they also checked K (i.e. H_S and H_L) against two further studies as well. This is understandable given that global mean oceanic convective sensible and latent heat fluxes are so contentious (e.g. Spencer et al. etc).

    Sorry guys, but IMHO both of your comments would ring rather hollow to anyone who has actually read right through the K,T&F08 review paper and perhaps followed up on the other studies.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Geoff Sherrington #141

    “You sure take a tough line on rejecting balances that are slightly different! ”

    jae #142

    “Just what I was thinking. Why should we expect the datasets to agree exactly?”

    Hhhmmmm….K,T&F08 is a review paper just like K&T97 was. BTW, Nick Stokes previously made this point.

    K,T&F08 compare their 9CERES) estimates (for effectively all the terms I covered) from the 5 year CERES study with three other quite separate studies (i.e. datasets) – the ICCP FD, the NRA and JRA studies. The references for these other three studies/datsets are given. Indeed, for the oceans they also checked K (i.e. H_S and H_L) against two further studies as well. This is understandable given that global mean oceanic convective sensible and latent heat fluxes are so contentious (e.g. Spencer et al. etc).

    Sorry guys, but IMHO both of your comments would ring rather hollow to anyone who has actually read right through the K,T&F08 review paper and perhaps followed up on the other studies.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Steve Short #143

    Given that this is Niche Modeling, the Power of Numeracy, I would have expected to see some error estimates on the raw figures. I simply do not know if comparisons are statistically different at any chosen level of confidence. I fully accept that it is easy to sit back and ask this, for it is not a simple task, but you might have some informal feel for accuracy that would help set relevance. I’m not sniping, I just don’t know how confident you are.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Steve Short #143

    Given that this is Niche Modeling, the Power of Numeracy, I would have expected to see some error estimates on the raw figures. I simply do not know if comparisons are statistically different at any chosen level of confidence. I fully accept that it is easy to sit back and ask this, for it is not a simple task, but you might have some informal feel for accuracy that would help set relevance. I’m not sniping, I just don’t know how confident you are.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Geoff Sherrington #144

    “I simply do not know if comparisons are statistically different at any chosen level of confidence. ”

    All I can say Geoff, as someone who is very interested in Miskolczi’s work as I am that you re-read Section 6. Error Estimates, Section 7. Greenhouse parameters and Section 8. Zonal distributions in M07. To his credit Miskolczi discussed the issue of relative error bounds to his parameters especially the transfer functions and various LW taus and their implications. See for example Fig. 7. For example, simple arithmetic shows is hard to a reconcile the global mean LW tau of 2.29 of K, T &F 08 with Misckolci’s predicted 1.87 (a 24.5% difference on the mean) with his theoretical error predictions.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Geoff Sherrington #144

    “I simply do not know if comparisons are statistically different at any chosen level of confidence. ”

    All I can say Geoff, as someone who is very interested in Miskolczi’s work as I am that you re-read Section 6. Error Estimates, Section 7. Greenhouse parameters and Section 8. Zonal distributions in M07. To his credit Miskolczi discussed the issue of relative error bounds to his parameters especially the transfer functions and various LW taus and their implications. See for example Fig. 7. For example, simple arithmetic shows is hard to a reconcile the global mean LW tau of 2.29 of K, T &F 08 with Misckolci’s predicted 1.87 (a 24.5% difference on the mean) with his theoretical error predictions.

  • Anonymous

    Steve, In your accounting, the one main difference is the amount of transmittance S_T isn’t it. M uses 1/6 but KT&F; is a lot less, 1/10. Would that difference account for the differences you are looking at. How accurate are estimates of transmittance anyway? Isn’t that a really grey area.

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    Steve, In your accounting, the one main difference is the amount of transmittance S_T isn’t it. M uses 1/6 but KT&F is a lot less, 1/10. Would that difference account for the differences you are looking at. How accurate are estimates of transmittance anyway? Isn’t that a really grey area.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    admin #146

    “Steve, In your accounting, the one main difference is the amount of transmittance S_T isn’t it. M uses 1/6 but KT&F is a lot less, 1/10. Would that difference account for the differences you are looking at. How accurate are estimates of transmittance anyway? Isn’t that a really grey area.”

    According to the KT&F08 review (noting my earlier comments about the comparison included therein with two other studies), IR transmitted up through the atmosphere (S_T) is 40 W/m^2. For an S_U of 396 this give a LW tauA of 2.29. I have checked the literature repeatedly over recent years and very few papers give S_T around 60 as Miskolczi does (which gives him S_T/S_U of ~1/6).

    So it appears that Miskolczi has always overestimated S_T by 20 – 25 W/m^2. It just so happens that this is approximately equivalent to the reflected SW (~23 W/m^2) which, together with the SW reflected by the clouds and atmospheric aerosols (~79 W/m^2) gives the total reflected SW which provides the Earth’s albedo (102/341 = 0.299).

    You will recall I had a discussion with Miskolczi which showed he was quite clear about the magnitude of the SW absorption (~75 W/m^2) as a fraction of the albedo-correction incident SW (Fo; = 341 – 102 = 239)?

    Yet I find it curious that Miskolczi should consistently promote an S_T around 60 – 70 through two papers and in numerous other venues (e.g. the Heartland Institute conference and various Zagoni presentations etc) in the face of other literature which always suggested it was nearer 40 W/m^2. After all, this number has been kicking around the literature since the early 90s. I also note that his S_U is consistently low by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 from the values that generally appeared in the literature over the same period.

    It seems to me that some ‘mystery offset’ of around 20 – 25 W/m^2 has often consistently appeared throughout in Miskolczi’s work to cause all sorts of ‘havoc’ e.g.

    (1) to shift LW tauA down from around 2.3 to around 1.9 (noting that until he came along tau was generally considered to lie between 2 and 3);

    (2) to shift S_T up by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 (noting it was generally considered to be around 40) ;

    (3) to shift S_U down by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 (noting it was generally considered to be around 390) ;

    (4) to shift E_D up by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 (producing A_A = E_D)

    I just find it curious that this offset is always in the same ballpark as the surface reflected SW.

    Perhaps Miskolczi may have coded one of his many circular arguments into the Fortran of his HARTCODE…….

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    admin #146

    “Steve, In your accounting, the one main difference is the amount of transmittance S_T isn’t it. M uses 1/6 but KT&F is a lot less, 1/10. Would that difference account for the differences you are looking at. How accurate are estimates of transmittance anyway? Isn’t that a really grey area.”

    According to the KT&F08 review (noting my earlier comments about the comparison included therein with two other studies), IR transmitted up through the atmosphere (S_T) is 40 W/m^2. For an S_U of 396 this give a LW tauA of 2.29. I have checked the literature repeatedly over recent years and very few papers give S_T around 60 as Miskolczi does (which gives him S_T/S_U of ~1/6).

    So it appears that Miskolczi has always overestimated S_T by 20 – 25 W/m^2. It just so happens that this is approximately equivalent to the reflected SW (~23 W/m^2) which, together with the SW reflected by the clouds and atmospheric aerosols (~79 W/m^2) gives the total reflected SW which provides the Earth’s albedo (102/341 = 0.299).

    You will recall I had a discussion with Miskolczi which showed he was quite clear about the magnitude of the SW absorption (~75 W/m^2) as a fraction of the albedo-correction incident SW (Fo; = 341 – 102 = 239)?

    Yet I find it curious that Miskolczi should consistently promote an S_T around 60 – 70 through two papers and in numerous other venues (e.g. the Heartland Institute conference and various Zagoni presentations etc) in the face of other literature which always suggested it was nearer 40 W/m^2. After all, this number has been kicking around the literature since the early 90s. I also note that his S_U is consistently low by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 from the values that generally appeared in the literature over the same period.

    It seems to me that some ‘mystery offset’ of around 20 – 25 W/m^2 has often consistently appeared throughout in Miskolczi’s work to cause all sorts of ‘havoc’ e.g.

    (1) to shift LW tauA down from around 2.3 to around 1.9 (noting that until he came along tau was generally considered to lie between 2 and 3);

    (2) to shift S_T up by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 (noting it was generally considered to be around 40) ;

    (3) to shift S_U down by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 (noting it was generally considered to be around 390) ;

    (4) to shift E_D up by about 20 – 25 W/m^2 (producing A_A = E_D)

    I just find it curious that this offset is always in the same ballpark as the surface reflected SW.

    Perhaps Miskolczi may have coded one of his many circular arguments into the Fortran of his HARTCODE…….

  • Nick Stokes

    How accurate are estimates of transmittance anyway?
    Good, I think. It’s basically a Beer’s Law calculation for a LBL code, which is simpler than IR with re-emission. Experimentally, you can estimate it directly from spectra. In the Fig 8.2a that I’m always going on about, there is a part of the spectrum (the atmospheric window) that tracks the ground temperature BB emission curve. You just have to integrate the power over that, with a small amount extra from the fringes. Incidentally, it looks like a large fraction there, but a lot of the shorter wavelength part of the IR spectrum is missing.

  • Nick Stokes

    How accurate are estimates of transmittance anyway?
    Good, I think. It’s basically a Beer’s Law calculation for a LBL code, which is simpler than IR with re-emission. Experimentally, you can estimate it directly from spectra. In the Fig 8.2a that I’m always going on about, there is a part of the spectrum (the atmospheric window) that tracks the ground temperature BB emission curve. You just have to integrate the power over that, with a small amount extra from the fringes. Incidentally, it looks like a large fraction there, but a lot of the shorter wavelength part of the IR spectrum is missing.

  • jae

    “In the Fig 8.2a that I’m always going on about, ”

    LOL. That figure is ingrained into my brain! :)

  • jae

    “In the Fig 8.2a that I’m always going on about, ”

    LOL. That figure is ingrained into my brain! :)

  • Jan Pompe

    Nick #148

    but a lot of the shorter wavelength part of the IR spectrum is missing.

    The smaller the wave number the longer the wavelength

  • Jan Pompe

    Nick #148

    but a lot of the shorter wavelength part of the IR spectrum is missing.

    The smaller the wave number the longer the wavelength

  • Nick Stokes

    Jan #150 – you’re right, I meant longer wavelength.

  • Nick Stokes

    Jan #150 – you’re right, I meant longer wavelength.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the transmittance would be accurate to less than the factor between the two theories. I seem to remember reading statement by FM about this a few times. No doubt there is more to it than oversight.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    It does seem like the transmittance would be accurate to less than the factor between the two theories. I seem to remember reading statement by FM about this a few times. No doubt there is more to it than oversight.

  • http://www.friendsofscience.org Ken Gregory

    Steve Short’s summary (#138)shows:
    Su = 396 W/m2
    Ed = 333 W/m2
    Aa = 356 W/m2

    Aa could not exactly equal Ed because the average temperature of the atmosphere at the mean altitude where Ed is emitted is colder than the atmosphere at the surface due to the lapse rate. Do we agree that the actual time average temperature of the atmosphere at the surface is equal to the surface temperature, since they are in physical contact?

    I read somewhere that the mean optical path of a photon from the surface to absorption by a GHG molecule is about 20 m, but I don’t know if this is a good estimate.

    The article “The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi” (on this website) states in the Cabauw measurements section:

    “In fact, the graph illustrates simply that, because the mean free path of the photons that interact with atmospheric components is so short, on the order of meters, no appreciable temperature differences along that path occur.”

    Is there a good scientific measurement or estimate of this mean free path of the photons?

    If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8 C/km, in 20 m the temperature changes by 0.196 C. Doesn’t this suggest that Ed must be very close to Aa, unless the mean free path is much greater than 20 m?

    Ignoring the fact the average of a 4th power is not the same as the 4th power of an average, the Su of 396 W/m2 corresponds to 15.93 C (Su = T Sigma^4: Sigma = 5.67 E-8 W/(m2K)). At 0.196 C lower temperature black body emits 394.93 W/m2 or only 1.07 W/m2 less. Does this imply that Ed should be only about 1 w/m2 less than Aa if the mean free path length is about 20 m?

  • http://www.friendsofscience.org Ken Gregory

    Steve Short’s summary (#138)shows:
    Su = 396 W/m2
    Ed = 333 W/m2
    Aa = 356 W/m2

    Aa could not exactly equal Ed because the average temperature of the atmosphere at the mean altitude where Ed is emitted is colder than the atmosphere at the surface due to the lapse rate. Do we agree that the actual time average temperature of the atmosphere at the surface is equal to the surface temperature, since they are in physical contact?

    I read somewhere that the mean optical path of a photon from the surface to absorption by a GHG molecule is about 20 m, but I don’t know if this is a good estimate.

    The article “The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi” (on this website) states in the Cabauw measurements section:

    “In fact, the graph illustrates simply that, because the mean free path of the photons that interact with atmospheric components is so short, on the order of meters, no appreciable temperature differences along that path occur.”

    Is there a good scientific measurement or estimate of this mean free path of the photons?

    If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8 C/km, in 20 m the temperature changes by 0.196 C. Doesn’t this suggest that Ed must be very close to Aa, unless the mean free path is much greater than 20 m?

    Ignoring the fact the average of a 4th power is not the same as the 4th power of an average, the Su of 396 W/m2 corresponds to 15.93 C (Su = T Sigma^4: Sigma = 5.67 E-8 W/(m2K)). At 0.196 C lower temperature black body emits 394.93 W/m2 or only 1.07 W/m2 less. Does this imply that Ed should be only about 1 w/m2 less than Aa if the mean free path length is about 20 m?

  • jan pompe

    Ken #153

    Is there a good scientific measurement or estimate of this mean free path of the photons?

    using the empirically measured extinction coefficient here we see

    E = 20.2 m2/mol * 0.0159 mol/m3 * 10 m = 3.21

    As the transmission T = 10-3.21 is 0.6 per mille, we conclude that the relative absorption around the peak is 1-T = 99.94% which takes place already within a 10 m layer near ground.

    As for this:

    Do we agree that the actual time average temperature of the atmosphere at the surface is equal to the surface temperature, since they are in physical contact?

    I certainly do agree but would note that if one is silly enough to account for radiative transport alone then owing to the inverse square law for electromagnetic field intensity there will be a temperature discontinuity at thermal equilibrium.

  • jan pompe

    Ken #153

    Is there a good scientific measurement or estimate of this mean free path of the photons?

    using the empirically measured extinction coefficient here we see

    E = 20.2 m2/mol * 0.0159 mol/m3 * 10 m = 3.21

    As the transmission T = 10-3.21 is 0.6 per mille, we conclude that the relative absorption around the peak is 1-T = 99.94% which takes place already within a 10 m layer near ground.

    As for this:

    Do we agree that the actual time average temperature of the atmosphere at the surface is equal to the surface temperature, since they are in physical contact?

    I certainly do agree but would note that if one is silly enough to account for radiative transport alone then owing to the inverse square law for electromagnetic field intensity there will be a temperature discontinuity at thermal equilibrium.

  • Nick Stokes

    Ken: I read somewhere that the mean optical path of a photon from the surface to absorption by a GHG molecule is about 20 m, but I don’t know if this is a good estimate.
    Everything is very frequency dependent, so these gray-body concepts aren’t very useful. About 10% of the flux is through the frequencies of the IR atmospheric window, where the mean path is almost infinite. If you include that in a mean, the answer won’t be 20m. A harmonic mean might give such an answer, but if that kind of artifice is needed, the concept is not useful.

    Doesn’t this suggest that Ed must be very close to Aa, unless the mean free path is much greater than 20 m?
    Maybe close, but not “very close”, because of the frequency issue. The atmospheric window does not contribute much to either Ed or Aa, but the fringe frequencies are more significant. Then there is a whole range of effective emission heights. You’re right to focus on this, though, because it is a way of seeing an aspect of the greenhouse effect. The fact that Su comes from a warm surface, and Ed comes back from colder air is the mode of nett energy transmission for a significant part of the spectrum. And the effect of more GHG is to ensure that Ed comes back from lower, warmer air, reeducing the nett transmission.

  • Nick Stokes

    Ken: I read somewhere that the mean optical path of a photon from the surface to absorption by a GHG molecule is about 20 m, but I don’t know if this is a good estimate.
    Everything is very frequency dependent, so these gray-body concepts aren’t very useful. About 10% of the flux is through the frequencies of the IR atmospheric window, where the mean path is almost infinite. If you include that in a mean, the answer won’t be 20m. A harmonic mean might give such an answer, but if that kind of artifice is needed, the concept is not useful.

    Doesn’t this suggest that Ed must be very close to Aa, unless the mean free path is much greater than 20 m?
    Maybe close, but not “very close”, because of the frequency issue. The atmospheric window does not contribute much to either Ed or Aa, but the fringe frequencies are more significant. Then there is a whole range of effective emission heights. You’re right to focus on this, though, because it is a way of seeing an aspect of the greenhouse effect. The fact that Su comes from a warm surface, and Ed comes back from colder air is the mode of nett energy transmission for a significant part of the spectrum. And the effect of more GHG is to ensure that Ed comes back from lower, warmer air, reeducing the nett transmission.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    jan #154

    “I certainly do agree but would note that if one is silly enough to account for radiative transport alone then owing to the inverse square law for electromagnetic field intensity there will be a temperature discontinuity at thermal equilibrium.”

    Similarly of course that if one is silly enough to assume convective transfer of heat (both sensible and latent) from the surface is strictly continuous and hence not associated with characteristic pressure differences or other aspects of fluid dynamics it will not have any such thing as a frequency and there will also not be a temperature discontinuity at thermal equilibrium.

    However we all know it doesn’t rain continuously – don’t we?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    jan #154

    “I certainly do agree but would note that if one is silly enough to account for radiative transport alone then owing to the inverse square law for electromagnetic field intensity there will be a temperature discontinuity at thermal equilibrium.”

    Similarly of course that if one is silly enough to assume convective transfer of heat (both sensible and latent) from the surface is strictly continuous and hence not associated with characteristic pressure differences or other aspects of fluid dynamics it will not have any such thing as a frequency and there will also not be a temperature discontinuity at thermal equilibrium.

    However we all know it doesn’t rain continuously – don’t we?

  • jae

    Nick: You triggered again my probably boring continual question with this statement:

    “And the effect of more GHG is to ensure that Ed comes back from lower, warmer air, reeducing the nett transmission.”

    Yes, that’s part of the AGW creed, but I’m still trying to find a way to actually “observe” this mystical greenhouse effect. So, I have been waiting for some 3 years for someone to explain to me why it’s hotter in a low-elevation desert in July than it is in a tropical area near water at the same latitude and elevation. The greenhouse gas concentration in the humid area is over three (3) times the concentration in the desert. Where is this radiative greenhouse effect from all the extra water vapor in the tropical area? The effects should be immediately apparent, if it is a radiative effect, since EMR travels at the speed of light. One should be able to actually feel all this extra IR (as well as measure its effect with a thermometer). Why does it never get hotter in Guam than about 33 C, whereas 50 C is common in the great deserts around 30 N Latitude? Does the energy for evaporation cancel it out (if so, that is a negative feedback, folks)? Is this a matter of the logarithmic effect between ghg concentration and radiation?

    The ghg concentrations in the tropical paradises is about 25,000 ppm (V/V), which is 2.5% of the atmosphere. It’s roughly 7,700 ppm, or 0.77 % in the dryest (and hottest) of the deserts. Why are the deserts so much hotter? I’ve been told that it is because of rainshadows and Froehn winds (adiabatic compression of down welling air), and this may play some role. But is this effect even more powerful than the greenhouse effect that has putatively caused a 33 C difference on a planet with vs. without GHGs?

    And please, nobody give me any mythical statements about how it freezes in the desert at night and boils eggs in the day :) Indeed, it is hotter in the desert, even at night, unless it is a high-altitude desert–and then the effect is due to altitude and not to lack of moisture. It’s true that the dirunal variation is a function of moisture and is much greater in dry areas, but this is almost certainly related to the lapse rate, not to the presence of “radiating gases” and “greenhouse effects.”

  • jae

    Nick: You triggered again my probably boring continual question with this statement:

    “And the effect of more GHG is to ensure that Ed comes back from lower, warmer air, reeducing the nett transmission.”

    Yes, that’s part of the AGW creed, but I’m still trying to find a way to actually “observe” this mystical greenhouse effect. So, I have been waiting for some 3 years for someone to explain to me why it’s hotter in a low-elevation desert in July than it is in a tropical area near water at the same latitude and elevation. The greenhouse gas concentration in the humid area is over three (3) times the concentration in the desert. Where is this radiative greenhouse effect from all the extra water vapor in the tropical area? The effects should be immediately apparent, if it is a radiative effect, since EMR travels at the speed of light. One should be able to actually feel all this extra IR (as well as measure its effect with a thermometer). Why does it never get hotter in Guam than about 33 C, whereas 50 C is common in the great deserts around 30 N Latitude? Does the energy for evaporation cancel it out (if so, that is a negative feedback, folks)? Is this a matter of the logarithmic effect between ghg concentration and radiation?

    The ghg concentrations in the tropical paradises is about 25,000 ppm (V/V), which is 2.5% of the atmosphere. It’s roughly 7,700 ppm, or 0.77 % in the dryest (and hottest) of the deserts. Why are the deserts so much hotter? I’ve been told that it is because of rainshadows and Froehn winds (adiabatic compression of down welling air), and this may play some role. But is this effect even more powerful than the greenhouse effect that has putatively caused a 33 C difference on a planet with vs. without GHGs?

    And please, nobody give me any mythical statements about how it freezes in the desert at night and boils eggs in the day :) Indeed, it is hotter in the desert, even at night, unless it is a high-altitude desert–and then the effect is due to altitude and not to lack of moisture. It’s true that the dirunal variation is a function of moisture and is much greater in dry areas, but this is almost certainly related to the lapse rate, not to the presence of “radiating gases” and “greenhouse effects.”

  • Nick Stokes

    jae #154
    Well, my standard response is that GHG fluxes are rather small but cumulative (for the Earth), and horizontal transport is large but not cumulative, so you shouldn’t look for local greenhouse effect temp variations. But there’s another factor you might like to think about.

    Latent heat transport is quite large on average near the surface. About 80 W/m2, as I recall. It’s measured by rainfall. Now of course it is not evenly distributed – it’s much larger in humid areas, and there’s very little in the desert (cf rain). So in the desert almost all the heat from the surface up is IR, and that needs a high temperature to drive it. In humid areas, you could easily have an LH flux of 150 W/m2, say, and the IR flux can be much less, with correspondingly less surface temperature driving it.

  • Nick Stokes

    jae #154
    Well, my standard response is that GHG fluxes are rather small but cumulative (for the Earth), and horizontal transport is large but not cumulative, so you shouldn’t look for local greenhouse effect temp variations. But there’s another factor you might like to think about.

    Latent heat transport is quite large on average near the surface. About 80 W/m2, as I recall. It’s measured by rainfall. Now of course it is not evenly distributed – it’s much larger in humid areas, and there’s very little in the desert (cf rain). So in the desert almost all the heat from the surface up is IR, and that needs a high temperature to drive it. In humid areas, you could easily have an LH flux of 150 W/m2, say, and the IR flux can be much less, with correspondingly less surface temperature driving it.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Re Nick #155

    You write “And the effect of more GHG is to ensure that Ed comes back from lower, warmer air, reeducing the nett transmission.”

    Without having done the maths, I’d guess that this effect was insignficant. Do you have a feel for the numbers? From what I have seen, the “fringe” frequencies are typically distributed towards short penetration half-lengths rather than long. It’s dangerous ground to talk about average distances with exponential decay. In radioactice work we tended to talk about 10 half-lives as approaching zero effect, but seldom used half life to express a practical physical effect, like how far you needed to stand from a source to be safe. (Short haf lives mean greater decay rate and so greater danger on approach, depending on mode of decay, alpha, beta, gamma etc).

  • Geoff Sherrington

    Re Nick #155

    You write “And the effect of more GHG is to ensure that Ed comes back from lower, warmer air, reeducing the nett transmission.”

    Without having done the maths, I’d guess that this effect was insignficant. Do you have a feel for the numbers? From what I have seen, the “fringe” frequencies are typically distributed towards short penetration half-lengths rather than long. It’s dangerous ground to talk about average distances with exponential decay. In radioactice work we tended to talk about 10 half-lives as approaching zero effect, but seldom used half life to express a practical physical effect, like how far you needed to stand from a source to be safe. (Short haf lives mean greater decay rate and so greater danger on approach, depending on mode of decay, alpha, beta, gamma etc).

  • Geoff Sherrington

    jae

    If you contact me by email at sherro1 at optusnet com au I’ll send you some rough work in progress that might help your argument. Geoff.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    jae

    If you contact me by email at sherro1 at optusnet com au I’ll send you some rough work in progress that might help your argument. Geoff.

  • jae

    Nick: Sorry, none of that seems to address my question.

  • jae

    Nick: Sorry, none of that seems to address my question.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    For the usual suspects,

    I have been studying 17 sites selected from the BOM RCS network as truly rural. About half are by the sea and about half are desert.

    Annual average rainfall (mm) and number of rain days per year is shown below, together with mean maximum annual temp.

    Broome 532, 44, 32.1
    Carnarvon 227, 40, 27.4
    Ceduna 300, 93, 23.6
    Charleville 490, 60, 28.3
    Cobar 400, 60, 25.0
    Esperance 620, 135, 21.8
    Forrest WA 353, 66, 25.8
    Giles n/a, n/a, n/a
    Gove 1460, 120, 30.7
    Halls Creek 560, 62, 33.5
    Learmonth 260, 26, 31.8
    Longreach 444, 47, 31.5
    (Lord Howe Is) , ,
    (Macquarie Is) , ,
    Meekatharra 237, 46, 29.0
    Tennant Creek 462, 50, 31.9
    Woomera 187, 50, 25.8

    So you can get together with some desert versus humid data to see if rain does affect things all that much. It does not vary a great deal in this dataset, Gove aside. The number of rain days is more steady than I would have imagined. Tmax is my calculation for the period of more reliable data 1968-2008 incl.

    Why not plug these into a multiple regression to see what goes with what (statistically, of course). Let me know if you need other variables like altitude, distance from sea, population, etc.

    Hidden catch/warning. There is a rather large difference in the rate of cooling of some of these sites over the 41 years of data. If you project the trends (which I refuse to do) 500 years back or forth, you would have strange times indeed. So there is an unreported strong signal that we can talk about when you arrive at consensus on this set of figures.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    For the usual suspects,

    I have been studying 17 sites selected from the BOM RCS network as truly rural. About half are by the sea and about half are desert.

    Annual average rainfall (mm) and number of rain days per year is shown below, together with mean maximum annual temp.

    Broome 532, 44, 32.1
    Carnarvon 227, 40, 27.4
    Ceduna 300, 93, 23.6
    Charleville 490, 60, 28.3
    Cobar 400, 60, 25.0
    Esperance 620, 135, 21.8
    Forrest WA 353, 66, 25.8
    Giles n/a, n/a, n/a
    Gove 1460, 120, 30.7
    Halls Creek 560, 62, 33.5
    Learmonth 260, 26, 31.8
    Longreach 444, 47, 31.5
    (Lord Howe Is) , ,
    (Macquarie Is) , ,
    Meekatharra 237, 46, 29.0
    Tennant Creek 462, 50, 31.9
    Woomera 187, 50, 25.8

    So you can get together with some desert versus humid data to see if rain does affect things all that much. It does not vary a great deal in this dataset, Gove aside. The number of rain days is more steady than I would have imagined. Tmax is my calculation for the period of more reliable data 1968-2008 incl.

    Why not plug these into a multiple regression to see what goes with what (statistically, of course). Let me know if you need other variables like altitude, distance from sea, population, etc.

    Hidden catch/warning. There is a rather large difference in the rate of cooling of some of these sites over the 41 years of data. If you project the trends (which I refuse to do) 500 years back or forth, you would have strange times indeed. So there is an unreported strong signal that we can talk about when you arrive at consensus on this set of figures.

  • Nick Stokes

    Geoff #159
    I described an elementary way of doing the maths here:
    http://climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=667&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=80#p13694
    It’s major – about 10% of IR gets out directly. The other 90% is emitted from GHG.

    For this purpose, half-life (or something close) is the relevant number. Sure traces will penetrate much further, but it’s the power they carry that counts. Or statistically, on average how often does a photon get absorbed and reemitted before it gets through (with the caveat that it isn’t the same (or even a related) photon, but that’s the idea).

  • Nick Stokes

    Geoff #159
    I described an elementary way of doing the maths here:
    http://climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=667&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=80#p13694
    It’s major – about 10% of IR gets out directly. The other 90% is emitted from GHG.

    For this purpose, half-life (or something close) is the relevant number. Sure traces will penetrate much further, but it’s the power they carry that counts. Or statistically, on average how often does a photon get absorbed and reemitted before it gets through (with the caveat that it isn’t the same (or even a related) photon, but that’s the idea).

  • Nick Stokes

    jae #161
    Yes, it does address your question. We agree that humid air obstructs the progress of IR, and all else being equal, that would make such places warmer. But humid regions have another way of transporting heat, via latent heat transport. Their insolation is similar, so that means they have to emit less IR to maintain balance. They can do this, even through a more resistive pathway, because the flux is less, and can be moved with a smaller temperature differential.

  • Nick Stokes

    jae #161
    Yes, it does address your question. We agree that humid air obstructs the progress of IR, and all else being equal, that would make such places warmer. But humid regions have another way of transporting heat, via latent heat transport. Their insolation is similar, so that means they have to emit less IR to maintain balance. They can do this, even through a more resistive pathway, because the flux is less, and can be moved with a smaller temperature differential.

  • jae

    “Yes, it does address your question. We agree that humid air obstructs the progress of IR, and all else being equal, that would make such places warmer. But humid regions have another way of transporting heat, via latent heat transport. Their insolation is similar, so that means they have to emit less IR to maintain balance. They can do this, even through a more resistive pathway, because the flux is less, and can be moved with a smaller temperature differential.”

    WOW. WTF?

  • jae

    “Yes, it does address your question. We agree that humid air obstructs the progress of IR, and all else being equal, that would make such places warmer. But humid regions have another way of transporting heat, via latent heat transport. Their insolation is similar, so that means they have to emit less IR to maintain balance. They can do this, even through a more resistive pathway, because the flux is less, and can be moved with a smaller temperature differential.”

    WOW. WTF?

  • jae

    Geoff: I don’t see how one can derive any trends/relationships from such yearly data. You need to use seasonal,preferably monthly, data and you need average temperatures and humidities, preferably absolute humidities. You can have situations where all the rain is in one season and others where it is spread througout the year. Seaside locations are also very different from interior locations, due to ocean effects.

  • jae

    Geoff: I don’t see how one can derive any trends/relationships from such yearly data. You need to use seasonal,preferably monthly, data and you need average temperatures and humidities, preferably absolute humidities. You can have situations where all the rain is in one season and others where it is spread througout the year. Seaside locations are also very different from interior locations, due to ocean effects.

  • jae

    Nick:

    “Well, my standard response is that GHG fluxes are rather small but cumulative (for the Earth), and horizontal transport is large but not cumulative, so you shouldn’t look for local greenhouse effect temp variations. ”

    I know. I’ve thought about this a lot, and it doesn’t do much for me. If the GHG fluxes are small, how do we get a 33 C rise from a no-GHG scenario? Are you saying that they are small, due to the logarithmic effect? If so, how can you have a significant “positive water vapor feedback” from OCO increases?

  • jae

    Nick:

    “Well, my standard response is that GHG fluxes are rather small but cumulative (for the Earth), and horizontal transport is large but not cumulative, so you shouldn’t look for local greenhouse effect temp variations. ”

    I know. I’ve thought about this a lot, and it doesn’t do much for me. If the GHG fluxes are small, how do we get a 33 C rise from a no-GHG scenario? Are you saying that they are small, due to the logarithmic effect? If so, how can you have a significant “positive water vapor feedback” from OCO increases?

  • jae
  • jae
  • Anonymous

    Long article. Care to give us a bottom line for you jae? Does this mean he agrees that IR transmittance should be more like 1/6 as Miskolczi suggests, and not 1/10 as K&T; think?

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    Long article. Care to give us a bottom line for you jae? Does this mean he agrees that IR transmittance should be more like 1/6 as Miskolczi suggests, and not 1/10 as K&T think?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    jae #168

    “Hah, Jeffifer Marohasy has a great article on how GHGs work! ”

    Jeffifer eh? Try Juniper (apologies to Steven Georgiou aka Yusuf Islam).

    Well, a quick read through at the start of a work day suggests that Hammer’s logic is probably dodgy.

    What we really need of course is our resident ‘hot shot’ heat engineer Jan to give it the once over as there are a lot of allusions to Stefan’s Law etc.

    If Hammer can find a flaw in the Kiehl and Trenberth model it would be nice.

    After all, if a top notch radiation physicist like Ferenc Miskolczi can somehow ‘lose’ about 20 – 25 W/m^2 in the global heat balance anything is possible in this ‘best of all possible worlds’.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    jae #168

    “Hah, Jeffifer Marohasy has a great article on how GHGs work! ”

    Jeffifer eh? Try Juniper (apologies to Steven Georgiou aka Yusuf Islam).

    Well, a quick read through at the start of a work day suggests that Hammer’s logic is probably dodgy.

    What we really need of course is our resident ‘hot shot’ heat engineer Jan to give it the once over as there are a lot of allusions to Stefan’s Law etc.

    If Hammer can find a flaw in the Kiehl and Trenberth model it would be nice.

    After all, if a top notch radiation physicist like Ferenc Miskolczi can somehow ‘lose’ about 20 – 25 W/m^2 in the global heat balance anything is possible in this ‘best of all possible worlds’.

  • Nick Stokes

    Key parts of Hammer’s article – he estimates the IR flux through the atmospheric window at 143 W/m2, assuming perfect transmission. K&T’s corresponding figure is 9 W/m2. The difference is probably in the allowances for AW fringe effects etc. The issue is the allowance for cloud effects. K&T make an “ad hoc” adjustment based on satellite (ISCCP) observartions of 62% cloud cover. And Hammer:

    “Only a portion of the Earth’s surface at any given time is cloud covered and much of the dense cloud is low altitude cloud, thus a reasonable estimate for the Earth as a whole would be that clouds reduce the energy escaping to space in the atmospheric window by no more than about 15% to 20%.”

    On that “reasonable estimate” the refutation of K&T is based.

  • Nick Stokes

    Key parts of Hammer’s article – he estimates the IR flux through the atmospheric window at 143 W/m2, assuming perfect transmission. K&T’s corresponding figure is 9 W/m2. The difference is probably in the allowances for AW fringe effects etc. The issue is the allowance for cloud effects. K&T make an “ad hoc” adjustment based on satellite (ISCCP) observartions of 62% cloud cover. And Hammer:

    “Only a portion of the Earth’s surface at any given time is cloud covered and much of the dense cloud is low altitude cloud, thus a reasonable estimate for the Earth as a whole would be that clouds reduce the energy escaping to space in the atmospheric window by no more than about 15% to 20%.”

    On that “reasonable estimate” the refutation of K&T is based.

  • Nick Stokes

    typo – K&T’s AW figure is 99 W/m2, not 9

  • Nick Stokes

    typo – K&T’s AW figure is 99 W/m2, not 9

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #172

    “typo – K&T’s AW figure is 99 W/m2, not 9″

    Now reduced by T,F&K08 to…….63 W/m^2?

    BTW, let me emphasize that I don’t endorse T,F&K08. It produces an ‘acceptable’ global energy balance only. Reading it is still a shocking experience even to a hardened old experimental scientist. It clearly shows how much uncertainty there still is over some of the individual fluxes. Numerous papers of even the most recent years continue to persistently highlight this. T,F&K08 is in fact an indictment of the massive dune of shifting sands which is the mountain of AGW rectitude.

    Yet so far the other side could only come up with is a half-baked theory cobbled together by a gifted but dogmatically eccentric outsider who insisted you had to take on faith every single nail in his edifice or be damned to you – and hence damned himself! In this context I say to Hammer – good on you – go for it. Sooner or later the one true prophet might appear… perhaps.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #172

    “typo – K&T’s AW figure is 99 W/m2, not 9″

    Now reduced by T,F&K08 to…….63 W/m^2?

    BTW, let me emphasize that I don’t endorse T,F&K08. It produces an ‘acceptable’ global energy balance only. Reading it is still a shocking experience even to a hardened old experimental scientist. It clearly shows how much uncertainty there still is over some of the individual fluxes. Numerous papers of even the most recent years continue to persistently highlight this. T,F&K08 is in fact an indictment of the massive dune of shifting sands which is the mountain of AGW rectitude.

    Yet so far the other side could only come up with is a half-baked theory cobbled together by a gifted but dogmatically eccentric outsider who insisted you had to take on faith every single nail in his edifice or be damned to you – and hence damned himself! In this context I say to Hammer – good on you – go for it. Sooner or later the one true prophet might appear… perhaps.

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve #173
    No, I think 63 W/m2 is nett upward LW from the surface. I don’t think they revisited the AW transmission figures at all.

    As far as TFK08 is concerned, some of the accountancy is uncertain, including this figure of 40 W/m2 transmitted. However, many of those figures don’t really matter for heat balance. Whwther IR gets through without ever being absorbed, or if a fraction was absorbed and reemitted once, doesn’t change the energy figures much.

    The figure that counts for AGW is the nett in/out imbalance, and that is currently too small (expected to be about 2 W/m2) to show up reliably in the budget measurements, and has to be inferred from modelling etc. But not for too much longer. We’re close to being able to both measure incoming SW and outgoing LW accurately enough to measure the AGW imbalance directly. And we’re close to being able to close the budget by good ocean heat measurements to again check the imbalance independently.

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve #173
    No, I think 63 W/m2 is nett upward LW from the surface. I don’t think they revisited the AW transmission figures at all.

    As far as TFK08 is concerned, some of the accountancy is uncertain, including this figure of 40 W/m2 transmitted. However, many of those figures don’t really matter for heat balance. Whwther IR gets through without ever being absorbed, or if a fraction was absorbed and reemitted once, doesn’t change the energy figures much.

    The figure that counts for AGW is the nett in/out imbalance, and that is currently too small (expected to be about 2 W/m2) to show up reliably in the budget measurements, and has to be inferred from modelling etc. But not for too much longer. We’re close to being able to both measure incoming SW and outgoing LW accurately enough to measure the AGW imbalance directly. And we’re close to being able to close the budget by good ocean heat measurements to again check the imbalance independently.

  • Anonymous

    Steve: Yeah, nobody is perfect. I like that Ferenc was very willing to talk about and explain his work quite patiently. Not like some others. There value in putting all of your speculations into one paper, and seeing what sticks. Theres a downside too.

    But on another issue, about the latest Shaviv offering on the ocean heat content. Is it really the case that nobody noticed before that periodic ocean heat flux is 5-7 times the TSI periodic flux? I mean, it seems so obvious, its either brilliant, or already done isn’t it? Last thing I heard about ocean heat content (OHC), was by someone at Scripps Institute in San Diego five years ago, telling the press OHC has the fingerprints of AGW and anyone who denied global warming after his results was a moron.

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    Steve: Yeah, nobody is perfect. I like that Ferenc was very willing to talk about and explain his work quite patiently. Not like some others. There value in putting all of your speculations into one paper, and seeing what sticks. Theres a downside too.

    But on another issue, about the latest Shaviv offering on the ocean heat content. Is it really the case that nobody noticed before that periodic ocean heat flux is 5-7 times the TSI periodic flux? I mean, it seems so obvious, its either brilliant, or already done isn’t it? Last thing I heard about ocean heat content (OHC), was by someone at Scripps Institute in San Diego five years ago, telling the press OHC has the fingerprints of AGW and anyone who denied global warming after his results was a moron.

  • jae

    174, Nick: “The figure that counts for AGW is the nett in/out imbalance, and that is currently too small (expected to be about 2 W/m2) to show up reliably in the budget measurements, and has to be inferred from modelling etc. But not for too much longer. We’re close to being able to both measure incoming SW and outgoing LW accurately enough to measure the AGW imbalance directly. And we’re close to being able to close the budget by good ocean heat measurements to again check the imbalance independently.”

    I doubt it, because as Admin says:

    “But on another issue, about the latest Shaviv offering on the ocean heat content. Is it really the case that nobody noticed before that periodic ocean heat flux is 5-7 times the TSI periodic flux? I mean, it seems so obvious, its either brilliant, or already done isn’t it? Last thing I heard about ocean heat content (OHC), was by someone at Scripps Institute in San Diego five years ago, telling the press OHC has the fingerprints of AGW and anyone who denied global warming after his results was a moron.”

    There will probably always be too much lag to develop some budget accurate to a few watts.

    BTW, I’m still trying to digest the Hammer paper. It is an interesting take by an expert in radiation.

  • jae

    174, Nick: “The figure that counts for AGW is the nett in/out imbalance, and that is currently too small (expected to be about 2 W/m2) to show up reliably in the budget measurements, and has to be inferred from modelling etc. But not for too much longer. We’re close to being able to both measure incoming SW and outgoing LW accurately enough to measure the AGW imbalance directly. And we’re close to being able to close the budget by good ocean heat measurements to again check the imbalance independently.”

    I doubt it, because as Admin says:

    “But on another issue, about the latest Shaviv offering on the ocean heat content. Is it really the case that nobody noticed before that periodic ocean heat flux is 5-7 times the TSI periodic flux? I mean, it seems so obvious, its either brilliant, or already done isn’t it? Last thing I heard about ocean heat content (OHC), was by someone at Scripps Institute in San Diego five years ago, telling the press OHC has the fingerprints of AGW and anyone who denied global warming after his results was a moron.”

    There will probably always be too much lag to develop some budget accurate to a few watts.

    BTW, I’m still trying to digest the Hammer paper. It is an interesting take by an expert in radiation.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #174

    “We’re close to being able to both measure incoming SW and outgoing LW accurately enough to measure the AGW imbalance directly. And we’re close to being able to close the budget by good ocean heat measurements to again check the imbalance independently.”

    I think we’ll be doing a lot more than just ‘holding the ‘phone’ on that one – especially since the OCO satellite ended up in the ocean somewhere off Antarctica.

    I hope y’all caught Paul Biggs’ post on CCNet today?

    It is a lucid exposition of the current state of play in the context of the issues raised by Tsonis et al, GRL 2007, Wang, Swanson and Tsonis, 2009 and an even newer paper by Swanson and Tsonis which all claimed that in 2001/02 climate shifted away from the consistent warming trend for the period 1976/77 to 2001/02 against a background of global CO2 emissions increasing at a rate of 3.5% per year since 2000.

    I think it is worthwhile quoting parts of the remainder of what Biggs says:

    “Meanwhile, Nir Shaviv’s latest paper finds more evidence of an unknown solar amplification mechanism, where the radiative forcing associated with small changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) over the 11-year solar cycle are multiplied by 5 to 7 times. ”

    “On 21st December 2006 NASA’s David Hathaway was predicting that solar cycle 24 would be bigger than cycle 23. By January 2009 he changed his mind and predicted a smaller cycle 24. Hathaway also predicts a very small cycle 25, and Milivoje Vukcevic claims to have a formula that predicts cycle 26 that will be even lower than cycle 25. In their 2008 GRL paper Weiss et al asked ‘For how long will the current grand maximum of solar activity persist?’ The answer was probably not very long, but they couldn’t predict the level of the ensuing minimum and they remained loyal to the greenhouse warming ‘consensus’ by stating that any cooling would be “insignificant compared with the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. ”

    “So, the lack of cycle 24 sunspots continues and the ‘grand maximum’ of solar activity we enjoyed during the 20th century may be coming to an end. Small changes in the Sun may have much larger effects on climate, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) seems to have entered a cool phase that could last between 21 to 25 years. If the global non-warming since 2002 continues for 30 years as Kyle Swanson suggests, then we have to consider the possibility that, rather than going into hiding, CO2 isn’t the all powerful climate driver that some would have us believe.”

    So, to paraphrase Biggs:

    Rather than developing a (new) ’30 year hiding place for CO2′ hypothesis [the very latest example of AGW high wire acrobatics which Swanson and Held revealed on the 3rd March!!!!] we can look to the collective behaviour of long-known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation, plus poorly understood solar factors as a big part of the explanation for climate change.

    IMHO when we get to look back on all this in about 25 – 30 years (hopefully I can hold out that long), we’ll see what a giant exercise in bad science the AGW movement really was. Then perhaps we’ll be done with the curse of the rise of late 20th century ‘post-modernist science’ and it’s outrageously double- and triple-jointed attitude to truth once and for all.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #174

    “We’re close to being able to both measure incoming SW and outgoing LW accurately enough to measure the AGW imbalance directly. And we’re close to being able to close the budget by good ocean heat measurements to again check the imbalance independently.”

    I think we’ll be doing a lot more than just ‘holding the ‘phone’ on that one – especially since the OCO satellite ended up in the ocean somewhere off Antarctica.

    I hope y’all caught Paul Biggs’ post on CCNet today?

    It is a lucid exposition of the current state of play in the context of the issues raised by Tsonis et al, GRL 2007, Wang, Swanson and Tsonis, 2009 and an even newer paper by Swanson and Tsonis which all claimed that in 2001/02 climate shifted away from the consistent warming trend for the period 1976/77 to 2001/02 against a background of global CO2 emissions increasing at a rate of 3.5% per year since 2000.

    I think it is worthwhile quoting parts of the remainder of what Biggs says:

    “Meanwhile, Nir Shaviv’s latest paper finds more evidence of an unknown solar amplification mechanism, where the radiative forcing associated with small changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) over the 11-year solar cycle are multiplied by 5 to 7 times. ”

    “On 21st December 2006 NASA’s David Hathaway was predicting that solar cycle 24 would be bigger than cycle 23. By January 2009 he changed his mind and predicted a smaller cycle 24. Hathaway also predicts a very small cycle 25, and Milivoje Vukcevic claims to have a formula that predicts cycle 26 that will be even lower than cycle 25. In their 2008 GRL paper Weiss et al asked ‘For how long will the current grand maximum of solar activity persist?’ The answer was probably not very long, but they couldn’t predict the level of the ensuing minimum and they remained loyal to the greenhouse warming ‘consensus’ by stating that any cooling would be “insignificant compared with the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. ”

    “So, the lack of cycle 24 sunspots continues and the ‘grand maximum’ of solar activity we enjoyed during the 20th century may be coming to an end. Small changes in the Sun may have much larger effects on climate, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) seems to have entered a cool phase that could last between 21 to 25 years. If the global non-warming since 2002 continues for 30 years as Kyle Swanson suggests, then we have to consider the possibility that, rather than going into hiding, CO2 isn’t the all powerful climate driver that some would have us believe.”

    So, to paraphrase Biggs:

    Rather than developing a (new) ’30 year hiding place for CO2′ hypothesis [the very latest example of AGW high wire acrobatics which Swanson and Held revealed on the 3rd March!!!!] we can look to the collective behaviour of long-known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation, plus poorly understood solar factors as a big part of the explanation for climate change.

    IMHO when we get to look back on all this in about 25 – 30 years (hopefully I can hold out that long), we’ll see what a giant exercise in bad science the AGW movement really was. Then perhaps we’ll be done with the curse of the rise of late 20th century ‘post-modernist science’ and it’s outrageously double- and triple-jointed attitude to truth once and for all.

  • Anonymous

    “Are you now, or have you evern been a believer in AGW?”

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    “Are you now, or have you evern been a believer in AGW?”

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve #177,

    …we can look to the collective behaviour of long-known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation, plus poorly understood solar factors as a big part of the explanation for climate change.

    You’ve probably already seen this, as I found it cited in Lindzen 2007, but in case you haven’t there’s a very interesting article here:

    Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

    http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf

    Lindzen’s 2007 article seems to be the only one citing it at this stage (well, based on Google Scholar). So it looks like this is yet another skeptical theory that is being just ignored.

    Is there a proper name for the fallacy of refutation by pretending not to be able to hear any counter-arguments?

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve #177,

    …we can look to the collective behaviour of long-known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation, plus poorly understood solar factors as a big part of the explanation for climate change.

    You’ve probably already seen this, as I found it cited in Lindzen 2007, but in case you haven’t there’s a very interesting article here:

    Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

    http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf

    Lindzen’s 2007 article seems to be the only one citing it at this stage (well, based on Google Scholar). So it looks like this is yet another skeptical theory that is being just ignored.

    Is there a proper name for the fallacy of refutation by pretending not to be able to hear any counter-arguments?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    IMO there is an actual sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 but it is highly likely less than 1.5 K and quite likely less than 1 K. I accord the reason for the difficulty in discerning the actual value to the fact that the world climate system contains an evolved biotic homeostasis applying in the presence of natural physical internal oscillations and external perturbations which act to mask that value.

    Succinct enough for you?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    IMO there is an actual sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 but it is highly likely less than 1.5 K and quite likely less than 1 K. I accord the reason for the difficulty in discerning the actual value to the fact that the world climate system contains an evolved biotic homeostasis applying in the presence of natural physical internal oscillations and external perturbations which act to mask that value.

    Succinct enough for you?

  • Anonymous

    Steve: Do you have a url for that article by Biggs?

    Alex: Confirmation bias I think, also ‘cherry picking’. Its regarded as acceptable in climate science. I have given up trying to argue against it. The reviewers simply say ‘well the statement(s) are not wrong’. See the reviews of my manuscript to AMM. The reviewer states ‘the conclusions in the summary are consistent with the text of the report’, while ignoring the fact that the observational results were not reported in the summary, presumably because they directly contradict the forecasts of the models (of increasing drought). I have other examples of failed submission using the same arguments. See the bristle-cones. In the real world the omissions of salient information are called misleading statements. ‘Misleading’ is not in the vocabulary of climate liberals.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    Steve: Do you have a url for that article by Biggs?

    Alex: Confirmation bias I think, also ‘cherry picking’. Its regarded as acceptable in climate science. I have given up trying to argue against it. The reviewers simply say ‘well the statement(s) are not wrong’. See the reviews of my manuscript to AMM. The reviewer states ‘the conclusions in the summary are consistent with the text of the report’, while ignoring the fact that the observational results were not reported in the summary, presumably because they directly contradict the forecasts of the models (of increasing drought). I have other examples of failed submission using the same arguments. See the bristle-cones. In the real world the omissions of salient information are called misleading statements. ‘Misleading’ is not in the vocabulary of climate liberals.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Don’t lose heart David. In a 15 year pure research ‘previous life’ (including 11 years as a SRS in an Aust. Federal Govt. agency) I found cliques in which gross dissembling and misleading statements are stock in trade to perpetuate their pet lines and ‘paradigms’ are not uncommon in science. Having also worked in Western Europe and the US I perceived the effect was (is?) particularly bad ‘Downunder’, extending right into CSIRO publishing with some editors exhibiting a finely-tuned rat-like ‘nose’ for just which (clique-based) ‘key’ reviewers to send manuscripts to. On one key discovery of mine which copped a real nasty hammering (only) down here, I got the last laugh (albeit a few years later), with it now applied worldwide.

    The post by Paul Biggs was on today’s CCNet. I thought you may have been on Benny Peiser’s wonderful mailing list (which FYI a lot of ‘closet denier’ politicians receive)? For those who are interested:

    CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk (“subscribe cambridge-conference”). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk (“unsubscribe cambridge-conference”). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only.
    The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER:
    The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.
    http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Don’t lose heart David. In a 15 year pure research ‘previous life’ (including 11 years as a SRS in an Aust. Federal Govt. agency) I found cliques in which gross dissembling and misleading statements are stock in trade to perpetuate their pet lines and ‘paradigms’ are not uncommon in science. Having also worked in Western Europe and the US I perceived the effect was (is?) particularly bad ‘Downunder’, extending right into CSIRO publishing with some editors exhibiting a finely-tuned rat-like ‘nose’ for just which (clique-based) ‘key’ reviewers to send manuscripts to. On one key discovery of mine which copped a real nasty hammering (only) down here, I got the last laugh (albeit a few years later), with it now applied worldwide.

    The post by Paul Biggs was on today’s CCNet. I thought you may have been on Benny Peiser’s wonderful mailing list (which FYI a lot of ‘closet denier’ politicians receive)? For those who are interested:

    CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk (“subscribe cambridge-conference”). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk (“unsubscribe cambridge-conference”). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only.
    The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER:
    The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.
    http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Alex #179

    “Is there a proper name for the fallacy of refutation by pretending not to be able to hear any counter-arguments?”

    As it is such a very worthwhile endeavour, I hereby formally name this fallacy (and claim originality) as the ‘Flutterby Effect’.

    Just as with the well-known Butterfly Effect, it too may be borne out of chaos (not to mention MEP ;-) , viz:

    We construct a network of observed climate indices in
    the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective
    behavior. The results indicate that this network
    synchronized several times in this period. We find that in
    those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a
    steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices,
    the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new
    climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with
    significant changes in global temperature trend and in
    ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the
    great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence
    for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a
    state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this
    mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of
    synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of
    the size and complexity of the climate system.
    Citation: Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007),
    A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys.
    Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Alex #179

    “Is there a proper name for the fallacy of refutation by pretending not to be able to hear any counter-arguments?”

    As it is such a very worthwhile endeavour, I hereby formally name this fallacy (and claim originality) as the ‘Flutterby Effect’.

    Just as with the well-known Butterfly Effect, it too may be borne out of chaos (not to mention MEP ;-) , viz:

    We construct a network of observed climate indices in
    the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective
    behavior. The results indicate that this network
    synchronized several times in this period. We find that in
    those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a
    steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices,
    the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new
    climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with
    significant changes in global temperature trend and in
    ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the
    great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence
    for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a
    state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this
    mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of
    synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of
    the size and complexity of the climate system.
    Citation: Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007),
    A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys.
    Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

  • jae

    OT, but there is no “unthreaded” here.

    My wife rented a copy of the movie, Australia (which we will watch sometime this weekend). Since so many folks from the Down-Under frequent this blog, I thought I’d ask if the movie is worth watching, from an Austrailian’s perspective. Anyone?

  • jae

    OT, but there is no “unthreaded” here.

    My wife rented a copy of the movie, Australia (which we will watch sometime this weekend). Since so many folks from the Down-Under frequent this blog, I thought I’d ask if the movie is worth watching, from an Austrailian’s perspective. Anyone?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Re-threading:

    “A given surface air temperature change is consistent with either a relatively large heating which is penetrating rapidly into the oceans and delaying some of the surface warming (i.e., a high climate sensitivity and a high ocean diffusivity), or a relatively small heating which is penetrating slowly into the oceans so the surface warming is quickly experienced (i.e., a low climate sensitivity and a low ocean diffusivity). Our analysis suggests that one promising avenue to decide whether the true climate sensitivity is indeed located in the heavy upper tail of current estimates is through improving the skill of the existing ocean observation system to estimate the anthropogenic heat uptake.”

    Urban, Nathan M., and Klaus Keller, 2009. Complementary observational constraints on climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04708, doi:10.1029/2008GL036457, February 25, 2009, preprint online at http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~kkeller/Urban_Keller_grl_08_submitted.pdf

    RE: URBAN & KELLER (2009)

    Nir Shaviv [nshaviv@gmail.com]

    Guys,

    Urban and Keller use the standard 1750-2000 forcing (see end of page 1 of their paper). However, this does not include the real solar forcing which is much higher. As such, you need a large sensitivity from the (wrong) small forcing in order to get the heat content change. Thus, the climate sensitivity they calculate is meaningless.

    Cheers
    — Nir

    Roy Spencer [roywspencer@hotmail.com]

    Theirs is not the only possibility. Another is that for a given temperature change AND a given ocean diffusivity, then it can either be the result of

    (1) large forcing and low climate sensitivity, or

    (2) small forcing and a high climate sensitivity.

    I believe it is the former, and I now have satellite evidence of not only low climate sensitivity, but also that the large forcing is due to nature, not mankind.

    -Roy

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Re-threading:

    “A given surface air temperature change is consistent with either a relatively large heating which is penetrating rapidly into the oceans and delaying some of the surface warming (i.e., a high climate sensitivity and a high ocean diffusivity), or a relatively small heating which is penetrating slowly into the oceans so the surface warming is quickly experienced (i.e., a low climate sensitivity and a low ocean diffusivity). Our analysis suggests that one promising avenue to decide whether the true climate sensitivity is indeed located in the heavy upper tail of current estimates is through improving the skill of the existing ocean observation system to estimate the anthropogenic heat uptake.”

    Urban, Nathan M., and Klaus Keller, 2009. Complementary observational constraints on climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04708, doi:10.1029/2008GL036457, February 25, 2009, preprint online at http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~kkeller/Urban_Keller_grl_08_submitted.pdf

    RE: URBAN & KELLER (2009)

    Nir Shaviv [nshaviv@gmail.com]

    Guys,

    Urban and Keller use the standard 1750-2000 forcing (see end of page 1 of their paper). However, this does not include the real solar forcing which is much higher. As such, you need a large sensitivity from the (wrong) small forcing in order to get the heat content change. Thus, the climate sensitivity they calculate is meaningless.

    Cheers
    — Nir

    Roy Spencer [roywspencer@hotmail.com]

    Theirs is not the only possibility. Another is that for a given temperature change AND a given ocean diffusivity, then it can either be the result of

    (1) large forcing and low climate sensitivity, or

    (2) small forcing and a high climate sensitivity.

    I believe it is the former, and I now have satellite evidence of not only low climate sensitivity, but also that the large forcing is due to nature, not mankind.

    -Roy

  • Anonymous

    Steve: “is in fact an indictment of the massive dune of shifting sands which is the mountain of AGW rectitude.” A very nice turn of phrase. They always said that coulds were the greatest uncertainty, but I didn’t realize that ocean heat flux was in the same boat.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    Steve: “is in fact an indictment of the massive dune of shifting sands which is the mountain of AGW rectitude.” A very nice turn of phrase. They always said that coulds were the greatest uncertainty, but I didn’t realize that ocean heat flux was in the same boat.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Yet more of the Flutterby Effect:

    Roger Pielke Sr has commented on the Urban & Keller paper on his weblog:
    http://climatesci.org/2009/03/05/is-there-climate-heating-in-the-pipeline/

    By “unrealized warming in the pipeline”, they mean heat that is being stored within the ocean, which can subsequently be released into the ocean atmosphere. It is erroneous to consider this heat as “unrealized warming”, if the Joules of heat are actually being stored in the ocean. The heat is “realized”; it would just not be entering the atmosphere yet.

    As discussed in the Physics Today paper: Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. (Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55), there has been no heating of the upper ocean since mid-2003. Moreover, there has been no heating within the troposphere (e.g. see Figure 7 of the RSS MSU data).

    Thus, there is no “warming in the pipeline” using the author’s terminology, nor any heating within the atmosphere! Perhaps the heating that was observed prior to 2003 will begin again, however, it is scientifically incorrect to report that there is any heat that has not yet been realized within the climate system.

    The answer to the question posted in this weblog “Is There Climate Heating In “The Pipeline”? is NO.

    Also, the Pielke Sr and Christy comment on Hansen et al 2005 “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” was bizarrely rejected by Science:

    http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/Hansen-Science.pdf

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Yet more of the Flutterby Effect:

    Roger Pielke Sr has commented on the Urban & Keller paper on his weblog:
    http://climatesci.org/2009/03/05/is-there-climate-heating-in-the-pipeline/

    By “unrealized warming in the pipeline”, they mean heat that is being stored within the ocean, which can subsequently be released into the ocean atmosphere. It is erroneous to consider this heat as “unrealized warming”, if the Joules of heat are actually being stored in the ocean. The heat is “realized”; it would just not be entering the atmosphere yet.

    As discussed in the Physics Today paper: Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. (Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55), there has been no heating of the upper ocean since mid-2003. Moreover, there has been no heating within the troposphere (e.g. see Figure 7 of the RSS MSU data).

    Thus, there is no “warming in the pipeline” using the author’s terminology, nor any heating within the atmosphere! Perhaps the heating that was observed prior to 2003 will begin again, however, it is scientifically incorrect to report that there is any heat that has not yet been realized within the climate system.

    The answer to the question posted in this weblog “Is There Climate Heating In “The Pipeline”? is NO.

    Also, the Pielke Sr and Christy comment on Hansen et al 2005 “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” was bizarrely rejected by Science:

    http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/Hansen-Science.pdf