On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:39:50 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 3 April 2015 20:19:05 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 03/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Utter idiot
Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:30:18 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 02/04/15 17:19, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:53:39 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:

That's just simple physics. 'If' the planet is in equilibrium
with the incoming solar energy then 'energy in' = 'energy out'.
However it's not quite true and the energy out is less due to
the GHE and the planet is warming. It will however arrive at a
new equilibrium commensurate with the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Agreed.

This is well understood at the thermodynamic level even if the
exact details of heat flow through atmosphere are more complex
and need to modelled.

It is the heat flow through the atmosphere that I say is being
modelled incorrectly. Absorption in the CO2 bands is saturated,
see Zhong and Haigh (2013). Therefore the OLR (outgoing
long-wave radiation) does not change and so cannot be responsible
for AGW.


There is a good explanation here, by climate scientists Spencer
Weart, and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/


They increase CO2 by a factor of four to get a noticeable effect,
which does not explain why with only a 40% increase we are seeing
changes in the climate.

It is just another case of the models being shown to be wrong but the
scientists explaining it away.


and he
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

This is the argument that if we increase CO2 then the emission to
space will be made from higher colder altitudes but if the absorbed
radiation is saturated then so too is the emitted radiation.
Increasing the concentration will not alter the radiation emitted.


It is possible that all the climate scientists and physicists are wrong
about the way CO2 acts in the atmosphere and you are right. That seems a
bit unlikely to me.

Surely the issue is how potent is the extra co2, is a slightly warmer world such a disastrous thing and how many other factors are driving the climate. Lets hypothesise that Co2 is not known to change climate but the world was either warming or cooling -who would be held to blame , would there be such a huge bandwagon and would there be the same hysteria. I doubt it very much.

They global cooling scare of the seventies didn't catch fire so to speak, like AGW did why? Well I believe the difference was with global cooling the left had no one to blame but with AGW it was the perfect weapon with which to bash capitalism and boy oh boy has it done so.

Utter idiot.

"Alastair" wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 6:15:08 PM UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"Alastair" wrote:

It is the heat flow through the atmosphere that I say is
being modelled incorrectly. Absorption in the CO2 bands
is saturated, see Zhong and Haigh (2013).

True at the surface, but increases in atmospheric CO2 do reduce OLR to
space
at the top of the atmosphere, and the effects percolate down through the
atmosphere, warming the surface.

If the absorption is saturated at the base of the atmosphere then
there is no radiation for CO2 to reduce at the top of the atmosphere.

There is, because the whole atmosphere radiates in the infrared.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:19:05 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 03/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:30:18 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 02/04/15 17:19, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:53:39 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:

That's just simple physics. 'If' the planet is in equilibrium
with the incoming solar energy then 'energy in' = 'energy out'.
However it's not quite true and the energy out is less due to
the GHE and the planet is warming. It will however arrive at a
new equilibrium commensurate with the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Agreed.

This is well understood at the thermodynamic level even if the
exact details of heat flow through atmosphere are more complex
and need to modelled.

It is the heat flow through the atmosphere that I say is being
modelled incorrectly. Absorption in the CO2 bands is saturated,
see Zhong and Haigh (2013). Therefore the OLR (outgoing
long-wave radiation) does not change and so cannot be responsible
for AGW.


There is a good explanation here, by climate scientists Spencer
Weart, and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/


They increase CO2 by a factor of four to get a noticeable effect,
which does not explain why with only a 40% increase we are seeing
changes in the climate.

It is just another case of the models being shown to be wrong but the
scientists explaining it away.


and he
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

This is the argument that if we increase CO2 then the emission to
space will be made from higher colder altitudes but if the absorbed
radiation is saturated then so too is the emitted radiation.
Increasing the concentration will not alter the radiation emitted.


It is possible that all the climate scientists and physicists are wrong
about the way CO2 acts in the atmosphere and you are right. That seems a
bit unlikely to me.

They are not all wrong. The some sceptic scientists are half way there, but citing them would not go down well with the establishment.

It is unlikely that I will win the lottery tomorrow but someone will. In fact someone has just won £1,000,000 twice. So the fact that it is unlikely does not mean it is not possible.

But the people who are investigating the climate system are meteorologists, physicists and mathematicians. I am a retired system engineer so have a better insight into systems than them.

My original question at the start of this thread was in effect does any else think that the scientists are defending the indefensible. Despite the modellers being unable to predict the growth of Antarctic sea ice, or the current hiatus they are still OK, because if not someone would have shown them to be wrong. But none of them is going to tell them they are wrong because they are all sure they are correct. That was my advantage. As an ex-programmer I knew that programmers make mistakes.

On Friday, 3 April 2015 23:21:58 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:19:05 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 03/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:30:18 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 02/04/15 17:19, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:53:39 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:

That's just simple physics. 'If' the planet is in equilibrium
with the incoming solar energy then 'energy in' = 'energy out'.
However it's not quite true and the energy out is less due to
the GHE and the planet is warming. It will however arrive at a
new equilibrium commensurate with the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Agreed.

This is well understood at the thermodynamic level even if the
exact details of heat flow through atmosphere are more complex
and need to modelled.

It is the heat flow through the atmosphere that I say is being
modelled incorrectly. Absorption in the CO2 bands is saturated,
see Zhong and Haigh (2013). Therefore the OLR (outgoing
long-wave radiation) does not change and so cannot be responsible
for AGW.


There is a good explanation here, by climate scientists Spencer
Weart, and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/


They increase CO2 by a factor of four to get a noticeable effect,
which does not explain why with only a 40% increase we are seeing
changes in the climate.

It is just another case of the models being shown to be wrong but the
scientists explaining it away.


and he
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

This is the argument that if we increase CO2 then the emission to
space will be made from higher colder altitudes but if the absorbed
radiation is saturated then so too is the emitted radiation.
Increasing the concentration will not alter the radiation emitted.


It is possible that all the climate scientists and physicists are wrong
about the way CO2 acts in the atmosphere and you are right. That seems a
bit unlikely to me.

They are not all wrong. The some sceptic scientists are half way there, but citing them would not go down well with the establishment.

It is unlikely that I will win the lottery tomorrow but someone will. In fact someone has just won £1,000,000 twice. So the fact that it is unlikely does not mean it is not possible.

But the people who are investigating the climate system are meteorologists, physicists and mathematicians. I am a retired system engineer so have a better insight into systems than them.

My original question at the start of this thread was in effect does any else think that the scientists are defending the indefensible. Despite the modellers being unable to predict the growth of Antarctic sea ice, or the current hiatus they are still OK, because if not someone would have shown them to be wrong. But none of them is going to tell them they are wrong because they are all sure they are correct. That was my advantage. As an ex-programmer I knew that programmers make mistakes.

This posting is quite surreal. You say you have a better insight into systems than the meteorologists. Meteorology involves more than just systems - physics for example. It's just possible that they have a better insight into meteorology than you - they ought to, with no disrespect.
Pack this up - you're in danger of becoming a laughing stock.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 11:21:58 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:19:05 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 03/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:30:18 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 02/04/15 17:19, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:53:39 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:

That's just simple physics. 'If' the planet is in equilibrium
with the incoming solar energy then 'energy in' = 'energy out'.
However it's not quite true and the energy out is less due to
the GHE and the planet is warming. It will however arrive at a
new equilibrium commensurate with the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Agreed.

This is well understood at the thermodynamic level even if the
exact details of heat flow through atmosphere are more complex
and need to modelled.

It is the heat flow through the atmosphere that I say is being
modelled incorrectly. Absorption in the CO2 bands is saturated,
see Zhong and Haigh (2013). Therefore the OLR (outgoing
long-wave radiation) does not change and so cannot be responsible
for AGW.


There is a good explanation here, by climate scientists Spencer
Weart, and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/


They increase CO2 by a factor of four to get a noticeable effect,
which does not explain why with only a 40% increase we are seeing
changes in the climate.

It is just another case of the models being shown to be wrong but the
scientists explaining it away.


and he
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

This is the argument that if we increase CO2 then the emission to
space will be made from higher colder altitudes but if the absorbed
radiation is saturated then so too is the emitted radiation.
Increasing the concentration will not alter the radiation emitted.


It is possible that all the climate scientists and physicists are wrong
about the way CO2 acts in the atmosphere and you are right. That seems a
bit unlikely to me.

They are not all wrong. The some sceptic scientists are half way there, but citing them would not go down well with the establishment.

One of the silliest responses I've ever seen. Cite them. Cite Lindzen (debunked) Miscolczi (debunked) and others. How on earth do you know they are "half way there"?

It is unlikely that I will win the lottery tomorrow but someone will. In fact someone has just won £1,000,000 twice. So the fact that it is unlikely does not mean it is not possible.

Absolutely not. It is also not impossible that the USA did not actually land on the moon and it is possible that the twin towers really were a CIA plot and Elvis lives, in his dotage, in Cleckheaton. You believe in things simply because they are not impossible??

But the people who are investigating the climate system are meteorologists, physicists and mathematicians. I am a retired system engineer so have a better insight into systems than them.

You are joking.

My original question at the start of this thread was in effect does any else think that the scientists are defending the indefensible. Despite the modellers being unable to predict the growth of Antarctic sea ice, or the current hiatus they are still OK, because if not someone would have shown them to be wrong. But none of them is going to tell them they are wrong because they are all sure they are correct. That was my advantage. As an ex-programmer I knew that programmers make mistakes.

You live in cloud cuckoo land.

PS Tell us how cold radiation is a fact, despite the laws of thermodynamics telling you it is impossible.

On 03/04/15 23:21, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:19:05 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 03/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:30:18 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 02/04/15 17:19, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:53:39 PM UTC+1, RedAcer
wrote:

That's just simple physics. 'If' the planet is in
equilibrium with the incoming solar energy then 'energy in'
= 'energy out'. However it's not quite true and the energy
out is less due to the GHE and the planet is warming. It
will however arrive at a new equilibrium commensurate with
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Agreed.

This is well understood at the thermodynamic level even if
the exact details of heat flow through atmosphere are more
complex and need to modelled.

It is the heat flow through the atmosphere that I say is
being modelled incorrectly. Absorption in the CO2 bands is
saturated, see Zhong and Haigh (2013). Therefore the OLR
(outgoing long-wave radiation) does not change and so cannot
be responsible for AGW.


There is a good explanation here, by climate scientists
Spencer Weart, and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/




They increase CO2 by a factor of four to get a noticeable effect,
which does not explain why with only a 40% increase we are
seeing changes in the climate.

It is just another case of the models being shown to be wrong but
the scientists explaining it away.


and he
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

This is the argument that if we increase CO2 then the emission
to space will be made from higher colder altitudes but if the
absorbed radiation is saturated then so too is the emitted
radiation. Increasing the concentration will not alter the
radiation emitted.


It is possible that all the climate scientists and physicists are
wrong about the way CO2 acts in the atmosphere and you are right.
That seems a bit unlikely to me.

They are not all wrong. The some sceptic scientists are half way
there, but citing them would not go down well with the
establishment.

It is unlikely that I will win the lottery tomorrow but someone will.
In fact someone has just won £1,000,000 twice. So the fact that it is
unlikely does not mean it is not possible.

But the people who are investigating the climate system are
meteorologists, physicists and mathematicians. I am a retired system
engineer so have a better insight into systems than them.

My original question at the start of this thread was in effect does
any else think that the scientists are defending the indefensible.
Despite the modellers being unable to predict the growth of Antarctic
sea ice, or the current hiatus they are still OK, because if not
someone would have shown them to be wrong. But none of them is going
to tell them they are wrong because they are all sure they are
correct. That was my advantage. As an ex-programmer I knew that
programmers make mistakes.



This is a good place to start to see what climate models the IPCC is
using for it's reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Plenty of detail about the models. Some are open source so you can
download the model and source code and compile and run it for yourself.

On 03/04/15 23:21, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:19:05 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 03/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:30:18 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 02/04/15 17:19, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:53:39 PM UTC+1, RedAcer
wrote:
.............

Also here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Circulation_Model

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 3:26:23 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:

This is a good place to start to see what climate models the IPCC is
using for it's reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Thanks for posting that. I tend to ignore the IPCC reports which I see as over 1000 pages of waffle. But I have read the FAQ which repeats the theme of the radio programs - the models don't work but we believe them because they are based on SCIENCE.

FAQ 8.1 it says:

"How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes."

Yet the models failed to predict the increase in Antarctic sea ice, and Jane Francis admitted that the models do not agree with her paleoclimate data.

"Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period (Chapter 1)."

Oh yea? What about the hiatus?

"Nevertheless, models still show significant errors."

True.

"Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10)."

Aren't clouds rather fundamental?

If I recall correctly in both radio programs it was emphasised that all scientists are sceptics. Anyone else here call themselves a scientist :-)

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:06:32 PM UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"Alastair" wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 6:15:08 PM UTC+1, Togless wrote:
"Alastair" wrote:

It is the heat flow through the atmosphere that I say is
being modelled incorrectly. Absorption in the CO2 bands
is saturated, see Zhong and Haigh (2013).

True at the surface, but increases in atmospheric CO2 do reduce OLR to
space
at the top of the atmosphere, and the effects percolate down through the
atmosphere, warming the surface.

If the absorption is saturated at the base of the atmosphere then
there is no radiation for CO2 to reduce at the top of the atmosphere.

There is, because the whole atmosphere radiates in the infrared.

Yes, you are quite right. (Just testing you :-)

What I should have written is that, like the radiation at the base of the atmosphere, the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere is saturated.. So increasing the concentration of CO2 raise the height from which the radiation emitted. It is argued that since it is coming from a greater altitude in the troposphere it will be at a lower temperature and so decrease. But it will still also be made up of emissions from the stratosphere, mesosphere which will increase because the CO2 there is denser. Moreover, the CO2 band is already attenuated. Decreasing a small amount results in a small decrease.

But that is not how it works. The clue is in your term "percolates down". The change in TOA OLR can be rectified if the TOA warms. There is no guarantee/mechanism to ensure the surface warms because the TOA cools.

I don't think I have really answered your objection, but thanks for raising it. It is the weak point in my theory which I must address.

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:29:26 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 3:26:23 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:

This is a good place to start to see what climate models the IPCC is
using for it's reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Thanks for posting that. I tend to ignore the IPCC reports which I see as over 1000 pages of waffle........

He say,s dismissing thousands of scientists' views and instead believing that he knows better.

You are making an idiot of yourself; best to stop now.