Climate doctrine crushed

It’s early to say it, but I’ll say it early — Willis Eschenbach has achieved an earth-shaking breakthrough that’ll have him hailed a hero for years to come.

His fame will live on long after he has gone. He hasn’t merely found that carbon dioxide doesn’t control the temperature. He’s provided a reason to discard the very notion that any single forcing controls the surface temperature. The climate is a complex system.

His achievement is a triumph.

caption

Highlights

I don’t have a local church door to nail this thesis to, so I’ll nail it up on WUWT typos and all and go to bed. I think it is the most compelling evidence I’ve found to date that the basic climate paradigm of temperatures slavishly following the forcings is a huge misunderstanding at the core of current climate science … but I’m biased in the matter.

via Stacked Volcanoes Falsify Models | Watts Up With That?.


So that’s it, that’s the whole story. Let me highlight the main points.

• Volcanic eruptions cause a large, measurable drop in the amount of solar energy entering the planet.

• Under the current climate paradigm that temperature is a slave to forcing with a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling of CO2, these should cause large, lingering swings in the planet’s temperature.

• Despite the significant size of these drops in forcing, we see only a tiny resulting signal in the global temperature.

• This gives us two stark choices.

A. Either the climate sensitivity is around half a degree per doubling of CO2, and the time constant is under a year, or

B. The current paradigm of climate sensitivity is wrong and forcings don’t determine surface temperature.

Based on the actual observations, I hold for the latter.

• The form (a damped oscillation) and speed of the climate’s response to eruptive forcing shows the action of a powerful natural governing system which regulates planetary temperatures.

• This system restores both the temperature and the energy content of the system to pre-existing conditions in a remarkably short time.


The first and most important conclusion is that the climate doesn’t work the way that the climate paradigm states — it is clearly not a linear response to forcing. If it were linear, the results would look like the models. But the models are totally unable to replicate the rapid response to the volcanic forcings, which return to pre-existing temperatures in 18 months and restore the energy balance in 48 months. The models are not even close. Even with ridiculously small time constant and sensitivity, you can’t do it. The shape of the response is wrong.

I hold that this is because the models do not contain the natural emergent temperature-controlling phenomena that act in concert to return the system to the pre-catastrophic condition as soon as possible.

The second conclusion is that the observations clearly show the governed nature of the system. The swing of temperatures after the eruptions and the quick return of both temperature and energy levels to pre-eruption conditions shows the classic damped oscillations of a governed system. None of the models were even close to being able to do what the natural system does—shake off disturbances and return to pre-existing conditions in a very short time.

Third conclusion is that the existing paradigm, that the surface air temperature is a linear function of the forcing, is untenable. The volcanoes show that quite clearly.


A corollary of this hypothesis is that although the signal may not be very detectable in the global temperature itself, for that very reason it should be detectable in the action of whatever phenomena act to oppose the volcanic cooling.

So that was my prediction, that if my theory were correct, we should see a volcanic signal in some other part of the climate system involved in governing the temperature.

And so it proved. I think this deserves mention even in the mainstream media. Are they listening?

94 Thoughts on “Climate doctrine crushed

  1. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 2:23 pm said:

    Wow, a massage therapist with a BA in psychology who has worked as a Construction Manager at Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji, Sport Fishing guide in Alaska and more recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil…. is crushing climate science…..

    Shows you that anybody with a PC and an armchair can outwit entire science departments.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach

    Now I am really worried….. 😉

  2. das75428 on May 30, 2013 at 2:31 pm said:

    LOL, not a word about the DATA, just attack the messenger. “Climate Science(tm)” in a nutshell.
    DAS

  3. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 2:51 pm said:

    Oh and here is a good analysis of Eschbach’s latest nonsense, its reasonably comprehensive das75…. and so I won’t waste my time here further on this one.

  4. Magoo on May 30, 2013 at 3:16 pm said:

    Did the railroad engineer from the IPCC ever get around to explaining how the temperature is supposed to rise beyond 1.2C per doubling of CO2 without positive feedback from water vapour yet Thomas?

  5. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 3:36 pm said:

    Magoo, you can read about Professor Pachauri Ph.D. and his distinguished career and his academic credentials here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri before you dig yourself a hole in trying to compare him to a massage therapist.

  6. Magoo on May 30, 2013 at 3:41 pm said:

    You didn’t answer the question Thomas.

  7. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 3:47 pm said:

    Because I don’t think we are in kindergarten here. If you have no concept of what the IPCC says then don’t comment here about it, eh!
    Now go and read for yourself: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html

  8. Cool, your site has a troll now! you must be over the target since you’re getting flak

    please send relevant info the PM John Key… after all NZ is paying MORE IN TAXES because of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING

    which DOESN’T EXIST… but Key says “scientists all agree…” so the CONSENSUS made him do it? … crikey

    … infuriating, isn’t it

  9. Magoo on May 30, 2013 at 4:11 pm said:

    Computer models are all good and fine Thomas, but without a tropospheric hotspot what evidence is there of positive feedback from water vapour?

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif

    Where is the upper tropospheric water vapour Thomas? The water vapour at lower levels tend to have a negative feedback due to their reflective qualities.

  10. Nice, Lisa! Thanks!

  11. Richard C (NZ) on May 30, 2013 at 4:33 pm said:

    >”…the classic damped oscillations of a governed system”

    The performance of which is shown to be inadequate in retroactive climate modeling.

    And they expect 100 year future climate model scenario acceptance seriously to the tune of billions of dollars in punitive taxes to – as Ottmar Edenhofer of the UN IPCC puts it – “redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy”?

  12. Bob D on May 30, 2013 at 5:08 pm said:

    Magoo, he won’t answer because he can’t. Nowhere to go. Trapped.

  13. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 5:26 pm said:

    Magoo and Bob, you have not the faintest idea don’t you. You just regurgitate nonsense from Nova and others. For your information:
    http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/hot-spot-2-tropospheric-warming-continues/

  14. Rob Taylor on May 30, 2013 at 5:30 pm said:

    So, Eschbach’s been shot down in flames, what else have you got?

    Oh, I see, just the perennial “missing hotspot”, which is neither missing, nor a characteristic signature of AGW – is that really the best you can do?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

    [Snipped.]

  15. Bob D on May 30, 2013 at 5:44 pm said:

    Thomas:
    We know very well what the IPCC says. Did you even read your own source? It says:

    “…it is the response of tropospheric water vapour to warming itself – the water vapour feedback – that matters for climate change. In GCMs, water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).”

    “Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere.”

    This effect is shown in Figure 9.1 of Chapter 9 (pg 675). Note that the results from the GCMs show tropospheric heating over the tropics at about twice the surface rate. Note this is not a “projection”; this is for 1890 to 1999. It should be really evident by now, over a decade later.

    We’ve seen some warming from 1890 to 1999 at the surface, but where’s the much warmer hot spot in the upper troposphere above the tropics? Well, it just isn’t there. Oops.

    What this tells us is that water vapour feedback isn’t happening. It just isn’t.

    Therefore the climate response to a doubling of CO2 is at most 1.2°C, and is likely to be somewhat less if cloud feedbacks turn out to be predominantly negative.

  16. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 5:48 pm said:

    Yes Lisa, LULZ… and its even instructional from time to time.

    I had no reason of late for example to read some of Cris De Feitas research papers. I have now. Cool Stuff! Did you know that CF spent a reasonable chunk of the last decade and more on studying the impacts of Climate Change on Tourism for example? I did not know that!

    Wicket, that a man who just said:

    ” Future warming could occur, but there is no evidence to suggest it will amount to much.” (CF in the NZ Herald, 5/2013).

    … devotes a lot of his research career to investigate how “not much warming (his belief)” might affect tourism? Allas, he gets to hold workshops in fun places such as Greece or Crete. Tempting really.

    Also as a teacher I find it interesting to sample misconceptions and typical knowledge gaps such as ‘how can the acidity of the ocean have increased by 30% if the pH level only goes down by 0.02 per decade’….. Very few people know that the pH scale is a logarithmic scale or what it really stands for but have a steadfast opinion on ocean acidification….

    Yea, Its good to explore this world of minds and there are a lot more interesting observations on the mentality of people to be made here…..

  17. Bob D on May 30, 2013 at 5:52 pm said:

    Thomas:
    Allen & Sherwood (2008) use wind shear to try to find the hot spot. Not convincing, considering all the thermometers (you know, those things we invented to measure temperature) that have tried to find it and failed.
    Johnson & Xie (2010) also try to re-define what temperature is in order to find something that isn’t there.
    Dessler (2010) find tropospheric specific humidity increases with El Ninos. Big whoop, that’s not the issue. Where’s the temperature rise that is supposed to follow?
    Thorne (2010) looked at some papers to come to their conclusion. How about looking at the observational data instead? I can assure you that if the hot spot was actually there they wouldn’t be trying to work out from other papers if it existed or not.
    Santer et al (2012) is famous for trying to pretend that the hotspot is there, it’s just so well hidden that we can’t actually see it. Fail.
    And Titchner et al. (2009). Observations from years of radiosondes don’t match our models. Of course that means the observations are wrong. Love it.

  18. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 5:52 pm said:

    So Bob, did you read this?
    http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/hot-spot-2-tropospheric-warming-continues/
    I posted before. I guess if you carry on about the hotspot you should perhaps actually read the page I cited.

    Or more here:
    http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Are-Climate-Models-Inconsistent.aspx

  19. Richard C (NZ) on May 30, 2013 at 6:15 pm said:

    >”Eschbach’s been shot down in flames”

    Apart from your inability to spell his name, how exactly?

  20. Bob D on May 30, 2013 at 6:15 pm said:

    Douglass et al. (2007) looked at the actual data and concluded:

    “We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. “

  21. Bob D on May 30, 2013 at 6:19 pm said:

    We also have others weighing in (Po-Chedley et al., 2012):

    “It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements.”

    In other words, the models are hopelessly over-estimating the water vapour feedback temperature response.

  22. Bob D on May 30, 2013 at 6:38 pm said:

    But the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is provided by Santer himself. In Thorne et al. (2011) Santer is forced to admit:

    ” On an individual pressure level basis, agreement between models, theory, and observations within the troposphere is uncertain over 1979 to 2003 and nonexistent above 300 hPa.”

    (Above 300hPa is where the hot spot should be, by the way.)

    Interestingly, they find that they have some agreement from 1958 to 1979, but none since. Shouldn’t that be the other way around? Lol.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on May 30, 2013 at 6:40 pm said:

    From itsnotnova:-

    >”….estimated tropospheric amplification of surface temperature changes was in good agreement in all model and observational data sets considered,”

    Except they weren’t talking about the posited upper tropospheric hotspot – surface is surface.

    Preceding paragraph from paper:-

    “The amplification of tropical surface
    temperature changes was assessed
    on different timescales (monthly,
    annual, and multi-decadal) and in
    different atmospheric layers (T*T
    and T2LT).”

    And see – Trend Comparisons:

    5. Comparing trend differences between the surface and the troposphere exposes potential discrepancies between models and observations in the tropics.

    • In the tropics, most observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, while most model runs have larger warming aloft than at the surface.

    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

  24. Bob D,

    Impressive work. Well done.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on May 30, 2013 at 7:41 pm said:

    Page 28/116 of The U.S. Climate Change Science Program Santer et al review (undated) as quoted by istsnotnova – Chapter 5: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences:-

    Figure 5.7: Zonal-mean patterns of atmospheric temperature change in “20CEN” experiments
    performed with four different climate models and in observational radiosonde data. Model results are for CCSM3.0 (panel A), PCM (panel B), GFDL CM 2.1 (panel C), and GISS-EH (panel D). The model experiments are ensemble means. There are differences between the sets of climate forcings that the four models used in their 20CEN runs (Table 5.3). Observed changes (panel E) were estimated with HadAT2 radiosonde data (Thorne et al., 2005, and Chapter 3). The HadAT2 temperature data do not extend above 30 hPa, and have inadequate coverage at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. All temperature changes were calculated from monthly-mean data and are expressed as linear trends (in ºC/decade) over 1979 to 1999.

    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

    # # #

    Four different model configurations exhibiting upper tropical troposphere heat accumulation (hotspot).

    One observation dataset exhibiting NO upper tropical troposphere heat accumulation (hotspot)

    Described in the review as – “potential discrepancies between models and observations in the tropics”

  26. Rob Taylor on May 30, 2013 at 9:50 pm said:

    RT, you begin this thread by heaping fulsome and ridiculous praise on a scientific nonentity, Willis Eschenbach, whose mumbo-jumbo on denial blogs clearly fits your predjudices.

    Yet, had you but taken a short drive to Albany last night, you could have heard the facts of climate change and resource depletion from a world-class scientist and governmental advisor who, before he came to NZ, addressed both the Indian parliament and the Chinese politburo.

    Who is going to have the greater impact on world affairs? Your massage therapist? Or Professor Sir David King, author of over 500 scientific papers and founder of a billion-pound new technology initiative?

    I think we all know the answer to that one…

    http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/events/engine-series/improving-human-well-being.cfm

  27. As an unimpressive non-scientific nonentity I marvel that you take the trouble even to communicate with me, so thank you. Mind you, I’m more interested in discussing climate science than negotiating your prickly and uncomfortable ad hominem abuse and tolerating your persistent refusal to answer our questions. Why should we bother about fighting global warming, since it stalled a while ago? For evidence of this, please see the graphs of global temperature at Climate4you.com.

  28. Rob Taylor on May 30, 2013 at 10:25 pm said:

    [As always, Half-snipped. – RT] when faced with a reality that does not fit your ideology, RT, you choose to embrace ignorance and play the victim, rather than take the opportunity to educate yourself in the real world.

    “Willis Eschenbach has achieved an earth-shaking breakthrough that’ll have him hailed a hero for years to come.”

    Yeah, right, good luck with that… now, here’s someone whose fame has lasted down the centuries: Joseph Fourier.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier

    The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet’s lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

  29. I’m not disagreeing with that. We would possibly differ over the magnitude of the warming, but that’s all. You’re awfully sensitive. All Eschenbach has done is find evidence that the climate is complex, and it’s likely that no single factor controls the temperature. What’s wrong with that? But I don’t know why I bother to ask the question. There’s the post itself, in all its glory, and I think you’ve completely ignored it so far except to lampoon the author and me. You’re not too credible, old chap.

  30. Andy on May 30, 2013 at 10:39 pm said:

    Is Sir David King as thick as that Beddington chap?

    I get the impression there isn’t a lot going on upstairs with these Chief Scientist types.

  31. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 10:42 pm said:

    Great work Bob. Now I would ask you one thing: Have you actually read the paper (Thorne et.al, 2011)?
    When you answer the question with yes/no we will talk further.

  32. Rob Taylor on May 30, 2013 at 10:54 pm said:

    Not a lot going on upstairs, Andy?

    Well, golly gee whiz, perhaps you can share with us just how close you got to a Nobel Prize, and the number of scientific papers you have written?

    “In 1988 he was appointed Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Cambridge and subsequently became Master of Downing College (1995–2000) and Head of the University Chemistry Department (1993–2000).

    During this time, King, together with Gabor Somorjai and Gerhard Ertl, shaped the discipline of surface science and helped to explain the underlying principles of heterogeneous catalysis. However, the 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Ertl alone.

    King has published over 500 papers on his research in chemical physics and on science and policy, and has received numerous prizes, Fellowships and Honorary Degrees. King was knighted in 2003 and in 2009 made a Chevalier of the Légion d’Honneur. He continues as Director of Research in the Department of Chemistry at Cambridge University.

  33. Andy, please — it’s not necessary to antagonise people when they turn up already agonised.

  34. Andy on May 30, 2013 at 11:26 pm said:

    Sounds very impressive. Does King have any actual climate science credentials?

    I only get my information from actual climate scientists who have published climate science in climate journals that are approved by the IPCC and are considered part of the 97% of consensus scientists.( including the ones that are part of the 97% consensus that are considered Deniers by SkS)

    Is this guy actually in a position to advise is about climate science? Why don’t we ask Barack Obama to talk about atmospheric physics? He has a Nobel Prize, after all.

  35. Thomas on May 30, 2013 at 11:35 pm said:

    Richard T:

    How can you reconcile your headline “CLIMATE DOCTRINE CRUSHED” with your own statement above:
    “All Eschenbach has done is find evidence that the climate is complex, and it’s likely that no single factor controls the temperature.”
    ???

    Don’t you think that anybody who is involved with climate science knows that?

    Now how do we get from “climate is complex” to “Climate doctrine crushed”? And what doctrine has Eschenbach crushed in your opinion?

  36. Andy on May 30, 2013 at 11:48 pm said:

    No, I thought co2 was the control knob of the climate,

    Are you now telling us that there are many knobs involved?

  37. Magoo on May 31, 2013 at 12:24 am said:

    IPCC AR5 on upper tropospheric temperature, pages 9–26 to 9-27:

    http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf

    9.4.1.3.2 Upper tropospheric temperature trends.

    ‘Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2012).’

    ‘In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011.’

    The McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman (2010) paper is below:

    http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

  38. Thomas on May 31, 2013 at 12:24 am said:

    No you never did.

  39. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 12:25 am said:

    Thomas:

    “Have you actually read the paper (Thorne et.al, 2011)?”

    I have, yes. Have you?

  40. Rob Taylor on May 31, 2013 at 12:28 am said:

    Weak, Andy – David King’s disciplines of chemistry and physics are the foundations of climate science, as I’m sure you are aware.

    As for RT’s vacuous plea, he lampoons himself far more effectively than I could:

    “All Eschenbach has done is find evidence that the climate is complex, and it’s likely that no single factor controls the temperature. What’s wrong with that? But I don’t know why I bother to ask the question. There’s the post itself, in all its glory, and I think you’ve completely ignored it so far except to lampoon the author and me”

    RT, any high school science student knows that the climate is a complex system, and you would too, if you bothered to educate yourself to the slightest degree outside the pseudoscientific denier circles you waste your time in.

    “Garbage In, Garbage Out” would be a truer motto for this site.

  41. stan stendera on May 31, 2013 at 9:21 am said:

    I have reached a crossroads! My middle name is Thomas; your comments on this blog have so soiled that name I am going to plea to the courts here in the USA to change it. Is this comment an ad hom. Yep, it sure is! I LOTHE Ad Homs so I have carefully considered this. Unlike the warmist who throw ad homs around like confetti, I have carefully considered the matter. YOU deserve ad homs. PS I’m not going to make my new middle name Taylor>

  42. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 9:47 am said:

    We also have McKitrick et al. (2010):

    “Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level.”

  43. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 9:52 am said:

    Bengtsson & Hodges (2011) of the Max Planck Institute also found that there was a systematic warm bias in the models for the upper troposphere over 1979-2008. They also found (as did the others) that the TMT warming rate is lower than the TLT.

    In other words, not only is the upper troposphere not warming at about double the rate of the surface, it’s actually warming even slower than the surface.

    Clearly, all is not well in ModelLand.

  44. Andy on May 31, 2013 at 10:02 am said:

    Is it a good analysis Thomas? They keep scratching their heads saying that they can’t understand Willis’ argument, and then in comments they can’t understand the concept of TCS (transient climate sensitivity) (“They” being the author(s) and the commenters)

    Then this

    Well, that’s not quite so. But modern volcanoes have only had a very short term impact globally. The cooling effect disappears in a matter of months to years, depending on the nature, composition and location of the eruption as well, one would imagine, as the prevailing weather conditions at least in regard to smaller eruptions

    What do they mean by “modern volcanoes”. Are these trendy urbanite Guardian reading volcanoes? Or perhaps they mean “recent” ones

    And how come some are still claiming that we are feeling the rebound from Pinatobu?

    To be honest, I haven’t had the time to sift through all the arguments and counter-arguments, but when a blog post immediately starts on the Ad Hom (Willis has Dunning Kruger), then it is a bit of a turn off.

  45. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 10:17 am said:

    And of course Fu et al. (2011):

    “Early GCMs also predicted larger warming in tropical upper‐troposphere than in lower‐ troposphere, but not as much as that from the recent IPCC AR4 GCMs. It is also evident that the lapse rate feedback of the IPCC AR4 GCMs is larger than the older GCMs.”

    Note: I’ve removed numerous reference parentheses here to aid readability.

    Their conclusion?

    “It is shown that these trends from observations are significantly smaller than those from AR4 GCMs, a direct consequence of the much enhanced simulated warming in the tropical upper troposphere.”

    QED.

  46. Magoo on May 31, 2013 at 10:25 am said:

    Here’s a nice summary of the McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman (2010) paper Thomas:

    http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mm1.png

    Which is why we have this:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png

  47. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 10:34 am said:

    A bit of background from Douglass (2007):

    “A panel convened by the National Research Council (2000) found for the satellite era (since 1979) ‘[a]pparently conflicting surface and tropospheric temperature trends’ that could not be reconciled, with the Earth’s surface warming faster than the lower troposphere. The panel concluded, after considering possible systematic errors that ‘[a] substantial disparity remains.’
    From a study of several independent observational datasets Douglass et al. (2004b) confirmed that the disparity was real and arose mostly in the tropical zone. Also, Douglass et al. (2004a) showed that three state-of-the-art General Circulation Models (GCMs) predicted a temperature trend that increased with altitude, reaching a maximum ratio to the surface trend (‘amplification’ factor R) as much as 1.5–2.0 at a pressure (altitude) about 200–400 hPa. This was in disagreement with observations, which showed flat or decreasing amplification factors with altitude.

  48. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 10:57 am said:

    Thomas Christie-Taylor. Nice ring to it.

  49. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 11:11 am said:

    From the US Climate Change Science Program (Ben Santer) Fingerprint Pattern Studies:

    “Tropospheric amplification of surface temperature anomalies is due to the release of latent heat by moist, rising air in regions experiencing convection.
    • Despite large inter-model differences in variability and forcings, the size of this amplification effect is remarkably similar in the models considered here, even across a range of timescales (from monthly to decadal).
    • On monthly and annual timescales, amplification is also a ubiquitous feature of observations, and is very similar to values obtained from models and basic theory.
    • For longer-timescale temperature changes over 1979 to 1999, only one of four observed upper-air data sets has larger tropical warming aloft than in the surface records. All model runs with surface warming over this period show amplified warming aloft.
    • These results could arise due to errors common to all models; to significant non-climatic influences remaining within some or all of the observational data sets, leading to biased long-term trend estimates; or a combination of these factors.”

    Not surprisingly they prefer to believe the second reason rather than the first.

  50. No, the analysis at HotWhopper is consistently negative, which indicates a bias. Even the worst scientific paper gets some things right and it’s the action of bias that omits mention of them.

    The author says of herself (my emphasis): “I’m a sixties-something women with an interest in climate science. I have a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours) and an MBA and work as a freelance consultant.”

    So she’s got a few brains. She quotes the IPCC to show they’ve always considered the climate to be complex:

    Note, however, that because of the inherently nonlinear nature of the response to feedbacks, the final impact on sensitivity is not simply the sum of these responses. The effect of multiple positive feedbacks is that they mutually amplify each other’s impact on climate sensitivity.

    However (overlooking for now the lack of mention of negative responses), I doubt that’s ever been in the SPM and of a certainty we’ve been listening for years to alarmists telling us that CO2 is the climate system’s thermostat. Funny how all that’s suddenly forgotten. Funny how everyone is laughing at us for ever thinking the climate system was simple. But we never did.

    I meant to say that, although it’s no surprise, it’s disappointing to see Thomas take this analysis at face value, though it’s not from a climate scientist or an IPCC author. His own standards are lower than those he expects of others.

  51. Andy on May 31, 2013 at 11:20 am said:

    Here is one of the more recent “CO2 is the Control Knob” papers (Lacis et al) reviewed by Roger Pielke Snr

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-atmospheric-co2-principal-control-knob-governing-earth%E2%80%99s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/

    [Update]

    Note this phrase

    We found, as should be expected since the radiative forcing of CO2 is a logarithmic function of its atmospheric concentration, that the largest effect of changing its concentration is from zero CO2 to 1X CO2 relative to 1X CO2 to 2X CO2

    This is what Chris de Freitas was trying to demonstrate with his paint on window analogy, but apparently this is “wrong” according to his critics.

  52. stan, Bob,

    You’re both off-topic and offering unscientific abuse. Take five demerit points and stand in the corner until playtime then give the points back.

  53. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 11:30 am said:

    <Sucks thumb>

  54. Andy on May 31, 2013 at 11:35 am said:

    Is heterogeneous catalysis the foundation of climate science?

    During this time, King, together with Gabor Somorjai and Gerhard Ertl, shaped the discipline of surface science and helped to explain the underlying principles of heterogeneous catalysis

    My issue is that science is very specialised these days, with people working in very narrow silos.

    Sir David King is, I am sure, a very accomplished scientist in his discipline. One of the problems, I feel, is that scientists assume that other branches of science are as rigorous as their own.

    We haven’t heard much from Sir Peter Gluckman on the topic of climate recently. Maybe he has realised that he shouldn’t drag his own reputation down by shackling himself to the climate change bandwagon, which I expect soon will be regarded as a career-killer.

  55. Thomas,

    Did you know that CF spent a reasonable chunk of the last decade and more on studying the impacts of Climate Change on Tourism for example?

    His tourism publications occupy, eyeballing it, maybe ten percent of that long list of papers, articles and books. Laughing constantly at the same little joke? You’re making a hyena of yourself now.

  56. Andy on May 31, 2013 at 11:51 am said:

    Thomas seems to think it is massively hypocritical for someone who is “teaching climate denial” (sic) to be feeding off climate change funding.

    As far as I can see, CdF’s only “crime” is to not mention the Hockey Stick in his classes.
    Given that the IPCC dropped Mann’s original one, and the other “independent” studies like Yamal, Gergis and Marcott, for example, are also highly suspect, then that is probably good judgement on his part

  57. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 11:53 am said:

    Another one (Christy et al.,2011):
    “This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations.”

  58. Thomas,

    Now how do we get from “climate is complex” to “Climate doctrine crushed”? And what doctrine has Eschenbach crushed?

    Thanks for asking. First, you’re right, anyone connected with climate science knows that it’s complex. You may wonder, then, why people on your side of the fence have for years been telling us that CO2 drives the climate system and that CO2 is the world’s thermostat, citing papers that suggest prove it could be true. You may wonder why the intense focus for many years has been on our emissions of CO2, with mere supporting roles for CH4, NO and others. You may wonder why coal is so heavily deprecated for its extra emissions of CO2 for each BTU given up. The answer is those things arose not from scientific understanding but out of political motives. We, on the other hand, have always known that the climate is complex. Your side’s simplistic depictions have always been intensely frustrating. Now they’re abruptly abandoned — which is good, don’t get me wrong. But it’s most convenient.

    So now the doctrine you seem not to detect is easy to understand. It’s the carbon doctrine. Because we now have Willis Eschenbach’s brilliantly lucid description of the overlapping feedbacks involved in the climate, it’s easy to see that “carbon” is only a bit player in this miraculous, life-sustaining and beautiful planet of ours.

    It will no longer be necessary to demonise carbon or to strive to remove it from our lives, for there’s no reason to do so. It will no longer be necessary to ignore real pollution. It will no longer be necessary to crush the poor by burning their food.

    It will now be possible to attend to and pay for real problems.

  59. Magoo on May 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm said:

    Where’s Thomas gone? He must be hiding.

  60. Climate_Science_Researcher on May 31, 2013 at 2:01 pm said:

    If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Dr Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which said heat only transfers from hot to cold – a “law” which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium “spontaneously evolves” and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.

    Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total accessible energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.

    When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.

    This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus – or that at the surface of Earth.

    The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.

    The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.

    The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.

  61. Thomas on May 31, 2013 at 2:16 pm said:

    Hi Bob, great you read the Thorne et.al 2011 paper.

    I guess you would have read the sentence that follows the one you cited here?

    Let me show it to those who don’t read the sources they are citing and instead copy-paste the cherry picked bits from another blog (always go back to the sources and read the whole paper!):

    On an individual pressure level basis, agreement between models, theory, and observations within the troposphere is uncertain over 1979 to 2003 and nonexistent above 300 hPa. Analysis of 1958–2003, however, shows consistent model‐data agreement in tropical lapse rate trends at all levels up to the tropical tropopause, so the disagreement in the more recent period is not necessarily evidence of a general problem in simulating long‐term global warming.

  62. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 2:48 pm said:

    Oh wow, Thomas, is that the best you’ve got? Far from hiding the next sentence, I specifically mentioned the 1958- period in my comment.

    But I don’t think you understand the issue here. The period 1979 onwards (Satellite era) is the period when the agreement is supposed to occur (Hansen, 1988; IPCC AR4, 2007).

    The fact that 1958-2003 (Full period) agrees well while 1979-2003 does not obviously implies that all the agreement is pre-1979, and since 1979 there has been no agreement. If it was the other way around it would make sense, since according to Hansen the anthropogenic greenhouse effect would only be discernible in the temperature record since about 1990.

    Have a look at Fig 12 for an understanding of the “agreement”. What he’s saying is that the 95% confidence whiskers just overlap for the Full Period case, while they don’t for the Satellite Era. But more importantly, look at the Full Period interquartile boxes – the TMT values are all below the model interquartile range, and the median is still less than the HadCRUT3 surface trends. In other words, we’re not arguing here whether the TMT warmed at twice or maybe 1.5 times the surface rate: instead the TMT warmed less than the surface!

    And from this he feels that there is “consistent model‐data agreement”, and that “the disagreement in the more recent period is not necessarily evidence of a general problem”. I don’t think so – the disagreement in the more recent period is exactly evidence of a general problem. He’s trying to spin this in the only way he can, by grasping at straws.

    Besides, this satellite era disagreement hasn’t gone away – see McKitrick et al. (2011) for an updated dataset result (They used data to 2009). They find:

    “Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level.”

  63. Rob,

    You say: “the perennial “missing hotspot”, which is neither missing, nor a characteristic signature of AGW.” Trenberth et al. (2005) say:

    On multidecadal time scales, tropospheric amplification of surface
    warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but it occurs in only one
    observational data set. Other observations show weak, or even negative, amplification.
    These results suggest either that different physical mechanisms control
    amplification processes on monthly and decadal time scales, and models fail to
    capture such behavior; or (more plausibly) that residual errors in several observational
    data sets used here affect their representation of long-term trends.

    You’re right that the hot spot wasn’t supposed to be a direct signature of AGW, but, to disappoint you, the authors draw a direct connection with GHG by saying:

    Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations that include historical increases in greenhouse gases

    Which confirms why guys on your side have been saying that the hot spot would “prove” man’s contribution to global warming. That’s the first message from this paper.

    The second message is that they could not find the hot spot. Note that Skeptical Science is no great help in this, because the article you link to fudges the point without shame. They say:

    The hot spot is not a unique greenhouse signature and finding the hot spot doesn’t prove that humans are causing global warming.

    They’re almost right but it still means that if warming was being caused by GHG there would be (robustly, according to Trenberth) a hot spot. Cook says: “Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying.” Hardly surprising, when they don’t find the hot spot and the only study that comes close ignores the thermometers and looks very closely at wind speeds, claiming a “direct relationship between temperature and wind shear.”

    So, although the thermometers found no warming, the very same balloons found the air was moving, from which they claim to have detected warming. They think you are stupid!

  64. Magoo on May 31, 2013 at 4:03 pm said:

    The hot spot is characteristic of water vapour feedback though. Where is the positive feedback from water vapour Rob?

    Even the IPCC admits the hotspot is missing in AR5.

  65. Rob Taylor on May 31, 2013 at 4:08 pm said:

    Bob / RT, while you’re being so cute (tee hee), perhaps you can tell us why the Antartic ice shelves are melting from below?

    Could it be (giggle) that the ocean is warming?

    By golly, the same thing seems to be happening in Greenland as well!

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/27/254996/melting-antarctic-ice/

    It really makes ya think, dunnit?

    Off-topic. But the ice in contact with the water is always melting, wherever it is, because it’s always colder than the water. – RT

  66. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 4:10 pm said:

    Ben Santer (do you believe him, Rob?):

    “• Tropospheric amplification of surface temperature anomalies is due to the release of latent heat by moist, rising air in regions experiencing convection.
    • Despite large inter-model differences in variability and forcings, the size of this amplification effect is remarkably similar in the models considered here, even across a range of timescales (from monthly to decadal).”

    -US Climate Change Science Program, Chapter 5, Fingerprint Pattern Studies

    What about the NRC, Rob, do you believe them?:

    “A panel convened by the National Research Council (2000) found for the satellite era (since 1979) ‘[a]pparently conflicting surface and tropospheric temperature trends’ that could not be reconciled, with the Earth’s surface warming faster than the lower troposphere. The panel concluded, after considering possible systematic errors that ‘[a] substantial disparity remains.’”

  67. Rob Taylor on May 31, 2013 at 4:15 pm said:

    Do try to read the references already provided, Magoo [snipped].

  68. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 4:30 pm said:

    Richard T got there first (dammit) but yes, water has been known to melt ice in the past. Interesting that they’re claiming the icy water appears to be “boiling”. Ah well, it’s Joe Romm, no intelligence there.

    Did it make me think? Oh yes, but not for long.

    Also, it’s long been acknowledged that circulation patterns change around the peninsula, sometimes feeding in warmer water, sometimes not. Ice shelves are usually formed by excess ice being pushed out over the water. Bits breaking off, underside melting, it all happens as a natural result of excess ice.

    Antarctic sea ice reached a record high extent recently. Makes you think.

  69. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 4:32 pm said:

    So you’ve already read all those references I gave Thomas, Rob? Any comments?

  70. Thomas on May 31, 2013 at 4:34 pm said:

    Bob, as long as there are well funded individuals like McKitrick, supported by groups such as Heartland, Fraser Institute and others, you will always get to hear precisely what you always wanted if you read their stuff.

    As of the people actually involved in doing the hard work…. how about you read:
    “Separating Signal and Noise in Atmospheric Temperature Changes: The Importance of Timescale” Santer et.al 2011

    Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
    ….
    The warming signal arising from slow, humancaused
    changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is embedded in the background ‘noise’ of natural climate variability. Yet much of the recent public discourse on the reality of a discernible human influence on global climate reflects pervasive confusion regarding the distinctions between short-term climate variability and long-term climate change. It is therefore important and timely to illuminate some basic issues related to the S/N behavior of atmospheric temperature data.
    (Santer, 2011)

    The above sentence applies as we know to all ideas that say that short term (decadal) observations are suitable to ‘disprove’ human influences on the climate.

    Or read what CISRO has to offer on the matter of the hot-spot:
    http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Are-Climate-Models-Inconsistent/In-detail.aspx

    So good luck with your hot-spot!

  71. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 4:44 pm said:

    Thomas,
    Once again you’re not understanding the basics. The hotspot is not about detecting a warming trend, it’s about the amplification factor between the surface and middle-to-upper troposphere. It’s a ratio. Also, the studies (eg:McKitrick, 2011) we’re talking about extend over 1979-2011, a 32-year period.

    Try to understand, it’s very frustrating when you keep missing the point.

    Also, your CSIRO link is hopelessly out of date. The IPCC (AR5) position on this contradicts the CSIRO:

    9.4.1.3.2 Upper tropospheric temperature trends.

    ‘Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2012).’

    ‘In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011.’

    See Magoo’s comment above.

  72. Alexander K on May 31, 2013 at 5:09 pm said:

    Various individuals on this thread are starting to behave as if this is the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and the Revd. Charles Dodson is writing their contributions.
    In defence of Willis E, I believe him to be a genuine polymath who can elucidate complicated scientific principles and schema in plain, unvarnished English and who writes brilliantly entertaining short stories which, in many cases show a warm and generous spirit plus a clear-eyed and very real empathy with the poor and disadvantaged of the world.
    His description of building blast freezers from scratch in primitive conditions on a Pacific atoll is a minor classics in the annals of marine engineering.
    In my reasonably long life, I have worked with university-educated and multi-degreed twits who couldn’t grasp simple scientific concepts if they were thrust under their noses and with those at the opposite end of the scale, who, without the benefit of anything more than a couple of fairly mediocre years at high school, designed and built incredibly complex mechanical and electronic devices that have world patents and made their creators a reasonable fortune.
    The tales of educated mediocrities are legion: anyone who mistakes the possession of a degree or degrees as a mark of ability or intelligence or success is perpetuating a very old error.

  73. Is the “gravitationally induced temperature gradient” a recognised effect?

  74. Magoo on May 31, 2013 at 5:29 pm said:

    Oh I have Rob, several times over the years. Sks says:

    ‘So, does the “hot spot” actually exist? That is to say, is the tropsosphere actually warming as expected? Unfortunately, the answer to this is much less cut and dry.’

    Which means no, it doesn’t exist. As also evidenced by numerous scientific papers that Bob D has taken the trouble to reference above, as well as the McKitrick 2010 one I offered also. The IPCC also say the same thing in AR5.

    The Sks website tries to avoid the issue by sidetracking the debate into the ‘fingerprint’ argument, where the troposphere is supposed to warm as the stratosphere cools. This is not the issue. The Issue is, if the tropospheric hotspot doesn’t exist, what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour?

    You Sks link shows no evidence of the hot spot or positive feedback, so where is it?

  75. Rob Taylor on May 31, 2013 at 5:29 pm said:

    “the ice in contact with the water is always melting, wherever it is, because it’s always colder than the water. – RT”

    Oh really? So why does the polar sea ice expand in winter, Richard?

    Come to think of it, how did the ice ages ever come about?

  76. Andy on May 31, 2013 at 5:32 pm said:

    I agree (as a multi-degreed twit) with that Alexander.

    Willis has some interesting ideas, some of them might fly, some not. He is certainly an interesting person who opens up some new avenues for thought.

  77. Rob Taylor on May 31, 2013 at 5:34 pm said:

    Yes, RT, this unknown commenter must be a greater mind than even than the mighty Willis Eschenbach!

    You can believe anything he says, particularly when he contradicts himself, because, what is truth, anyway, in this wonderful post-rational world of yours…?

  78. Thomas on May 31, 2013 at 5:59 pm said:

    Bob, so you show that we know that models had overestimated the warming trend in the so called ‘hotspot’ zone.
    But now you somehow claim that this equates to ‘disproving’ that water vapor amplification occurs as a result of CO2 forcing???
    Wow!

    As you know, the model/observation differences are understood and much has been resolved through better calibrations of measurements.
    http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Are-Climate-Models-Inconsistent/In-detail.aspx

    Compared with the surface based instruments, much less work has been done on understanding climate variables that are remotely sensed from space. There is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between the tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively (Thorne et al., 2010).

    Climate scientists do not believe that the remaining uncertainties regarding remotely sensed tropospheric temperature are large enough to alter the conclusion that increasing greenhouse gases have very likely been the main cause of the late 20th century warming. Rather, there are multiple lines of independent evidence that support this conclusion.

  79. Thomas on May 31, 2013 at 6:12 pm said:

    Richard, this is total nonsense. You may delude yourself as you wish. Everybody as the right to their very own fairytales.

  80. Thomas on May 31, 2013 at 6:17 pm said:

    Gravito-Thermal theories are the stuff of perpetual motion confabulators….. (and would lead directly to actually constructing one, which leads the whole concept at-absurdum)
    They are the result of lay people getting their head just deep enough into the world of science to get completely lost….

  81. Bob D on May 31, 2013 at 7:17 pm said:

    Thomas:

    “But now you somehow claim that this equates to ‘disproving’ that water vapor amplification occurs as a result of CO2 forcing???
    Wow!”

    Water vapour amplification over the long term is clearly not as high as the IPCC assumed (1.5 to 2 times the surface warming). In fact, the science is suggesting that it may be as low as zero, or even negative.

    If that is the case, then the CS is clearly much lower than previously assumed, and the response to doubling of CO2 may only be 1.2°C. If that is true, then the sceptics were right all along.

    I can see why that would annoy you (and many others), but that’s the way science works, sorry.

    Oh, and block-copying opinions from a CSIRO link after I’ve shown how out of date it is really isn’t achieving anything.

  82. Rob Taylor on May 31, 2013 at 7:26 pm said:

    Yawn – once you’ve seen one straw man, you’ve seen them all…

    It’s actually quite risible, how you skate past the tropospheric warming / stratospheric cooling – clear evidence of AGW – to latch onto one of the few AGW predictions that is still within the margin of error.

    When, in time, an accurate measurement is achieved, you’ll doubtless be off to chase the next “squirrel!”; it’s so quaintly reminiscent of the God-Botherers’ “God of the Gaps”, and the “missing link” so beloved of anti-evolutionists.

    Not, of course, that I expect anything new or creative coming out of Treadgold Swamp…

  83. Well, thank you, Thomas, but I must wonder how a self-confessed ignoramus in science might be so confident about that?

  84. Magoo on May 31, 2013 at 8:29 pm said:

    Nice try Rob, now where is the evidence of positive feedback from water vapour?

    Your attempt to avoid the elephant in the room is pretty pathetic – don’t you have any evidence?

    Even the IPCC says it doesn’t exist. IPCC AR5 on upper tropospheric temperature, pages 9–26 to 9-27:

    http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf

    9.4.1.3.2 Upper tropospheric temperature trends.

    ‘Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2012).’

    ‘In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011.’

  85. Thomas on May 31, 2013 at 11:43 pm said:

    In 10 seconds Richard: If the natural state of a column of gas, just under gravity, no external energy input, would have it so that the gas column sorts itself in hot at the bottom and cold at the top, then you could run a thermal engine (Carnot cycle engine) exploiting the temperature difference and extract energy, say in form of a running light bulb. This engine would deliver heat to the top and cool the bottom, which, thanks to the gravito thermal theory, would soon be restored to where it all was. The light energy would say be absorbed again in the same gas column, so we keep the total energy constant.
    Now you need to explain why the engine keeps running and the light shining….

    The solution is (I am over the 10 seconds…) that the gravito-thermal theories say energy is equally distributed among all molecules in the gas. The correct way is: Energy is equally distributed in all equal sized sub volumes of the gas column. Then all returns to normal as it is and the gas column under gravity with no external heat input has equal temperature in all parts of the column.
    You will find that explained in a lot more words elsewhere on the net.

    Oh and just for clarification, who is the ‘self confessed ignoramus in Science’ here according to you???

  86. Mike Jowsey on June 1, 2013 at 11:15 am said:

    Because the growth rate exceeds the melt rate.

  87. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 11:29 am said:

    >”….the stuff of perpetual motion confabulators…..”

    As is AGW, which you agreed with Thomas when I highlighted the idiocy of it:-

    Richard C (NZ) says:
    May 26, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    ….the reason LWIR (upwelling or downwelling) is NOT utilized as an energy source as solar is, is that you (and many others) are attributing equivalent heating effect to DLR (IR-C) as is normally obtained from IR (and some UV) in the solar spectrum (IR-A/B). Using the terms of an electrical analogy (a very loose one), it is the difference between “real” and “apparent” power. Yes you can measure DLR or ULR in the same units as DSR but the capacity to do work is vastly different.

    This is the trap that Spencer (and Watts) has fallen into in his fight with PSI. He neglects heating effect (or lack of). Also the trap that Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) (and updates) manufactured for themselves and AGW in ‘Global Heat Flows’:-

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif

    324 W.m2 – DLR (“Back Radiation”)
    390 W.m2 – ULR (“Surface Radiation”)
    168 W.m2 – DSR (“Incoming Solar” “Absorbed by Surface”)

    Apparently, there’s 714 W.m2 of LWIR energy available to do work compared to a measly 168 W.m2 of SW solar.

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/gwpf-rs-talk-climate-change/#comment-202603

    To which you responded:-

    Thomas says:
    May 26, 2013 at 10:46 pm

    Me thinks you should join the “perpetual motion device developers society”. They can use your talents. 🙂

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/gwpf-rs-talk-climate-change/#comment-202688

    My reply being (subsequent edit in following comment):-

    Richard C (NZ) says:
    May 27, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Your “perpetual motion” criticism is EXACTLY the criticism being levelled by AGW sceptics (and those saying DLR has negligible heating effect) at Kiehl and Trenberth 09 and updates – and AGW.

    Thank you for joining the sceptics on this Thomas. It is a barmy notion that 324 W.m2 – DLR (“Back Radiation”) or 390 W.m2 – ULR (“Surface Radiation”) is energy available for useful work but AGW assumes it (back radiation) does actually do work as a land and ocean surface and bulk ocean heating agent“ […]

    And what is the energy-per-photon difference between solar IR-A/B and DLR (IR-C)?

    Infrared:-

    * IR-A: 700 nm–1400 nm (0.7 µm – 1.4 µm, 215 THz – 430 THz)
    * IR-B: 1400 nm–3000 nm (1.4 µm – 3 µm, 100 THz – 215 THz)
    * IR-C: 3000 nm–1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm, 300 GHz – 100 THz)

    Electromagnetic spectrum:-

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Light_spectrum.svg/324px-Light_spectrum.svg.png

    1.24 eV – 1.4 µm (solar IR-A)
    124 meV – 10 µm (DLR/IR-C) this being AGW’s “backradiation”

    1.24/0.124 = 10 times compared to your “1/20th” at “say 500nm” (20 times).

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/gwpf-rs-talk-climate-change/#comment-202969

    There’s no escaping the truth i.e. AGW is, as you put it Thomas, “the stuff of perpetual motion confabulators”

  88. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 12:19 pm said:

    National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 5

    This article contrasts and compares two of the most important peer-reviewed climate studies of their day – one generation apart – to expose bogus greenhouse gas claims. We see how short the time frame was when consensus science switched from declaring the greenhouse gas effect as junk to claiming it as a trigger for an impending climate apocalypse.

    [Graphic: ‘A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?’ http://johnosullivan.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ghe-perpetual-motion-diagram.jpg?w=681&h=405%5D

    […] The most striking obvious feature of ‘Ramanathan’ is that it omits any mention of any carbon dioxide-driven greenhouse gas effect. Yet 20 years on KT97 makes the effect center stage in climate science attribution. This spectacular switch in emphasis begs the question: what great new discoveries caused this paradigm shift in climatology?

    […] Somehow, somewhere, between 1978 and 1997, when KT97 was first published, the GHE was resuscitated. CO2 suddenly became a key player in the system while it’s role was switched from being a cooling gas to a dangerously warming one!

    But there is no citation in KT97 to explain how and when these reversals from ‘Ramanathan’ were made. As such it is hard to fathom why KT97 would incorporate ‘Ramanathan’ with it now being rendered a contradictory (and presumably debunked) reference.

    So, with no explanation in KT97 it appears that the long- refuted GHE arbitrarily and capriciously became re-instated while the known cooling characteristics of carbon dioxide were (without explanation) reverse so that it was installed as the presumed cause of heating with a climate-forcing factor of 32 W m-2. Absent any scientific explanation for the switch, the reason must be unscientific, perhaps political.

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/national-academies-and-the-non-greenhouse-gas-effect-part-5/

  89. Thomas on June 1, 2013 at 12:20 pm said:

    Ya, gaga land Richard….. BTW did you ever look up Carnot engines, efficiencies and so on for work extraction from temperature differentials? Then contemplate your hopes to solve our energy problems by tapping into the ‘thermal flow’ between our ground and the atmosphere….
    Perhaps that will also assist you in contemplating the perpetual motion paradox in the gravito-thermal theories…

  90. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 1:37 pm said:

    >”Ya, gaga land Richard…..”

    AGW certainly is Thomas, on that we agree according to the quotation of your comment up-thread.

    >…..contemplate your hopes to solve our energy problems by tapping into the ‘thermal flow’ between our ground and the atmosphere….”

    Don’t know where you got this idea from Thomas – it’s not mine. It is implied by Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 AGW heat flow diagram though

    >Perhaps that will also assist you in contemplating the perpetual motion paradox in the gravito-thermal theories…”

    I wasn’t contemplating that either. I was however, contemplating the perpetual motion machine implied by KT97 (as are most other AGW sceptics).

    BTW, you do realize there are 2 “Richard”‘s on this thread don’t you Thomas?

  91. Alexander K on June 1, 2013 at 5:05 pm said:

    Andy, I probably owe apologies to clever blokes and blokesses who have degrees because of my sin of omission – I should have added that I have also worked with genuinely clever, creative people who do have multiple degrees. Sorry if I offended anyone!
    I don’t believe Willis E always gets it exactly right either, but often enough to make him a genuine and admirable polymath.

  92.  D  C o t t o n  on March 19, 2014 at 1:00 pm said:

    Further experimental proof of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect can be easily seen in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube wherein a force far greater than gravity separates a gas into measurably hotter and colder streams as it redistributes kinetic energy, just as happens in a planet’s troposphere due to the force of gravity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation