bad science as usual wuwt.

[Vergent]

http://wattsupwithth...f-some-gravity/

[BethesdaWX]

Some of these WUWT readers seem to forget that 'convection' is predominately due to the 'GHE' itself, and would not be nearly as prevolent without a GHE.

Mistakes like this are always made. Example

However,if you the put back the atmosphere sans H2O and CO2, you still have aerosols and convection. The key is that you must always have lapse rate warming and it’s controlled by convection. The real radiative temperature with an atmosphere is always less by that convective temperature drop.

He/She is close to finding the problem with our GHG estimates, but is forgetting how energy is processed by numerous mechanisms, as putting the atmosphere back without GHGes would significantly reduce convection/precip and low/mid level cloud cover.

Needs to be known that convection is the process of thermal transfer to kinetic energy! All of the "weather", winds, waves, lightning, etc, or at least most of it, is completely a result of the GHE. When convection occurs, you get:

1) The formation of low clouds, which block a large majority of SW energy that they encounter. In the tropics, merely a 1% change in LL Cloud Cover = ~ 1W/m^2 of RF change.

2) Winds, Waves, Rains, and Lightning. These on a global scale represent a large portion of the total energy budget. Even raindrops falling from the sky represent kinetic energy. And it is not gravity, but how the water got up there in the first place must be accounted for, as it falls back as kinetic energy that was once thermal energy. Clouds are a process of thermal energy being emitted to space as well as transferred into kinetic form.

At our current atmospheric temperature, most of the energy from added CO2 is transferred into kinetic form in a matter of hours. Notice how the LT has not seen any statistically significant warming relative to it's variation, and that the surface has been warming faster than the LT.

You may ask how the surface can be 33C warmer than it would otherwise be if CO2's energy is transferred to kinetic form rather than thermal form. Answer to that is simple.

Evaporation and Convection can only effectively occur at certain thermal thresholds, whether it be thermal indifference between layers or actual energy present. At 0C global avg without GHGes, there would be very little of either.

You'd have to warm the atmosphere to a certain extent/threshold to get adequate evaporation/convection rate going first, and eventually when you do, that kinetic energy [beginning via convection which is driven by the GHE] can't by the laws of physics be 're-emitted' to achieve balance from the Sun since it is in kinetic form, but rather it can be added continouosly to the climate system with NO thermal consequence, which is which once the threshold of transfer is reached, the addition of energy through increased CO2 will be transferred to kinetic form. More convection [kinetic energy] = more low cloud cover, which reflects more SW reducing the thermal budget directly. The portion of thermal energy that is gained via increased CO2 is reduced substantially and eventually unmeasurable the more CO2 you add. The GHE drives convection, which is the key to everything.

The 33C of added thermal energy at the surface is a result of GHGes, but that thermal portion cannot be added to now, in a measurable manner, UNLESS the Magnetic Sun modulates cloud cover, which changes the thermal energy budget by increasing the SW flux to the surface, which reduces the efficiency of convection, since more SW to surface = more LW emission from the surface which reduces the thermal profile in the troposphere.

So the LT warms almost evenly but slightly moreso at the surface, the stratosphere cools somewhat since there woudl be more high clouds + less convective energy present, resulting from a vague atmospheric thermal profile in the LT due to the added SW flux reducing the contrast in the thermal profile. So while the GHE wouldn't be adding to the thermal budget, thermal energy will still be processed through the GHE by the very fact that it exists.

PROOF: During the NH summer, the Global LT temp is the warmest since there is more landmass in the NH which absorbs less SW and emits more LW, yet the stratosphere is coolest in the NH summer.

[donsutherland1]

The longer range forecast, so to speak, might be for even more bad science. Today, The Los Angeles Times reported:

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-change-school-20120116,0,2808837.story

To be sure, I have no objections to teaching where limits of knowledge and uncertainties exist--IPCC does a good job acknowledging those areas--but the politicized outcomes cited in the news article are an entirely different matter.

[WeatherRusty]

The error being made by the author of the WUWT article is in believing a GHG free atmosphere does not radiate to space.

Everyone need to understand one thing.

ALL MATTER AT A TEMPERATURE ABOVE ABSOLUTE ZERO RADIATES

All matter, whether a solid, liquid, gas or plasma will radiate away energy in a continuous spectrum of light with a peak wavelength dependent on only one factor...it's temperature. Atoms and molecules making up composite matter are in constant motion and undergoing collisions. When they collide some of their kinetic energy of motion is lost to friction and radiated away at energies dependent on their combined thermal energy of motion. Rub your two hands together vigorously...feel the heat?

The Sun, a giant ball of gas, radiates at a radiation temperature of about 5,800K.

The Earth's atmosphere, radiates at a radiation temperature of about 255K.

The Earth's solid/watery surface radiates at a temperature of about 288K.

[LithiaWx]

The longer range forecast, so to speak, might be for even more bad science. Today, The Los Angeles Times reported:

Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom.

http://www.latimes.c...0,2808837.story

To be sure, I have no objections to teaching where limits of knowledge and uncertainties exist--IPCC does a good job acknowledging those areas--but the politicized outcomes cited in the news article are an entirely different matter.

As long as AGW is not being taught without an opposing view I have no problem presenting the facts of climate change at face value. Once you go into reasons for Climate Change you should present both sides at that point imo. Science is not completely settled on AGW and to present it as such would be wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

As long as AGW is not being taught without an opposing view I have no problem presenting the facts of climate change at face value. Once you go into reasons for Climate Change you should present both sides at that point imo. Science is not completely settled on AGW and to present it as such would be wrong.

That's fine so long as only peer-reviewed alternatives are offered. If not, then there is no constraint on what represents science.l

[LithiaWx]

That's fine so long as only peer-reviewed alternatives are offered. If not, then there is no constraint on what represents science.l

I understand that humans are responsible for putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, I just would be careful about speculating on what this will do to the earth, and how fast. I don't feel it's right to present students with the most extreme scenario without an opposing view on the subject.

What's to stop someone from suggesting that our ice will melt away by 2014 like some in this forum suggest? That's the kind of stuff that needs to stay out of classrooms.

[WeatherRusty]

I understand that humans are responsible for putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, I just would be careful about speculating on what this will do to the earth, and how fast. I don't feel it's right to present students with the most extreme scenario without an opposing view on the subject.

What's to stop someone from suggesting that our ice will melt away by 2014 like some in this forum suggest? That's the kind of stuff that needs to stay out of classrooms.

What can be controled is the official curriculum and what is printed in textbooks. These should reflect the up to date science without venturing to far outside what is known with high confidence. Areas of lesser certainty should be explained as such.

There is nothing to prevent an individual teacher from offering his or her personal viewpoint however.

[LocoAko]

As long as AGW is not being taught without an opposing view I have no problem presenting the facts of climate change at face value. Once you go into reasons for Climate Change you should present both sides at that point imo. Science is not completely settled on AGW and to present it as such would be wrong.

The science is settled. Period. Sorry you can't see or accept that.

Is every detail settled? No. But we are still learning about the intricacies of gravity, too.

[LithiaWx]

The science is settled. Period. Sorry you can't see or accept that.

Is every detail settled? No. But we are still learning about the intricacies of gravity, too.

AGW is a fact but the impacts of it and how fast are not settled. It's not a small detail it's a very big issue. How fast we will warm, how fast will the arctic and Antarctic ice melt. These are all valid questions which lots of people have differing opinions on. That's all I'm saying, I do not think climate change denial should be taught in classrooms. But I do think we should be careful how extreme we teach AGW. AGW alarmism should not be taught anymore than denial.

[LithiaWx]

strawman. advocating the science be taught != teaching alarmism.

call it a strawman if you wish idc. I never said teaching the science of AGW and Co2 forcing is alarmism, but if that's what you gathered then oh well I'm not going to hold your hand.

[LithiaWx]

no one advocated that alarmism be taught. you introduced it as an option; hence, straw man.

It goes hand in hand, if we are going to teach AGW in classrooms then there needs to be an open discussion about what exactly will be taught. There are different ends of the spectrum, doomsday scenarios (alarmism) have no place in a classroom. Talking about the impacts of AGW is a tricky subject to tackle as we are using predictions and projections not actual science other than what amount of forcing X amount of Co2 will cause. Climate change denial and skepticism was mentioned, obviously we should address the opposite side of that argument, alarmism.

[LithiaWx]

the science should be taught and that is pretty much a settled issue.

your line of argument makes no sense.

ok, sorry you can't follow along.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You are not making a clear arguement.

If your saying IPCC scenario whatever should not be taught then I agree.

but their no oppsing viewpont at time to be taught.

The only unsettled thing is forecasting specfic events.

teaching that GHG warming is accelerating arctic sea ice decline by directly allowing warming by trapping heat and amplifying positive feedbacks such as the snow albedo affect and ice albedo affect along with natural variation is teaching observable facts.

That is very sound science.

[PhillipS]

ok, sorry you can't follow along.

I think that Wxtrix is followin along quite well. Where I feel much of the difference in your perspective lies is in the difference between teaching sound science (which may be alarming) and pseudo-science (which at opposite ends of the spectrum are alamism and denialism) AGW research results and projected AGW consequences that she, and others, see as sound science and therefore appropriate to teach to kids you, and others, see as pseudo-science (at best) and inappropriate to teach in the classroom.

Do you agree so far?

This is perhaps a good point to clarify alarming versus alarmism by looking at one distinct facet of AGW - Sea level rise

Hopefully everyone agrees that mainstream AGW theory predicts that the warming resulting from burning fossil fuels will cause global sea levels to rise as Greenland, Antarctica, and numerous glaciers to lose mass. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) gave a projection of sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm by 2100.

What does the current data show? Here is the current Global Mean Sea Level Time Series from the University of Colorado:

The rate shown is 32 cm/century - pretty much in the middle of the IPCC projection. Anybody object so far?

If anybody were to claim that we will see 6 meters of sea level change by 2100 - I think most of us would agree that's alarmism. The current science simply doesn't support any likelihood of that happening.

But what the claim is that we will eventually and inevitably see a 6 meter rise in sea level if we continue to increase GHG levels? Alarming or alarmism?

We know for a fact that Greenland and Antarctica hold enough water in their icecaps to raise sea levels by more than 70 meters, so there is plenty of ice available to melt.

We know that sea level has been much higher than today at various times in the past. An excerpt from that same USGS Fact Sheet:

Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level.

And we know that melting will continue beyond 2100 because the Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, nor can it reach equilibrium as long as we keep increasing GHG levels. We have a lot of melting ahead even at today's global temperatures. As global temperatures increase the rate of melting will increase too.

So science tells us the ice is available to melt, it has melted before, it is melting now, and it will continue to melt for a long time. Granted the idea of a 6 meter sea level rise is alarming because of the consequences for our cities and coastlines - but there is a lot of science to back up the assertion that our descendants will have to deal with at least 6 meters of sea level rise.

That's not alarmism. So it would be okay to teach that in the classroom, right?

[LithiaWx]

I think that Wxtrix is followin along quite well.

Funny thing is we all agree on the same things. As for Wxtrix we have a long history of not getting along and I felt she was being diminutive towards me so I gave her the cold shoulder.

fwiw, I believe in AGW, I don't refute the science of Co2 forcing due to rising levels of Co2 much of which is our own doing. My only point which was lost in this back and forth garbage was alarmism has no place in a classroom anymore than denial. I think that in my lifetime I will see impacts from human induced carbon releases. We don't know how long it will take to melt Greenland and Antarctica. We should teach the potential dangers of AGW and list the potential outcomes. Where the science is strong teach it but where it is weaker, ie. what will sea levels look like in 100,200, 300 years needs to be taught in a way that the uncertainty is conveyed. I don't want to see people teaching denial of AGW anymore than I want people screaming the sky is falling and we will be ice free by 2015. There is an alarmism faction just as there is a denial faction out there. I don't want to see either one in a textbook. The post I first commented on mentioned denial and skepticism, I feel it's fair for me to bring up alarmism also.

[PhillipS]

Funny thing is we all agree on the same things. As for Wxtrix we have a long history of not getting along and I felt she was being diminutive towards me so I gave her the cold shoulder.

fwiw, I believe in AGW, I don't refute the science of Co2 forcing due to rising levels of Co2 much of which is our own doing. My only point which was lost in this back and forth garbage was alarmism has no place in a classroom anymore than denial. I think that in my lifetime I will see impacts from human induced carbon releases. We don't know how long it will take to melt Greenland and Antarctica. We should teach the potential dangers of AGW and list the potential outcomes. Where the science is strong teach it but where it is weaker, ie. what will sea levels look like in 100,200, 300 years needs to be taught in a way that the uncertainty is conveyed. I don't want to see people teaching denial of AGW anymore than I want people screaming the sky is falling and we will be ice free by 2015. There is an alarmism faction just as there is a denial faction out there. I don't want to see either one in a textbook. The post I first commented on mentioned denial and skepticism, I feel it's fair for me to bring up alarmism also.

You make some good points, and I feel that you are right that some people are alarmists or, to put it more charitably, they assume that the worst case scenario is the most likely scenario. I certainly feel that the uncertainty in AGW, both in the data we have and the projections we make, should be taught. But I see that as simply part of teaching the scientific method. Science is rarely if ever about absolute certainty. Rather it is about a theory's ability to explain the available data and its accuracy in making projections that can be tested. In many scientific fields there is honest debate between alternative theories - the 'Nature versus Nurture' debate in psychology is one that comes to mind - but that is not happening in climate science.

I don't see the skeptical cadre offering viable alternative theories to mainstream AGW. Certainly not alternatives that explain everything we've observed to date as well as the mainstream theories do. Instead of offering alternatives many skeptics prefer to pick at nits in the peer-reviewed science. If the skeptics can't offer anything more substantive than "we don't want AGW to be true" (which is what most of their comments distill down to) then what is their role in the classroom? Doesn't the next generation deserve the most rigorous and reality based education we can give them?

[turtlehurricane]

AGW is a fact but the impacts of it and how fast are not settled. It's not a small detail it's a very big issue. How fast we will warm, how fast will the arctic and Antarctic ice melt. These are all valid questions which lots of people have differing opinions on. That's all I'm saying, I do not think climate change denial should be taught in classrooms. But I do think we should be careful how extreme we teach AGW. AGW alarmism should not be taught anymore than denial.

Not sure why you're being hounded so hard for this. There are indeed many factors that go into climate change, greenhouse gases being just one, so we have alot to learn.

Those who say it is settled without doubt are wrong, how can a non-linear system for which we have limited data be settled without doubt? The most disturbing thing about such a line of thinking is we won't learn anymore about climate change if those were the only types of climate scientists, fortunately as with everything else in history there are skeptics.

[LocoAko]

Not sure why you're being hounded so hard for this. There are indeed many factors that go into climate change, greenhouse gases being just one, so we have alot to learn.

Those who say it is settled without doubt are wrong, how can a non-linear system for which we have limited data be settled without doubt? The most disturbing thing about such a line of thinking is we won't learn anymore about climate change if those were the only types of climate scientists, fortunately as with everything else in history there are skeptics.

I said the fact that the Earth is warming is settled (but thanks for introducing "without doubt" into the discussion!). Hence, global warming is occurring. Not sure where you seem to be getting that everything is settled because no one ever said anything near such a thing...

[turtlehurricane]

I said the fact that the Earth is warming is settled (but thanks for introducing "without doubt" into the discussion!). Hence, global warming is occurring. Not sure where you seem to be getting that everything is settled because no one ever said anything near such a thing...

Well I'm glad we're on the same page then.

[Vergent]

Can anyone consider the source? Hint (It is a denier refuting a denier position.) That is why there was a fight.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Not sure why you're being hounded so hard for this. There are indeed many factors that go into climate change, greenhouse gases being just one, so we have alot to learn.

Those who say it is settled without doubt are wrong, how can a non-linear system for which we have limited data be settled without doubt? The most disturbing thing about such a line of thinking is we won't learn anymore about climate change if those were the only types of climate scientists, fortunately as with everything else in history there are skeptics.

So let me ask you something.

We already know Co2 and Methane are going to increase for the next 50 years at least.

What do you think is going to happen in response to that?

Most of the arguements on this site are people trying to deny proven physics not put forth new data to adequately explain why the warming will be this and this instead of this and that.

Christians are more acccepting of evolution and TBBT being taught in schools than "Deniers" are of GHG warming it seems.

AGW threw an increase in GHGs as the driver of many positive feedbacks causing global warming is currently an observable fact, way more so than many sciences.

I am at the point where I just do not get the defiance of reality.

[FPizz]

AGW is a fact but the impacts of it and how fast are not settled. It's not a small detail it's a very big issue. How fast we will warm, how fast will the arctic and Antarctic ice melt. These are all valid questions which lots of people have differing opinions on. That's all I'm saying, I do not think climate change denial should be taught in classrooms. But I do think we should be careful how extreme we teach AGW. AGW alarmism should not be taught anymore than denial.

I don't see anything wrong with this post. It makes perfect sense.

[turtlehurricane]

So let me ask you something.

We already know Co2 and Methane are going to increase for the next 50 years at least.

What do you think is going to happen in response to that?

Most of the arguements on this site are people trying to deny proven physics not put forth new data to adequately explain why the warming will be this and this instead of this and that.

Christians are more acccepting of evolution and TBBT being taught in schools than "Deniers" are of GHG warming it seems.

AGW threw an increase in GHGs as the driver of many positive feedbacks causing global warming is currently an observable fact, way more so than many sciences.

I am at the point where I just do not get the defiance of reality.

Greenhouse gases are just one part of the climate system. This is something people who cling to AGW usually don't understand.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Greenhouse gases are just one part of the climate system. This is something people who cling to AGW usually don't understand.

Like who?

I see that a lot, but I have rarely seen it actually occur outside of a couple fanatics.

[Sickman]

Please stick to the topic at hand, and knock off the personal attacks.