1. Dr. Petschauer has presented his second paper for your review and comment. This paper is written for scientific audiences whereas his G6 paper was intended more for public audiences. There is a lot of material here. I look forward to reading your professional, objective reviews.

  2. Richard,
    I have a different view of the source of negative feedback due to evaporation. It may in the end just be a different way of saying effectively the same thing as you explained in greater detail, but in a simpler way. You can judge this yourself.

    The NET amount of energy that reaches the oceans and ground is only dependent on the solar radiation that passes through the atmosphere, plus a small amount absorbed by the atmosphere from the incoming solar radiation, and that was eventually radiated to the ground. This solar energy in is balanced by removal by three processes: radiation, evaporation (along with convection up), and conduction (along with convection up). The evaporation is the main source of energy removal. The only way evaporation can increase is by a reduction in NET outgoing radiation from the surface, and or by conduction (along with convection up) from the surface. Some of the radiation is direct to space through the "window" in the absorption spectra. The atmospheric greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2 block direct transfer of the rest of the outgoing radiation (i.e., it is absorbed and re radiated omnidirectionally). The direct radiation to space is slightly reduced by increases in the greenhouse gases, and the effective absorption path lengths of the atmosphere are changed by the amount of greenhouse gases, so the fraction of energy removed by evaporation becomes larger as greenhouse gas concentration increases.

    Measurements have shown the absolute water vapor content near the ground has increased as average temperature increased, as expected. However, the absolute water vapor content at the mid to upper troposphere has held near constant, and recently has even dropped a small amount. This means the water vapor is transported by convection to a limited altitude and condenses out to clouds and precipitation. This likely would result in a reduction in lapse rate in the lower atmosphere due to increased latent heat release with altitude, followed by an upper atmosphere with a dry adiabatic lapse rate, and a slightly raised average location of outgoing radiation due to just the increased CO2.

    Since the temperature is a result of the effective location of outgoing radiation to space and the integrated lapse rate from that altitude, there are two competing factors for the amount of net temperature change from CO2 increase. The increase in altitude tends to increase the integration distance for the lapse rate, and the decrease in lapse rate at the lower altitudes due to the latent heat release tends to oppose the net value of temperature increase. Changes in clouds may also affect the net due to change in albedo, but that is for another discussion.

    The increase in ground temperature is not caused by back radiation, but back radiation increase is caused by the increase in temperature due to raising the location of net outgoing radiation to space.

  3. I agree with the key point of this post. This blind spot seems to widespread in climate science: Ray Pierrehumbert in the previous post, the recent paper by Lacis and Schmidt, Judith Curry's blog, the Scienceofdoom blog, all concentrate to excess on radiative heat transport.

    To criticise the post, it is too long, and I do not have the time to study it in detail. The sections and equations should really be numbered. Without this it is difficult to comment on it in any detail.

    To summarise mathematically what I understand as the main point (also made by Leonard), heat is lost from the surface by radiation, convection and evaporation. Let's call these heat fluxes Fr(T), Fc(T), Fe(T). All of these are increasing functions of the surface temperature T (a hotter surface will have stronger convection and faster evaporation). Now in equilibrium,
    Fr + Fc + Fe = I,
    where I is the incoming radiation (SW+LW).
    Now suppose we make a small change to I, dI.
    Then the corresponding change in T, dT is determined by
    (Fr'(T) + Fc'(T) + Fe'(T)) dT = dI.
    Since the three derivatives are all positive,
    the value of dT is significantly lower if we include all three effects than if we just include radiation.

  4. Regarding Paul’s comments, he does summarize the basis for the paper in that all three heat transfers from the surface must be considered, not just radiation. What my paper does is provide a way to quantify this based on how much the evaporation rate changes as a function of temperature using a simple approximate method (see section 6e) and a full energy balance solution using Trenberth’s mean global energy balance estimates (initial section 6 parts) where means are also given to convert these to negative feedback values so they can be combined with other feedbacks such as from water vapor.

    Note to Ed: Thanks for adding section and equation numbers. And by the way, “Dr. Petschauer” sounds good, but I cannot claim the title. I have a BBA and BEE (1956) with graduate work in advanced calculus. Following retirement from the computer technology field, I have developed statistical software tools for technical work and have been doing independent research on global warming for several years.

  5. Leonard commented on evaporation that:
    “The only way evaporation can increase is by a reduction in NET outgoing radiation from the surface, and or by conduction (along with convection up) from the surface.”

    It does not seem that radiation balance theory can trump or control the basic physics of evaporation, but must adapt to it. Evaporation rate is discussed in the appendix of my paper. The energy comes from the temperature of the water, not from the atmosphere, and is inhibited by the water vapor content of the air at the interface. The cooled water at the surface drops, and the moist air rises. This refreshes the interface even with no wind speed (contrary to many climate models that show no evaporation at zero wind). If somehow radiation balance can limit the heat leaving the surface, can it also slow down forest fires?

    Regarding forcing causing unbalance at the top of the atmosphere, on what basis does present climate theory claim that the surface temperature must increase as much as that at the emission level? It seems that all the clouds and greenhouse gases below it will attenuate the temperature change by the time it reaches the surface. If so, the lapse rate will change because of increased CO2 content and cannot be used to estimate the surface temperature change.

  6. Hello all.

    I found this paper most interesting because I have been concerned about the inadequate treatment of evaporation in AGW theory especially as regards the idea that downward longwave radiation can heat up the ocean bulk.

    As far as I can see all DLR must get used up in the process of creating extra evaporation with most likely a zero effect on the natural background flow of energy up from the oceans to air despite some warming of the ocean skin.

    Are there any ideas on that in the above paper (or elsewhere) which might be helpful ?

  7. I would look at it this way. As greenhouse gases increase, the heat leaving the atmospheric window (that is free of any greenhouse action) reduces a little, so the remaining from the atmosphere must increase to offset the loss in order to restore that leaving to space. But to keep the atmosphere in balance, it must get an equal amount from the surface. The process might proceed as follows: The upper atmosphere warms (since it loses less heat), this eventually propagates down to where the back radiation increases and starts to warm the surface. This will happen sooner over land, but the evaporation will still increase because a larger part of the rainfall will evaporate vs. running off or going into the soil. The added heat from the surface (convection and radiation) warms the atmosphere as does the latent heat from the added water vapor when it condenses into clouds. The model I use assumes the fraction of this added heat received by the atmosphere that goes to outer space to make up the loss from the increased greenhouse action as the same as the total that now leaves (195 out of 195 + 324) or about 37.6% with the rest increasing the back radiation. (I think with increased evaporation, a larger fraction will leave space because cloud formation is at a higher altitude that where most surface radiation is
    first absorbed, so our estimates are conservative.)

    Over the oceans solar radiation is absorbed in the first few meters of the surface, but longwave IR radiation is all absorbed very close to the surface. The added heat will be broken into two parts. One part will heat the skin surface and the rest will be stored in lower levels depending on the rate of mixing among levels. The effect is to slow down the rate the skin surface heats. The appendix in the paper tries to estimate the role of evaporation as a function of this. But there can be no real global warming unless the ocean surface temperature warms. But as it warms, the evaporation will increase with it pumping latent heat into the atmosphere, reducing the final surface temperature must rise to balance the atmosphere heat flow. In the meantime extra heat coming down till balance is achieved is stored by warming the ocean mixing later. So the ocean merely acts as a slow down mechanism, not the final temperature change.

    The solution I use gives balance at all three levels by solving the set of simultaneous equations involved. Note in the above case 100 – 37.6% or about 62.4% of the heat from the surface to the atmosphere increases the back radiation which causes a further increase in surface temperature, etc., similar to positive feedback. This is why all the equations must be solved in a simultaneous fashion. We use well proven matrix linear algebra methods for this.

  8. Richard,
    There are two cases for consideration. One is the case where the Earth's temperature is continually increasing, and for this case, the outgoing radiation has to be less than incoming. If the greenhouse gas is increased then settles to a new level, the outgoing radiation may drop for a while and temperature may increase a while, but then the temperature levels off at a higher level, and the radiation out again has to balance incoming.

    However, these are not the case I described. If (on the average) the temperature is nearly constant (as it has been the last several years), the outgoing radiation has to be equal to incoming unless there is continual storage in the oceans, and that is not significantly happening. This implies the added CO2 is having a much smaller effect on temperature than AGW predicts. The change in Cp for the continual increase in CO2 is very very small, so the lapse rate is not significantly affected by that. What happens if the CO2 increases so that optical absorption increases for long wave radiation, both from a slight decrease in the "window" direct to space, and by a decrease in effective path length, is that the net energy transfer by radiation from the ground and oceans to space (direct and by absorption and re emission) is decreased, so the energy from the ground and oceans from evaporation and convective heat transfer, carried to a high altitude to be radiated to space, is increased.

    The air temperature and humidity level adjust to balance this energy in/out. It is mainly absorption of sunlight that determines ocean (and land) temperature, and the ocean (and land) temperature then drives the air temperature. It is not the air temperature driving the ocean and land temperature (the air only absorbed a small fraction of incoming sunlight). The lapse rate continually adjusts the temperature distribution.

    When the average ground temperature is nearly constant, the effective ground and water surface temperature is only (on the average) determined by incoming solar radiation, the effective average altitude of outgoing radiation, and the average lapse rate (=-g/Cp). All the rest is part of the internal methods of re balancing.

  9. Richard,
    The point I was trying to make on the previous comment was that back radiation does not transfer heat downward (on the average) to heat the ocean. Only sunlight heats the ocean.

  10. Leonard,
    I agree with your points.

    My paper is trying to show for the case of 2x CO2 after rebalance is complete, the surface temperature will have risen much less than IPCC estimates since evaporation increases with temperature (for constant RH) much faster than surface radiation does (about 6% / C vs. 1.4% / C). So to keep the atmosphere in balance the heat transferred by evaporation from the surface to the atmosphere greatly reduces the needed increase in surface radiation, and hence surface temperature, compared to the case of constant or low change in evaporation.

    My other point in the paper is that forcings from solar changes have a greater effect than that from longwave forcings, but the IPCC seems to be using a temperature sensitivity factor for CO2 that is closer to that from solar activity. This not only increases the pre-feedback surface temperature increase, but also the effect of feedbacks since the same temperature sensitivity factor is used to convert a feedback factor to a feedback value. See Sections 4b and 4c and Section 7.

  11. It appears that Richard Petschauer recognizes that there is a major error in the numbers used by the IPCC -there is no way that the "backforcing by "greenhouse gases " can almost equal the solar input. The work of the IPCC has been totally proven to be politics and has no relationship to scientific data.
    What Richard Petschauer has shown is but one of the many "Blind spots" in the thinking of "climate scientists". They seem to totally ignore the heat sink of O2 & N2 – When an Alberta clipper can blow down across Canada and the United States to as far south as Florida and drop the temperature by 20 to 30 degrees below normal -the energy starved SKY dragoon" want to absorb more heat. Where is the example of CO2 causing any heating? References to "Hidden flaws in the greenhouse theory" and the Book "Slaying the Sky Dragoon" will show how many "blind spots " there are in the non-thinking of the "climate scientists". When DR. Ed gets around to posting my revised G-3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist” several other "blind spots' will be evident and I'm sure DR. Ed has more that I may have missed.

  12. Richard,

    I refer to Figure 1. How is 324 W/m2 back radiation from GHG accounted for each gas? How come back radiation is comparable (actually bigger than) with incoming solar radiation when you have 107 W/m2 reflected solar radiation? Has anyone confirm those data from Kiehl and Trenberth? If those data were wrong why this figure used as standard for discussion?

  13. With the benefits of doubts, I assume all those data on the Figure 3 are correct. Total incoming shortwave absorption is 78W/m2. How do you compare this 78 W/m2 with the back radiation of 324 W/m2 in Figure 1? Should the back radiation be no more than 78 W/m2? Where is the 324 W/m2 comes from? If the Earth surface absorbed 168 W/m2, how come the Earth surface radiation has a 390 W/m2? Is it a Grade 3 student's mathematical error performed by Kiehl and Trenberth as well as the Climate Science community, who adopted Figure 1 without querying where are those figures coming from?

  14. If the Earth surface absorbed energy at 168 W/m2, the Earth's asphalt road surface could reach as high as 60 deg C, then the atmospheric temperature must reach burning hot to have a 324 W/m2 back radiation but the sky atmospheric temperature is way less than the ground surface temperature. Has the Climate Science community queried Kiehl and Trenberth's data?

  15. Response to Sam Cheung
    You have several questions. First of all the values in Figure 1 have been widely used and are accepted as generally accurate. Figure 2 is an update, but the reference for Figure 1 has a better explanation of the methods used. Much is based on satellite data.

    The 390 W/m2 from the surface is based on an estimated mean global temperature of 15 C and the well known Stefan-Boltzmann equation, W = seT^4, where s = 5.67e-8, e = the emissivity constant assumed to be 1 for the surface and T is the temperature in Kelvin (273 + Celsius or 288).

    WIth 324 downwelling (back radiation), there is a net radiation cooling at the surface of 390 – 324 or 66 w/m^2. The downwelling tracks the surface temperature but is always less just as the lower atmosphere temperature tracks the surface temperature as defined by the lapse rare. The 324 value is an average of clear-sky conditions and various cloudy conditions. In the reference, clear skies is estimated at 278 W/m^2 and is mostly from water vapor in the lower 1-2 km altitude. Greenhouse gases also radiate heat but the equivalent emissitivity is less than 1 and depends on their thickness. But equipment can read this radiation. For the case of low clouds that act as nearly solid objects for infrared, a simple infrared thermometer can be used. I have read cloud temperatures only about 5 F cooler than the surface so the back radiation is nearly the same as the outgoing from the surface. That is why cloudy night temperature drop less than that from clear skies.

    See comment #1 in post G4 on this site for more comments.

    Also keep in mind these are average global values over a 24-hour period. Direct sunlight is about 1368 W/m^2 as it enters the atmosphere. Values of about 1000 Wm^2 at the surface are used for solar heating and solar cells estimates. These and other things in direct sunlight get hot at 1000 W/m^2, but they don’t melt.

  16. Sam Chung,
    I want to add that the term back radiation is confusing. The ground gets energy from sunlight which heats it up some, and then the ground radiated longer wave thermal energy up. The optically absorbing gases and clouds prevent most of this radiated energy from going directly to space, so act as RADIATION INSULATION. However, surface evaporation of water and atmospheric convection of the air upwards can and do transport most of the energy to a high enough altitude to radiate to space. You have the case of radiation insulation but convective heat transport. I am sure you are familiar with how insulation works. It does not heat the surface it covers, but slows down heat transfer, so if a surface is continually fed energy, it gets hotter than otherwise (think a blanket covering a person). While the mixed energy transport make the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect more confusing than a blanket case, if you read my and Al's description of what is happening you would better understand it. Back radiation is not the cause of heating, it is a result of the combination of effects. However, many people get cause and effect confused, and you can come to the same final result if you go through an analysis that assumes the back radiation is doing the heating. However, for those cases you are actually doing nothing but working backwards from the known answer to match up terms.

  17. Comment on Back Radiation

    So called “Back Radiation” is real and “Laws” of thermodynamics properly understood in the light of electromagnetic radiation do not disprove its existence. For one thing it can be measured with present low cost (less than $100) infrared thermometers and from this estimate actual heat being radiated from most solid objects. But not accurately from greenhouse gases that emit over limited wavelengths. The meter makes the gases look colder than actual and thus heat flow out is underestimated. More expensive equipment is needed for this. Yes, energy in the form of infrared energy can be moved from a colder object to a warmer one, but not more than received. So the net heat flow is not from cold to hot objects. But that does not mean the flow is zero.

    Some examples: a TV remote passes IR signals to a TV set that may be warmer than the remote. An AM radio receiver picks up stations that are very far away because the wave bounces off the cold atmosphere. Do photons before leaving greenhouse gases or clouds in the atmosphere first check with the earth’s surface to see if it is warmer or colder?

    But this “Back Radiation” it is not the “cause” of greenhouse warming but results from it and interacts with it. But it can be a useful tool in estimating how surface temperatures vary with changes in greenhouse action and related feedback responses. An important concept ignored by many climate scientists, including many on this website, is that besides heat balance being required between the planet and outer space, it is also required for the atmosphere as a separate entity and also the surface. The radiation down to the surface and back are parts of the equation, and it is real heat transfer. In fact this is a type of feedback. If one injects more heat to the earth’s from the sun for example, the warmer surface warms the air above and the water vapor in the lower atmosphere gets warmer and sends more heat back to the surface, which warms the atmosphere more, etc. It does not require the top of the atmosphere to warm. That will happen later as convection moves some of the heat upward and may cause additional changes. And if more latent heat is moved from the surface to the atmosphere, less radiation and hence a reduced surface temperature results for the same heat into the atmosphere to balance the heat leaving it at the top. Hence large negative feedback that is now being ignored.

    The error in those that think the only concern is balance at the top of the atmosphere is the idea that the lapse rate is somehow fixed independent of the heat added to the atmosphere. So if the temperature at the emission levels increases a certain amount because the atmospheric window shrinks from more CO2, the surface will increase the same amount of degrees. Lindzen questions this assumption. The lapse rate is considerably less than that caused by the pressure drop with altitude because heat is being added throughout. Convection only moves the heat upward, not downward; it does not add heat. What are the sources of the added heat? The absorption of the greenhouse gases, mostly water vapor in the lower 1-2 km, any clouds below this level absorbing longwave from the surface, shortwave radiation in clear skies, solar radiation entering cloud tops, it is not all reflected – cloud cover is about 60%, but cloud albedo is only about 23% and it is not all passed through, and finally the latent heat from water vapor condensing into clouds that depends on global evaporation rates. How can the lapse rate stay fixed when surface evaporation increases 2 to 4 times faster with temperature than does surface radiation? That was the basis of this paper that I never got any serious questions about except the conventional idea that a fixed lapse means we can ignore this and only be concerned with TOA energy balance. This confirms my premise. Even the skeptics here have a “blind spot” to evaporation cooling.

  18. Richard Petschauer,

    I haven't found time to read the article (I did try, but will have to focus more), but I have read over some of your comments. If I understand the comments and they accurately reflect your model, then it seems to me you are simply assuming that equilibrium in energy exchange is achieved in negligible time. Are you stating that energy into the earth = energy out from the earth?

    I see no appeal to any accepted physical laws or analysis as to why that should be true. [If you aren't assuming that, please keep reading this comment so you can reply, if you wish, relative to the analogy I use and the comments that follow it.]

    To use an analogy: We have a bath tub. The water entering from the faucet above is the sun energy. The water leaving from the drain is the earth energy released back into space. Adding CO2 can be modeled as recapturing a few of those drops that leave and putting them back in at the top. For at least a certain amount of time, the bathtub water is not in equilibrium. At some point the drops re-diverted to the top of the tub will raise the water level (and pressure at the bottom) so that more drops will then start to leave than come in from the main faucet and so that the difference eventually (at equilibrium) equals the drops diverted back into the tub. The approach towards this equilibrium position can be fast or slow. It can approach via a decay exponential, overshoot and oscillate (eg, at some point more water is leaving than coming in), or approach through some other behavior. Instead of analyzing the earth from basic principles (and I admit that's asking for a lot within a few comments), you seem to simply assume that equilibrium is instantaneous thereby [* see below] avoiding any raise in water level (ie, any increase in earth surface temperature). If you aren't assuming net zero gain/loss of energy (meaning that equilibrium isn't achieved instantaneously), please clarify in a reply, and I hope to read the details in the article when I can focus sufficiently to read it through. But if greater greenhouse gases were not leading to greater temp, from nonzero time constants where energy is essentially accumulating, the whole model of green house gases being a reason for the earth to warm beyond the no atmosphere case would be ignored. Ignoring that is not justified by many decades of physics analysis and modelling, and you would have to provide the corresponding basic principles in your new theory so that others could test it.

    I know you gave little information in your comments, but your idea that extra energy from one place must be balanced elsewhere far away smells to me like you are doing the above — simply solving equations at the moment when equilibrium is assumed to be established. And if your model only includes this information, then I think you are assuming instantaneous equilibrium with whatever set of values you solved.

    Now, to address the "[* see below]": More correctly, if you assume equilibrium and then use energy values that don't add up to zero net (eg, if the number you use up and down were to not add up to zero for the whole atmosphere), then you would actually be solving for a permanent state of imbalance.

    It really isn't clear to me what you are saying, but this explanation/conclusion above is the best I could do for the moment.

    I did skim a bit of the top of the article (and elsewhere) and have a concern.

    In trying to follow up on some of the references, I noticed (Monckton 2008) has been criticized a fair amount, eg (via google), http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html . One of the many points mentioned there (if maybe minor) perhaps applies to this paper as well, that IPCC 2007 "DT" value is not 3.26 C but 3.0 C.

    Do you have a response to the criticisms of that critique (as apply to whatever part of the Monckton paper apply here)? Were you fundamentally relying on some conclusion or result from that paper that is questioned in that review?

    If you use questionable sources, it lowers the likelihood people will take the time to discern what you are presenting.

    I didn't check other references or read much, btw, as that reference was right up near the top when I started to read the paper and ran into that potential wall.

    I will try to go through the article again but did want to leave this comment now in case I postpone the study again.

  19. BTW, from the little I have read, you present at a high level some criticisms about current mainstream climatologists that, if true, would suggest at least that there might be room to improve the current models to address such criticism, but I fear that perhaps those effects are negligible or accounted for to first order, even if indirectly; that you don't understand the models as well as you state; or even that a solution would not be based upon the math you present. [This is just a hunch I have. I'll try to give the article a fair shake if I can get myself to follow the details. I am not a scientist by profession so I am reaching back to my days of studying physics. It is always a good thing to be able to improve current models.]

  20. Starting afresh on the article. The main argument in the article seems to be that water vapor will greatly reduce the effect of greenhouse gas. (right?)

    I'm realizing I may have jumped the gun with my first comment (which reflected my confusion with your comments). If you solve with differential equations varying over time then you may not have a problem.

    I'll keep notes to myself as I read, asking as little as possible until I've read a lot (yet still have unanswered questions and hopefully useful comments).

    OK, here is one safe remark: It seems there is an incomplete sentence (no verb), and I couldn't figure out what was intended.

    >> But as can be seen from Figure 1 with the 78 Wm-2, the perturbation from a change in evaporation caused by a surface temperature change between the surface and the atmosphere, not at the TOA.

  21. I am not sure if I will spend the time to try and reverse engineer the linear equations involved but not presented (I may try to later out of curiosity). However:

    The analysis above (mostly simple ledger "accounting" of time-independent power values from a measured set at some point in time), from everything I have read and think have understood, is probably very wrong. Solutions above appear to use no differential equations (in contrast to the much more realistic IPCC models which do repeatedly across sub-components — using comparable small step difference equations, I assume).

    I also strongly suspect (despite my limited knowledge of the IPCC models) that the descriptions above (methods 1 and 2) do not describe anything but simple parts of some over-simplified models or describe just the boundary conditions of much more complex models used by the IPCC.

    As an example of what this simple power accounting doesn't do (with lots of assumptions made on fraction redistribution among the numbers in the ledger): if heating the earth with the greenhouse gases leads to an accumulation of energy/temperature in the lower atmosphere, there is nothing in the analysis above that would appear to deduce such a value and future effects. For example, and as an extreme hypothetical, if the net flux out into space goes down by 10% for a few years, during which time the surface temperature rises a great deal (as dictated by the SB law with most of the yearly 10% energy not dissipated instead bouncing around in the lower atmosphere) so that, let's imagine, the surface radiation goes from 390 to 490 as the backscatter power goes from 324 to 400 and some other adjustments take place, it would be true that the analysis presented in this article would have made no attempt to verify such behavior as correct or otherwise rule it out. It assumes the fig 1 or fig 2 values as true for all time (a contradiction itself, since having those 2 sets wasn't just to get more accurate measurements but because the values themselves changed over the years — there is a time dependency).

    I don't think there is a short-cut to resolving many differential equations sub-problems (or else a very very complex one) all coupled to the "nearby" sub-problems through boundary values. This is why we use computers. In contrast, a single small set of time-independent linear equations presumably used in this article can be solved (eg, via straight forward Gaussian elimination) on paper in a short time.

    I am open to the idea that the analysis here can be proven to be useful to what we might expect if we wait out for some amount of time (say hundreds of years) for the transient effects to die down to a negligible amount, but it surely can't say much useful about the next decade or century since it has no dependency at all on time.

    Out of curiosity, did the author consider that more water vapor, rather than lead to certain ledger fractional changes as I think were assumed, instead might allow a much larger amount of back-radiation to remain in the lower atmosphere? How was this possibility ruled out? And with more back-radiation, there is more total flux to redistribute for certain parts of the ledger, leaving room for everything to keep going up even if extra energy (as a "feedback") takes place as latent heat removed via water vapor from the very lower levels.

    [As a minor point, the direct solar power absorbed into the atmosphere is not all longwave. As this picture suggests, in particular the top strip showing the sun power curve, with red getting through and white getting absorbed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Tra… , the ozone consumes a fair amount of uv energy. Greenhouse gases likely consume less but, even if more, surely don't consume all or nearly all of that absorbed into the atmosphere. So the longwave amount used in the analysis would not be equal to the entire 67 (78) value.]

    This is just my opinion, that's all. [I'm not a scientist or mathematician although I have some background obviously.] If this article is concluding something correct, I would really like to understand it. The author obviously understands a great deal but maybe is oversimplifying this problem and giving too little credit to existing complex mainstream climate models.

  22. Josex,

    You ask many questions, many not related to my paper. First of all, there is a simpler version of my paper at post G10. I recommend you look at that, which may help.

    The following comments may also answer some of your points.

    Accepted definition of climate sensitivity is the change in surface temperature for CO2 doubling after equilibrium is reached including feedback (reaction) effects fom the initial surface temperature change, and there are no other forcing events. In the real world there are constant changes and equilibrium is never reached, so we have a choatic system that never stabilizes. However, for the purposes of the effects of changes in greenhouse gases one would like to know what changes they alone will produce, so it seems like the climate sensitivity concept is very useful. A separate, but important issue is how long it will take for the full effect (temperature rise) to occur.

    There are now two ways to estimate the climate senisitivity. One is the simple type model that treats the average of the planet, as I am involved with, and there are the very complex global circulation models that cannot be verified and in fact have had trouble agreeing with some observations.

    You are correct that most of the heat that leaves the surface does not go directly to outer space, but first warms the lower atmosphere. Then due to the temperature drop with altitude, the heat rises from convection and radiation to higher levels in the atmosphere. Finally, the atmosphere becomes thin enough that the radiation to space occurs. For water vapor this is at lower levels than CO2. See my post on the effects of the tropopause.

    The main jist of my paper is that the present energy balance models only consider the added heat from the surface deposited in the atmosphere from infrared radiation and ignores the latent heat moving to the atmosphere when clouds condense from the surface evaporation that preceeded it. And for each 1 C rise in surface temperature this heat increases nearly as much, about 4.8 Wm-2 compaed to 5.42 from radiation, assumming the expected 6%/C increase in evaporation for constant RH.

  23. The other paper of mine that I refered to in the preceeding comment is on this site. The full title is:

    Does the Tropopause Limit Carbon Dioxide Heat Trapping?

  24. Hey Richard, my concerns currently are the following (and I think they have to do with this paper):

    — As interesting as the points are and as true as it could possibly be that current models might not do water vapor sufficient justice, I don't think the approach you took to solve for various variables by ignoring the time dependency is the way to resolve the net effect of that excess water vapor. From the bit of research I have done, it's understood you can't get an exact value for the equilibrium climate sensitivity value (2xCO2), but there are methods used to estimate it that involve integrating over the precise path the temperature takes over a period of years (subject to the assumptions required of course). Any attempt to resolve this sensitivity value has to consider that over time the power balances will not at all look like either figure 1 or figure 2. You method is based totally on the values of fig 1, 2.

    — [You stated you don't really know how the complex models work or what the IPCC relies upon. If I only went by your words, I think I would have reason, staying on the topic that is this paper, to question this failure to both call out these models yet not understand them nearly that well. With this justification out of the way…] I understand it is a major task to figure out what the complex models are doing, but, in the end, it is difficult to justify a criticism of them without understanding enough of their details (just as my criticism here falls short). One reason why you want to understand the models is that the "missing" water vapor might be taken into account elsewhere, even if imperfectly. Even the creators of those models likely have doubts over aspects of the model and over what is the correct best science, but they likely use a team of experts (computer programmers and various physicists) to help place themselves in the best position. At least some of the complex models were derived from existing understood and proven methods and computer source code for modelling weather. They have leveraged something that works to a large degree. Note: you can find source code for at least one of the models from GISS' website. I downloaded it, and it is mostly a bunch of Fortran code and compiles for *nix operating systems. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelE.html and I think http://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/modelE.201… (or you can look for other related pages.. maybe this as well http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/GISTEMP… ).

    — I am not too interested in less detail (but I will look at G10); I am interested in more! Although I think you hint strongly at the components that are a part of the system of equations you used to make various calculations, why are the exact details not covered (or maybe I missed it)? I would like to see those exact equations, if only to verify your numbers (although what I really want is to understand the details in order to analyze better).

    — An oddity that made me doubt it would be worthwhile to try and reverse engineer the equations: the values you get for DT (delta temp?) early on, 0.2149 C, 0.2146 C, and 0.2139 C (see "The resulting surface temperature changes for new equilibrium states were as follows"), are very close to the value you mention immediately afterward, .215 C/Wm^2. The problem is that these two sets are unrelated. The three derived are temperatures, while the other value is a k value. This distinction seems clear because you then use at least some of those temp values in one or more tables and in the text as a temp value while the k value is reused right away in the very next sentence of that section as a k to derive a temp value (admittedly, I have not traced everything through because I have doubts of where the numbers came from so am stalling some further analysis). The units are also clearly stated and are different (C vs. C/Wm^2). With this coincidence in values, however, I do wonder to myself if you made a mistake, and if I don't have good data, it makes it difficult to re-derive your equations.

    — Your points in the paper might offer a way to improve the existing models, but the precise knowledge needed and computer source code changes needed require more careful study. If I get an independent project going to document and analyze model E (or any other model), I will leave a note here. [Fortran doesn't seem too difficult, but it and the quantity of code presents a hurdle to get over for sure.. and I don't know how much time I will want to dedicate to this.]

    — Did you try to run any of the existing models (eg, the open source ones) with your 6%? [not that doing this would definitively give you your answer, but it would offer valuable clues] Not doing this appears to be an important oversight, given the statement this paper is making.

    — Backscattering is an interesting animal. It is like (to use an analogy) if a buoyant ball placed under water was pushing away heavier water molecules as it made its way up, but, rather than the higher up water just sliding around the ball, these molecules would bounce mostly straight upwards and then come down on the ball again and again to keep impeding the ball's flight upwards. By having to deal with constantly bouncing water molecules above it, the ball would take longer to reach equilibrium level. This example is made up, but, if water worked that way, perhaps all of this extra back-bouncing would heat the ball up more than if its path were more easily traversed. The ball essentially has to perform the work of pushing the water out of the way, over and over, rather than just once. Similarly, adding more water vapor to the lower atmosphere might mean that total backscattering goes up significantly, perhaps to more than make up for the extra amount of energy being "deposited" higher up in the atmosphere. The power balance numbers would be higher, including implying a higher surface temp. .. So backscattering is a rather natural effect that can result in much higher values over time than presented in fig 1 and 2 but which you don't appear to consider in your methods. With the equations you used in the paper in hand, I would more easily be able to try and find a contradiction between your methods and more accurate physical modelling (or otherwise acquire support for your results).

    — I am not disparaging your arguments; however, like anyone who respects the nature of science, I am not going to easily tear at it without sufficient evidence. Science is always "wrong" and in a learning state, yet I have respect for what has cumulatively survived. Of the many wrong turns taken by science, there might be some important ones wrt climatology. I respect you have valid points (or at least concerns), but the burden on you to justify that your approach is sufficient has to be large, especially when it contradicts the approach normally taken to resolve such variables. [I could give a more sure critique (and ask better questions perhaps) if I knew exactly the system of equations used at various points… sorry to keep repeating this point so much but it's a bit of a disclaimer on my part for not being as specific as I should be.]

    — Current climate models make no attempt to match year-to-year temp values but instead try to predict and match (or closely approach) averages over longer time spans (closer to 30-year values). Does your reformulation give correct results if applied to the earth's past historical values? Note the BEST project and recent results, so there is much data at hand over which we have decent confidence.

    I doubt I would be the only one to criticize as above if you tried to publish this paper in a major journal on this topic (I'm assuming you haven't tried or would have mentioned it in the text). The conclusions and analysis for deriving some of these values don't appear to be mainstream. If I were in your shoes, I would expect to have to bring more ammo to the table to convince a large number of climatologists of those results (and I agree you have put serious effort already and did acknowledge time constants and other uncertainties). You would gain traction if you could definitively identify a code change to make in one of the models and/or show that adjusting current models to 6% evaporation rate would yield your numbers above (you might have to modify source code to achieve this). Good luck, and I'm curious to know if you think the open source code documentation/analysis and "fork" of model E would be a good idea.

    Again, I am not a scientist, but I do have background I think to judge some of this. If I had access to the exact system of equations you used, I think I would be more specific in critique.

  25. Briefly, my disagreement is that, to the degree I understand the variable solving approach taken in the paper, you don't solve using standard physics what the values would be for the different temperatures and many other values. You do use physics and, like everyone else, offer a proxy approach to estimating the 2xCO2 sensitivity. However, you assume (best I can guess) that flux values at key boundaries (or through key areas) would stay constant (over the relevant time span during which 2xCO2 takes place and come to steady state) in testing out a particular 1 W model perturbation. I didn't see you trying to justify these particular constant-through-time assumptions; for example, I didn't see any use of accepted force, power, energy equations/principles to suggest such a scenario is likely. And such assumptions (best I can guess), or the equivalent of such assumptions, are very important to the results you get from the system of equations you used.

    Here is an acid test. Did you apply your analysis to the 1997 fig 1 values in order to make a meaningful and accurate prediction of the 2009 fig 2 values and other current globally known values (such as "surface" average temp)? Did you attempt to apply the time constant discussion percentage values in this calculation? If this question is not applicable, what time scale would you say is appropriate? Can you hypothesize (or look up?) what fig 1 value equivalents might be for the year 1850 and then apply your methods to predict 1997 values? What predictive capabilities does you approach offer over existing approaches, and can you find historical data to support such an improvement in prediction power? This type of acid test and these sort of questions are going to be on the minds of many skeptics.

    Again, I hope I don't come across as harsh. You can make good points that suggest valuable improvements to the status quo even if the ultimate results derived are not acceptable for some reason or other.

  26. [Note when reading: as of this posting, the first of my earlier today comments is still in moderation.]

    If I had to boil down to one question, it might be this:

    What justification is used for drawing any relationship between the state variable values shown in either fig 1 or fig 2 and the values of those same variables as they would exist in the future at steady state (which is when the calculation for equilibrium climate sensitivity could be deduced directly)?

    A follow up: if the connection assumed in this paper for the usage of those state values from fig 1 or fig 2 to perform calculations of the equilibrium climate sensitivity value is not justified, then what should we expect to get from the calculation exercises performed in this paper? [I don't think the paper derives equilibrium climate sensitivity, in other words, and I am tempted to think that no useful surrogate is derived either.]

    My main simplified reasoning to suggest fig 1, 2 values are not to be used directly in a time-independent fashion, as I think this paper uses them, is that, as CO2 is added or water vapor increases, we have to derive the backscattering values (or equivalent) because backscattering greatly affects any flux balance equations. Also, without some sort of time analysis (implied by various physics differential equations), I don't think we can derive such backscattering value(s) at steady state (or at any other necessary time where such value might contribute to the final steady state value).

    I think this paper presents useful information, but the overall analysis fails in important ways (eg, as just mentioned), so the final conclusions doesn't follow.

  27. A few points. I have submitted a paper which is an improved version of post 10 (which is a simpler version of this one) to a well know reviewed journal. As part of this I cannot submit it to another one until they decide if they will publish it.

    In many cases where a system is perturbed with an outside excitation, it is easier and more meaningful to determine the final steady state solution than the transient analysis that defines how the system behaves before it arrives at the steady state. As an electrical engineer this is one type of thing we study. My analysis is concerned with the steady state solution and one does not need to integrate over time to determine this. You are making things too complicated.

    With regard to the complex computer models it is not my job to dig into the complex equations and physics to determine where the errors are when they results do not agree with observations or simple basic theory such as simple energy balance. That would be a fool’s errand.

    These complex models should not be confused with weather models. These have improved much in the last 10 to 20 years. Reasonably correct predictions have gone from 2 to 3 days to up to about a week, but this is in large part because of the quick feedback and evaluation of the models and many different versions to weed out the ones that do not work well. I am not an expert in these either, but I am very sure that you will not find the atmospheric content of CO2 in these models, since it does not change in the time interval of interest. So none of their experience improves these climate models. And the climate models have no observation experience whatever in climate modeling estimates vs. results. And they are trying to do this over the planet, not just smaller regions, and over a much longer time period. They are probably all making many of the same mistakes and incorrect assumptions.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.