Physicist F. James Cripwell, a former scientist with the UK’s Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge and now a member of the notorious list of 400 skeptical scientists, is of the opinion that we need an independent study to compare and contrast the four ways of measuring world temperature anomalies. Following is a copy of recent communications between the physicist and Marc Morano in which he explains why:
Dear Marc,
I write with respect to your latest communication about Alexander Cockburn. He seems to have made an important and fundamental error. He writes “While the world’s climate is on a warming trend…”. I do not believe the world’s climate is on a warming trend, though I cannot as yet prove this.
It is quite true that since somewhere around 1970, the world has warmed up. What is not clear is that, as of now, the world is still warming up. And, of course, “now” is moving. As time goes on, I believe the indications that the world has ceaased warming, and has started to cool, will become more and more obvious.
As I have noted before, there are four major agencies which measure average global temperature anomalies, and report them of a monthly basis. These are NASA/GISS, NCDC/NOAA, HAD/CRU and RSS/MSU.
The first, NASA/GISS data, shows that at present, average global temperatures are increasing. The other three show the opposite, that they are decreasing. I am suspicious that Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are closely connected with the NASA/GISS data, but they are very competent scientists with impressive credentials.
If you ask for a linear least squares regression analysis, you find a linear trend of increasing temperatures. However, if you ask for a non-linear analysis, NASA/GISS shows an increasing trend, but the other three show that temperatures has passed through a maximum, and are now decreasing. What is missing is an independent study to compare and contrast the four ways of measuring world temperature anomalies, coming up with an opinion as to which is “best”, whatever this means.
Until we have such a stduy, we are unlikely to make any progress in this area. Or we must wait until the data showing that world temperatures are decreasing becomes too overwhelming to be ignored.
Sincerely,
Jim Cripwell
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I guess Jim flies too
“Whatever is causing warming, it is not an increase in levels of carbon dioxide. A more plausible theory is that it is water put into high altitudes by aircraft; this would have roughly the same time line.”
http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/global.htm
Jennifer: Let’s suggest here it’s a bit harder to build a physical filter than an intellectual one.
After a couple of tries I found this lot from the “cosmic” group
Q: I am trying to find out how to calculate the change in radiative forcing when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changes from zero ppm to some other value, say 1 ppm or 200 ppm. The key, of course, is the initial value of zero. The IPCC assumes that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 results is a linear increase in forcing. If the initial value is zero, this approach does not work.
As a supplementary question, if no-one knows how to calculate the change in forcing when the initial value is zero, why did the IPCC select radiative forcing as its quantitative measure of greenhouse effectiveness?
A: Entropy Shows that Global Warming Should Cause Increased Variability in the Weather
Elementary physical reasoning seems to leave it inevitable that global warming would increase the variability of the weather. The first two terms in an approximation to the global entropy are used to show that global warming has increased the free energy available to drive the weather, and that the variance of the weather should increase correspondingly.
I left out ID’s
From the Article:
“As I have noted before, there are four major agencies which measure average global temperature anomalies, and report them of a monthly basis. These are NASA/GISS, NCDC/NOAA, HAD/CRU and RSS/MSU.
The first, NASA/GISS data, shows that at present, average global temperatures are increasing. The other three show the opposite, that they are decreasing. I am suspicious that Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are closely connected with the NASA/GISS data, but they are very competent scientists with impressive credentials.”
Gavin it appears that he poked you in the eye while being gentle about it.
I do find it interesting that only the GISS data set has a distinct warming trend.
Meanwhile RSS recently corrected a cooling bias that had puzzled many.Now it is fairly similar to UAH and HadleyCrut3.
I find it amusing that there are different temperature results among the centers listed.
GAVIN:
Can you elaborate on why that is?
This is much the same as 4 different ore-reserve geologists coming up with 4 different metal contents from the same data set. Which one is correct? We know from experience which one will be because unless climate scientists, we can test the hypothesis by actually mining the deposit and finding out exactly how much was in the ground.
It is intrinsically related to the error of doing statistics and deriving numerical calculations from intensive variables such as temperatures.
Getting hold of the raw data is another matter and finding out what processing has been done is another matter again as Steve McTinyre and others still have not bee given the code how the GISS data are processeed. In the mining industry that would make us disbelieve the data results, much in the sense of the market being conned by the BreX gold scam some years back.
So I wish James Cripwell the best – but if the post raw data processing is being kept secret for the NASA/GISS data, any comparison of the four methods will be difficult.
Louis writes:
“Getting hold of the raw data is another matter and finding out what processing has been done is another matter again as Steve McTinyre and others still have not bee given the code how the GISS data are processeed. In the mining industry that would make us disbelieve the data results, much in the sense of the market being conned by the BreX gold scam some years back.”
I can understand territorial rights to the raw numbers on the part of GISS group.The problem I have is that they continue to hang onto it.There is a time where RAW data must be released to allow other scientists and science researchers to examine it.
Since they are by far warmer than the others coupled with their lack of openess to how they arrive at those numbers.I will consider their data set second rate.
Sorry gavin.
First of all you might look up what areas they are measuring or estimating for.
Ummm how long a period are you looking at a “trend” anything more than 11 years (the sun TSI cycle) and all show an upward trend.
Also Hadley don’t sample north of 70 degrees.
GISS interpolate more than one data point away as well.
Sunsettommy
Since the data collection are taxpayer funded and there is no commercial competition between the various groups, territorial rights should not come into it.
Mind you given the situation these days with peer reviewing and the politics involved, one might understand the reticence to show all, but from the perspective of QA/QC (which we in the modern mining industry are obligated to observe to the letter otherwise banks won’t fund any mining operation) this behaviour of not releasing data is quite problematical.
Funny, if Mann et al and the others released their data when requested then the current situation might not be what it is. It is for the very reason of data quarantining that drives scepticism. I tried to get the elevation data for Tuvalu some time back, found it described in some obscure gov.au link but discovered that the documents were black listed.
If the data supporting AGW were self evident, witholding that data means that the data are not self evident and that the case for AGW depends on how that data are processed.
That seems to be the underlying issue, and it is clear that the climate priesthood don’t really want us dirty, smelly rabble to know their methods.
Louis,
Scientists and scientific institutions have the expectation that their raw data is theirs for a time period allowing them to process it.They are the ones who collect them and therefore understandably will treat like it belongs to them.
The rest of the world should understand that there is a period of time that such RAW data is unavailable.This is normal and that is why I alluded to “territorial” behavior over it.
When they do release processed data as part of some research.Then soon after that the RAW data and method should be released as well.
The Hubble Telescope is a taxpayer funded enterprise.Yet the privileged few people who win their proposed time for use of the Telescope.Have a several years where they can keep the data derived from using the Telescope to themselves.This is to allow the researchers time to unravel and study the data.Publish science papers on them and to collaborate with others behind the scenes.
It can take a few months just getting all the data off the magnetic disks and set up in some order.To then make sense of it as part of ongoing research.
The point is that it takes time for RAW data to be released to the public.The people who collected them need a period of time to use it.Before giving it away to everyone else.
People like DR. Mann long ago published the “hockey stick” paper in 1998.Therefore he should have sent the underlying data to others who asked for them 5+ YEARS later.He had no reason to hide them since his paper had long been published and even prominently paraded in the 2001 IPCC report.
Dr. Jones failed to back up his long ago (1986) paper detailing temperatures on a global scale.It has been revealed that he does not even have the data anymore.That is why he was resisting Warwick Hughes and then Steve McIntire requests for them.
DR. Jones et al published that paper 22 years ago and the RAW data for it has not been provided.That is very bad.This was covered a while ago at Climate Audit.
sunsettommy
Yes, quite, but temperature data collection is a continuous process done by various met’stations which also provide data for our daily news weather forecasts. So in a sense the raw data, temperature wise, should be in the pubic domain. And daily satellite imagery is made available too, so why the hesitancy about certain data sets?
And let’s not forget that this global warming issue is being run by the progressives or social democrat sectons of our community – and that needs to be looked at s closely as the scientific issues – social democrats are also into state intervention and control of things; the two issues of global warming fears and state control are intertwined.
The problem is also government funded science and the inherent secrecy and bureacratic mindset that accompanies such science. That Jones et al had not archived their data is astonishing.
An from what I read in Christopher Pearson’s article in this Weekend Australian newspaper, university academic standards have been falling for quite some time, and again the direct consequence of progressive policies and the dumbing down on science.
“People like DR. Mann long ago published the “hockey stick” paper in 1998.Therefore he should have sent the underlying data to others who asked for them 5+ YEARS later.He had no reason to hide them since his paper had long been published and even prominently paraded in the 2001 IPCC report.
Dr. Jones failed to back up his long ago (1986) paper detailing temperatures on a global scale.It has been revealed that he does not even have the data anymore.That is why he was resisting Warwick Hughes and then Steve McIntire requests for them.
DR. Jones et al published that paper 22 years ago and the RAW data for it has not been provided.That is very bad.This was covered a while ago at Climate Audit.”
Yeah, it’s all a conspiracy. Or maybe it’s just that they don’t have the time, budget and staff to do what is an expensive and time consuming task if you want it done properly.
If the collective ‘auditors’ want, they can just go out and replicate the research and get the figures themselves, that’s how it usually works. How do you know that they even got that part right?
Sunny & Louis may babble on but I left a clue up front about filters. Data filters vary according to individual needs.
Raw data can be processed this way or that and I bet the raw met data that is published means nothing much at first glance anywhere.
In the mining industry we used to get excited when cores assayed say %3.2 in a metal ferrous zone. Intersecting ore in a lens and calling it high grade from just one or two drill samples can truly upset the share market so we don’t generally acknowledge it till its gone through the concentration process. Most ore bodies average less than one percent over a lifetime of mining.
Back on subject I spent years monitoring turbulent processes, some in atmospheric conditions; others were at extreme temperatures and pressures. All required a good sense in understanding the limits of each measurement leading to a useful interpenetration of recordings. Today there is a whole new science devoted to unraveling the history of old charts. Some of that science can be very political.
In any turbulent environment, measurements vary all over the place. I still work from the visual when evaluating the impact of filters on the record. Don’t let the pure stats fool you.
What a load of self-indulgent twaddle – McIntrye got all the codes and the sea level stuff isn’t on an obscure site at all. It’s a question of whether one sits around in a small caravan space dreaming up conspiracies that don’t exist or makes a few phone calls and emails. CRU and GISS are measuring different areas to start with.
Louis you don’t engage the climate science establishment – they’ve never heard of you. Modern levels of data availability are considerable. But why would you deal with an on- again off-again time-waster like yourself who isn’t going to anything with the data (that they supposedly can’t get) anyway. You just ponce around on blogs claiming reams of fantastic conspiratorial crap. Grow up.
And you are utterly fantastic in your hypocrisy – one minute you’re banging on about the data sets being crap, the analysis crap, you can’t calculate and average etc etc and then suddenly in the next breath you’re saying it’s cooling. If the data series are not good or statistical fodder you don’t know anything !! Which is it guys? Can’t have it both ways.
Now back to fundamentals – Louis do you believe in the Stephan Boltzmann equation or not.
Interesting reading, Luke. A good summary from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
SJT writes:
“Yeah, it’s all a conspiracy. Or maybe it’s just that they don’t have the time, budget and staff to do what is an expensive and time consuming task if you want it done properly.
If the collective ‘auditors’ want, they can just go out and replicate the research and get the figures themselves, that’s how it usually works. How do you know that they even got that part right?”
The published science papers of both men are based on data they used.Since such papers has to undergo a validation process before it can be considered robust.They MUST provide the underlying data to others who request it.To do their own replication effort.
DR. Jones and DR. Mann failed to do that.It is amusing that the “hockey stick” paper got front page treatment on the IPCC 2001 report.This despite that it was not validated by anyone else at the time.Meaning the paper was not tested for its veracity.
It is obvious that you have not followed Climate Audits effort in getting the data from DR. Jones.
It is apparent that you are not up to date on Climate Audits effort to get ALL of the data from Dr. Mann.
It is not easy to replicate a research when so much of the underlying RAW data and source codes are not available.
This was covered at Climate Audit as well.
You brought up the “conspiracy” line.I did not.
LOL
re:” Interesting reading, Luke. A good summary from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law“
Dream on, you two — as if you understand it. Like Lil’ Lukefish’s propaganda prop-ups, that post is a “load of self-indulgent twaddle.”
I love how ChickenHawk never actually says anything – usually mutters some metaphysical incantation and disappears. Great contributor.
sunsettommy – “DR. Jones and DR. Mann failed to do that.It is amusing that the “hockey stick” paper got front page treatment on the IPCC 2001 report.This despite that it was not validated by anyone else at the time.Meaning the paper was not tested for its veracity.”
Apart from the minor detail that the authors of MBH99 were Mann, Bradley and Hughes the paper passed normal peer review. Nothing McIntyre did actually changed anything in MBH99 by more than a few percent. It is obvious you have read nothing on Real Climate including the “Dummies Guide” that you so obviously need.
“It is apparent that you are not up to date on Climate Audits effort to get ALL of the data from Dr. Mann.”
What was really funny was McIntyre’s pathetic attempts to get scientists, who knew what they were doing, to spoon feed him so he could run a PCA analysis. None of the researchers that did the follow up studies needed any such help as they were professionals that knew what they were doing.
I suggest you get out of the CA cloud and look at the real world.
Ah,
The pseudos have arrived
Stephan Boltzman Equation ? Belief or disbelief in it? That is not science, so in a way you probably answered your own question.
And I don’t sit in front of the computer all day as I have a life, so my reaction to comments occur infrequently.
Climate scientists? Basically technically skilled social scientists and their modus operandi hasn’t changed when I was doing post grad study.
As others have repeated often, science is not consensus and has nothin to do with belief or disbelief.
But I have to admit, Darwin and Lyell often mentioned the existence of a missing link and I think we might have found one in Luke, or Phil Done, or whatever character you play at the time.
All a bit mind boggling I suppose.
Luke, get a life
Having just spend a few minutes readling Luke’s last comment, I suddenly realised again the Point Christopher Pearson made in his Weekend Oz article of the weekend.
As I never mentioned cooling once in this thread, then how can you accuse me of using it or have you an ability to discern my actual thougts from the white spaces separting the words I write.
Amaaaazing. I suppose you have given up on tea leaves then for something a bit more modern.
Ender
I see you too have reading problems if that is what way you unnderstand Climateaudit’s work.
What is it with you clowns that you have personally vilify everyone who contradicts your dogma here. Hoping we will stop posting here?
LOL
Yes, when it was reviewed, the data was probably checked. That data back in those days was taking up valuable space on expensive equipment. If anyone wants to reproduce it, they can go ahead and do so.
The scientific method doesn’t mean you can just take someones data and check their working, that’s only half the job. You have to do your own leg work and reproduce the data as well, from your own work.
“What is it with you clowns that you have personally vilify everyone who contradicts your dogma here. Hoping we will stop posting here?”
This whole vilification BS started with the deniers. How many “Waldo” references are there on CA? McIntyre has a personal obsession with the work of Hansen.
“Stephan Boltzman Equation ? Belief or disbelief in it? That is not science, so in a way you probably answered your own question.”
Nicely dodged, Louis, and noted. Are the Stephen Boltzman equations valid science or not?
“As I never mentioned cooling once in this thread, then how can you accuse me of using it or have you an ability to discern my actual thougts from the white spaces separting the words I write.”
The IPCC never once mentions Socialism or Communism, but that doesn’t stop people attributing these as it’s motives. How do you discern their actual thoughts, Louis?
Hey SJT – fascinating isn’t it. Hissink just sprays everywhere but will never commit on one science principle. All you ever get is quasi-philosophical drivel and excuses. What a denialist shonk. He’s never had any discussions with the Australian climate science community but nevertheless is a self appointed expert on where they’re wrong. We’ll take his evasion on Stephen Boltzman as a “no” which means there is no point in even addressing someone who doesn’t believe/agree with (insert term to stop him ducking) in/with basic physics.
“a self appointed expert” hey
Where did the search for the one odd “scientist” begin? Was it greenie watch?
Have you tried ‘James, Cripwell, cosmic’ yet?
Some very interesting fishing has gone on for a while over at CCnet.
Gavin,
The link you posted first was amusing. We should cut down waste heat and cooling towers to prevent water getting in to the atmosphere.
I strongly suspect the sea surface has a slightly larger effect on atmospheric water vapour.
As for the logarithmic effect of CO2 on radiative forcing , Lubos Motl had an extensive post on that on his blog recently including how the approximation breaks down at low concentrations.
Careful how you do the math!
Louis, the dictionary definition of believe.
1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
3: to hold an opinion : think
You neatly plumped for (1a), but this isn’t supposed to be about playing games with definitions of words when a question is obvious as to it’s intent. You know exactly what Luke was asking.
“about playing games with definitions of words”
Nah it’s more than that.
We now have MM feeding blogs and a handful of people who were on the fringe of that 400+ club from the beginning still fishing round the on going science for dirt on the AGW theory; cosmic rays, water vapor, anything Why? IMO It’s purely political!
There is of course some intellectual jealousy. Whoz at the top of the tree today? Also will that one piece of damming evidence pop up here?
Experience in monitoring turbid reactions teaches me this, a good measurement system must have a shock absorber built in somewhere and it could be part of the sensor design. Sensitivity to change is my first line of inquiry.
We must build some faith, with just one or two instruments somewhere in the process then expand on that. What do we need to fly a sail plane?
Beyond the sensitivity issues we must look again and again at our first choice of indicators. Imagine the weather man with a simple wind direction arrow swinging up on the roof and a calibrated tube stuck on a post trying to predict the next big dust storm.
We loose the plot when the search for clues gets too intellectual.
Gavin,
Are you drunk or on drugs? You aren’t making much sense.
Currently the 1 km AMSU-A satellite temperature shows the planet as 0.92 degrees F COOLER than this time last year. Satellite measurements arte probably the best method of attempting to judge a global average temperature.
This figure is outside the boundaries of “insignificance”.
Also the total of North and South Polar ice has suddenly increased back to its long term average.
I wonder when the press and governments of the world will notice?
“Currently the 1 km AMSU-A satellite temperature shows the planet as 0.92 degrees F COOLER than this time last year”.
The first Q: How long have we had this type of information and what are its limitations? Q2: What are the sensors and filters? Q3: How does this relate to ST and climate?
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0426(2001)018%3C0340%3AROATPF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
oiswww.eumetsat.org/WEBOPS/eps-pg/ATOVS-L2/ATOVSL2-PG-4ProdOverview.htm
ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?SESSID=298b65a749867a06475ee3545da834cb&request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0426(2000)017%3C1215%3AOCOABT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Given the 15 channels there is probably more than one discussion regarding antenna. What about scan rates and niose?
I like the bit on automatic calibration where we come back to our faith in a single instrument.
Tamino at Open Mind has an intelligent analysis of the surface temperature series.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/
So all this insisting it’s cooling or AGW has “peaked” is statistically premature – the only “proof” will be the next 5-10 years of empirical data. So we’ll eventually see if it’s a trend or a wiggle. So gonna have to wait and ad hom each other till then.
Louis, once again, refuses to actually take a stand on the science.
A recent Q on CA: “Why is the GISS so different from the others? Is the software used to filter the data different?”
Then there is the debate at Prometheus on the difference in trends also the difference in interpretation of land v ocean data.
If any one doubts my input on “filters” they aren’t up to the debate. Filter design and ownership is as important as data itself
sjt,
“Nicely dodged, Louis, and noted. Are the Stephen Boltzman equations valid science or not?”
Maybe Louis doesn’t know I wouldn’t expect a geologist(??) to be up to speed on it however , Stepan-Boltzmann along with Planck’s law are valid for black bodies (cavities in fact) or isothermal grey bodies neither describe planet earth or it’s atmosphere. Hence it may be valid for some other, most likely mythical, planet but not for old mother earth.
Yep exactly.
Luke;
“Yep exactly.”
It of course raises the question as to why such high powered climatologist as Keihle and Trenberth make the assumption that that earth and atmosphere are black bodies. As they do in the paper summarised in this graphic.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/balanc3.jpg
They do !? – how’s that? Isn’t there a thing called albedo in all climate calcs.
Luke,
They do !? – how’s that?
390 w/m^2 up welling energy from the surface is due to 288k surface temperature they are black body values and relationship (if you would just apply S-B law you could see that) you have a similar case for the 324 w/m^2 down welling or back radiation.
Isn’t there a thing called albedo in all climate calcs.
Albedo is not part of the equation therefore not relevant in this case.
“Maybe Louis doesn’t know I wouldn’t expect a geologist(??) to be up to speed on it however”
Which is why I wonder why he won’t just admit he has no idea and stops pretending as if he does.
“Keihle and Trenberth make the assumption that that earth and atmosphere are black bodies. As they do in the paper summarised in this graphic.”
For god’s sake, it’s a simplified diagram for the rest of us to see what they are getting at. Atoms aren’t little balls, either, despite what they teach you in high school science.
If you look at the diagram, it clearly shows the amount of radiation that is reflected due to albedo.
Ender, Mann “peer reviewed” his own work on the ‘hockey stick’, and did so as an IPCC Lead Author! Breathtaking stuff; just shows how blatently dishonest they, (Mann and the IPCC)are; and also how immune from the real world they are.
Meanwhile in the real world, the bitter N H winter continues to make news in media around the world, with reported deaths from the extreme cold outnumbering those from the European heatwave five years ago by about 30 to 1. (Remember how those deaths were attributed to “global warming’?
Talking to my sister and her husband by ‘phone today. They farm in South Dakota, and have had several days in a row with temps. below -35deg C. The coldest winter there since 1948. They comment that Hansen and co at NASA-GISS are in Houdini like contortions trying to explain it away, and there is a certain distrust of them…’fiddling thermometers sort of thing’!
sjt
“If you look at the diagram, it clearly shows the amount of radiation that is reflected due to albedo.”
Nope 30w/m^2 is reflection due to surface albedo 390w/m^2 is the black body radiation from a cavity at 288K as per S-B law. in this case however is is represented as the radiation from the surface at 288K.
” For god’s sake, it’s a simplified diagram for the rest of us to see what they are getting at.”
Are you saying they are deliberately trying to misinform us?
sjt
ps That cartoon appeared in a paper by those two published in peer reviewed Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (vol78 No 2 1997 page 206) . The caption fig 7 “The earths annual global mean energy budget based on the present study. units are Wm^-2.
Hardly a journal for “the rest of us”.
Jan
if you want a detailed explanation of it all, here is a free textbook, available online, (nearly complete).
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
You could always measure food prices. Anybody concerned about food commodity prices hyperinflating? You all eat. How about oil? You all drive.
Bogging your minds down with really insignificant debate. There is a major affront occurring on your wealth and future generations ability to create any … food and energy prices are going to continue this upward trajectory. When will we get some really intelligable focus from the nation’s think tanks on just what this will mean for us all. As a farmer I shouldn’t really care as my bottom line will only swell … but I have to live in this world as well. Good night … disgusted! Wheat futures for 2008 hit another record today …
SJT
Why would I give more credence to Ray Pierrehumbert than I do for Kevin Trenberth they belong to the same clique (IMO Keihl is worth reading when away from the gang).
I take it from this that you don’t really have a grip on Stefan-Boltzmann yourself?
If so I would be careful of throwing rocks from you glass house at Louis if I were you.
What is at issue here in this topic that Luke brought up is basic thermodynamics, that Keihl and Trenberth got wrong, not climatology.
If you can’t make sense of it, it places a question mark over your understanding of it too.
Jan – nope – 240 watts (includes albedo adjustment for incoming!!) is what you get for radiation balance with no atmosphere. 390 is an “average” value to get a balance with the actual mean Earth temperature. It’s an average calc in an idealised average diagram – it would vary in reality according to exact geographic coordinates and atmospheric conditions on the day.
Do monitoring satellites tell us otherwise? Jan we only got started on S-B making a very simple point that without an atmosphere containing clouds, water vapour and CO2 the Earth would be a tad chilly. Simple point. (but lordy me – here we go with CA conspiracies)
So have you invented Jack’s Beanstalk – is heat strangely building up or leaking away.
Well Aaron – extractus digitus and write us a guest post. Did notice a few relevant snippets that said the chairman of GM reckons we’ve past Peak Oil http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/times-up-for-petrol-cars-says-gm/2008/01/14/1200159401944.html
And also New Scientist reckons we’ve overestimated coal reserves.
That is certainly the conclusion of Energy Watch, a group of scientists led by the German renewable energy consultancy Ludwig Bölkow Systemtechnik (LBST). In a 2007 report, the group argues that official coal reserves are likely to be biased on the high side. “As scientists, we were surprised to find that so-called proven reserves were anything but proven,” says lead author Werner Zittel. “It is a clear sign that something is seriously wrong.”
Since it is widely accepted that major new discoveries of coal are unlikely, Energy Watch forecasts that global coal output will peak as early as 2025 and then fall into terminal decline. That’s a lot earlier than is generally assumed by policy-makers, who look to the much higher forecasts of the International Energy Agency. “The perception that coal is the fossil resource of last resort -that you can come back to when you run into problems with all the others – is probably an illusion,” says Jörg Schindler of LBST.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19726391.800-coal-bleak-outlook-for-the-black-stuff.html
Meanwhile many farmers in eastern Australia (despite good rain in many places) are still severely impacted by the drought impact of previous years.
As for being relaxed and comfortable as a supplier – don’t be – a serious crisis will see the Mongol hordes storming your farm gate and/or nationalising you. You only have to see Generation Y Australia Day behaviour to see the place now reacts. Hope you’re armed to the teeth.
Aaron – but still lots of capacity in northern Australia to if you want to get out of low tech dirt farmer mode and start eating rice. 🙂
Sir Sidney Kidman didn’t sit around ! Are the coporates?
Luke,
Jan – nope – 240 watts (includes albedo adjustment for incoming!!) is what you get for radiation balance with no atmosphere.
No Luke you don’t get it – in his own words
“On page 205 last paragraph: “For the outgoing fluxes, the surface infrared radiation of 390 W m−2 corresponds to a blackbody emission at 15°C.”
Do I need to repeat it any more for it to sink in? It’s only the beginning of the problems with the statement. For a start the excuse you try to make:
” 390 is an “average” value to get a balance with the actual mean Earth temperature.”
A “mean” or average of temperature is just as physically meaningless as the sum of temperatures needed to get there (unless of course the radiating body is isothermal) nothing radiates at an average temperature – it is arrant nonsense even to suggest it. The problem mathematically lies with the fact that temperature has a 4th power relationship with the radiated energy and falls foul of the Holder inequality (a generalisation of Gauchy-Schwartz and traingle inequalities) and the greater the variance the bigger the error.
They did however appear to pluck out of nowhere the 324 watt/m^2 back radiation out of there air (there is no mention of source or provenance) to balance the 390 W/m^2 exaggerated (from 66) outward radiation.
*We* got started on this because you who are living in a glass house was throwing off topic stones at Louis Hissink. Now I don’t know whether he understands it or not this much is very certain, not to say blatantly obvious, that you don’t.
Well you’re suddenly a genius who has invalidated the entire satellite monitoring of radiation too then. All those radiation balances invalidated. So many papers in ruins. I wonder why nobody else noticed. Jeez !
Off to Nature and publish post haste. Which you guys never ever do. “oooo it’s too hard”
You’ve left albedo out of your CA calc – so you’re a mile out. Your full quota of solar radiation simply ain’t received. Bit of a problem if it isn’t.
If you don’t like an average – then pick a point or region. Or perhaps a few regions.
They didn’t pick numbers out of thin air. What a silly assertion. Go and do some basic research for heavens sake. I look forward to your paper for a new global radiation budget. ROTFL. I mean don’t piss around – give us your full revised assessment given you think you’re a player.
(RE Louis – well he reckons there is no greenhouse effect at all – zilch, zip, none, on even days the temperature record is meaningless, and on odd days it’s cooling or warming – depending on proximity to the full moon, and on all days we’re commies. I’m sure you can help him or maybe even join him !! – what’s your position on abiotic oil, tectonic plates and the electric universe?).
Luke,
“Well you’re suddenly a genius who has invalidated the entire satellite monitoring of radiation too then”
Interesting rant. I did nothing of the sort earlier you agreed that Earth and atmosphere was not a black body and that S-B was not valid for this planet. Have you changed your mind then?
I have just showed where K&T have stuffed up really nothing to do with satellite monitoring which is something that you would know if you had actually read the paper which I actually have in front of me.
That no climatologist or meteorologist noticed the error or not bothered to mention it if they did doesn’t surprise me in the least. I couldn’t be bothered either.
You on the other hand seem quite confused – it’s not rocket science, nothing genius, just plain text book thermo.
“Interesting rant. I did nothing of the sort earlier you agreed that Earth and atmosphere was not a black body and that S-B was not valid for this planet. Have you changed your mind then?”
Luke never said it was, he is trying to get Louis to acknowledge that fundamentals of the science before getting on to the more advanced stuff. SB is where you begin, and Louis doesn’t even seem to be aware of that. It gives us the planet’s temperature to within a good first approximation.
“That no climatologist or meteorologist noticed the error or not bothered to mention it if they did doesn’t surprise me in the least.”
Now that’s funny.
The diagram clearly shows it is not a black body as the ground and clouds both reflect radiation.
No I said the Earth was not a black body – so what’s the effective short wave flux the Earth receives for heating? Your number is?
And Jan isn’t it funny that that measured OLR and Longwave Downward Radiation is about what is should be. Funny that. What’s your numbers for these?
It’s always a big worry when you think you’ve made a breakthrough – most people ask around for other opinions – but you seem to have ego clog.
So when’s your Nature paper coming out? ROTFL.
Sid Reynolds – “Ender, Mann “peer reviewed” his own work on the ‘hockey stick’, and did so as an IPCC Lead Author! Breathtaking stuff; just shows how blatently dishonest they, (Mann and the IPCC)are; and also how immune from the real world they are.”
Please provide the reference for this pile of crap or retract it. Peer review is done anonomously and before the paper is published. So provide the reviewers of MBH98 and prove one of them was Micheal Mann. I bet you can’t so you should not say things that you cannot back up.
This really only shows how blatantly dishonest you are by posting lies that you cannot substantiate.
Jan Pompe – “The problem mathematically lies with the fact that temperature has a 4th power relationship with the radiated energy and falls foul of the Holder inequality (a generalisation of Gauchy-Schwartz and traingle inequalities) and the greater the variance the bigger the error.”
I think if you are bandying about these sorts of things that you need to explain them so that we know you understand them.
Before you post anything more I would really like to see how this:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/CauchySchwartzInequality.html
relates to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law
I admit that I do not understand the maths however I cannot see how something relating to products of vectors is related to a 4th power variance problem.
Please enlighten us or are you just reading someone else’s rant that you do not understand either?
Jan Pompe – “A “mean” or average of temperature is just as physically meaningless as the sum of temperatures needed to get there (unless of course the radiating body is isothermal) nothing radiates at an average temperature – it is arrant nonsense even to suggest it.”
Is it? If you were measuring the velocities of say cars on the freeway and you measured 1000 cars and the velocities varied from 30 km/hr to 120km/hr is it physically meaningless to calculate the average velocity of those 1000 cars?
Been tossing a bit on the Q, is Jan M or F and the more general issue of testosterone driven posts on our climate science.
Meanwhile I vaguely recall doing black body stuff in physics and to all intents and purposes we had point sources not cavities. Anyone looking for a perfect earth radiation model will be very busy if not frustrated for some time to come.
Back to instruments; try looking at band pass, channel isolation and all that kind of stuff before worrying too much about sensitivity.
re: “Is it? If you were measuring the velocities of say cars on the freeway and you measured 1000 cars and the velocities varied from 30 km/hr to 120km/hr is it physically meaningless to calculate the average velocity of those 1000 cars?”
BINGO!!! Slam those doors shut and lock them — same for the windows. Make sure Lukefish and SJT are in there with him. To get out, you MUST answer your own questions in a thermodynamically consistent way, proving that you actually have an inkling, or at least statistical mechanics understanding of the subject. Feel free to ask around, you might actually learn something and begin to see the light ‘er heat?
I hope you haven’t stumbled here — one always had hope for you. Can’t say the same for the other lightweights, but maybe they too will surprise us all?!? Why even Mr. Hissink will actually interact with you again on such subjects, instead of it being a complete waste of time!
Just wanted to point out two excellent posts over at Pielke Snr’s blog recently:
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/28/additional-research-articles-on-the-2003-european-heat-wave/
which confirms the result Chase et al(2006) arrived out regarding the european heat wave in 2003 was principally the result of low soil moisture (land cover change) rather than GHGs; and,
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/25/modeling-the-impact-of-historical-land-cover-change-on-australia%e2%80%99s-regional-climate/
which is a brief reference to recent work much closer to home which attempts to model the impact of land cover change since the beginning of the European settlement on this continent.
two more comments deleted from this thread. can we try and minimise comments that don’t in some way related to the topic.
CS bloggers should look at some of the other stuff listed here
http://www.uq.edu.au/uqresearchers/unit/gpa.html?uv_category=pub
mccall – “I hope you haven’t stumbled here — one always had hope for you. Can’t say the same for the other lightweights, but maybe they too will surprise us all?!?”
I am still waiting for you to answer from a previous post how average temperature somehow violates thermodynamics.
Perhaps you can explain on this thread. Seeings as you are such a heavyweight on the subject perhaps you can think about why I am asking about car velocities. For a person of your obvious genius this should be obvious.
““Assuming the near-surface temperature measurements are spatially representative, the conclusion that the heat wave was a shallow phenomenon in terms of its unusualness argues against the point of view that it was a direct manifestation of the effects of increased atmospheric CO2..…. we … conclude that land surface conditions (low soil moisture) are the likely direct cause for such an “unusual” event near the surface.”
Thus, those who claim that the 2003 European heat wave is evidence of global warming are, therefore, ignoring peer reviewed literature on this subject. Instead, it appears that land surface forcing, as has been so repeatedly emphasized on Climate Science, is the main reason for the extreme heat right near the surface. Attempting to mitigate such heat waves by focusing only on CO2 emission reductions will not reduce the risk from these weather events. Clearly, adaptation must also play a major role through deliberate land management practices to reduce the threats from heat waves.”
How did it get so dry? In Australia there is a similar problem, the protracted changes in rainfall are also drying out the land. Positive feedback effects, it appears to me.
SJT, There have been no “protracted changes in rainfall” and the continent is not “drying out”. Check the BOM website. If anything Australia has been getting wetter.
SJT
“The diagram clearly shows it is not a black body as the ground and clouds both reflect radiation.”
Shall I repeat that sentence in the body of the text yet again?
I think I will.
“For the outgoing fluxes, the surface infrared radiation of 390 W m−2 corresponds to a blackbody emission at 15°C.
Thank you! You have pointed out that the paper is self contradictory. You have done well.
Ender:
I admit that I do not understand the maths however I cannot see how something relating to products of vectors is related to a 4th power variance problem.
OK try for yourself take a series of temperatures take the average then square them and take the square root of the average of those squares. If the the temperatures are all the same the two will be equal if not the same the two averages will not be equal the the larger the variance in the sample the larger the difference. Put simply the sum of the squares and the square of the is not equal, and T^4 = (T^2)^2.
If you’re still having trouble let me know.
Thanks, Gavin.
SJT, it seems you’re missing their point, but your retort was expected. If you reduce the ability of the land to retain moisture then no significant change in rainfall can still lead to the sort of episodes experienced in Europe and Australia recently. Pielke Snr’s point is that the IPCC under-estimates the impact of LCC (land cover change) and over-estimates the impact of GHGs.
BTW, land cover change is itself a forcing, and not, here, just a feedback. If I remove native vegetation and plant a crop the impact is a direct anthropogenic forcing on the regional and possibly global climate.
“SJT, There have been no “protracted changes in rainfall” and the continent is not “drying out”. Check the BOM website. If anything Australia has been getting wetter.”
That’s fine if you live in the NW of Australia, I live in the SE. Thousands of kilometers away. Rain up there is no use to me.
“BTW, land cover change is itself a forcing, and not, here, just a feedback. If I remove native vegetation and plant a crop the impact is a direct anthropogenic forcing on the regional and possibly global climate.”
Landcover change is factored in by the IPCC. It’s nothing new.
SJT, the question was whether they under-estimated LCC, not that they avoided it altogether.
“For the outgoing fluxes, the surface infrared radiation of 390 W m−2 corresponds to a blackbody emission at 15°C.”
They don’t say it is a blackbody, they say it’s behaviour corresponds to a blackbody at 15C. Is English perhaps not your native language?
Gavin,
Read carefully
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html
” Meanwhile I vaguely recall doing black body stuff in physics and to all intents and purposes we had point sources not cavities.”
That was high school physics I take it.
Luke;
” No I said the Earth was not a black body ”
Not quite you said “Yep exactly” to my remarks about the invalidity of using black-body S_B for earth system. K&T disagreed in that paper you were right they were wrong so give yourself a pat on the back, instead of complaining.
SJT
“They don’t say it is a blackbody, they say it’s behaviour corresponds to a blackbody at 15C. Is English perhaps not your native language?”
Precisely and the earth is not a black body so the 390 w/m^2 figure is wrong.
Step up Pompous – how do the empirical measurements of OLR and LDR compare?
And tell us the basis for your new theory of heating – coz I was just wondering why it gets hot in the Sun.
Back to practical emitters and receivers also gas v clouds as a radiation filter. We make a lot of assumptions in getting a reasonable perspective on the situation. Coming from another direction we could say an ideal black body Earth settles at 6C but given the atmosphere it’s about 15 C. I reckon the 1 or 2 C ST change we may observe is a big shift in our blanket properties after considering the life of the Sun.
What are the constants? I used to look into furnaces seeking signs of change. How were the thermocouples performing etc? Note; temperature = colour with a trained eye. But however good the eye is in the first instance, we can’t remain at the peep hole for long. Which does the most damage, UV or IR? What in this extreme gaseous environment am I calibrating by eye? One turbulent element in the carbon cycle close up hey
We made a lot of CO2 but let’s not get bogged down with heat islands.
It’s a pretty sensitive satellite that can read the anomalies in radiation coming from the various reflectors and filters round mother earth. We are dependent on the old fashioned surface records ground the climate models. I suggest it’s a bit like measuring flow from a position in the slipstream.
Jan when you can wave a bent pitot tube at me and guess its wind speed, we could have a good argument
Luke,
“coz I was just wondering why it gets hot in the Sun.”
I’m not surprised.
temperature of a body orbiting the sun at thermal equilibrium is given by
T = sqrt(rs/2R)Ts
where Rs is the radius of the sun R the distance from the sun and Ts the temperature of the sun. It falls out of S-B law by the way. From standard thermodynamic heat transfer text for engineers.
Gavin,
What in this extreme gaseous environment am I calibrating by eye?
Gee Gavin you are brave (or foolhardy you decide) I was more cowardly I used to use an optical pyrometer but that was 40 years ago. Nowadays I’m not to bad at estimating when the gold solder is about to melt when I make a piece of jewellery.
” Jan when you can wave a bent pitot tube at me and guess its wind speed”
I think I’d use a windmill anemometer better still a hemispherical cup job and I won’t have to worry about getting the direction right.
“we could have a good argument”
I doubt it you are being just too silly for words.
I never knew that Jan.
Now come on Jan – any idea of some real world measurements? Don’t pike out now? Do you know? Nothing like a bit of theory and practice.
Mr Wiki says.
Temperature of the Earth
Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth TE by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy transmitted by the Earth, under the black-body approximation:
T_E \, = T_S \sqrt{r_S\over 2 a_0 } \;
= 5780 \; {\rm K} \times \sqrt{696 \times 10^{6} \; {\rm m} \over 2 \times 149.598 \times 10^{9} \; {\rm m} }
\approx 279 \; {\rm K} \; ,
where TS is the temperature of the Sun, rS the radius of the Sun, and a0 is the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Thus resulting in an effective temperature of 6°C on the surface of the Earth.
In summary, the surface of the Sun is 21 times as hot as that of the Earth taken as a blackbody, and therefore it emits 190,000 times as much energy per square meter. The distance from the Sun to the Earth is 215 times the radius of the Sun, reducing the energy per square meter by a factor 46,000. Taking into account that the cross-section of a sphere is one fourth of its surface area, we see that there is equilibrium of approximately 342 W per m2 surface area, or 1,370 W per m2 cross-sectional area.
The above derivation is a rough approximation only, as it assumes the Earth is a perfect blackbody. The same equilibrium planetary temperature would result if the planet’s emissivity and absorptivity were reduced by some constant fraction at all wavelengths, since the incoming and outgoing powers would still match at the same temperature (this equilibrium temperature would no longer fit the definition of effective temperature, however).
The real Earth does not have this “gray-body” property. The terrestrial albedo is such that about 30% of incident solar radiation is reflected back into space; taking the reduced energy from the sun into account and computing the temperature of a black-body radiator that would emit that much energy back into space yields an “effective temperature”, consistent with the definition of that concept, of about 255 K.[3] However, compared to the 30% reflection of the Sun’s energy, a much larger fraction of long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere instead of being radiated away, by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.[4][5] Since the emissivity (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates), is reduced more than than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun’s radiation), the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates, not lower. The Earth’s actual average surface temperature is about 288 K, rather than 279 K, as a result; global warming is an increase in this equilibrium temperature due to human-caused additions to the greenhouse gasses.
Luke,
The result that formula gives is 3% of the supposed real world measured average temperature of 288K doesn’t leave much for water to do let alone CO2 (the comparative lightweight).
Nevertheless you like to keep creating red herrings a pretty fair indication that you really have little to offer of substance.
Why aren’t you just happy that you got right what two climate heavyweights got wrong?
Real world measurements will not and do not show that earth or atmosphere has black body behaviour – quite the opposite.
Oh dear.
Well a bit of the old empirical measurement comes in handy at times.
I’m told that longwave and shortwave radiation have been measured at the 2 metre level above the ground using pyrgeometers and pyranometers looking up and down. The 4 instruments give the total radiation budget. The upward longwave radiation flux, which is measured by the pyrgeometer that looks down can very well be compared to a calculated value using the surface temperature and the S-B law. But getting the right surface temperature is not always easy.
Whether you can use the 2 metre temperature and the S-B law to compute the longwave upward flux has been investigated. This does not always match since in the summer time the surface temperature tends to be warmer then the 2 metre air temperature but during the winter it is the other way round. However, comparison with annual average measurements with annual average calculations matches pretty well. Hence, due to compensation between the different seasons the air temperature measured at 2 metres can be used together with the S-B law to compute the longwave upward flux. This has been investigated this at several stations at different altitudes.
With respect to the emissivity of the ground – the Earth surface has an emissivity between about 0.9 and 0.99 On average it is maybe somewhere around 0.93. However, and this is important, about 80% of the upward longwave radiation comes back as downward longwave radiation. The downward radiation is absorbed the same way as the upward is emitted. Hence about 93% is absorbed but 7% are emitted upward. Therefore, between the 93% emitted from the ground and the 7% reflected from the ground you get almost 99% of total upward radiation. Hence, if you take an emissivity of 1 and the S-B law you make an error of maybe 1%.
The average Earth’s surface temperature is pretty well known. So I’m informed that the 390 Watts m-2 is a certainly a good number. The longwave part of the K&T diagram is better known that the shortwave part. The difficulties are on the shortwave radiation absorbed in the atmosphere and hence also the shortwave radiation that reaches the ground. This can well be measured at a particular region. However, the average of the planet is more difficult to determine and there is quite a bit of discussion with respect to shortwave absorption in the atmosphere and the surface.
So it appears that the S-B law can be used to estimate radiative flux as borne out by empirical measurements against instruments and it works out.
So it appears that serious practitioners with decent instruments seem to know a bit more than we might give them credit for.
We could get into the satellite work but I think that’s enough for an object lesson.
So Jan – back to Octave matey – you’re an upstart. Back to trying to big note yourself with theory and unequal inequalities at CA.
BTW – I also take exception to upstarts being rude to mate Gavin. Onya bike boyo.
Luke,
“BTW – I also take exception to upstarts being rude to mate Gavin. Onya bike boyo.”
Do you honestly believe I give a damn you have been constantly rude to just about everybody who disagrees with you even though you have shown yourself clueless.
So what if you are informed that 390 w/m^2 is a good number for a radiating black body at 15C that planet surface is not a black body so for the earth surface the number is wrong at that count and also due to the fact that the average of temperature being physically meaningless as the sum of any intensive property of a body is.
If Gavin wants to carry on like a fool he is certainly free to do so but don’t expect me to take him seriously when he does.
“average of temperature being physically meaningless as the sum of any intensive property of a body is.”
Average is not a sum, but a sample. You can sample an intensive property. It’s like getting the viscosity of a liquid by taking samples at various points.
Mate – the real world has seen you off. You’ve never bothered to check any empirical values have you. What a flake. And you are still sitting there going “but but but but”. Sitting there with Octave, inequalities and your text book.
So for CO2 effect that “doesn’t exist” it’s also interesting that one could both measure and model the additional longwave expected for an enhanced greenhouse effect. And strangely, the measured values are also close to theory.
So when’s your expose Nature paper coming out ? And do you have any of your other climate papers we could read while we wait? ROTFL.
“Examples
Examples of intensive properties include:
* temperature”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties
Average is just a statistical treatment of temperature.
Luke: Well a bit of the old “empirical” measurement comes in handy at times.
Since I have really forgotten all the terms like “pyrgeometers, empirical” etc and the calcs, its off to wiki every day. Hey in a pinch I used to remake thermo couple junctions as they failed. However I was dreaming about reflections and the trapping of harmonics on your average communications tower when I noticed wiki had a trap outlined with words empirical and imperial. Nether the less I was quickly into putting individual contributors on the “imperial” staircase.
I guess this question remains; are we “averaging” errors with multiple junctions in a thermopile? Any such junction could be at best +/- 3%
SJT
“Average is just a statistical treatment of temperature.”
Precisely and as such might be a fine index of where the climate is at but it’s physically meaningless and useless for the purpose of determining how much is being radiated.
Luke,
You were right where some heavy weights were wrong and instead of being proud of your insight it appears to have made you very angry. It doesn’t make sense I’ve never seen anything quite like it before. Very strange indeed.
Now you’re just playing words games, Jan. Fortuntately, there are scientists out there who do understand how it works, and measure that it works.
Mr Wiki says.
Temperature of the Earth
Similarly we can calculate the effective temperature of the Earth TE by equating the energy received from the Sun and the energy transmitted by the Earth, under the black-body approximation:
T_E \, = T_S \sqrt{r_S\over 2 a_0 } \;
= 5780 \; {\rm K} \times \sqrt{696 \times 10^{6} \; {\rm m} \over 2 \times 149.598 \times 10^{9} \; {\rm m} }
\approx 279 \; {\rm K} \; ,
where TS is the temperature of the Sun, rS the radius of the Sun, and a0 is the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Thus resulting in an effective temperature of 6°C on the surface of the Earth.
In summary, the surface of the Sun is 21 times as hot as that of the Earth taken as a blackbody, and therefore it emits 190,000 times as much energy per square meter. The distance from the Sun to the Earth is 215 times the radius of the Sun, reducing the energy per square meter by a factor 46,000. Taking into account that the cross-section of a sphere is one fourth of its surface area, we see that there is equilibrium of approximately 342 W per m2 surface area, or 1,370 W per m2 cross-sectional area.
The above derivation is a rough approximation only, as it assumes the Earth is a perfect blackbody. The same equilibrium planetary temperature would result if the planet’s emissivity and absorptivity were reduced by some constant fraction at all wavelengths, since the incoming and outgoing powers would still match at the same temperature (this equilibrium temperature would no longer fit the definition of effective temperature, however).
The real Earth does not have this “gray-body” property. The terrestrial albedo is such that about 30% of incident solar radiation is reflected back into space; taking the reduced energy from the sun into account and computing the temperature of a black-body radiator that would emit that much energy back into space yields an “effective temperature”, consistent with the definition of that concept, of about 255 K.[3] However, compared to the 30% reflection of the Sun’s energy, a much larger fraction of long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere instead of being radiated away, by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.[4][5] Since the emissivity (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates), is reduced more than than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun’s radiation), the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates, not lower. The Earth’s actual average surface temperature is about 288 K, rather than 279 K, as a result; global warming is an increase in this equilibrium temperature due to human-caused additions to the greenhouse gasses.
Jan – let’s recap – yes the Earth is not a black body nor a grey body. Nevertheless your calculation of 6C is utterly irrelevant – as the Earth’s surface does not receive 342 watts – the end. Albedo takes care of that. It would get 342 watts if was a black ball with no atmosphere.
So you’re contending it’s illegal to make an estimate using the notion of effective temperature.
Fair enough.
But you have been silent – utterly silent on real world measurements. Real world measurements say you can use S-B as approximations. And so the radiation experts tell me that experimentally it checks out.
Now do you have any refuting numbers EXCEPT theory.
This is THE point.
Furthermore the additional longwave enhanced greenhouse flux has been observed experimentally using radiometers.
Any theoretician has to face the real world sometime.
Luke,
Give it up almost every time you post you get something wrong and the only time I see you get something right you get angry about it. now you seem to be trying to show how you can be right and wrong at same time on the same topic.
Quite frankly I think that’s nuts.
Let’s see, who do I believe. A lone poster on the internet, or the top research scientists with years of experience and collaboration and checking and verification?
It’s a tough decision…..
But I think you have no idea, Jan, any more than Louis does. The problem is, I know I am just an amateur, you’re pretending you’re not.
SJT,
As far as I can see Jan Pompe has simply engaged you in some discussion on an issue first raised by you – or was it Luke?
You both seem to be having trouble keeping up though.
I am not a scientist, as I have stated already. But neither is Jan. From what I have read, he’s wrong, and they are right. The big problem is, with forums like this, is that the actual scientists avoid them like the plague. I have friend who has been working on climate science for years, including modeling. His attitude seems to be the same as most of them, why bother debating people who don’t understand the science when you know that *nothing* will ever change their minds.
See, that’s how smart they are. :). They already know such debates are a waste of their time, so they don’t take part in them. They have real work to do, and real debates and discussions to have about the science. And they do discuss the science and the gaps in their knowledge, and the limitations of it.
Jan – answer the the very very simple question – you can’t – can you. Stop obfuscating and double talking.
What do real world values say?
Jen you don’t even understand what we’re talking about so spare us the uninformed sneer. Go back to saying there are no changes in Australia’s rainfall.
SJT
“Thus resulting in an effective temperature of 6°C on the surface of the Earth.”
I don’t have any argument with that figure though I’m not sure that ‘effective’ is quite the right term to use but I’m more than willing to let that pass and it’s in agreement with my calculation on CA forum. In fact Mr Wiki uses exactly the same formula that I showed the derivation for.
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6&p=618#p618
I don’t quite get what your problem is.
I do think some explanation is warranted. The 6C, or better yet, 279K temperature is generally stated as the blackbody temperature of earth because of the black-body approximation made in the calculation.
We can take this a little further. A black-body is a hypothetical really body that is both a perfect absorber and perfect emitter ie
Absorptivity=1 & emissivity=1.
Now kirchoff’s law for thermal radiation states a body in thermal equilibrium with it’s environment has it’s emissivity equal to it’s absorptivity. That is true even if there is a big yellow hot ball of fire 93 million miles away.
Hence the temperature will be the same for grey (or dappled or coloured bodies) so we can multiply the LHS of 4 by emissivity and the RHS by absorptivity and if they are the same Kirchoff’s law applies and the black-body equilibrium holds and the temperature is the same.
The temperatures are however different and absorptivity != emissivity to get we divide both sides by emissivity and we get
after a bit of algebra.
Te=Absorptivity/Emissivity(sgrt(rs/2R)Ts)
I think you’ll find that if Absorptivity/Emissivity = 1.03 you’ll get your 288K.
I’m not sure but perhaps the oceans alone might account for a large part of that I haven’t looked at it yet but this might have some answers in that regard
http://aerosols.lanl.gov/conf2006/talks/files/Volz.pdf
Nevertheless I have not yet had recourse to S-B constant which remains cancelled out of the calculations however I make no claim that I won’t have to take it into account at sometime.
Luke,
“Jan – answer the the very very simple question – you can’t – can you. Stop obfuscating and double talking.”
There is no double talk or obfuscation it’s just a peculiar reaction that you should get so angry when you are proved right and in contradiction to the so called heavy weights.
I really am wondering why this is instead of talking about obfuscation and double talk can you give me an answer?
Well you’ve asserted the heavyweights are wrong. So after all this heavy asserting and such a convincing theoretical argument too, I’m just wondering what you think the real world values are. So it appears that you don’t have anything on that. And of course they wouldn’t be anywhere near an S-B approximation would they?
And I’m also wondering how things now work given the heavyweight’s ideas are wrong. But maybe you just know they’re wrong and that’s all.
Just hoping you might educate us mere plebs.
And I would assume that given there is this fundamental error that as a scientist/engineer/raconteur you would be publishing on the matter. So when do we expect the paper in Nature or Science – soon?
Got enough SJT?
Luke,
“Well you’ve asserted the heavyweights are wrong.”
You agreed, remember? (“Yep exactly”) so what is your problem?
Did you make a mistake? Is that troubling you?
You certainly seem very confused.
SJT
“The problem is, I know I am just an amateur, you’re pretending you’re not.”
You think? You know nothing about my background or experience.
If jumping to conclusions is the only exercise you get then go for it. I doubt it will keep the weight down though.
OK SJT – you were right. You get the $20.
Jan: “I’m not sure but perhaps the oceans alone might account for a large part of that I haven’t looked at it yet but this might have some answers in that regard”
Back to this overview and
“Climate change and almost all interesting socio-technical problems with strong stakeholder involvement fall into the post-normal science categorization: they are riddled with “deep uncertainties” in both probabilities and consequences that are not resolved today and may not be resolved to a high degree of confidence before we have to make decisions regarding how to deal with their implications. With imperfect, sometimes ambiguous, information on both the full range of climate change consequences and their associated probabilities, decision-makers must decide whether to adopt a “wait and see” policy approach or follow the “precautionary principle” and hedge against potentially dangerous changes in the global climate system”
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html
Howzat?
Howzat?
Great suggestion form Schneider. I’ll be sure to make my back fence proof against stampeding elephants this weekend.
Howzat?
Looks like a good idea from Schneider so I shall ensure to make my back fence proof against stampeding elephants as soon as possible.
“His research includes modeling of the atmosphere, climate change, and “the relationship of biological systems to global climate change.” He has helped draw public attention to the issue of climate change. He is the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change. He has authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers, proceedings, legislative testimonies, edited books and book chapters; some 140 book reviews, editorials, published newspaper and magazine interviews and popularizations. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR; and is currently a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). During the 1980s Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
He left out stampeding elephants the risk is least as high.
Schneider in Australia 2006
See SA Gov. Report
http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/PDFs/SCHNEIDER_REPORT.pdf
Gavin
Thanks for the link to AGW prospectus it’s interesting and what is more it’s quite pretty. I expect I’ll do well out of the alarm like I did with the alarm over the ozone hole.
It doesn’t have to be real to profit from it Government’s just need to legislate as if it is.
I am sitting on the fence with this GW political hysteria, and looking forward to interesting times ahead. The GW dream might be in jeopardy. The GISS data for January shows the temperature plummeting down to near the base line. It appears that NOAA reported similar figures for January but have retracted their data for the time being. Wait until you see the figures for February. I also noted the late start for Solar Cycle 24. Still shooting blanks up to 21/02/2008. A smart politician would look at current data, before making warm and fuzzy statements.