At the suggestion of James Annan I am posting my paper here and asking for
criticism from those qualified to comment. This may be very few because with
the specialisation of science these days, despite being a climate modeller,
James himself felt he did not know enough about these particular matters.

Go to the web page at
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.htm
or read the PDF file at
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.pdf

Cheers, Alastair.

"Blessed are those who hopeth and expecteth little, for they shall not be
disappointed!"

"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote:

At the suggestion of James Annan I am posting my paper here and asking for
criticism from those qualified to comment. This may be very few because
with
the specialisation of science these days, despite being a climate
modeller,
James himself felt he did not know enough about these particular matters.

Go to the web page at
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.htm
or read the PDF file at
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.pdf

Cheers, Alastair.

"Blessed are those who hopeth and expecteth little, for they shall not be
disappointed!"



Hi Alastair -

I have enjoyed reading Jack Barrett's work over the years. Your
characterization of him, when you write that "both Barrett and Hug were
mistaken in believing that increasing CO2 does not cause global
warming", does not seem to reflect that Barrett has long concluded that
extra CO2 in our atmosphere has a warming effect. He does conclude that
the effect is much smaller than IPCC suggests.

Yes, you are correct. The mistake Barrett made in his dispute with
Houghton et al. was to accept that Schwarzschild's equation was correct.
I only discovered as I was checking my references, that Hug had spotted
the boundary layer would warm, but he claimed that all the heat would be
carried away by convection. I think it is fair to claim that my model is
novel, but perhaps I should build one before publishing. But unlike Hug,
I believe that this model means we could be in a more dangerous state
than the IPCC think.

As to your model, it is unclear to me whether you give any consideration
(beyond the mention of Hug's claim) to the main way that CO2 gets rid of
energy it absorbs -- through collision with other molecules. Barrett
calculates that the chance of an excited CO2 molecule losing its
excitation energy by collision is 10^5 times that of its emitting a
photon. The molecules don't stop colliding. There's an ongoing exchange
of energy. CO2 doesn't stop absorbing and radiating at any half-value
layer distance.

I have considered it, but I did not want to point out too many flaws
in the current model all at once. Thermalisation of the absorbed
radiation does occur, but it is a quantum mechanical process and
I am finding it difficult to get a clear description of it. But the net
effect is for the surface of the earth to warm the boundary layer
of the atmosphere during the day and cool it during the night
by radiation rather than conduction.

One complication is that the water vapour provides a positive
feedback on its own generation. When the blackbody radiation
from the surface has heated the air above it via the CO2, then
the water vapour will be produced and it builds up until clouds
form which prevents further evaporation. If rain happens and
the clouds disappear, then the process is repeated. If you
increase the CO2, the first set of clouds will form earlier in
the morning, increasing overall cloudiness (and causing
global dimming.)

But it is all rather complicated, and I could do with clarification
of quantum mechanical effects.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

I believe that this model means we could be in a more dangerous state
than the IPCC think.


Cause and effect, that's scientific, isn't it?

"Jik Bombo" wrote in message
news:92RMe.2603$Ix4.457@okepread03...

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"Jik Bombo" wrote in message
news:njvMe.2546$Ix4.1520@okepread03...
Why do we need a "new" model?

New is just a euphemism for correct. The old one is wrong. Even GWB can
see
that, and he uses it as the reason for failing to act.

Ok, the model is wrong.

Thank you.

Now, how do we know that the "new" one will be right?

We heard that about the "old" one, didn't we?

What you have not heard about the "old" one is where it is going wrong. They
have been struggling for fifteen years to get the cloud model right, and they
reckon they still need another 15 years. The models of convection have to be
damped, otherwise they run away, and the cloud base is modelled incorrectly,
so
the weather men use a frig factor to calculate it. (And, dare I mention it,
the troposphere temperatures measured by weather balloons do not show the
warming that the models predict.)

The radiation scheme is only a small part of the computer models, so the
current models work fairly well. However that is partly due to the fact that
experienced meteorologists know where they go wrong and can compensate in
their weather forecasts.

So if I am right, then four day and perhaps even seven day weather forecasts
should become better.

The climate models are based on the same principles as weather computer
models. At present they can not simulate the glacial periods and rapid
climate change which we know did happen. If my model is correct then these
will be reproducible and the future will be modellable with confidence.

However, there will always be those who will be reluctant to admit they made a
mistake, if only because it will give a field to the sceptics.

Cheers, Alastair.

In article , "Alastair McDonald" k writes:

What you have not heard about the "old" one is where it is going wrong. They
have been struggling for fifteen years to get the cloud model right, and they
reckon they still need another 15 years. The models of convection have to be
damped, otherwise they run away, and the cloud base is modelled incorrectly,
so
the weather men use a frig factor to calculate it. (And, dare I mention it,
the troposphere temperatures measured by weather balloons do not show the
warming that the models predict.)



That does not mean that errors exist in models only.

Science 11. august 2005 has an article indicating that this particlar deviation
is due to measurement errors of the weather ballons and not the models. The article is named
Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming



Øyvind Seland

"Øyvind Seland" wrote in message
...
In article , "Alastair McDonald"
k writes:

What you have not heard about the "old" one is where it is going wrong.
They
have been struggling for fifteen years to get the cloud model right, and
they
reckon they still need another 15 years. The models of convection have to
be
damped, otherwise they run away, and the cloud base is modelled
incorrectly,
so
the weather men use a frig factor to calculate it. (And, dare I mention
it,
the troposphere temperatures measured by weather balloons do not show the
warming that the models predict.)



That does not mean that errors exist in models only.

Science 11. august 2005 has an article indicating that this particlar
deviation
is due to measurement errors of the weather ballons and not the models. The
article is named
Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming

I am aware of that paper, but it it does not give new values for the upper
troposphere, which is where the I am saying warming will not ocurr to the
extent predicted by the current models.

Moreover, it is claiming that day and night should show the same warming and
blaming the narrowing differential is caused by elimination of a daytime
overheating error. But an increased greenhouse effect will be more noticable
at night, rather than during the day as is shown at ground stations.
Therefore, there is no need to eliminate the supposed error since the
differential will narrow as CO2 concentrations increase.

I other words he is using a bad model to justify altering the data so that it
fits his model.

HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair McDonald wrote:

What you have not heard about the "old" one is where it is going wrong. They
have been struggling for fifteen years to get the cloud model right,

More like 40 years, actually.

and they
reckon they still need another 15 years.

This is probably an optimistic estimate of when we'll able to explicitly
resolve clouds in long-term climate models and do away with convective
parameterization.

The models of convection have to be
damped, otherwise they run away,

Convective parameterizations aren't (explicitly) damped and they don't
"run away". You may be referring to the old problem of grid-scale
storms, which with more modern parameterizations don't happen much anymore.

I recall Barrett concluding that Schwarzschild's equation does not
specify the mechanism(s) involved. As best I understand your points, if
the relationship it specifies includes the kinetics, then your point
about separate matters, and your assessment of Barrett's "mistake", do
not appear reasonable.

But my main question about the model is: How can you make conclusions
about the atmosphere when your model doesn't include the main way that
CO2 releases the energy from the IR it absorbs? Your description seemed
to reflect a model where the only way that CO2 releases that energy is
via the release of a photon.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com


In article ,
"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote, in part:

"Steve Schulin" wrote...
"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote:
...
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.htm
or read the PDF file at
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.pdf
...

Hi Alastair -

I have enjoyed reading Jack Barrett's work over the years. Your
characterization of him, when you write that "both Barrett and Hug were
mistaken in believing that increasing CO2 does not cause global
warming", does not seem to reflect that Barrett has long concluded that
extra CO2 in our atmosphere has a warming effect. He does conclude that
the effect is much smaller than IPCC suggests.

Yes, you are correct. The mistake Barrett made in his dispute with
Houghton et al. was to accept that Schwarzschild's equation was correct.
I only discovered as I was checking my references, that Hug had spotted
the boundary layer would warm, but he claimed that all the heat would be
carried away by convection. I think it is fair to claim that my model is
novel, but perhaps I should build one before publishing. But unlike Hug,
I believe that this model means we could be in a more dangerous state
than the IPCC think.

As to your model, it is unclear to me whether you give any consideration
(beyond the mention of Hug's claim) to the main way that CO2 gets rid of
energy it absorbs -- through collision with other molecules. Barrett
calculates that the chance of an excited CO2 molecule losing its
excitation energy by collision is 10^5 times that of its emitting a
photon. The molecules don't stop colliding. There's an ongoing exchange
of energy. CO2 doesn't stop absorbing and radiating at any half-value
layer distance.

I have considered it, but I did not want to point out too many flaws
in the current model all at once. Thermalisation of the absorbed
radiation does occur, but it is a quantum mechanical process and
I am finding it difficult to get a clear description of it. But the net
effect is for the surface of the earth to warm the boundary layer
of the atmosphere during the day and cool it during the night
by radiation rather than conduction.

One complication is that the water vapour provides a positive
feedback on its own generation. When the blackbody radiation
from the surface has heated the air above it via the CO2, then
the water vapour will be produced and it builds up until clouds
form which prevents further evaporation. If rain happens and
the clouds disappear, then the process is repeated. If you
increase the CO2, the first set of clouds will form earlier in
the morning, increasing overall cloudiness (and causing
global dimming.)

But it is all rather complicated, and I could do with clarification
of quantum mechanical effects.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
I recall Barrett concluding that Schwarzschild's equation does not
specify the mechanism(s) involved. As best I understand your points, if
the relationship it specifies includes the kinetics, then your point
about separate matters, and your assessment of Barrett's "mistake", do
not appear reasonable.

My mention of Barrett (and Hug) was intended as thanks for pointing
me in the right direction, rather than as an outright repudiation of their
ideas. Barrett concluded that "any increase in the carbon dioxide
content of the atmosphere will not affect the average temperature of
the troposphere." I took that to mean, and I suspect that the sceptic
Barrett also believed that meant, that there was no danger to mankind
from an increase in carbon dioxide. Hug had spotted that although the
average temperature of the troposphere would not rise, the temperature
of the air nearest the surface would. He discounted the danger by
claiming that the warmer air would be carried away by convection.
Perhaps what I should have spelt out is that we already have a
greenhouse effect which warms the surface air despite the
existence of convection. The effects of doubling the concentration
of CO2 are not going to be removed by convection any more that
the present effects are.

But my main question about the model is: How can you make conclusions
about the atmosphere when your model doesn't include the main way that
CO2 releases the energy from the IR it absorbs? Your description seemed
to reflect a model where the only way that CO2 releases that energy is
via the release of a photon.

Yes, I glossed over the fact that the absorbed radiation would be thermalised.
But note that this thermalisation will lead to even less radiation being
emitted upwards, and so the 'winepress' effect will be even stronger.

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair McDonald wrote:
"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...

I recall Barrett concluding that Schwarzschild's equation does not
specify the mechanism(s) involved. As best I understand your points, if
the relationship it specifies includes the kinetics, then your point
about separate matters, and your assessment of Barrett's "mistake", do
not appear reasonable.


My mention of Barrett (and Hug) was intended as thanks for pointing
me in the right direction, rather than as an outright repudiation of their
ideas. Barrett concluded that "any increase in the carbon dioxide
content of the atmosphere will not affect the average temperature of
the troposphere." I took that to mean, and I suspect that the sceptic
Barrett also believed that meant, that there was no danger to mankind
from an increase in carbon dioxide. Hug had spotted that although the
average temperature of the troposphere would not rise, the temperature
of the air nearest the surface would. He discounted the danger by
claiming that the warmer air would be carried away by convection.
Perhaps what I should have spelt out is that we already have a
greenhouse effect which warms the surface air despite the
existence of convection. The effects of doubling the concentration
of CO2 are not going to be removed by convection any more that
the present effects are.


But my main question about the model is: How can you make conclusions
about the atmosphere when your model doesn't include the main way that
CO2 releases the energy from the IR it absorbs? Your description seemed
to reflect a model where the only way that CO2 releases that energy is
via the release of a photon.


Yes, I glossed over the fact that the absorbed radiation would be thermalised.
But note that this thermalisation will lead to even less radiation being
emitted upwards, and so the 'winepress' effect will be even stronger.

Cheers, Alastair.


Depends on the amount of water vapor and aerosols in the local area.

josh halpern