So have I got this right? The climate muddlers have been applying a constant optical depth but in fact they should have been applying variable optical depths that respond to heat loads and restore equilibrium?

It would be very interesting to read the stated reasons for rejecting the paper for publication.

The Democrats would take away NASA's budget if they ever pulished the truth.

Tilo,

or worse they might make them get back to doing what they were founded for - aeronautic and space research.

Heaven forbid.

You've obviously in record time read it, critiqued it, and accepted it - obviously pretty good on those physics equation eh? Wonder why it didn't get published anywhwere decent - probably another bit of flawed denialist fluff.

And golly gee - it's all about models and simulations guys.

Now you wouldn't trust a mudel would you (unless of course it supported your skanky position).

Well in that case Jan you'd better be getting back to the ward too. I wonder what many of those Earth Observing Satellite Systems were built for - yes - the old try to shut the science up routine from the fascist right wing.

Luke: Well in that case Jan you'd better be getting back to the ward too.

Why? Do you want me to reserve a bed for you? (I work in Mental Health now)

First of all I thought the greenhouse effect didn't exist.

Secondly I thought all computer models of the atmosphere where inherently wrong anyway so why should one more different one make any difference.

Thirdly this seems just to be a different interpretation of climate sensitivity and could hardly be termed a new theory.

Ian,
"The climate muddlers have been applying a constant optical depth but in fact they should have been applying variable optical depths that respond to heat loads and restore equilibrium?"

I haven't read the paper yet thus can't comment specifically but a well known and well used, for over 200 years that is, law called Beer-Lambert law specifically states that optical depth varies with concentration.

The upshot of this is if all the available radiation in the absorption band is absorbed in say 100m at a particular concentration doubling that concentration will halve the distance over the same amount of radiation is absorbed.

Thanks, Jan, do you mean like in the way a cloud could increase the concentration, lower the optical length, and thereby render the remaining (or additional) CO2 redundant?

No sign of substance yet from Luke or Ender. Could we refer to their responses as a form of denial?

Well Mottsa - let's see how you go - how would you compare the findings of the paper to empirical measurements of radiation so far made. Don't hold back now - fill the page. Now where is that crickets song CD ....

Jan thinks he "works" there. Giggle. Weekend leave.

Ian mott that's outright denial from yourself. Why not TRY to address their substantive points rather than ignore them?

Well it's a bit beyond me. However, I don't see how this changes anything. The big problems are expected after about 2K of warming, getting to catastrophic by about 6K - hardly "runaway warming". We also know that the current age, the Holocene, is one of the coolest periods of Earth's History and it seems to move from a few degrees cooler to about 10 degrees warmer. So perhaps the authors are just demonstrating mathematically that the Earth's temperature range is bounded (which is what the Geologic record confirms).

"The upshot of this is if all the available radiation in the absorption band is absorbed in say 100m at a particular concentration doubling that concentration will halve the distance over the same amount of radiation is absorbed."
Jan I don't quite get this, Are you suggesting once the radiation is absorbed, it disappears? I thought that after absorption it could be re-radiated and that that radiation could travel in any direction. So by absorbing the same amount in half the distance you just make it more difficult for the radiation to escape vertically (as there's more chance to get re-absorbed in the air above) and so keep the air close to the surface warmer, which in turn slows the cooling of the surface, which is why nights will get warmer.

This is an interesting paper made all the more interesting since it converted a prominent environmental activist in Hungary:

"Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center."

See here:

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

BTW Pinxi, nothing they (Ender and Luke) said addressed the substance of the above paper.

Coz if you were fair dinkum you'd still be reading it eh Proteus.

Apart from saying the paper's interesting, I haven't offered another opinion.

But let me see, you offered us this:

"You've obviously in record time read it, critiqued it, and accepted it - obviously pretty good on those physics equation eh? Wonder why it didn't get published anywhwere decent - probably another bit of flawed denialist fluff."

Having, I wonder, neither read it, critiqued it, etc., yourself? Hmmm, no wonder you've yet to address the substance of the paper eh?

An ardent Hungarian agw advocate turns to a denialist.
We're getting one conversion a day.

How about the other side? Are there any climate denialists turned alarmists?

ABCNEWS (American) online section devoted to scaring people to death over global warming hasn't been updated since September.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has not updated its global warming action blog since December.
via http://hennessysview.com/2008/03/06/abcnews-gives-up-on-global-warming/

How long has it been since a fresh post at Real Climate?
Or ClimateCrisis blog?

Amazing how a little snow drys up a bunch of humbugs.

Proteus, he doesn't define what he means by "runaway greenhouse". AGW isn't about a runaway greenhouse like it is normally meant (like on Venus). He also doesn't mention what the maximum Earth's average temp would be. If the temp is bounded, whi doesn't he give the bounds? I couldn't see any. I should also note, it's hard to understand so it may be that I missed it. Anyone else see some bounds?
Otherwise it is interesting, but I think I'll wait and see what the critiques on the paper say.

update: Global Warming International Center hasn't updated since April Fool's Day!

http://www.globalwarming.net/

James, does the rate that websites ae update imply AGW is wrong? That's an unusual thought.
Real Climate has a new post right now.
Actually the "open Mind" blog has a really interesting series on principle component analysis. You should have a read.

Mr.T
So what you are saying is that our boy Miklos, was waiting on an excuse to jump off the climate change express.
And he found one. Face is saved and he is on the side of righteousness at last. Good for him.

Loved you in Rocky III, by the way.

James
No, I am not saying that.

Different Mr T :}

What I am implying is that even the most ardent of the AGW advocates have a shallow belief in their theory. They are only a snow storm away from turning, like Miklos.
Because the question has never been, "is the planet heating up?"
The question is, "is the planet heating up in a way that would justify the curtailing of civil and economic liberties, and/or the forced upheaval of our way of life in the attempt to cool it off?“
Miklos says no.
I agree.

Oh look. http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/20080308/APA/803080508
"A heavy late-winter snowstorm Friday pummeled residents from Arkansas to the Great Lakes, knocking out electricity for thousands and promising to bring near-blizzard conditions to Ohio and Kentucky."

PCA analysis?
That ought to put me to sleep.

Thanks for the tip.

A thorough explanation of the greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse effect seems to be absent from IPCC reports - the one place you would expect to find it in detail.

Miskolczi is no mug, with 30 years research behind him.

Paul, why would the IPCC have a detailed explanation of the Greenhouse Effect? And what are you implying by it being missing? Can you actually articulate you thoughts? Or do you like to leave it 'hanging'... you know what I mean...

Well, great if he's no mug. Lots of people aren't mugs.

James, well you can believe what you like. Whatever rocks your boat.

"Because the question has never been, "is the planet heating up?" "
Yes, that question has been answered. You may ignore the answer because you don't like it. But it's been answered.

"The question is, "is the planet heating up in a way that would justify the curtailing of civil and economic liberties, and/or the forced upheaval of our way of life in the attempt to cool it off?“"

You say "no". Well good. That's great.
Do we care? I say "no".

I enjoyed Hennessy's view. What a total dickhead.
Shows the basic level of understanding is about zero.

Luke, I was just asking some questions to improve my understanding of the paper. And this paper seems to confirm what a number of people have been saying for a long time. That is, an increase in radiative forcing from higher CO2 levels is highly unlikely if a cloud comes along and does the job before the extra CO2 in that atmospheric column has a chance to do anything.

And as cloud impacts are the really big uncertainty in both the climate muddles and the theory then we must conclude that a great deal of atmospheric CO2 remains entirely redundant. But we also know that it is not just clouds and CO2 that can alter the focal length but even changes in relative humidity that do not manifest as cloud.

From the abstract:

"In this work the theoretical relationship between the clear-sky outgoing infrared radiation and the surface upward radiative flux is explored by using a realistic finite semi-transparent atmospheric model."

"Simulation results show that"

It is a theoretical computer model. If this abstract was for a paper that showed something new about global warming EVERYONE on the denier side would start foaming at the mouth describing how computer models cannot be relied on and have no basis in reality.

Until the conclusions of this paper are verified with observational evidence it is only an interesting theoretical model of the atmosphere.

As I am still internet challenged at the moment (I am going naked) I cannot download the full paper and even if I could I probably would understand it no better than anyone posting here. I will wait until I can read a critique from someone qualified.

Ian, you seem to be making the same mistake than Jan does. You seem to be thinking that once the radiation has been absorbed, it disappears. What happens is that it gets re-radiated. So excess CO2 can absorb the energy that gets re-radiated from water in the atmosphere. It's about making it more difficult for the energy to escape the atmosphere. If you keep putting stuff in the way, it gets harder for it to get out.
It doesn't become 'redundant', it just makes it harder for energy to escape.

In fact the CO2 emissivity == absorptivity at 9*10^-4 or 1000 times smaller than asphalt at STP. Increase the CO2 partial pressure 10 times and the result is the same.
Moreover, the spectrum of absorption is almost entirely overlapped by that of H20 whose abundance is 100 times greater in the driest of climes.
As Reid Bryson has said: "One can go outside and spit" and effect greater climate change than the doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Gary, you too seem to believe that once some IR is absorbed it somehow disappears. It doesn't matter that H2O is a better absorber, adding CO2 will just make the atmosphere even BETTER at absorbing (and retaining) energy.

Would have thought you'd go for some empiricism which give the downwards increase in longwave radiation close to what you'd predict. Discussed before....

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765, 2004

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the
increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2
Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric
greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a
result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in
radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations could not be experimentally detected at
Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric
longwave downward radiation significantly increased
(+5.2(2.2) Wm
2) partly due to increased cloud amount
(+1.0(2.8) Wm
2) over eight years of measurements at eight
radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model
calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase
(+4.2(1.9) Wm
2) to be in due proportion with temperature
(+0.82(0.41)
C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m
3)
increases, but three times larger than expected from
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after
subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity
rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm
2) remains statistically
significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an
enhanced greenhouse effect.

Satellite radiation-budget measurements [Raval and
Ramanathan, 1989; Inamdar and Ramanathan, 1997] have
been used to examine the radiative feedbacks in the climate
system. Changes of the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation
[Harries et al., 2001; Wielicki et al., 2002] have been
reported also from satellite measurements. Yet to our
knowledge, radiative forcing and its direct relation to
surface temperature and humidity changes, has not been
observationally examined in depth and over long time
periods with radiation budget measurements at Earth’s
surface.
[4] Here we present the changes and trends of radiative
fluxes at the surface and their relation to greenhouse gas
increases and temperature and humidity changes measured
from 1995 to 2002 at eight stations of the Alpine Surface
Radiation Budget (ASRB) network.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937, 2004

Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid
temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona and Bruno Du¨rr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Received 6 July 2004; revised 1 September 2004; accepted 25 October 2004; published 25 November 2004.
[1] Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe
increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere
average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative
parameters measured in central Europe over different time
periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint
the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature
increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather
decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net
radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing
cloud amounts. However, high correlation (rT = 0.86) to
increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation
at the surface, and very high correlation (rT = 0.98) with
cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of
longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly
increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the
decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and
drives rapid temperature increases over land.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624, 2005

Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback
increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨rr,2 Atsumu Ohmura,3 and Christian Ruckstuhl3
Received 25 May 2005; revised 8 July 2005; accepted 17 August 2005; published 8 October 2005.
[1] Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster
than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-bymonth
analyses show temperature and humidity changes for
individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating
large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing
temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a
strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The
gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to
east are not related to circulation but must be due to
non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation
measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic
greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback,
enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a
factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud
amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high
correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward
radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity
(r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated
water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r =
0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water
vapor feedback.

Thanks Luke

I predict a deafening silence in response.

Ian: do you mean like in the way a cloud could increase the concentration, lower the optical length, and thereby render the remaining (or additional) CO2 redundant?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Fog is not a bad analogy; as fog thickens you need to be closer to objects in order to see them only bear in mind that it's scattering rather than absorption at work in fog.

The extra CO2 is not redundant it is needed for the reduction in path length and I don't think that the effect is climatically neutral. The absorbed energy doesn't disappear (conservation of energy and all) but it changes its form from radiation to vibration of the bond in the absorbing molecule.

This exited molecule might take a while to remit (probability of spontaneous emission is rather low) it rarely gets the chance because it will be subject to collisions which number in the order of 10^9 the bulk of which will be inelastic that the vibration converted to kinetic energy raising the the average kinetic energy (the definition of temperature in a gas).

It contributes the warming of the atmosphere, and if the distance over which the energy is absorbed is halved the volume of air it warms is also halved. Due to changing density with height the mass and hence heat capacity is not halved but reduced by less than half.

This reduction in heat capacity means the lower portion of the atmosphere is warmed more. Warming the air increases its buoyancy and up it goes absorbed energy and all to high in the sky to where it may radiate upward to it's heart's content. Some downward radiation will be absorbed in just the same way that some of the up welling radiation from the surface is absorbed.

So even though over the whole column there is no extra energy absorbed due to increased CO2, there is more absorbed lower causing more atmospheric warming over a smaller portion of the atmosphere. Now the warmer air is the more buoyant it is so convection will remove the heat from near the surface just as fast if not faster than with less CO2.

This should also answer Mr T's objection.

Luke: Jan thinks he "works" there. Giggle. Weekend leave.

I have the keys to the institution Luke we have two empty beds discharging another one next week that will make three.

You interested?

My couple o' cents worth.
Miskolczi proves Hansen's rants are not the only game in town.
The absent tropical hotspot is a stong indicator that GHGs have only a minor role in warming and by extension co2's significance dwindles still further. Without co2 to blame, the pessimists have no game. In co2's (overlapped by h20) range of absorption, relevant ground emitted IR occurs at night and in wintry conditions, deserts being among the biggest contributors. The effect of doubling co2 would be to reduce the height of the (majority of) its IR absorption from around 30' to around 27'. The IR emitted by co2 in response to absorption is in a different range and either escapes through the window or is absorbed by different molecules. Co2 has mostly done its beneficence and is close to flat-lining due to its exponential (falling curve) characteristic. A further limitation is on the amount of available radiation which is finite. It's not as if Jesus is feeding the many with a fish and a stick of bread, there is competition for the radiation, not just among co2 molecules but also h2o. Also one third the amount of co2 we have now is sufficient to absorb all the available radiation.
According to what I have read.
Global warming seems to be a mainly European phenomenon as the US and the entire southern hemi refused to follow IPCC guidelines as to what a warming atmosphere should be doing.
Some interesting reads: Beck's debunking of Keeling et al co2 cherries.
Pdf
and Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Pdf
Hadley cottoned on to the error of models, they divide output by 3 to get close to reality. I suggest that should be a rule of thumb when dealing with any output of whatever form from climate pessimists.
Luke, how do you explain the drop in temp over the last year and a bit that virtually wiped out a century of modest warming? (Which was probably half of that claimed by the IPCC according to Michaels and McKitrick). It seems the power of the ocean currents totally overwhelms any real or imaginary 'forcing' humans are capable of. Or has co2 now entered its cooling stage?
It would be interesting to learn if any of the cloud sourced down-welling IR is in co2's range.
I believe going after co2 is both counter-productive in terms of societal effects and benefit free in terms of climate.
imho.
Big thanks to Jennifer for the GW conference notes.
Another, John Tierney, gave a relatively unbiased summation in his NYT blog reports.
Lets hope global warming resumes soon, you can keep this cold.

Links didn't work.
Here they are.
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/Robinson_Soon.pdf
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/global-warming-skeptics-convene-in-ny/
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/lessons-from-the-skeptics-conference/

Jan - yes cleaners have keys to most of their places of work.

"Wipes out a century of warming"

Getting ahead of ourselves a little I think.

The temperature has fallen like this before and risen again. La Nina and a cold outbreak. Cold outbreaks will still happen in a greenhouse world.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/87ANNUAL/wrfredirect.cgi?id=6473

The current events are from blocking and changes in circulation patterns. May or may not be a trend.

Your guru Monckton has even warned you about this in recent days.

That's why it's important to think if enhanced greenhouse does occur - how would it manifest itself. Would it "suddenly wipe out" millenia of climate variability. Would the various inter-annual and decadal oscillations suddenly vanish.

The papers I have provided give some empirical evidence that the increased downwelling radiation is there despite the armchair theoreticians here. If you were attempting a contrarian argument I'd be going after "climate sensitivity", clouds and "running out of puff". But reality is that we simply don't have enough data.

Needs another 10 years.

(Southern hemisphere - nope - Australia has warmed much like the northern hemisphere and all manner of interesting changes in the Southern Ocean)

"The IR emitted by co2 in response to absorption is in a different range and either escapes through the window or is absorbed by different molecules."

Thanks, Clothcap. I would be interested in learning a little more about that if you have a link.

I visit a couple sites that discuss A/GW. I found this to be interesting. For it to be coincidence would be extraordinary.

Luke's comment March 8, 2008 10:53 PM Australia time found above in this thread is identical with a_unique_person's comment found here.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3509108&postcount=777
If you ignore the two word preface and make allowance for different software handling of blank lines.

I'm unsure of the time difference between EST and Australia. So I'm wondering if they might be the same person, or if one of them is making use of the efforts of the other without attribution.

Insight, anyone?

Luke you gave yourself away when you mentioned "weekend leave".
The Mental Health act defines 4 kinds of leave i.e. day leave, short leave, trial leave and special care leave. Patients ask for weekend leave but we give them day leave or short leave.

Bob K - It isn't me - just presumably someone who has read the material here. However it is quoting publicly available abstracts from the literature so does it matter that much.

Jan Pompousness - give it away - we're not impressed with what you do and we don't care. Your employment explains a lot.

Luke: Your continual resorting to insult explains more./

So Mr. T pleads no contest to CO2 additions' being an insignificant help in conversion of OLR to kinetic energy. Therefore, we can return to sanity, acknowledging that evaporation, turbulent conduction, convection, and condensation rule heat transfer from the oceans to the upper atmosphere.

Here's another Ozzie on the subject:

http://www.happs.com.au/downloaders/Cloud_temp_tropo.pdf

Good point, clothcap. The swiss research posted by Luke deals with a particular location where the outcomes are consistent with the temperature series during a particular time period (1982-2002).

This location may be representative of its latitude (during that period) but it is clearly not representative of the more statistically significant tropical and sub-tropical zones where the worlds serious heat exchange takes place.

It is not representative of the period from 1939 to 1982 or from the period 1998 to 2008.

More importantly, it is in the tropical zones where cloud formation, mass movement of air and water etc introduce significant variability to heat balance equations.

And no, I am not suggesting that the reduction in focal length reduces capacity to capture outgoing radiation. I am saying that there is already an over capacity to capture outgoing radiation and therefore the addition of more capacity, in the form of extra CO2, will not alter the amount of radiation captured. (more correctly, will alter the amount to a much lesser extent).

What this means is that the calculation of radiative forcing has been made on the basis of locational and temporal anecdotes rather than on proper representative samples of time and location.

Good link, Gary. I just wish people would stop using these old mercators projections to map this stuff because it so grossly over states the significance of polar data, and NH in particular.

The zone from 30N to 30S accounts for more than 50% of total heat balance due to low angles of incidence outside that zone.

I especially liked the comment that ENSO can be dismissed by the muddlers as some sort of internalised unrepresentative climate variation while the much smaller swiss alpine studies are presented as some sort of universal truth.

You have a perfectly good empirical validation of the longwave flux versus pulling ideas out of thin air.

"the calculation of radiative forcing has been made on the basis of locational and temporal anecdotes" So do we have a literature review which says that?
Do we think that nobody has ever looked at AOD before.

"focal length" ???

Luke,

Thanks for the reply.

Does it matter much? Only to the extent that I think it should be common courtesy to acknowledge your idea and effort to look up and compile the sources. Rather than trivially copy/pasting, leaving the impression the idea for it and effort involved was one's own.

"mercators projections" - for heavens sake - more tripe.

Gee I bet they didn't think of that !

Go back to 0.2 km/hr for PIG - ROTFL !!

0.2km/yr

"I predict a deafening silence in response."

Well it aught to be.

Looks like Luke has trawled the internet for abstracts of papers he imagines are relevant. Since the aim of the paper is to improve parametrising and the determining of boundary conditions for models it's difficult to see how they could be relevant since they do not appear to address this issue.

Gary, I don't plead no contest.
"Now the warmer air is the more buoyant it is so convection will remove the heat from near the surface just as fast if not faster than with less CO2."
Jan isn't talking sense here. To claim that convection will somehow remove the heat from the atmosphere is nonsense. If this were true periods in the Earths history with high CO2 would be substantially colder, and we know the opposite is true. Heating the atmosphere closer to the surface inhibits the loss of heat from the surface. Surface stays warmer.
Also he seems to be implying that once the air rises it loses heat vertically. Not necessarily so. Remember CO2 is fairly well mixed right up to the tropopause, so that's at least 14km vertically (at the poles I think it's 30 at the equator). Makes the 50m example a little over simplified.
Heating the air makes the ground less likely to lose heat. It's pretty simple.

Also Jan, with the heating of the poles being greater than at the equator, you'll find convection becomes less effective. Note in the Cretaceous (and all other warmer periods) the main difference in the Earth's climate system is a reduced difference between the polar and equatorial climates. The Equator isn't that much warmer than today. Less difference, so less convection.
Look at the classic "runaway greenhouse" on Venus. Almost no difference in temp anywhere, because there's little convection.

One would have thought that the very fact that one still uses mercator projections would be sufficient evidence that they obviously didn't think of it, Luke.

And as if the climate trolls would support a literature review of the extent of cherry picking on their own part? Not a bad sidestep, Luke, but it won't wash here.

And which part of, '50% of the planetary surface area has not responded in a manner consistent with the models', do you find difficult to retain, Luke?

Ian, stop moaning and do it yourself. Get the data and p[lot it in your whatever projection you like. Then 'demonstrate' how much better your solution is.
Good grief, is there a more irrelevant complaint?

Also he seems to be implying that once the air rises it loses heat vertically. Not necessarily so.

No Mr T it is necessarily so, Though I did not imply it. Energy is conserved heat is not and try not to confuse the two. The heat energy is converted to potential and the sum remains more or less constant and remains precisely constant if entropy is taken into account.

Of course CO2 is pretty well mixed up to the troposphere what do you think your point is? What difference do you think it makes if all the available up welling 15 micron radiation is absorbed and smeared over the entire ensemble of atmospheric species in the first 50 m?

Kindly stick to the model and stop blathering about poles (where hot air balloons work better than they do at the equator anyway)
and Venus I'm not into astrology.

Jan, your idea about increased convection is just not right. That's the point. Convection doesn't increase in a "greenhouse world".
The point about the mixing of the atmosphere is that it will slow the convection.
You also seem to think that once the radiation is absorbed it disappears. If you make the lower atmosphere hotter (through absorption of radiation), you slow the surface from cooling. This is why it get's hotter.

Tell me, are you saying that once all the greenhouse gases have absorbed all available IR that the rest just disappears into space?

Mr T : Convection doesn't increase in a "greenhouse world".

No it doesn't but the "greenhouse world" does not interest me the real world does.

"The point about the mixing of the atmosphere is that it will slow the convection."

Oh and how would it doe that?

"You also seem to think that once the radiation is absorbed it disappears."

how do you arrive at this thoroughly incorrect conclusion?

looks like you are attempting to mount a strawman argument to me.

" If you make the lower atmosphere hotter (through absorption of radiation),"

PV = nRT P, n & R and mass (implied in n') are constant as T grows so does V and buoyancy increases and up it goes. The heat doesn't disappear it does work. This is simple physics it's what thermodynamics is about.

Tell me, are you saying that once all the greenhouse gases have absorbed all available IR that the rest just disappears into space?

That's precisely what happens what isn't absorbed radiates to space through the 8 - 14 micron optical window. The wave length of what is absorbed is smeared over the IR spectrum (NOT: IT DOES NOT DISAPPEAR) some of that is radiated upward through and some down through the same window. What isn't radiated up or down is absorbed by the atmospheric CO2 above and below.

Did you think only upward bound radiation gets absorbed by CO2? We haven't even begun to discuss what water vapour does to the scenario no do I intend to at this stage).

SJT,
"Thanks Luke
I predict a deafening silence in response."

Well, I never thought I could be vulgar in a public forum, but it must be said.

SJT and Luke, you are a pair of rude inconsiderate ass...es.
Not a single braincells between the two of you.

Getting info from the net, you have no hope of understanding, is not a substitute for knowledge.
Being abusive, as is your wont, makes it even worse.

I am ashamed having stooped to your level.

The paper in question has been available for a long time, http://met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=references&mpx=0&kps=1&pri=2, if you cared to look outside your preferred sources.

After glancing down the various arguments tendered mostly again though I wondered about a making simple reference check, something like which single climate station actually gives us the status quo without all the calcs and other theoretical nonsense.

Been thinking its about time to check up on Cape Grim, cause its about the right latitude for the SH and it has weather from both oceans in just about any given month. BTW SE Oz is back to hot and dry. March could be an exceptional indicator given recent conditions in the Pacific.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly.html

Anyone care to go on tipping after we do the Cape Grim spot check?

Well there is a whole lot of angst here. I have saying for a while ignore "internet trolls" attention is what they want don't give it. Do new theories matter much in the face of reality? India and China are saying they will control their CO2 emissions when they reach the same level per capita as the developed world. That is about 17 times 2 billion per annum to get the tonnage. The other issue that Alan Moran pointed out is how much leverage is there? I think Windmills and PA are fairly useless also they can only be applied to 35% of our (Aus) CO2 emissions. I think the argument will disappear in ten years either because we realize resistance is futile or there is a recession and we realize ineffectual actions are BS. A government which implements stringent policies like what is being asked for will not last long.

No Pompous - had them in full pdf for years actually. Get back to cleaning the wards.

Mottsa - how about stopping the lazy climate muddler spray with absolutely no fact checking. No literature review. No minimal check. Just sprout forth.

Wilkes - Have you now as a practising dickhead decided that a whirlwind blowing through a Google scholar junkyard builds relevant literature. They were forward to me by a friend years ago actually.

So why are we arguing about whether the additional greenhouse longwave radiation that has been empirically demonstrated exists from a backwards theoretical discussion? Sheez !

I have not extrapolated from there to climate sensitivity.

BTW who's read the original topic paper thoroughly yet?
Zero?

As for "trolls" get back on topic DHMO.

Luke

Perhaps then you should try reading them.

Luke,
"Have you now as a practising (sic) dickhead"
I rest my case.
Actually I also read it, in the original "hungarian" that is,
I know you despise us, but what the heck, who cares!?

Johnathan - you only hear yourselves and you have no problems as a group putting the boot in continually. But that's OK eh? Try being even-handed. As for "despise" well that's another jumped assumption isn't it.

Luke has managed to divert attention from the topic, again. And he obviously hasn't read the paper.

Maybe he could phone his mates at NASA to find out why they wouldn't publish the paper.

Luke, your contribution to the above thread is disgraceful and has been noted.

Given that the whole global warming theory is based on computer modelling of what climate scientists "think" is happening on the surface of the earth, then Miskolczi's contribution has to be very significant.

I use Ozforecast (www.ozforecast.com.au)to check on the weather and I like it's masthead comment:

""The trouble with weather forecasting is that it's right too often for us to ignore it and wrong too often for us to rely on it." - Patrick Young".

I do get the feeling climate scientists have an incomplete knowledge of earth processes, and that feeling is no different to the one I had when confronted with the pseudoscience taught in the geography subjects as an undergraduate.

Jennifer: IMO a clamped Luke would leave our blog without its regular early morning firelighter.

I see nobody is up to chats yet on local SH references like Cape Grim.

Paul: While Miskolczi proposes a self stabilizing global climate that can deal with human stirred CO2 uprising, I only have to recall sights of shifting coastlines round our southern edge to skewer the thought that "runaway warming" is impossible.

Although this simple interpretation of Gaia workings supports the calculus of engineering more than the hopeful stats bandied round the internet universe the one infallible product our time, the Hungarians seem to have been totally isolated from the sea on their particular modeling voyage.

A google search for “Miskolczi climate model review” reveals many recent blog posts along this line following the Heartland thing

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap2/march_2008/ripples.htm

The other theme is of course the suppression story in all climate science that follows a fear campaign. That’s hardly news either however this reflection on all the money spent on wildfire suppression is an interesting twist.

http://westinstenv.org/news/

For another angle I tried “cryosphere” after wondering about possible links to remote sensing including scatterometery that were developing around the same time.

Sea levels do change however reluctantly hey.

Gavin: While Miskolczi proposes a self stabilizing global climate that can deal with human stirred CO2 uprising, I only have to recall sights of shifting coastlines round our southern edge to skewer the thought that "runaway warming" is impossible.

You can tell Miskolczi is wrong from the shifting coastlines round the southern edge?

Interesting.

Jan,
convection decrease because the air higer up is warmer. Remember as you go higher in the atmosphere, the CO2 absorption band changes (it widens).

"What difference do you think it makes if all the available up welling 15 micron radiation is absorbed and smeared over the entire ensemble of atmospheric species in the first 50 m?" Ummmm when does that happen? At what concentration of CO2 or other trace gases?

read this: http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BqtlC0nziMsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA230&dq=Greenhouse+effect+atmospheric+convection&ots=3OGOsatkoz&sig=sAuUqvbHVlAIIgm0YKpombqpe2A#PPA240,M1

Jan, also note that AGW is different from "runaway warming". The runaway scenario is what happened on Venus.

Sure Mr T, we need to distinguish runaway warming from the hockey stick in these discussions.

convection decrease because the air higer up is warmer.

Really how does that happen if the energy is absorbed lower down?
How does the heat get there?

I seem to remember the lapse rate is -6K/Km meaning high is cooler.

convection of course.

"Ummmm when does that happen?"

Within a nanosecond of each photon being absorbed at standard pressure, since collision rate is ~5E9. It's somewhat slower above 50km.

"At what concentration of CO2 or other trace gases?"

At all concentrations just the rate of absorbance changes rate of distribution will be the same even for pure CO2.

"The runaway scenario is what happened on Venus."

You know this? How?

It doesn't make much sense posting a link to something that doesn't really address what I'm telling you.

Jan, the CO2 is absorbing photons of a different wavelength to those close to the surface. I am not saying the air higher up is warmer than the air at the surface. I am saying that the air higher up is warmer than it used to be, because of increasing concentration of CO2.

My question "when does that happen" refers to when does absorption of all available 15 micron radiation happen. At what concentration of reenhouse gases is absorptin 'total'.

Read some papers on Venus, Jan. Try using google scholar. No water in the atmosphere anymore, an atmosphere almost entirely of CO2. Very low windspeed, very little difference in temperature anywhere.

I linked to that post as it was a nice explanation of the greenhouse effect. Rather than the simplistic version you invented.

Weather Zone updates for March

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?c=ssta

Draw a line through SST anomalies at 40S or for that mater 20S to confirm current conditions in the Southern, Pacific and Indian Oceans affecting Australia where drought remains a curse for many of our agriculture regions.

Under a cloudless sky my max/min thermometer reached 33C today and keeping an eye on Cape Grim our baseline air pollution station, + 6 hey

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=91245&list=ds

Why bother? Air temperature, SST and climate changes are related here for a greater part of the Southern Hemisphere with out all the blog fuss over climate models and appropriate math.

Tilo, I didn't notice your request yesterday, sorry. If the IR was emitted at the same wavelength, you wouldn't see an absorption spectra. Do you really want an Internet reference?

Hey Gavin, is Cape Grim where the CO2 monitoring station is?

Mr T: I’m surprised because I thought everybody in atmospheric and ocean science would know about the establishment (1972) and purpose of the Cape Grim monitoring station.

“The Cape Grim program, established by the Australian Government to monitor and study global atmospheric composition, is a joint responsibility of the Bureau of Meteorology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). A Management Group, consisting of one senior staff member from each of the two major collaborative institutions, supervises the program's two components”

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/cgbaps/index.shtml

Tasmania was my home state and I used to visit the area long before and after the station was built. My real connection however was wondering about their instruments at the time as the practice of remote sensing hadn’t become established enough to be totally reliable.

http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/2/index.php

Winding up our lighthouse keepers and their observations through automation is one thing that could have advanced our weather predictions etc but I doubt anybody could have envisaged the quantum leap in instrument systems since solid state electronics took over in communications.

Detecting change is the first challenge.

Given science is just thought discipline and instruments are mere tools I can suggest we are becoming more dependent on the tools than the science to keep our feet on the ground through the various social revolutions that inevitably follow an awareness of pollution.

Venus is hot because of a runaway greenhouse effect? If a runaway greenhouse effect actually doesn't exist then Venus' heat has to be due to something else.

Let's remember that during the early 1950's everyone "knew" that Venus was our sister planet and had a nice warm climate.

Then came Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision book which proposed that Venus was hot because it was a young planet; when we finally sent probes out to it to measure it's temperature, thereby confirming Velikovsky's hypothesis based on other data, Carl Sagan instead invented a runaway greenhouse effect to explain this thermal anomaly.

Sagan was wrong.

IMO as much as we know about planet Earth and CO2 v Temp over time is represented here

"Variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and temperature during the past 400,000 years".

(Reproduced from Nature)

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/holper_2001b.html

No personal philosophy required downunder hey

Gavin. I'm not in the atmospheric or oceanic sciences.
I'm a pretty ordinary geologist.

Velikovsky thought Venus was a captured comet, Louis. His theory lost because it was bad.

Mr T,

Say when I think of time. Let's look at 1 atm at 25 C 380ppmv using the gas equation I get a concentration of c = .016 mol/m^3

Heinz hug found the decadic extinction coefficient for CO2 in a moist atmosphere at 15 micron to be {alpha} = 20.2 m^2/mol now given

log(Io/Ii) = - {alpha}lc

going to Io/Ii leads to a singularity (log(0)) so we take the general rule of 5 decades (10^-5) to be extinction so:
log10 (Io/Ii) = -5.

l =5 /{alpha}c = 5/(20.2*.016) = 15.5 m

99.999% of 15 micron (and skirts) is absorbed within 15.5 m double the CO2 to .032 mol/m^3 and that distance is halved to 7.25 m for 380 ppmv -> 560 ppmv CO2 in a moist atmosphere at 25c.

BTW Beer-Lambert law is an empirical law i.e. determined from measured values so the pressure and Doppler broadening is actually already built in. It breaks down at high concentrations and probably long distances.

I've read up on Venus and all I've seen is conjecture we can't measure the surface fluxes and we don't know the history there really isn't a lot we can about it with any degree of certainty.

Luke,
"Wipes out a century of warming". Yes, overstated the case, maybe better qualified as "If cooling conditions are sustained the present erasure of last century's warming may be more than a temporary departure".
Whatever, the cold spell has set back the warming by reforming sea ice of substantial thickness (Arctic, 20cm+ I read somewhere)and its albedo, no doubt the vast swathes of land covered in snow will delay the summer warm up and perhaps lead to more storminess.

Oops
380 ppmv -> 560 ppmv

that should read 380 ppmv -> 760 ppmv

Well I hope you're right Jan, as there seem to be a lot of people who have published otherwise...
Try here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
I know, it's Real Climate, but the writer has actually studied this and is using more sophisticated techniques than you. He wins on coolness factor.

And I think you underestimate what is known about Venus, there is an orbiter around it as we speak. Check out the Venus Explorer. You should read more, it's very interesting. There is a kind of 'plate tectonics' in action on Venus, different to the Earth because there's no water to lubricate the motion, so when there is motion it is believed to be very sudden. Large disk shaped plates that pop-up and release lava from underneath, is one theory.
They have pretty good measurements on temp and windspeed now.

Clothcap, 20cm ice is not substantial thickness. Perennial sea ice is typically more than 1m.

Jan, here's the orbiter's results so far:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39432

I am the original journalist who interviewed Dr. Miskolczi. To the previous poster, who asked what bounds this new research set on the greenhouse effect, Dr. Zagoni has used the theory to calculate an upper bound from CO2-based warming in the realm of 2-3C.

Clothcap, here's the sea ice info
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/index.html

Luke,
"Wipes out a century of warming". Yes, overstated the case, maybe better qualified as "If cooling conditions are sustained the present erasure of last century's warming may be more than a temporary departure".
Whatever, the cold spell has set back the warming by reforming sea ice of substantial thickness (Arctic, 20cm+ I read somewhere)and its albedo, no doubt the vast swathes of land covered in snow will delay the summer warm up and perhaps lead to more storminess.

Mr T,

Like I said no surface flux data. I don't give a lot of credence to that argument it's basically a strawman (I know you think strawman arguments are cool). No one I know of apart from him blathers on so much about saturation. It's about non-linearity not saturation. The atmosphere is not saturated by CO2, it can absorb much more heat but in order to do that it needs more incoming.

The analogy of the dam is a good one but he leaves out the reason for building the dam and that is to take out water if you take out more water than goes in the level falls. There is only so much heat coming in from the sun the past year more energy has been taken out than the surplus put in over the last century. That's cooler.

CO2 concentration cannot become saturated per se. The quantity can increase until it becomes the dominant species some time before that Beer-Lambert law will break down. This does need mean runaway but will start radiating more at the absorbed wavelength reducing absorption.

Michael Asher - it would be very interesting to have some more information on why NASA didn't wish to publish the results. It could be a great conspiracy story or perhaps there is fundamental scientific disagreement on the fundamentals.

The reality is that most of us are not in a position to check Miskolczi's differential calculus - this is real speciality stuff. Certainly nobody here has stepped up to the plate convincingly and we've been having a good game of bluff.

And have contrarians suddenly gleefully accepted someone else's "model" (eeek - a "model") and ignored a whole bunch of other physicists who also have 30 years of experience.

As your own article suggests not all scientists are obviously convinced. Simply are we in a discriminating position to judge?

So we need some external comment here from the practitioners. Some additional peer review and confirmation.

Another explanation of what we have seen in recent decades is solar "brightening" and changes in AOD.

Additionally where has this notion of a "runaway greenhouse effect" suddenly sprung from. Who has been promoting that hitherto - sounds like a ruse argument to me.

Once again Luke is misrepresenting what others are saying here. Few contrarians have a blanket aversion to models, we just don't like ones full of bull$hit assumptions, that extrapolate from limited data and are then used to lend a veneer of credibility to baseless speculation.

We especially don't like models that have cloud cover as a constant, that ignore landuse change, especially the cumulative impact of LUC, and ones that have to be hosed down every decade of projection to prevent them boiling off completely.

But yes, Michael Asher, it would be very informative to see the official reasons why the paper was not published.

"The runaway scenario is what happened on Venus."

Duh, with a 96% CO2 atmosphere at 92 bar with an opaque cloud cover at 50 km height. That's not really comparable to earth is it?

if the Earth's atmosphere is anything like Mars or Venus, it's extent is directly related to the magnetic whims of the Sun.

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Mars_And_Venus_Are_Surprisingly_Similar_999.html

Good question: Where is an argument for or against this set of optical equations that avoid runaway warming, wiki?

Another Q: Although it’s been more than three decades since I gave up using calculus the process seems familiar and should be easy enough for a younger tuned up brain, why aren’t others into it?

At a glance I reckoned we need to see the conclusion and in a flash feel confident someone can quickly work backwards and find all the other paths of thinking that should lead to this brilliant discovery supported through every step with alternative but sound calculus given optical laws are so important to astronomers etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer-Lambert_law

Perhaps Michael Asher from Daily Tech can help us in supporting the cause of defining upper limits for greenhouse

Under the banner of Life, Liberty and Property we find a bit of a review but no math in this blog

“Why Hasn’t the Earth Already Seen Runaway Global Warming?”

http://www.dr5.org/?p=1722

Something else that is sort of amazing (not) from Mr T's ESA link. Whole chapters devoted to Venus' ozone hole, waxing and waning without the help of florocarbons.
They even have a movie.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39433

Jan - "BTW Beer-Lambert law is an empirical law i.e. determined from measured values so the pressure and Doppler broadening is actually already built in."

I am not sure that you are correct here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer-Lambert_law#Beer-Lambert_law_in_the_atmosphere

"In essence, the law states that there is a logarithmic dependence between the transmission of light through a substance and the concentration of the substance, and also between the transmission and the length of material that the light travels through. Thus if l \, and \alpha \, are known, the concentration of a substance can be deduced from the amount of light transmitted by it."

The transmission of light through a substance and the energy transfer of long wave radiation are quite different. There is no pressure broadening or doppler effect built in to the Beer-Lambert law .

From the link:
"The law was discovered by Pierre Bouguer before 1729. It is often mis-attributed to Johann Heinrich Lambert, who cited Bouguer's “Essai d'Optique sur la Gradation de la Lumiere” (Claude Jombert, Paris, 1729) — and even quoted from it — in his “Photometria” in 1760. Much later, August Beer extended the exponential absorption law in 1852 to include the concentration of solutions in the absorption coefficient."

According to Spencer Weart the way greenhouse gases actually absorbed IR in was only really discovered with spectroscopic studies in the 1940s and 1950s.

I really do not have enough knowledge here however I do not think that the Beer-Lambert law applies here at all. Perhaps someone with the knowledge can confirm this?

Once again Mott is misrepresenting what he and others have endlessly said here - models of EVERYTHING have been universally condemned and he does not understand this model at all.

Luke's law - if the model supports a denialist position it is assumed 100% correct otherwise it must be assumed to be garbage in / garbage out (GIGO).

We have had endless sophistic dissertations why modelling is impossible from fundamental aspects of the physics and mathematics. But now all this can be dispensed because we now have a "friendly and cuddly" model. A model that we haven't a clue about but who cares - it sounds good.

You simply have to take his word on it. This model doesn't have land use and clouds built in either - where modern climate models do, so to bring that up is incredible. But you will protest we're only talking about one component - so is that OK when it suits?

I don't know if Miskolczi is correct. Some other domain expert opinions are needed as input. Maybe he is - maybe he is not. He could be right too but the ultimate outcome of no consequence to the argument. If he is correct and it is relevant - well good on him and all hail Miskolczi.

But what I have tabled is some very good empirical work with radiometers which provides some evidence that the magnitude of the increase in downwelling longwave is pretty close to what you would expect on the surface of the Earth (tabled here often before in 2006). This is despite the endless babbling of few who have done some physics classes and fancy themselves as players. So how does this empirical evidence reconcile with our new theory.

There is also a proposal to create a global network of these systems similar to the ozone monitoring network deployment.

OK "runaway effect on Earth" to be clearer.

With respect to Ferenc Miskolczi, the next wave of mathematical wizards should be searching the archives here at Applied Optics

http://ao.osa.org/upcoming.cfm

and here

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=68104

Ender: I can’t recall how this calculus model coped with the sunlight switching every 12 hours let alone all the feedbacks re land mass, oceans and clouds on the way round.

Luke: "mercators projections" - for heavens sake - more tripe.

Well Luke you may want to look at this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2721

Gives a good idea how typical projections used in many graphics distort the appearance of the relative sizes of different parts of the globe.

Now I have also read that actual global temperature calculations are also compromised in a similar way but have yet to see any specific reference that clearly demonstrated that assertion. Anyone got anything on that?

On and if you've been wondering where I've been - It's been a very snowy winter here in the Toronto area as in most of northeastern NA so have been doing lots of shovelling (different stuff than you though Luke). We're on track like many locations in the region to break all time recorded snowfall records! @$#%^&! Global Warming!

By the way, get a load of this guy's snow pile!!

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20080310/wmacgregor10/0310macgregor500big.jpg

Well it's tripe as they don't make calculations based on it. It's a display issue - which projection would you personally prefer Mark? Take your pick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

And so a cold year - a very cold year - yea - so what? Would you expect that never to happen in a greenhouse world? Go and view http://ams.confex.com/ams/87ANNUAL/wrfredirect.cgi?id=6473 You guys have no grasp on the basics at all - just a bunch of hysterical reactionaries. You have not undertaken one scintilla of mental processing on how greenhouse works.

We shall remember this next time we have a big hot El Nino year - there will be no allowance for "oh but it's an El Nino and it doesn't count". Baseball bats will be produced and no prisoners taken (rhetorically speaking of course). Even Monckton - your poster pinup boy - has told you guys to chill and not count chickens before hatching. Which is unlikely if the eggs are frozen (LOL).

If the trend continues for a few years you have a case - at the moment it's a shoulder shrug and lots of wishful thinking. Tight little white knuckled clenched cold fists all kneeling in the snow praying that it's true and that the big bad climate eco-marxists will be wrong. Keep squeezing.

Praying hasn't worked -
Adelaide set to break heatwave record

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/11/2184923.htm

Well, it's official, global cooling has stopped.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Went from 0.12 to 0.26 in February.
Can we stop with the Global warming stopped rubbish now?

"Luke's law - if the model supports a denialist position it is assumed 100% correct otherwise it must be assumed to be garbage in / garbage out (GIGO)."

I noted here several times, work that "Supports" the denialist position, that is based on modeling.

"Support" in quotes, because often the conclusions of papers are misrepresented.

Hans Erren,

Venus also receives nearly twice the incoming solar radiation compared to Earth and is retrograde rotation locked to 2/3 of the year IIRC. No Moon.

About the only similarity to Earth is that it is just a little smaller.

Also one more *big* difference: biology. That's what determines the current composition of Earth's atmosphere to a large extent.

Anyone figured out how long it would take for the free oxygen to largely go away?

"Can we stop with the Global warming stopped rubbish now?"

No - not looking too warming according to real measurements and not that GISTEMP crap!

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html

Hans, and others.
Venus was brought up in this conversation because it has a 'runaway greenhouse effect'. This was in response to the author's claim that Earth could never have a runaway greenhouse effect.
Most people here agree that Earth could never have a 'runaway greenhouse effect'. The point I was making was that we ALREADY know the Earth won't have a runaway greenhouse effect. We didn't need the paper to tell us that. Sadly the author doesn't define what he means by 'runaway greenhouse effect'.
Can we stop labouring the point of the difference between Earth and Venus as everyone is pretty much in agreement.

What Hansen and others are claiming is something called an "Enhanced Greenhouse Effect".

Luke: "And so a cold year - a very cold year - yea - so what? Would you expect that never to happen in a greenhouse world?"

Well it's certainly not because of a greenhouse world as the media and alarmist chumps try to make it out! Tonight our CBC news (on par with your pathetic ABC) was announcing some of the new ridiculous anti-carbon laws being announced for Canada while showing pictures of cars stuck in monster snowdrifts as if there was some kind of relationship. What utter media pap!

Yep.

Well here's a note from James Hansen to UK PM Gordon Brown were he specificly refers to unstoppable positive feedbacks.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/hansen_letter_to_gordon_brown/
His remarks in quotes,
"Global climate is near critical tipping points that could lead to loss of all summer sea ice in the Arctic with detrimental effects on wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise, shifting of climatic zones with extermination of many animal and plant species, reduction of freshwater supplies for hundreds of millions of people, and a more intense hydrologic cycle with stronger droughts and forest fires, but also heavier rains and floods, and stronger storms driven by latent heat, including tropical storms, tornados and thunderstorms."

And this from the global policy forum,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/glowarm4.htm

"Findings from Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Change presented to 170 countries in Buenos Aires show that parts of the Amazon rain forest will turn into desert by 2050, threatening the world with an unstoppable greenhouse effect."

I am sorry there seems to be a bit of confusion on your side of the debate about what is and isn't possible, climate wise.

Luckily you have these new findings to clear things up. Funny that NASA (Hansen?) censored this science, don't you think?

James,
There is a big difference between "unstoppable" and "runaway". Unstoppable in these contexts seems to imply that it is something that is 'unavoidable'. All the problems listed occur with only a few degrees increase, runaway greenhouse (as is normally indicated by the planet Venus) would imply a temperature change of hundreds of degrees. Miskolczi apparently gives a 2-3 degree maxima for the effect of CO2 add the effects of water and methane and you easily have enough warming to get the effects described by Hadley and Hansen.
Again, this problem arise because the author never defined what he meant by "runaway greenhouse".

The science wasn't censored, it's been published. And I don't think anyone on this blog has actually disputed what's been said - none of us are qualified.

Ender: I am not sure that you are correct here:

Do you know what empirical means?

Just so you know empirical science is experimental or observed science the Beer-Lambert law was first discovered for path length and the relationships determined experimentally by Bouguer (sp?) in the 1720s and extended by Beer in the 1850s to include the logarithmic concentration term. The measurements made included the effects of pressure and Doppler broadening - the law didn't suddenly change when the broadening effects were discovered by Maxwell and Lorenz some time later.

It is built in it's part of the effect

Mr T,

How do we know Venus had a runaway greenhouse effect unless we know the history and unless we know the actual surface flux about which we know very little.

Jan, you should do a philosophy degree, it seems you are only interested in epistemology. And it's pretty dull.
How do you know we know "very little"?

Why not try this:
open a browser window, go to Google Scholar, type in "Venus greenhouse effect". then have a read of what you get. You'll probably only get abstracts, but hey they're better than nothing and at least you'll get a better idea of what is known.

Jan - "Do you know what empirical means?"

Yes. Here is how it is derived - no pressure broadening.

http://elchem.kaist.ac.kr/vt/chem-ed/spec/beerslaw.htm
"Derivation of the Beer-Lambert law
The Beer-Lambert law can be derived from an approximation for the absorption coefficient for a molecule by approximating the molecule by an opaque disk whose cross-sectional area, sigma, represents the effective area seen by a photon of frequency w. If the frequency of the light is far from resonance, the area is approximately 0, and if w is close to resonance the area is a maximum. Taking an infinitesimal slab, dz, of sample:"

Are you sure that the Beer Lambert law applies to the IR absorption of greenhouse gases?

http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/beers1.htm
"Many compounds absorb ultraviolet (UV) or visible (Vis.) light. The diagram below shows a beam of monochromatic radiation of radiant power P0, directed at a sample solution. Absorption takes place and the beam of radiation leaving the sample has radiant power P."

I am sorry but the Beer Lambert Law as far as I can see has no relevance to IR absorption as it exclusively deals with the transmittance of light through different compounds.

This is a brief lecture on how greenhouse gases work - no mention of Beer Lambert.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/Lecture14-handout-PDF.pdf

I think you need to think about this a bit more.

There is a major difference between tipping points/unstoppable that leads to another climate state and runaway greenhouse. Higher sea levels from a tipping point/transition, are scientifically apart from runaway which implies almost endless feedback and tens or hundreds or degrees of warming whereby the oceans are all converted into vapour.

Uncontroversially, we all might agree that the Earth has undergone many ice age states which one might describe as an unstoppable climate transition.

Perhaps we might say that Venus is hypothesised by some as demonstrating a runaway greenhouse effect.

Mr T,open a browser window, go to Google Scholar, type in "Venus greenhouse effect".

As I've already told you and I now repeat it (how many times do I need to before it sinks in?) I've done that and all I've seen is conjecture. We can't yet measure what we need to in order to know what boundary conditions exist because that part is invisible to us.

A cloud passed overhead and the outside air temperature went down about 5C in about an hour. So much for blue sky monitoring downunder!

Re Earth’s atmospheric absorbtion, the known v the unknown: From wiki and some 3D work with gases (following the one dimensional model)

“By this particular measure, water vapor can be thought of as providing 36% of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide 9%, but the effect of removal of both of these constituents will be greater than the total that each reduces the effect, in this case more than 45%. An additional proviso is that these numbers are computed holding the cloud distribution fixed. But removing water vapor from the atmosphere while holding clouds fixed is not likely to be physically relevant. In addition, the effects of a given gas are typically nonlinear in the amount of that gas, since the absorption by the gas at one level in the atmosphere can remove photons that would otherwise interact with the gas at another altitude. The kinds of estimates presented in the table, while often encountered in the controversies surrounding global warming, must be treated with caution. Different estimates found in different sources typically result from different definitions and do not reflect uncertainties in the underlying radiative transfer”

Jan, good luck with your epistemology course then.

Ender: I'm quite familiar with the derivation and it is based on the *observed* fact that each layer of equal depth absorbs an equal fraction of the remaining radiation. So at a moving surface along the x-axis at each equidistant interval x the transmitted radiation is given by dIx/Ix and it is constant the observed value is -{alpha}cdx
where dIx is the transmitted amount over that small distance and Ix is the value of the incoming radiation, c is the concentration dx is the width of the layer {alpha} the (and I can't make this point strongly enough) *observed* molar absorptivity. Observed because it is obtained from experiment and the result is obtained obtained from a range of distances and/or concentrations and any absorption due to pressure or Doppler broadening is included in that observed value because it is occurring over the range of measurements.

So we have

dIx/Ix = -{alpha}cdx

You can go to your linked site for the rest of the derivation comforted by the certain knowledge that even though it isn't specifically mentioned the effect of pressure and Doppler broadening is included in the value for {alpha} (or 'e' in your linked site).

Mr T, Jan, good luck with your epistemology course then.

Thanks I'd reckon that shows you really haven't a clue if any thing is known that can lead to the conclusion you've drawn in some mysterious a priori way.

However I suggest to take a science course nothing too mathematically challenging though.

Jan - "You can go to your linked site for the rest of the derivation comforted by the certain knowledge that even though it isn't specifically mentioned the effect of pressure and Doppler broadening is included in the value for {alpha} (or 'e' in your linked site)."

That is all well and good however I am not sure how to get this through to you - do I need to shout?

The Beer Lambert law ONLY relates to visible light and UV and the attenuation of concentrations of various compounds. It does not give absorption of long wave radiation in either its derivation or use.

It is the wrong equation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only place where Beer Lambert would apply is the incident radiation from the sun being attenuated by the atmosphere on the way in. This radiation is absorbed by the Earth are re-radiated as long wave radiation whereupon is it trapped in part by greenhouse gases . The Beer Lambert law does not describe and cannot be used to derive the amount of IR that the greenhouse gases trap as it does not relate to this.

I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

Thanks Jan, I delight at your erudite discussion. Especially the part where you require people to say things like "the latest theory says" or "according to current belief" or "Papers have been written that say..." before they can assert anything. It's a bizarre world you inhabit.
The runaway greenhouse hypothesis has been around since the mid 70's. It's not some new-fangled "out-there" kind of thesis. And if you look through the papers you will see the evidence for it is pretty overwhelming - I understand you persoanl poliical beliefs don't lt you acknowledge any form of the greenhose effect for fear of finding out the AGW'ers wre right after all. But despite all of this here are some little tidbits to help you understand.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JGR....85.8223P
"Recent measurements conducted from the Pioneer Venus probes and orbiter have provided a significantly improved definition of the solar net flux profile, the gaseous composition, temperature structure, and cloud properties of Venus' lower atmosphere. Using these data, we have carried out a series of one-dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium calculations to determine the viability of the greenhouse model of Venus' high surface temperature and to assess the chief contributors to the greenhouse effect. New sources of infrared opacity include the permitted transitions of SO2, CO, and HCl as well as opacity due to several pressure-induced transitions of CO2. We find that the observed surface temperature and lapse rate structure of the lower atmosphere can be reproduced quite closely with a greenhouse model that contains the water vapor abundance reported by the Venera spectrophotometer experiment. Thus the greenhouse effect can account for essentially all of Venus' high surface temperature. The prime sources of infrared opacity are, in order of importance, CO2, H2O, cloud particles, and SO2, with CO and HCl playing very minor roles. "

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ...147..782S
This one is pretty good.

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Venus_Express/SEMFPY808BE_0.html

The problem is, you express skepticism about all this without any apparent reason. You say "we don't know" when apparently a lot of people think they do. I would try and objectify your objection if i was you. Why can you not appreciate that this is a pretty good theory?

I am starting a new course! How did you know? I am doing a Graduate Certificate in Hydrogeology.
Lucky for me, no maths.

In the course of looking for that stupid tossaway quote from James Hansen (he never disappoints on that count - bless his soul), I found out that there was a rather extreme climate change in the North Atlantic/Arctic boundary Spitsbergen area, of a multi decadal nature, starting in 1918 continuing through to 1940.
There is a very through treatment of the topic at this website.
http://www.arctic-warming.com/index.php

The author delves into the peer reviewed papers of that era to reconstruct the phenomena relying heavily upon the impressions of the people who studied it first hand.
Most of the maps and such are copies of the actual documents from the early twentieth century (free of the taint of AGW activism).
Here's one of my favorites.
http://www.arctic-warming.com/the-warming-event-in-detail.php#
That map looks like any of the charts coming out of NOAA today, and it's from 1938.

Ender: "That is all well and good however I am not sure how to get this through to you - do I need to shout?

The Beer Lambert law ONLY relates to visible light and UV and the attenuation of concentrations of various compounds. It does not give absorption of long wave radiation in either its derivation or use."

Beer-Lambert can be used to calculate both transmittance and absorbance one has a simple arithmetical relation to the other, I'll leave to you to work out what it is.

Hint: What is not transmitted is absorbed.

I don't know how much plainer I can make it for you.

Mr T,

"The runaway greenhouse hypothesis has been around since the mid 70's"

Before that it was as in Ray Bradbury's "Illustrated Man" - warm an wet. Now blistering hot and no water to speak of. It still isn't much better. There isn't evidence there is conjecture based on CO2 concentration (never mind the fact that it's some 90 times the mass of earths atmosphere). Look at the the paper posted, which incidentally was censored by NASA he had to resign and got Hungary to get it published, the inspiration for it was the the author noticed that boundary conditions for the differential equations describing the energy balance were being ignored and instead an infinite atmosphere is assumed thereby ducking the issue. This has been going since the 20's and is hardly new fangled way of doing things but according to this paper it is wrong and taking into account the boundary conditions leads to some different conclusions. I am not about to critique the paper as I'm finding parts of it difficult and will have to plough through it. If he is right and at present I'm prepared to go along with him we will need to do the same for Venus and we cannot obtain the needed data for reasons already mentioned.

Now I hope I've made the reason for my scepticism quite clear and that is until we can determine those boundary conditions all is conjecture. I'm all for real evidence and physical links and mechanisms for these things to occur.

Enjoy the course. Shame about the math - it's good for the soul.

ENDER:

The Beer Lambert law ONLY relates to visible light and UV and the attenuation of concentrations of various compounds. It does not give absorption of long wave radiation in either its derivation or use.

It is the wrong equation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so what is the RIGHT EQUATION????

Jan, the surface temp isn't conecture.
Where's the evidence it was censored? How do you know he had to resign?
The funny thing, that no one seems to have addressed is that Miskolczi's new theory (which I have not, nor cannot dispute) still assumes that CO2 will lead to a temp increase of 2-3 degrees. This is still AGW! If you add in the water and methane additional heating you still get the numbers most people had been throwing around (that is between 2 and 6 degrees). This is still (potentially) catastrophic! Every other time that the climate changed by a similar amount there have been major extinction events. The IPCC are worried about anything that's around 2 degrees of warming.

So why not put your math skillz to use and tell us how soon we can expect Miskolczi's 2-3 degrees? At what CO2 concentration do your maths say that happens?

Mr T, "the surface temp isn't conecture."

Surface temperature is not the issue, that it is the result of thermal runaway is. There is implicit in ANY theory of runaway that the "extraordinarily" high temperature (or motor runs itself off its bearings) is due to positive feedback. What does positive feedback imply about the history of Venus' temperatures and CO2 levels assuming CO2 levels are the mediator of the feedback?

This:
In the past CO2 levels were lower and that rising temperature caused an increase in CO2 which amplified the temperature rise releasing even more CO2 this will then go on until there is no more CO2 to be released, sink rates are equal to source rates or Venus is as hot as the Sun - whichever comes first.

Now Mr T can you tell me exactly what the historical CO2 content is for Venus' atmosphere? Of you have this information what proxies were used and how were they calibrated?

Of course we can refer to Bradbury's "Illustrated Man" and assume that Venus was once warm, wet, with a breathable earth like atmosphere and evolved from there. However that would be a boundary condition derived from the early (pre 70s) conjecture about conditions on Venus which were actually proved wrong in the 70s there is however no reason to believe that it was ever even remotely like that.

Do you understand what I mean about conjecture in the context of the paper we are supposed to be discussing.

"Where's the evidence it was censored? How do you know he had to resign?"

Basically he says so.

" The funny thing, that no one seems to have addressed is that Miskolczi's new theory"

Take it easy the paper is long and difficult even for those who have worked with some of the material encountered I've never had anything to do with virial theorem before it looks straight forward but I still have to get a feel for it and it has been a while since I did anything serious in hydrostatics. Neither crop up in solid state physics.

"still assumes that CO2 will lead to a temp increase of 2-3 degrees."

In the conclusion (p35)
An other important consequence of the new
equations is the significantly reduced greenhouse effect sensitivity to optical depth perturbations. Considering the magnitude of the observed global average surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations,
the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming.

You were saying?

One of the characteristics of pseudoscience is the denial of contradiction of its principles by resorting to emphasising unrelated distractions.

Of course the GISS temp series shows continued warming. That is because the 5 year mean leaves out the past two cooler years. Good links, Mark.
Well done Climate Audit.

While checking up on some issues running down this thread I discovered the “crackpot index” under “fun stuff” by John Baez, “A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics”. Let’s see who smiles.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Serious stuff from gas models and the “theory of simple liquids, note; I was visualizing elbows in the crowd leaving the AFL Grand Final on a wet day. Let’s leave dark mater out of it hey.

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

We can also say virial theory is a mere diversion in understanding non linear events

See “Encyclopedia of non Linear Science”

www.routledge-ny.com/ref/nonlinearsci/thematic.html

"Basically he says so."

Yea - right - in the whole history of the world a prima donna has never had a dummy spit. Incredible Jan - so picky - yet you're simply gonna take his word for it. Utterly utterly amazing. Another hypothesis is that he simply did his nana !

On Venus - of course we might ponder why it's so darn hot.

Gavin:We can also say virial theory is a mere diversion in understanding non linear events

The virial theorem gives us a way of dealing with the fact that our atmosphere is an ensemble of non ideal gases if you have a problem with Mizkolzci's use of it please share it with us.

Jan: Beware of mathematicians especially the seemingly pure ones. The last tutor we had was more interested in selling shares in his “betting ring” running on the school main frame than coaching us for engineering. Also; outside of just a few blog posts, this whole thing is a non starter on the www.

Besides I am naturally looking from the bottom up / worst case scenarios initially, not the other way round. Things like discontinuities bother me as do boxes and circles. I say too landscaping is an art not a science. This form of appreciation is beyond the realm of stats. Modeling formations like clouds, ocean currents and reefs requires oodles of imagination.

The key to simplicity can be a fudge but it must also include the expectation of change.

Jan Pompe - "Beer-Lambert can be used to calculate both transmittance and absorbance one has a simple arithmetical relation to the other, I'll leave to you to work out what it is.

Hint: What is not transmitted is absorbed.

I don't know how much plainer I can make it for you. "

Yes it can however visible light is not the problem. The problem is long wave infra red radiation that is not calculated with the Beer Lambert law.

Beer Lambert assumes that molecules are small plates in the solution blocking the light. Therefore the concentration and what can loosely be termed the cross sectional area of the molecule is important. In the simple world of Beer Lambert the light is blocked.
http://elchem.kaist.ac.kr/vt/chem-ed/spec/beerslaw.htm

In the more advanced world of IR radiation a molecule with a dipole like CO2 or H2O(v) will vibrate and rotate when a photon of IR radiation of the correct frequency hits it. Molecules without dipoles like O2 and N2 are not greenhouse gases and will not absorb IR. However they will attenuate visible light by acting as plates and be subject to Beer Lambert.

If the Beer Lambert law was to be able to applied to the amount of energy that is absorbed from IR then it would include these terms.

Please show us how to calculate using the Beer Lambert relation how much energy is absorbed. You can't because there is no such term in the equation.

You are wrong. Please be big enough to admit it and stop floundering around. God knows I have been wrong enough and usually I can at least admit when I am wrong and eat humble pie.

Gavin: Beware of mathematicians especially the seemingly pure ones. The last tutor we had was more interested in selling shares in his “betting ring” running on the school main frame than coaching us for engineering. Also; outside of just a few blog posts, this whole thing is a non starter on the www.

Try answering with something relevant instead of more distractions.

I repeat:

If you have a problem with his use of virial theorm would you like to share it with us.

Ender: The problem is long wave infra red radiation that is not calculated with the Beer Lambert law.

Sorry but it is. If you think it's something different you had better explain what it is.

" Beer Lambert assumes that molecules are small plates in the solution blocking the light"

That's the post fact derivation (or explanation if you like) pretty standard stuff in quantum mechanics since it is the cross-sectional area that determines the probability for collisions.

Beer-Lambert law is an empirical result for all electromagnetic radiation regardless of wavelength.

Please be big enough to admit it and stop floundering around

Take you own advice. You are so far out of your depth you don't even know you are drowning. I'm done.

Jan, well why don't you publish that Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect? YOU have little understanding of what data there is about the Venutian greenhouse. YOU don't know, don't try and pretend that other's don't know it. Show me how you know that.
"there is however no reason to believe that it was ever even remotely like that."
Err yes there is, current theories on planet formation demand that is was wet early in it's history (due to convection in the mantle, and bombardment by comets). Yes I know, it's theory, but can we get over having to write "theory says" before every statement?

As to the warming proposed by the author, what I am saying that this warming is still basically in line with what others were saying. If he predicts it's 2-3 degrees only for CO2, then it's no change from current AGW ideas.

I note you didn't take up my challenge. For someone claiming to mathematically skilled you seem to not want to use them. So come on work out at what concentration of CO2 we get the 2-3 degrees warming that the author predicts.

Jan,
"basically he says so"
Wow, for someone normally so skeptical I am impressed!
This looks like a kind of 'selective' skepticism to me.

Mr T,

I asked you some questions why don't you answer them I shall repeat them for you. Just so you (and every other clown like you) understands I make no bones about the fact that I don't know the initial conditions that led to Venus supposed runaway temperatures. On the other you claims others somewhere out there do I'm sorry but "Go look for it" doesn't cut the mustard. So will you answer:

Now Mr T can you tell me exactly what the historical CO2 content is for Venus' atmosphere? If you have this information what proxies were used and how were they calibrated?

instead of carrying on like a bucking horse's back side about publishing. Which seems to be something certain folks around here do when they know the don't have an answer.

Instead of hydrogeology perhaps you should do a post grad course in control theory - oops that IS math.

Mr T,

"Jan,
"basically he says so"
Wow, for someone normally so skeptical I am impressed!
This looks like a kind of 'selective' skepticism to me."

I'm quite happy to take his own perception of why he didn't publish under the aegis of NASA and his reasons for resigning. After all it was his decision based on his experience. He was there you weren't so his explanation has a lot less to do with conjecture than yours or anyone else on this blog is likely to come up with.

Did I have a problem with his use of virial theorm? That depends on our assumptions in thinking through simplicity. Some of it’s fudge including ideal gasses

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

“It seems that the Earth’s atmosphere maintains the balance between the absorbed short wave radiation and the emitted long wave radiation by keeping the total flux optical depth close to the theoretical equilibrium values”

When this requirement becomes the cart not the horse i.e. our mathematical load we are bound to find some function that fits and arrive at equations 21, 22 etc and 12 must hold. Note too; there is a clean up in getting to work on his single column model however I like the max min cases, Venus and Mars in support of his general greenhouse equation.

Jan - "Beer-Lambert law is an empirical result for all electromagnetic radiation regardless of wavelength."

Jan you are wrong and appeals to authority will not work.

As I said if I am wrong then you should be able to show how much energy is absorbed at different wavelengths with Beer Lambert. Also if Beer Lambert did apply then ANY molecule would be a greenhouse gas as Beer Lambert does not take account of whether the molecule is a dipole or not. Using Beer Lambert how do you account for this selective absorption when the relation makes no such reference to the type of molecule?

I am done as well.

Jan: A confession. I remain fundamentally lazy when it comes to wading through wads of calculus in support of some narrow paper or other. Sure; it’s a trim well crafted document and I guess like thousands of others since but why all the sudden fuss about this one?

I reckon the only people who can review it fix it whatever, are his peers, those from the same era at NASA. Who cares if they don’t given the ample time it’s been around?

I have wondered again today while reading up if it’s not more about spitting the dummy than science. My gut feeling, it’s only a private review of his time there.

A very easy explanation is that NASA had technical issues with the paper and he simply spat the dummy. You've heard one side and you really don't know what went on. A CSIRO Chief once reminded me that one publishes at the discretion of the organisation as a privilege not a right. This may irk some of strong independent minds.

In any case on Beer Lambert - is not the more relevant model the Schwarzchild equation?

ender:As I said if I am wrong then you should be able to show how much energy is absorbed at different wavelengths with Beer Lambert.

you can all you need is the the molar absorptivity for each wavelength for 15 micron it's 20.2 m^2/mol for 4.2 micron (the other absoprtion wavelength for Co2) it's 29.9, so have fun with it.

Gavin I'lee get back to you for now I have to go to work.

Jan, I can’t answer your questions. I never pretended this was my theory so I am wondering why you are demanding that I address your personal doubts. You are quite capable of researching this yourself. Quite clearly there a lot of scientists who have published material on the “runaway greenhouse” on Venus (there are hundreds of papers), perhaps you should find out why. If you don’t believe it, well who cares? Doesn’t make the science less credible. This seems to be more of an assault on my personal abilities than on whether the science is credible. I never claimed an ability in this. Remember it was the author who claimed to be showing it was impossible for Earth to have a runaway greenhouse – the big question is what is a ‘runaway greenhouse’? I brought up Venus, as it was the only example of a ‘runaway greenhouse’ that I knew of in the literature. The author doesn’t define it anywhere I can find, so the question remains, what did he mean?
So I answered you question, be fair and answer mine.
The author says there will be a 2-3 degree warming due to CO2. You have a chance here to demonstrate your maths skills. How much CO2 will produce a 2-3 degree warming?

Great explanation for believing the author! Good to see your sceptical skills are well-honed. Personally I have no opinion about it, and it’s largely irrelevant as his stuff got published. I certainly can’t fault the author, but it doesn’t actually seem to make any difference anyway, as he’s saying 2-3 degrees. That’s enough of a catastrophe for anyone.

Beer-Lambert is one way you can calculate the relevant optical depths in the Swcharzschild equation.

Jan, now I am sad. Now I will never know if the author was right... I need your maths skillz! Please help!

Speaking of crackpots in physics, here is one that AGW science seems to take as a given.

Evaporative heaters.

I'm sure this water vapor greenhouse multiplier would make for a lucrative home heating product, if it made any sense at all.

Evaporative heaters?

No idea what you are on about James. Downunder we have evaporative coolers and reverse cycle A/C also cooling towers in industry

Here's what I am on about. Water vapor as positive feedback.
Since when?
It's a cold March night here. So I'll just slip on my evaporative heater and that should keep me nice and toasty.
Right?

Yes but the optical path length calculations are different and because of forward flowing radiation and backward flowing radiation the directionality must be taken into account. Schwarzchild's equation, (no "s") is the basis for computations of the transfer of infrared radiation

Jan, where's my maths? Still waiting! Oh, maybe you're actually working it out... Alright I'll assume you are. Now I am getting excited!

James, using an 'evaporative heater' would work if the water feeding it was warm. But then you'd probably make you home mouldy and get Legionaires (sp?) Disease.

James: Evaporative coolers are an ass in terms of humidity. Making mist in the lounge room is hardly worth the “drop” in room temperature.

Re cold your cold March; cheap heat requires good insulation. Ever camped out in the frost? A pound of down is nice. If you can’t stand the outdoors find an apartment on the ground floor otherwise burrow down with the light of a candle.

Mr T I can’t answer your questions.

That about says it all.

What a waste of bandwidth

You can stop being fatuous now you can also stop making claims you can't support.

where's my maths?

Is anyone else having difficulty posting?

You couldn't comprehend the comparatively simple Beer-Lambert calculations so please don't waste my time.

Gavin: Did I have a problem with his use of virial theorm? That depends on our assumptions in thinking through simplicity. Some of it’s fudge including ideal gasses

Take a look at an early comment (mine) re his use of virial theorem here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=161&p=2939#p2939

Absolutely Gavin. I agree 100% that evaporative heaters are an ass. Likewise Hansen's claims of tipping points due to water vapor.
It just doesn't work that way.

Don't you feel better now?
I mean whew (wiping my less worri