quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
Again I state, simple illustrations of the greenhouse effect or energy movements in the system are done for illustrative purposes. Figures such as forcings, effective radiative temperatures, sensitivities are merely simple ways of summarising a very complex result. The models are physically more realistic; the amount of forcing is a representation of a model result, not an input to a model.

The article, however, doesn't need to address every little detail, because it attacks the main principle of the theory, without which those details become irrelevant. In your earlier post, you claimed the article misunderstands the theory. No, it simply understands it better than you do.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
You need to start thinking in terms of conservation of energy rather than the 2nd law, because these illustrations are related to the former law. Do you deny that if energy into the system exceeds energy out, that the system will contain increasing amounts of energy?

This is a tautology. The article deals with a specific example. More on that below.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
You really do not understand the 2nd law. Stating that the earth is in radiative balance is not the same as stating that it is an enclosed system for the purposes of the 2nd law. Imagine a solar-electric powered car trundling along a desert road at 4m/s. It is travelling at constant speed and it is at constant temperature so it is "in balance". Yet all its power comes from the sun. Is it in contravention of the second law? If the sun gets brighter and it accelerates to 5m/s, is it then in contravention of the second law? In both cases no.

Wrong example. The CO2 greenhouse effect theory describes a purely radiative thermal equilibrium. This is what the article shows to be impossible. If you think the extra energy performs some work, then please be kind to tell us what it is. Perhaps, it's something we could use?

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
When I ran this 10 times, the difference between the lowest and highest difference (between the (T^4) mean and the T mean) was 0.15C. The more stations you have, the smaller this difference gets.

Of course, it does. It's simple math. The problem is not in how big it is (the article says as much: "The effective radiation temperature T_eff_rad is slightly higher
than the average T_mean of the measured temperatures"). The problem is that it exists. The CO2 greenhouse mantra has been that every tiny misbalance can amount to much in the long run. Well, that particular misbalance is unphysical in principle. "Unmathematical," even--or should it be "unethical?" You ought not use two different methods wherever convenient to do so.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by podbod:
I take issue with point a) because it is a straw man argument. Just because it is called the "greenhouse effect" by climate scientists it does not mean that they actually believe GHGs act like a real greenhouse. So, why do they raise this complete non-issue as if it's some kind of revelation? Straw man knocking, that's why.

You'd be surprised how many people outside of science think that real greenhouses are warmed by the same greenhouse effect. The argument is listed for completeness, and the article moves on to the main thing: to show that a purely radiative balance is impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by podbod:
b) and c) are just wrong and can be shown wrong with some simple radiative transfer models. I believe that Steve has dealt with this. If you want to get more complex then you have to use a GCM.

(b) states that "there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet." How are you going to disprove it? By presenting an actual calculations? The article argues that: "Mathematically, an evolution of a temperature distribution may be phenomenologically described by a differential equation. The averages are computed afterwards from the solution of this equation. However, one cannot write down a differential equation directly for averages."

In other words, you cannot obtain the average until you've run a simulation and got all local temperatures to integrate them over the globe--including different temperatures at different heights, because all layers of the atmosphere are involved in the global dynamics. How high are you prepared to go? To the stratosphere? To the ionosphere? No testable prediction can be made, unless you're willing to declare simulation runs to equal an experimental proof. To which I say: garbage in, garbage out. A model's outcome is as good as the model. Did you know that the currently existing models have managed to miss a heating factor comparable in magnitude with the solar UV absorption? If not, then I invite you to consider this:

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/925003...130017078#6130017078

Leo

quote:

You ought not use two different methods wherever convenient to do so.

I'm not using two methods. I'm showing that either method produces the same result so it doesn't matter which method you pick.

And on the 2nd law I might as well just repeat myself.

You really do not understand the 2nd law. Stating that the earth is in radiative balance is not the same as stating that it is an enclosed system for the purposes of the 2nd law.

The quote you extracted from this garbage document:

quote:

Furthermore, the system in question here is the atmospheric system of the Earth including the Earth's ground. Since this system is assumed to be in radiative balance with its environment, and any other forms of energy and mass exchange with its environment are strictly prohibited, it defines a system in the sense of thermodynamics for which the second law holds strictly, even if it is considered as a subsystem of a larger embedding system.

The second question is the strawman. There is nothing to stop a system being in radiative balance while also exchanging energy with its environment. Radiative balance simply means that the energy out equals the energy in. This is so obvious it is embarrassing to write - but some grandma's still don't know how to suck eggs.

Prior to radiative balance being reached, energy out and energy in will have been different.

The whole system is driven by the sun.

I'm afraid I've got you on this one, and you might as well give up your pseudoscience now.

Steve_M, Leokor

quote:

You really do not understand the 2nd law. Stating that the earth is in radiative balance is not the same as stating that it is an enclosed system for the purposes of the 2nd law.

The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems and mean nothing otherwise. Which of you agrees with this assertion?

leocor.

I've read most of your original 'thread post' now and I begin to see the capacitive (Q) function of 'Electrical Universe Theory' as 'grey molecules' bordering to 'non electrical' (dielectric) (don't know if this is correct). The important thing is that the math model seems to be universal (to a point). The basic anti-theory of this is math mods that incorporate an 'inversion' in some stage of their calculation that isn't easily recognisable as such.

I'm somewhat perplexed of that post in that, no 'real' description is made of the physical vector displacement component of energy by water vapour. In fact the paper only deals with the minor vector component of conduction and (although it's more complicated) doesn't follow up the radiative exclusion by spatial and temporal displacement of latent heat by convection at all. We all know that convection is a greater distributor of 'heat' in a gaseous free system than conduction (at approximately boundary level that is).

Regards, suricat.


Son of Mulder.

So the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to ram jets. Oops! They are also a part of the universe aren't they?

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
So the denialists are now resorting to out-and-out pseudoscience.

Strange that you didn't call electric heating pseudoscience. I'm kinda used to that.

Leo

My degree is in electronics, my original specialisation radio telecoms. I don't think you're at all correct in claiming atmospheric electrical currents may have a role in the warming. But you are not claiming something that's fundamentally preposterous.

Actually having read some of the paper I think technobabble is a better descriptor. Having browsed it I get the impression that it's all smoke and mirrors. The problem is my physics isn't good enough to pin down some of what they're doing.


Steve M,

The authors of this paper are fully aware of what they are doing. I've just read through 2 chunks of the "paper" and find myself going "OK, OK, OK, huh?".

leokor.

Sorry I misspelled your name. I'm in my usual rush.

Regards, Suricat.

CobblyWorlds.

There is another logic to 'technobabble' that wasn't on Wiki. That is the multi-disciplined jargon used by individuals that possess more than one discipline. The more the listener with 'other disciplines' hears, the more the 'jargon' sounds like 'babble' in some phrases.

Bit like the different language groupings of Esperanto dialects.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
CobblyWorlds.

There is another logic to 'technobabble' that wasn't on Wiki. That is the multi-disciplined jargon used by individuals that possess more than one discipline. The more the listener with 'other disciplines' hears, the more the 'jargon' sounds like 'babble' in some phrases.

Bit like the different language groupings of Esperanto dialects.

But what I read in that document is the use of "highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification and misdirection. This is not to be confused with jargon itself, but rather technobabble is a conscious attempt to deliver jargon to outsiders, without insight or comprehensive explanation, to make unsound or unprovable arguments appear to have merit." (Wiki)

What's galling is when you know something is afoot but lack the in depth knowledge to put your finger on it. Then again none of us can be master of all trades. I'll leave it to someone more capable like Steve M - on the ball in what he's saying.

I'll leave it here - I can't show that paper's guff as comprehensively as I'd like to. But given the breadth of studies on GW they'll have to do way more than just one paper. I know enough to know that what they claim a) flies in the face of a lot of work by very sharp people b) doesn't leave me with the feeling it's my comprehension that's flawed (like for example Carl Wunsch has in the past).

I suppose at some stage they'll be formally published in Energy and Environment.

Leo thanks for this - I have not read it yet but the abstract pretty much supports what I have been arguing on another thread regards the pro-AGW claiming a warmer troposphere is causing a cooler stratosphere.

SoM

quote:

The laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems and mean nothing otherwise. Which of you agrees with this assertion?

The laws are based on descriptions of closed systems which is not quite the same thing. The laws can give you an insight into the behaviour of a non-closed system, but you have to be aware that something outside that system might override its behaviour. What's your opinion?

Any comments on my temperature calculations?

Steve_M

quote:

The laws are based on descriptions of closed systems which is not quite the same thing. The laws can give you an insight into the behaviour of a non-closed system, but you have to be aware that something outside that system might override its behaviour. What's your opinion?

Any comments on my temperature calculations?

I agree your comment on Thermodynamics and closed vs open systems. So when talking about these laws in relation to the earth you are dealing with an open system and need to be extremely careful when drawing conclusions from them.

Concerning the temperature calculations I agree the need for consistency. But then we get back to the debate on historical reconstructions and the issue of their validity. Not to mention all the statistical correcting and calculating that goes into producing a temperature set. Highlighted by the GIS US data I read earlier today or the SST errors from 2003 or the balloon errors.

The overall thrust I took from the G. Gerlich, R.D. Tscheuschner paper was their disbelief that models can reasonably be expected to make good long term predictions.

And specifically on their 6 points

quote:

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming
phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there
are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the
frequently mentioned difference of 33 deg C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a
radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to
zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

a) They showed the general understanding of real greenhouses is varied and bares no relation to the atmospheric phenomenon of the same name.

b) They showed there are multiple ways of calculating surface temperature but only focussed on T^4 and T measurements.

c) Without CO2 /H2O in the atmosphere I assume the global average temperature is calculated using T^4. But global average actual temperature now is calculated with T. hence inconsistent and hence 33 deg C is meaningless.

d) Sound reasonable to me when applied to fluids.

e) Agree since radiation can disappear as it becomes anything from heat to gravitational potential energy. Hence a whole energy balance is needed.

f) Agree, even if their immediate effects are very small they could potentially affect significantly the outcome of a long term model prediction significantly (modellers would need to prove otherwise).

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
The laws are based on descriptions of closed systems which is not quite the same thing. The laws can give you an insight into the behaviour of a non-closed system, but you have to be aware that something outside that system might override its behaviour. What's your opinion?

Exactly!!! Even in closed systems where the properties of the bodies involved reach certain limits will also cause a change in behaviour.

Also another way of describing open systems is as a set of closed systems that interact.

Unfortunately, many pro-AGW theories tries to describe the climate open system as a set of disassociated closed systems. A simple example is the bidirectional explanation for heat transfer in the climate i.e. from the sun to the surface and from the surface into space, although this is the ultimate behaviour of the input output model it falls well short to defining the thermal behaviour of our climate which is the less known bit in the middle.

Because it's you SoM, I'll take this seriously.

quote:

a) They showed the general understanding of real greenhouses is varied and bares no relation to the atmospheric phenomenon of the same name.

Irrelevant. "greenhouse" is an illustrative term.

quote:

b) They showed there are multiple ways of calculating surface temperature but only focussed on T^4 and T measurements.

Irrelevant. If you are consistent, and if you check that the method is valid given the variations, it is one (of many) useful metrics.

quote:

c) Without CO2 /H2O in the atmosphere I assume the global average temperature is calculated using T^4. But global average actual temperature now is calculated with T. hence inconsistent and hence 33 deg C is meaningless.

Nobody except "sceptics" get hung up on the exact figure.

When in balance, the effective radiating temperature of the earth is about 255K. This is what is required to balance the incoming shortwave that is absorbed. If there were no greenhouse gases, then for the earth to be in equilibrium, the effective radiating temperature will still be 255K, but more of this radiation will come from the surface. It's unlikely to be as simple as that, but that's where the figure comes from.

quote:

d) Sound reasonable to me when applied to fluids.

I'm not going to dig in this document again, so I don't know what they mean by this.

quote:

e) Agree since radiation can disappear as it becomes anything from heat to gravitational potential energy. Hence a whole energy balance is needed.

There isn't an "assumption of radiative balance". There is an assumption that the planet will tend towards radiative balance - at which the outgoing radiation returns to the value that matches the incoming shortwave after, say, a doubling of CO2. That tells you something about the temperature of the parts of the planet emitting radiation into space - that's all. The effect this change has on the surface temperature is expressed by the "sensitivity" term. So for example, in some models, the upper troposphere warms more than the surface. Therefore the surface does not need to warm as much to return the outgoing longwave back to its original value. If for example energy is rapidly disappearing into the oceans (more realistic than gravitational PE changes) then this slows the return to radiative balance.

quote:

f) Agree, even if their immediate effects are very small they could potentially affect significantly the outcome of a long term model prediction significantly (modellers would need to prove otherwise).

Similar answer to e) really. In the unlikely event they are important they change the rate at which radiative equilibrium is reached. Perhaps you could calculate the ratio of kinetic energy to potential energy in wind. If average wind got stronger by 0.1m/s, how much would the air need to cool to provide the energy?

Friction and conduction are expressed as conversion of kinetic energy to heat, or movement of heat. "Friction" between surface winds and the surface, is accounted for in boundary layer and orographic (mountain) parametrizations. Conduction is minimal compared with convection. Convection is parameterized in models anyway, so if conduction has an effect it will be included in that.

They're ridiculous arguments along the lines of another paper that attempted to disprove GW by showing that the heat generated by all fossil fuel burning has minimal effect on the energy content of the atmosphere.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
Nobody except "sceptics" get hung up on the exact figure.

From this I assume you also include proper scientists.

But then it is this through examining the detail (the figures) that gets us to the truth is it not?

Anyone can guess, anyone can make assumptions, anyone can believe - but the truth means sifting through the detail and there are no exceptions.

Them people who disagree fall into the politician and 'scammer' categories.

Steve_M, I included my comment

quote:

The overall thrust I took from the G. Gerlich, R.D. Tscheuschner paper was their disbelief that models can reasonably be expected to make good long term predictions.

As you did not comment on this I assume you agree with me as you detailed your disagreement with points a) to f).

I understand where you are coming from on the a) to f) comments but it's a mindset difference we have. You seem comfortable with approximations, parametrisations and assumptions in modelling something that can't be tested. They are the very things that make me uncomfortable because therein maybe lies the surprise negative feedback or the proverbial butterfly flapping it's wings.....

Their paper seems to me to be about the lack of rigour, avoidable (precise definitions needed) or not (because of complexity) in some parts of the scientific/popular discussion.

When I said

quote:

This is the best formulation of AGW scepticism I've read.

it's because it gets at the core of the principles used in the science/modelling and makes the strong assetion that it's too complex to make reasonable long term predictions. And fits well alongside the evolving Forecasting Principles document.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
The second question is the strawman. There is nothing to stop a system being in radiative balance while also exchanging energy with its environment. Radiative balance simply means that the energy out equals the energy in. This is so obvious it is embarrassing to write - but some grandma's still don't know how to suck eggs.

Prior to radiative balance being reached, energy out and energy in will have been different.

So you're saying that, given two bodies, hot and cold, that exchange energy by radiation ONLY, thermodynamic balance is possible with the bodies remaining at different temperatures.

Leo

quote:

So you're saying that, given two bodies, hot and cold, that exchange energy by radiation ONLY, thermodynamic balance is possible with the bodies remaining at different temperatures.

1. If the two bodies are in a closed system, then eventually they will approach the same temperature.

2. If the two bodies are not in a closed system, then it depends on the rest of the system. If the rest of the system (ie. a heat producing core in the "sun" object, and outer space at 3 Kelvin) remains constant, then yes balance will be reached with the two bodies at different temperature distribution. Obvious.

quote:

it's because it gets at the core of the principles used in the science/modelling and makes the strong assetion that it's too complex to make reasonable long term predictions. And fits well alongside the evolving Forecasting Principles document.

SoM

If you are happy to appreciate a document because you can pick out things that concur with your beliefs then fair enough.

But you seem to be implying that the climate scientists are unaware of these issues. Modelling is but one part of climate science. Yes, a negative feedback might fly in and save us - perhaps snowdrops will thrive on high CO2 and change the albedo of the planet! But next to the modelling evidence you have observational evidence that suggests that earth is actually quite sensitive to climate changes - that the feedbacks are more likely to be positive.

A basic point about models (and no means the whole story) is that while they are approximations of earth, there is good reason to believe that their behaviour to forcings will be similar to the behaviour of the earth.

With regard to forecasting, a former colleague of mine who is a climate professor is currently promoting the idea of bringing more forecasting principles to climate prediction. Has he been contacted by Armstrong? I doubt it.

Papers like Forecasting Principles and Falsification of CO2 are cooked up in an ivory tower somewhere for the sole consumption of anti-agw blog readers.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
1. If the two bodies are in a closed system, then eventually they will approach the same temperature.

2. If the two bodies are not in a closed system, then it depends on the rest of the system. If the rest of the system (ie. a heat producing core in the "sun" object, and outer space at 3 Kelvin) remains constant, then yes balance will be reached with the two bodies at different temperature distribution. Obvious.

And yet, the Sun is in this case one of those bodies. Whatever energy is (supposedly) produced within the Sun, without an external input, belongs to the (supposedly) closed system. Unless you open the Sun-Earth system to external influences, a purely radiative balance can not take place.

Leo