Any heat added to the oceans comes at the expense of the heat I calculated as added to the atmosphere. There are only 3.77 watts per square meter (according to AGW) as a source of added energy, and it doesn't matter where it goes - it is incapable of adding more than 0.3 deg. C to global temperature.
Michael--always appreciate the clarity of your thinking and willingness to contribute constructively to public discourse on various subjects.
In this case, however, I'm not sure simplification of the state of our understanding to this degree (sorry) is a helpful contribution.
An analogy: Knowing the specific heat capacity of down and mass of it in your sleeping bag does not lead to even a crude way of modelling the 'temperature rating' users are interested in. The thermodynamics of insulation are dominated by microconvection of air in within the down--a simplification that sets aside convection commits a gross mischaracterization.
In your treatment, modelling the air as a monolithic heat sync ignores crucial evaporative and radiative dynamics. In fact, the thrust of the article you are relying on is to argue that those factors are being overlooked by conventional climate change analyses:
"Therefore, greenhouse gases are indeed playing an important role in altering the globe’s climate, but they are doing so primarily by increasing the speed of the hydrologic cycle as opposed to increasing global temperature."
As to Gray's article, it deserves more scrutiny than you may have given it. It is work published posthumously by friends/relatives without of professional/institutional review. He was working on it a decade after leaving the academy (where his primary interest and achievements were in tropical storms, not climate or atmospheric science per se) and published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I'm being generous to say that this is not an ideologically disinterested organization.
In his later career, Gray's efforts to shoehorn global warming skepticism into his storm system/cycle research agenda was rebuffed by his own colleagues; his funding requests on climate change were repeatedly denied for failing to meet standards of objectivity and rigor. (The onus is on anyone who would accuse those reviewers as being 'brainwashed stooges of the mainstream agenda' of providing at least provisional evidence of such prejudice. Denial of Gray's proposals, alone, isn't that evidence; routine rejection of theoretically flawed/methodologically faulty research is how science works, by forcing researchers to reconcile their new discoveries/theories to previous findings. E.g., Einstein had to reconcile the predictive model of Special Relativity to the prior validation of Newtonian mechanics.)
I readily admit I am no kind of expert in this subject; I haven't any professional training in even an 'adjacent' branch of science, math or engineering. Like you, though, Michael, I have sufficient educational foundation, intellectual capacity and stubborn independence (some might say arrogance) to presume that the subject is accessible to me. Certainly, in this day and age, the materials are readily at hand. The challenge that public knowledge has always posed for autodidacts is we are left to our own devices with regard to curation. Bootstrapping presents a 'don't know what we don't know' conundrum.
My contribution, for what it's worth, is to recommend an impressive 'deep primer' on the relevant science assembled by at https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/. In my view, the author goes out of his way to eschew agenda-driven pseudoscience coming from all quarters. He is hardnosed about the science and cheeky about the politics surrounding it (starting with his naming of the site).
For my nickel, I find the dash of cynicism he brings to 'the debate' a refreshing palate cleanser we can all use.
Articles at 'Science of Doom' I found relevant to your article are:
"CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven – The Boring Numbers" and, as background to that,
Thanks for the input. The only way any mass can be increased in temperature is through the addition of energy and specific heat capacity is simply a measure of how much energy is needed to raise a kilogram of a mass by a degree Centigrade. While factors such as microconvection, evaporative and radiative dynamics can shift the energy from one part of the atmosphere to another (with effects on local weather, not on climate) it is only through the addition of more watts per square meter of the sun's energy (and thus more joules per kilogram) that the entire mass of the atmosphere can be warmed, and the analysis I provide is simply the arithmetic supporting the conclusion that even if the AGW theory that a doubling of CO2 concentrations will add 3.77 watts per square meter to retained energy is correct (and I doubt it is) that increase in energy is incapable of adding more than 0.3 deg. C. to the temperature of the atmosphere. For it to be warmer than that at sea level, it must be correspondingly colder at altitude. Gray died too soon but his analysis was accurate and like anyone who has the courage to confront the AGW scam head on, he was attacked. AGW is a political movement akin to a religion and cannot survive the application of the laws of physics, with respect.
Physicist Steve Koonin's book "Unsettled" confronts the misinformation promoted by those trying to advance the AGW ideology head on. No one can doubt his credentials or the accuracy of his application of the laws of physics. Like Gray, he has been attacked by the hard left.
I'm less convinced than you seem to be that scientific conclusions are driven by political ideology. I don't deny the strong correlation between outlook/sentiment; about that, at least, there is wide agreement and similar levels of exasperation. The causation _could_ run the other way, from fact to ideology. This is the path most of us perceive most of our positions as having developed. However, there's plenty of evidence in behavioural economics and experimental political psychology to suggest that climate and political orientations correlate because they are both driven by the same set of underlying variables and mechanisms. Decent summary offered by Yale Law prof who contribs to the Cultural Cognition Project there: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-is-motivated-reasoning-how-does-it-work-dan-kahan-answers
But enough psychology and philosophy--back to physics. You acknowledge that calculating an average temperature increase of 0.3 deg C, while an arithmetically correct expression of conservation of thermal energy, is a gross misrepresentation of the atmospheric gradient ("for it to be warmer than that at sea level, it must be correspondingly colder at altitude"). Relative to your 0.3°C average, the actual gradient is approximately 0.6°C/100 m. Whatever is maintaining that level of enthalpy is capable of directing additional energy into the same, or perhaps even steeper, gradient.
How did a 0.1% addition to my monthly natural gas consumption cause damage and domestic strife? Divided over 30 days and imparted to the thermal mass of the building envelope/contents the additional BTUs would suggest an imperceptible change in temperature. Not so, if it was all burned directly under a pot of oatmeal I'd forgotten on the stove. Thermal distribution absolutely matters if temperature has localized effects.
Which you also acknowledge, but you'd call my smoking breakfast and scaled pot an instance of 'weather'. The implication is that climate refers to (and is, therefore, determined by) a kind of summary statistic., such as the 0.3°C the atmosphere _would_ increase _if_ thermal energy were evenly distributed. But climate is nothing more than a geographic and chronologic aggregation of weather tendencies. If 'weather' is the localized atmospheric effects of uneven energy distribution and the area under that distribution is growing, then it would be both statistically and thermodynamically weird if weather trends (i.e., climate) didn't.
Thankfully, we are decreasing our reliance on theoretical models to link measurable changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and meteorology. In the past decade, developments in terrestrial and especially orbital instrumentation have improved our ability to measure the Earth's energy budget directly. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Direct_observation)
Hypotheses of the kind that Gray developed may soon be directly investigated through these tools. I'm not aware of work that has brought one directly to bear on the other, but it seems to me that climate science is undergoing the typical scientific progression from predictive models that generate expected results to operational models that explain/reconcile observed ones.
The essence of science is to purge our beliefs of ideology and interests, bringing what we take to be true into better alignment with the (less disputable) nature of things.
As a fellow energy energy investor, I do hope climate change skepticism is warranted. As a member of a civilization whose addiction to fossil fuels is second only to our utter dependence on supportive ecosystems, I dread it not only isn't warranted, but that it justifies deepening our plight.
Thanks for the comment. I am sorry if my article confused you about the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) phenomenon when I mentioned that "for it to be warmer than that at sea, it must be correspondingly colder at altitude". I was referring solely to the added 3.77 watts per square meter theoretically caused by a doubling of CO2. It is certainly possible the DALR can and likely does change with many factors contributing (e.g. presence or absence of a water vapour; seasonal changes in temperature) but the incremental 3.77 watts per square meter cannot increase the surface temperature unless it does in fact alter the temperature at a higher altitude. The best empirical research on this issue is by Dr. Michael Connolly and his son Dr. Ronany Connolly entitled "Balloons in the Air" and presented as a YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
Suggesting that CO2 makes a material difference to the temperature gradient is stretching reality to the breaking point, with respect. Simply stated, the addition of 3.77 watts per square meter to Earth's atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the atmosphere by more than 0.3 Deg. C and any change in the temperature gradient is a result of factors other changes in CO2 concentration which are immaterial comprising about 1 molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere over 100 years.
Before science can advance beyond the present contested theory, the "predictive models" have to result in predictions that are borne out by subsequent empirical measurements and the current models are woefully poor at predicting anything. I am not a "climate change skeptic" since I agree climate is changing. But I am unwilling to abandon the laws of physics in favor of a politically motivated and promoted theory that is devoid of empirical support and see no evidence that CO2 emissions have anything but a de minimus effect at current levels, and since CO2 interaction with LWIR is close to saturation today, will have little additional effect even if concentrations double or triple current levels.
Hi Michael, I've been enjoying your blog as well as your contributions to the #COM. I find it all incredibly valuable. Thank you.
While I generally agree with your conclusion that AGW is overbaked, there are a few things missing above. If you are interested in revisiting this I can expand.
Brilliant, but it also made me wonder about another aspect of the question, the heat budget of the planet itself. How solid is that part of the science? With the satellites we can measure atmospheric changes, but I must wonder about our ability to properly measure the heat coming from the fault lines of the tectonic plates.
Thanks. Not very solid. At this point we have very little ability to measure transfers of heat from the core of the Earth through fault lines or otherwise. The concept of "global average temperature" itself is flawed and impossible to measure with any precision. Historical data from tree rings or ice cores is useful for crude temperature estimates for the particular location where the trees or ice cores were located but of no value for "global averages".
"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible.” Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever
That's the atmosphere
Now add in the Oceans
Any heat added to the oceans comes at the expense of the heat I calculated as added to the atmosphere. There are only 3.77 watts per square meter (according to AGW) as a source of added energy, and it doesn't matter where it goes - it is incapable of adding more than 0.3 deg. C to global temperature.
Michael--always appreciate the clarity of your thinking and willingness to contribute constructively to public discourse on various subjects.
In this case, however, I'm not sure simplification of the state of our understanding to this degree (sorry) is a helpful contribution.
An analogy: Knowing the specific heat capacity of down and mass of it in your sleeping bag does not lead to even a crude way of modelling the 'temperature rating' users are interested in. The thermodynamics of insulation are dominated by microconvection of air in within the down--a simplification that sets aside convection commits a gross mischaracterization.
In your treatment, modelling the air as a monolithic heat sync ignores crucial evaporative and radiative dynamics. In fact, the thrust of the article you are relying on is to argue that those factors are being overlooked by conventional climate change analyses:
"Therefore, greenhouse gases are indeed playing an important role in altering the globe’s climate, but they are doing so primarily by increasing the speed of the hydrologic cycle as opposed to increasing global temperature."
As to Gray's article, it deserves more scrutiny than you may have given it. It is work published posthumously by friends/relatives without of professional/institutional review. He was working on it a decade after leaving the academy (where his primary interest and achievements were in tropical storms, not climate or atmospheric science per se) and published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I'm being generous to say that this is not an ideologically disinterested organization.
In his later career, Gray's efforts to shoehorn global warming skepticism into his storm system/cycle research agenda was rebuffed by his own colleagues; his funding requests on climate change were repeatedly denied for failing to meet standards of objectivity and rigor. (The onus is on anyone who would accuse those reviewers as being 'brainwashed stooges of the mainstream agenda' of providing at least provisional evidence of such prejudice. Denial of Gray's proposals, alone, isn't that evidence; routine rejection of theoretically flawed/methodologically faulty research is how science works, by forcing researchers to reconcile their new discoveries/theories to previous findings. E.g., Einstein had to reconcile the predictive model of Special Relativity to the prior validation of Newtonian mechanics.)
I readily admit I am no kind of expert in this subject; I haven't any professional training in even an 'adjacent' branch of science, math or engineering. Like you, though, Michael, I have sufficient educational foundation, intellectual capacity and stubborn independence (some might say arrogance) to presume that the subject is accessible to me. Certainly, in this day and age, the materials are readily at hand. The challenge that public knowledge has always posed for autodidacts is we are left to our own devices with regard to curation. Bootstrapping presents a 'don't know what we don't know' conundrum.
My contribution, for what it's worth, is to recommend an impressive 'deep primer' on the relevant science assembled by at https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/. In my view, the author goes out of his way to eschew agenda-driven pseudoscience coming from all quarters. He is hardnosed about the science and cheeky about the politics surrounding it (starting with his naming of the site).
For my nickel, I find the dash of cynicism he brings to 'the debate' a refreshing palate cleanser we can all use.
Articles at 'Science of Doom' I found relevant to your article are:
"CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven – The Boring Numbers" and, as background to that,
"The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part One"
Thanks for the input. The only way any mass can be increased in temperature is through the addition of energy and specific heat capacity is simply a measure of how much energy is needed to raise a kilogram of a mass by a degree Centigrade. While factors such as microconvection, evaporative and radiative dynamics can shift the energy from one part of the atmosphere to another (with effects on local weather, not on climate) it is only through the addition of more watts per square meter of the sun's energy (and thus more joules per kilogram) that the entire mass of the atmosphere can be warmed, and the analysis I provide is simply the arithmetic supporting the conclusion that even if the AGW theory that a doubling of CO2 concentrations will add 3.77 watts per square meter to retained energy is correct (and I doubt it is) that increase in energy is incapable of adding more than 0.3 deg. C. to the temperature of the atmosphere. For it to be warmer than that at sea level, it must be correspondingly colder at altitude. Gray died too soon but his analysis was accurate and like anyone who has the courage to confront the AGW scam head on, he was attacked. AGW is a political movement akin to a religion and cannot survive the application of the laws of physics, with respect.
Physicist Steve Koonin's book "Unsettled" confronts the misinformation promoted by those trying to advance the AGW ideology head on. No one can doubt his credentials or the accuracy of his application of the laws of physics. Like Gray, he has been attacked by the hard left.
I'm less convinced than you seem to be that scientific conclusions are driven by political ideology. I don't deny the strong correlation between outlook/sentiment; about that, at least, there is wide agreement and similar levels of exasperation. The causation _could_ run the other way, from fact to ideology. This is the path most of us perceive most of our positions as having developed. However, there's plenty of evidence in behavioural economics and experimental political psychology to suggest that climate and political orientations correlate because they are both driven by the same set of underlying variables and mechanisms. Decent summary offered by Yale Law prof who contribs to the Cultural Cognition Project there: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-is-motivated-reasoning-how-does-it-work-dan-kahan-answers
But enough psychology and philosophy--back to physics. You acknowledge that calculating an average temperature increase of 0.3 deg C, while an arithmetically correct expression of conservation of thermal energy, is a gross misrepresentation of the atmospheric gradient ("for it to be warmer than that at sea level, it must be correspondingly colder at altitude"). Relative to your 0.3°C average, the actual gradient is approximately 0.6°C/100 m. Whatever is maintaining that level of enthalpy is capable of directing additional energy into the same, or perhaps even steeper, gradient.
How did a 0.1% addition to my monthly natural gas consumption cause damage and domestic strife? Divided over 30 days and imparted to the thermal mass of the building envelope/contents the additional BTUs would suggest an imperceptible change in temperature. Not so, if it was all burned directly under a pot of oatmeal I'd forgotten on the stove. Thermal distribution absolutely matters if temperature has localized effects.
Which you also acknowledge, but you'd call my smoking breakfast and scaled pot an instance of 'weather'. The implication is that climate refers to (and is, therefore, determined by) a kind of summary statistic., such as the 0.3°C the atmosphere _would_ increase _if_ thermal energy were evenly distributed. But climate is nothing more than a geographic and chronologic aggregation of weather tendencies. If 'weather' is the localized atmospheric effects of uneven energy distribution and the area under that distribution is growing, then it would be both statistically and thermodynamically weird if weather trends (i.e., climate) didn't.
Thankfully, we are decreasing our reliance on theoretical models to link measurable changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and meteorology. In the past decade, developments in terrestrial and especially orbital instrumentation have improved our ability to measure the Earth's energy budget directly. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Direct_observation)
Hypotheses of the kind that Gray developed may soon be directly investigated through these tools. I'm not aware of work that has brought one directly to bear on the other, but it seems to me that climate science is undergoing the typical scientific progression from predictive models that generate expected results to operational models that explain/reconcile observed ones.
The essence of science is to purge our beliefs of ideology and interests, bringing what we take to be true into better alignment with the (less disputable) nature of things.
As a fellow energy energy investor, I do hope climate change skepticism is warranted. As a member of a civilization whose addiction to fossil fuels is second only to our utter dependence on supportive ecosystems, I dread it not only isn't warranted, but that it justifies deepening our plight.
Thanks for the comment. I am sorry if my article confused you about the dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR) phenomenon when I mentioned that "for it to be warmer than that at sea, it must be correspondingly colder at altitude". I was referring solely to the added 3.77 watts per square meter theoretically caused by a doubling of CO2. It is certainly possible the DALR can and likely does change with many factors contributing (e.g. presence or absence of a water vapour; seasonal changes in temperature) but the incremental 3.77 watts per square meter cannot increase the surface temperature unless it does in fact alter the temperature at a higher altitude. The best empirical research on this issue is by Dr. Michael Connolly and his son Dr. Ronany Connolly entitled "Balloons in the Air" and presented as a YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY
Suggesting that CO2 makes a material difference to the temperature gradient is stretching reality to the breaking point, with respect. Simply stated, the addition of 3.77 watts per square meter to Earth's atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the atmosphere by more than 0.3 Deg. C and any change in the temperature gradient is a result of factors other changes in CO2 concentration which are immaterial comprising about 1 molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere over 100 years.
Before science can advance beyond the present contested theory, the "predictive models" have to result in predictions that are borne out by subsequent empirical measurements and the current models are woefully poor at predicting anything. I am not a "climate change skeptic" since I agree climate is changing. But I am unwilling to abandon the laws of physics in favor of a politically motivated and promoted theory that is devoid of empirical support and see no evidence that CO2 emissions have anything but a de minimus effect at current levels, and since CO2 interaction with LWIR is close to saturation today, will have little additional effect even if concentrations double or triple current levels.
Hi Michael, I've been enjoying your blog as well as your contributions to the #COM. I find it all incredibly valuable. Thank you.
While I generally agree with your conclusion that AGW is overbaked, there are a few things missing above. If you are interested in revisiting this I can expand.
I am sure there are more than a few things missing, since the article is a high level summary. Any inputs always welcome.
Brilliant, but it also made me wonder about another aspect of the question, the heat budget of the planet itself. How solid is that part of the science? With the satellites we can measure atmospheric changes, but I must wonder about our ability to properly measure the heat coming from the fault lines of the tectonic plates.
Thanks. Not very solid. At this point we have very little ability to measure transfers of heat from the core of the Earth through fault lines or otherwise. The concept of "global average temperature" itself is flawed and impossible to measure with any precision. Historical data from tree rings or ice cores is useful for crude temperature estimates for the particular location where the trees or ice cores were located but of no value for "global averages".
"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible.” Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever