[cogitator]

Ancient_Geezer:

I'm going to try and answer one of your three May 31st repoies to me a day, today, Thursday, and Friday. You write a lot and bring up a lot of issues. Therefore, it's difficult to concentrate on salient points or even to determine what points you consider most salient. So I may miss or delete something that you consider important. I will do my best.

Which majority? IPCC's? I wasn't aware that the experimental science was subject to democratic rule.

Hug and Barrett's results are either revolutionary or stunningly wrong. I already posted (in #138) the summarized reply from Houghton that points out an apparent basic understanding of atmospheric dynamics by Barrett. You did not comment on this.

The more I investigate, the more I find that there may be something significantly wrong with the theoretical basis of the "Greenhouse Effect", as it had been proposed first to argue for high surface temperatures of Venus, much higher than measurement has since show Venus to actually have, and now to argue a potential rise in earths global temperatures in much the same manner as the original greenhouse debate regarding the surface temperature of Venus.

Question 1: what would be the alternative source of heat for Venus?

Are Hansen's radiative forcings wrong for CO2?

Hansen is merely repeating IPCC on that forcing he hasn't justified it by an experimental showing and there is strong experimental evidence against it.

No one seems to know where or how IPCC came up with the 4w/m2 per 300ppm change in CO2 comes from. It appears to be one of those numbers everyone points to someone else as saying, but no one seems to nail down the source and experimental or theorectical verification of it.

One of the first papers is Manabe and Wetherald, in 1967. Best I could do on this was here:

6.3.1 Carbon Dioxide

"IPCC (1990) and the SAR used a radiative forcing of 4.37 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2 calculated with a simplified expression. Since then several studies, including some using GCMs (Mitchell and Johns, 1997; Ramaswamy and Chen, 1997b; Hansen et al., 1998), have calculated a lower radiative forcing due to CO2 (Pinnock et al., 1995; Roehl et al., 1995; Myhre and Stordal, 1997; Myhre et al., 1998b; Jain et al., 2000). The newer estimates of radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 are between 3.5 and 4.1 Wm-2 with the relevant species and various overlaps between greenhouse gases included. The lower forcing in the cited newer studies is due to an accounting of the stratospheric temperature adjustment which was not properly taken into account in the simplified expression used in IPCC (1990) and the SAR (Myhre et al., 1998b). In Myhre et al. (1998b) and Jain et al. (2000), the short-wave forcing due to CO2 is also included, an effect not taken into account in the SAR. The short-wave effect results in a negative forcing contribution for the surface-troposphere system owing to the extra absorption due to CO2 in the stratosphere; however, this effect is relatively small compared to the total radiative forcing (< 5%)."

and here's the reference list: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/259.htm

(removed references/Venus material)

Until such time as Hug's experimental result is shown to be wrong by actual measurements in the atmosphere or that the experiment itself was unquestionably flawed by being unable to reproduce his results.

That's fine. As far as I can assess right now, Hug's experiment doesn't reproduce the dynamics of the atmospheric system. It's a closed-system experiment. That minimal assessment is based on the Houghton comment previously mentioned. This also applies to your comment below.

Seeing as the experiment was carried out with the same mixture of gases as that found in the atmosphere that should be the least that is necessary to controvert his findings.

Does Hug suggest that the radiation absorption characteristics of CO2 be ignored?

Because of the overlap of water vapor IR absorption spectum and heat transferred to N2 & O2 by kinetic collision, yes. Read the article.

Thanks for the clarification and I also got that from the article. That's the clear departure from orthodoxy on which your argument rests. Now, departures from orthodoxy are great and welcome in science, but if I may quote:

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right."

I cannot tell if Hug and Barrett are right or not. And I'm not a scientist that could make the necessary analysis.

Here's what has to happen. Hug/Barrett et al. will have to convince a scientist or group of scientists "in the mainstream" that their argument has merit. Publication is the first step. If their argument is picked up, then it will be suitably debated and either supported or refuted. I again note that Houghton published a reply to Barrett in which he noted what appears to be a basic misunderstanding of atmospheric dynamics. If that is still a core misunderstanding, then Hug and Barrett's results are still very questionable.

If so, are CH4 and CFCs not significant either (they are described in the literature as much more potent GHGs, but their radiative forcing contribution is less than CO2 because their concentrations are so much lower.)

Their IR spectums are overlapped by water vapor as well, heat transport is still dominanted by kinetic collisions with N2 & O2 and water vapor, rather than IR re-radiation and re-absorption by those molecules. Same effect as was demonstrated by the Hug experiment, can apply to the CH4 & CFCs as well. Their admitted lower effects simply do not require us to carry out that experiment in order to establish a problem in the basic theory applied by the global warming theorists as represented by the IPCC and their apologists.

Thank you.

Does this consider longwave radiation? Doesn't seem to.

IR radiation is the longwave radiation on which all this debate is about, DUH!

That is clearer now.

The bottom line of Hug & Barrett, is that IR(i.e. longwave) absorption is saturated within the 1st hundred feet of the surface, the energy absorbed is passed on to N2 & O2 molecules in kinetic collisions and re-radation to the broader band absorption of water vapor, rather than the re-radiation of IR at re-absorbable (CO2, CH4, CFC) wavelengths envisioned in the IPCC models.

I agree with your assessment of the "bottom line" here. I will be very curious to see if (as I noted above) they can convince scientists in the climate science community that they are correct.

GHG contributions are minimal because there is very little energy transported by re-radiation of IR from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere, the IR energy absorbed at the surface is predominately and in fact overwhealmingly transferred to N2 & O2 through kinetic collisions, and transported as latent heat and the broad IR absorption of watervapor.

(removed material)

The experiment to disprove Hug & Barret is very simple. Measure 15micron radiant flux (from CO2 absorption spectum) at the surface, then measure it 300 feet up in the atmosphere. If the flux is substantially the same, IPCC & the GCMs are vindicated as IR reradiation would be the dominant mode of heat transfer on which the GCMs stand.

That does seem pretty simple.

If the 15micron flux at 300ft above ground is substantially different, then Hug & Barret are vindicated.

This contention is disputed by the observed cooling of the stratosphere in satellite data, you know.

The statosphere loses heat to space, and it is to thin to absorb radiant energy released from blackbody radiation and from release of latent heat of water vapor transported to the upper atmosphere.

Really! Then why did the stratosphere get warmer after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991?

You are basically saying that radiative transfer is negligible (as far as I can tell).

In the troposhere, like in transport from the surface.

But the transfer of heat into and out of the stratosphere is only radiative, there are no significant convective processes.

When I speak of the atmosphere in the context of heat transport from the surface, I am speaking of the troposphere.

The stratosphere is indeed radiative transfer, simply because it does not impede the transmission of IR by absorption, the mean free path of molecules is too high, not many molecules in the way to absorb the outgoing IR radiation. The is very little in the stratosphere to "transport" heat.

But the molecules in the stratosphere do absorb (and radiate) IR. That's why it's possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

The heat in the troposphere is transported predominately by convection and transport of latent heat in water vapor carried by hot air to the upper troposphere.

Yes, that's entirely correct.

Please do not confuse the issues with symantics. My statements have been clear. The Stratosphere is not anywhere near the 1st hundred feet of the surface of the earth where IR from the surface is absorbed and dissapated into molecular motion rather than radiant energy.

I am clearer on your argument, which is based on the Hug and Barrett work. The problem is this: if there is no significant radiative transfer of heat from the lower troposphere to the stratosphere, then any changes in CO2 concentration in the lower troposphere would not affect the temperature of the stratosphere. The "standard" view is that increasing CO2 concentrations in the lower troposphere absorb increasing amounts of longwave (IR) radiation, preventing it from being radiated to the stratosphere. That process would result in stratospheric cooling. Stratospheric cooling is, in fact, observed. Thus, you have to account for the observed stratospheric cooling. Some of it, but not all, is attributable to ozone depletion. The remainder is currently attributed to GHG absorption of longwave radiation. For Hug and Barrett's work to be applicable, an alternative explanation for stratospheric cooling must also be provided.

[ancient_geezer]

The problem is this: if there is no significant radiative transfer of heat from the lower troposphere to the stratosphere, then any changes in CO2 concentration in the lower troposphere would not affect the temperature of the stratosphere.

Precisely.

The "standard" view is that increasing CO2 concentrations in the lower troposphere absorb increasing amounts of longwave (IR) radiation, preventing it from being radiated to the stratosphere.

Which should give rise to Tropospheric warming according to the "standard" view, NO substantial warming in the Troposphere is occuring.

That process would result in stratospheric cooling. Stratospheric cooling is, in fact, observed. Thus, you have to account for the observed stratospheric cooling. Some of it, but not all, is attributable to ozone depletion.

Nothing to prevent additional water vapor from storing latent heat, it very efficiently picks up heat in evaporation as well as broadband IR absorption. Water Vapor is a couple of orders of magnitude better heat resevoir than CO2 is, as well as the fact that most of the heat held by water vapor is latent heat of vaporization & and fusion.

CO2 is a narrow band IR absorber and its latent heat characteristics are nul as far ast the atmosphere is concerned, which is why is fails do the job.

Stored as latent heat by water vapor, there is minimal temperature rise in the Troposphere,(could even fall under some conditions), allowing the Stratosphere to cool. Which is what we observe.

For Hug and Barrett's work to be applicable, an alternative explanation for stratospheric cooling must also be provided.

All that is needed is a mechanism for heat storage, water serves quite well and can explain why the Troposphere is not heating as expected in the "standard" view, and why the Stratosphere can cool, should ozone depletion not even required to explain cooling of the Stratosphere.

[ancient_geezer]

Question 1: what would be the alternative source of heat for Venus?

Remember it is not as hot as the greenhouse model ("standard" view) says it should be.

1) CO2 is not a "source" of heat in any case.

2) The only source of heat necessary is the sun, and being substantially closer provides considerable heat to assure Venus gets a sufficient supply of energy.

3) The atmosphere is 90 times as dense to act as thermal mass. That is all that is necessary, clouds are Sulfuric acid which provides an effective thermal mass as well.

[ancient_geezer]

Point is, all you have stated is predicated on a hypothetical role of anthropogenic CO2, with an apriori conclusion arising out of political agendas building on a manufactured crisis to legislate and garner political and economic power.

The sun and water vapor, cannot be made to fit that political role. CO2 being a byproduct of carbon burning, fits hat political "need" the environmental agenda provides. It isn't science that is driving the debate, it is pure and simple politics.

The Answer Lies Partly in a Better Understanding of Water's Role http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

A computer model is only as reliable as the physics that are built into the program. The physics that are currently in these computer programs are still insufficient to have much confidence in the predicted magnitude of global warming, because we currently don't understand the detailed physical processes of clouds that will determine the extent and nature of water vapor's feedback into the Earth's temperature. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees: ``Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models...Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely to be positive. However, this is not yet convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed processes is needed." - Climate Change 1995, IPCC Second Assessment

Images of the Earth, such as this one in the infrared, tell us much about the distribution of water vapor. Areas within the Earth's atmosphere that are extremely dry, especially in the tropics, can act as large "chimneys" that allow energy to freely radiate into space, enhancing the cooling of the Earth. The effects of the tropical dry troposphere are poorly understood, and currently are not well-incorporated into computer models of global warming.

[ancient_geezer]

The newer estimates of radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 are between 3.5 and 4.1 Wm-2 with the relevant species and various overlaps between greenhouse gases included.

As regards the forcing issue, again the number used it is merely to force inadequate models to approximate temperature of the troposphere by changing a coefficient, and is not based or derived from fundamental physics and science of CO2 thermal activity.

Adjusting a polynomial coeffecient to make its curve match a dataset range does not in any way imply a physical basis in interpolating a dataset's values. Likewise adjusting a coefficient to make a GCM fit a dataset does not imply the coefficient has a physical reality unless the entire model is truly an accurate representation of the real world. The GCMs "assessed" by IPCC do not have that fundamental characteristic. They have gross inadequecies, which is why the coefficient are changed. If IPCC GCM CO2 forcing coefficients were based in science & physics the coefficient would not be changing. There would be no "newer estimates".

The atmospheric CO2 concentration is known, the number applied for forcing should be a fixed value if it were derived from basic science, as opposed to making a model fit.

[ancient_geezer]

Then why did the stratosphere get warmer after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991?

The effect of Volcanoes on the Stratosphere has nothing to do with hypothetical CO2 concentrations increasing forcing in the Troposphere. It has a great deal to do with the aerosols injected into the stratosphere which absorb radiant energy inducing higher molecular motion(i.e. raising temperature) of the stratosphere.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/rogabs.html

"By scattering some solar radiation back to space, the aerosols cool the surface, but by absorbing both solar and terrestrial radiation, the aerosol layer heats the stratosphere."

As heat absorbing aerosols drop out of the statosphere or are otherwise removed through chemical interations with ozone and breakdown by ionizing radiation & UV, the stratosphere cools back down hence a dominant source of cooling of the statosphere becomes apparent. Hence the rise in statospheric temperature from El Chichon in '82 and cooldown of the troposphere from shading induced by stratospheric aerosols, and again, with an even greater impact, by Mt Pinatubo in '91.