Richard C. Savage Comment

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE:

Quote:Contrary to the claims of Prof Denning and others quoted in your article, Ken Buck is quite right in saying that the manmade global warming crisis (MMGWC) is a hoax. I'm not sure how to rank it among all hoaxes, but it certainly is a very large one, in terms of both money (billions of dollars, at least) and participants (thousands).

I have some qualifications for saying so. I have a Ph.D. in meteorology (University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1976). My thesis research was in radiative transfer, the physical theory underlying the hypothesis of "greenhouse warming;" I have a graduate minor in electrical engineering. My dissertation was on pasive microwave radiation transfer through hydrometeors (rain, ice), including absorption, emission, and scattering. I wrote the specifications for a microwave imaging sensor (the SSMI) that flies on the DMSP meteorological satellites that is widely used for polar ice detection and analysis by both operational (National Ice Center) and research (National Snow and Ice Data Center, NSIDC) agencies. I was the manager of the team of software engineers at Hughes Aircraft Company in Aurora that designed and produced the software to process the sensor data (including environmental algorithms). On my own initiative, and with government permission, I conveyed sensor documentation and computer code to NSIDC to allow them to begin data processing from SSMI. I am no enemy of honest climate research; ask NSIDC. The SSMI data is widely used for cloud and precipitation analysis as well; I'm proud of that. BTW, I have never worked for an energy company; I have no financial interest in this debate. But I am very tired of lies from the likes of the three you quoted.

As regards the statements by Mr. Denning, two points:

1) the onus is on Mr. Denning, as on every scientist, to justify his hypothesis. Understandably, since he can't, he doesn't. His is the usual argument from authority ("consensus"). Humbug.

2) To unravel Mr. Denning's "onus", the heat added to the surface comes from the sun. The warm surface releases its heat in several ways, including by infrared emission into the upward hemisphere. Greenhouse gas molecules (water vapor [H2O], carbon dioxide [CO2], and a few others) absorb and re-emit IR energy (photons), into all spherical directions surrounding. Analogy: it's like a huge pinball game, in which the balls (photons) are released in one direction (down the table), and are interrupted by barriers which slow their ultimate escape from the field of play. In the real world, half the photons reemitted by the greenhouse gas (GHG) travel downward; these are the photons Mr. Denning claims are "add[ing] heat to the surface." The surface has lost two photons for each one it gets back. That doesn't warm the surface; it cools the surface. GHGs simply slow the cooling. They don't warm anything.

Others, less sophisticated than Prof Denning (but no more truthful), liken GHGs to "a blanket around the Earth" (Thomas Friedman) or a glass greenhouse. The analogies offer another opportunity to expose the illogic of MMGW. Will adding more blankets make it warmer under the covers? No; the heat (98.6 F) comes from your body. Will putting another layer of glass on the greenhouse make it warmer inside? No; the warmed air (from sunlight) is no more or less able to escape. Both mechanisms slow cooling; they add no warmth.

Mr. Denning of course avoids another fallacy in the claims of CO2 as the cause of MMGWC. CO2 is a trivial component of the atmosphere, both physically and radiatively. The real GHG is water vapor [H2O], about 2% of the atmosphere, much more than carbon dioxide [CO2], less than 0.04%. Radiatively, H2O absorbs across the IR spectrum (between 5 and 20 micrometers); CO2 absorbs in only a few wavelengths, at the boundaries of the emission spectrum. CO2 doesn't even respond to most of the escaping photons - the heat being lost to space. Clouds are also very important.

I suggest the Wonk Room contact Prof Roger Pielke Sr (at CSU) about the absurd claim from Dennis Ojima that there is "no controversy." Prof Pielke, certainly one of the most respected climatologists in the world, will gladly itemize the many ways humans can modify the climate. He certainly won't agree that CO2 is the only one, or even the most important.The study of climate change, as practiced by Dr. Pielke, is well worthwhile; it should not be appropriated by Johnny One-note phonies like Denning, Ojima, and Ammann. Why should I have all the fun? Surely your own coverage of this topic tells us all there is a controversy? You haven't heard of the Hockeystick controversy? You haven't heard of ClimateGate?

Surely you have misquoted Dr. Ammann in saying "...temperature change will be comparable to interglacial periods, when New York City and the Upper Midwest were covered with an ice sheet"? We are presently in an Interglacial Period; those are the warm times, that permit human civilization. But humans - in their hunter-gatherer era - have seen much larger changes. Go look up the Milankovitch Cycle on Wikipedia. It's called that because the mathematician Milutin Milankovitch predicted the periodic recurrence of Interglacials every 100,000 years - based on astronomical cycles. CO2 has nothing to do with it. All Dr. Ammann has are his computer models, which will do whatever he codes in. As Twain said: "science is wonderful; you can get such a wholesale return of speculation for such a trivial investment of fact."

Incidentally, when I was a grad student at Wisconsin, one of my professors was Reid Bryson - the foremost climatologist of his time. He was predicting cooling at the time - mostly because, from 1945 to 1977, the Earth WAS cooling. You can read his comments at my website:

http://www.colo-earthfriends.org/Bryson.htm

and much more besides.

Richard C. Savage

He commented a few more times.

His next comment is great!

[strogoff]

Thank you SST, very interesting discussion.

The correct link in the comment is http://www.colo-earthfriends.org/bryson.htm (great web content although a bit chaotic structure).

I´ve never read it stated as clearly as "The surface has lost two photons for each one it gets back. That doesn't warm the surface; it cools the surface. GHGs simply slow the cooling. They don't warm anything." But who is counting photons out there?

[Sunsettommy]

(10-28-2010 03:14 AM)strogoff Wrote:  Thank you SST, very interesting discussion.

The correct link in the comment is http://www.colo-earthfriends.org/bryson.htm (great web content although a bit chaotic structure).

I´ve never read it stated as clearly as "The surface has lost two photons for each one it gets back. That doesn't warm the surface; it cools the surface. GHGs simply slow the cooling. They don't warm anything." But who is counting photons out there?

It has to be that way since Visible light photons carry in far more energy than outgoing IR photons carries out.The speed are the same.

[Derek]

(10-29-2010 06:12 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  It has to be that way since Visible light photons carry in far more energy than outgoing IR photons carries out.The speeds are the same.

So, obviously it ain't the long wave IR photons that are doing almost all of the cooling of the earth's surface,
(mind you, Planck's law tells us that anyway)
nor any supposed reheating....AND,
certainly they can not reheat the earth's surface (when an absolute maximum of 50% [that's a gross exaggeration] could only possibly be re radiated back to the earth's surface)
as much as the initial solar input.
If any at all.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:So, obviously it ain't the long wave IR photons that are doing almost all of the cooling of the earth's surface,

Conduction and Convection have major roles that gets overlooked or even ignored by AGW believers.They are stuck with CO2 so much that they fail to see the clouds.

Quote:certainly they can not reheat the earth's surface (when an absolute maximum of 50% [that's a gross exaggeration] could only possibly be re radiated back to the earth's surface)

Once you get above the planets surface it is immediately less than 50% of the surface.The higher the IR goes upward before being absorbed,the less the surface area exposure there is,and more of the sky there is.That can be radiated back onto.