CHERRYPICKING AGAIN

Retief writes:

On 30 Jan 2007 23:47:27 -0600, D Smith wrote:

Smith writes: "The air then re-emits IR radiation, and there is a 50%
chance the energy is emitted upwards, and a 50% chance it is emitted
downwards."

I notice that this quote says that _air_ does it, not CO2 (indeed,
this statement is found in the very text which Parker quoted).

You seem to really like this quote from me. Too bad you're making a
habit of taking it out of context, and trying to create a strawman. You

Out of context? You claimed "the air then re-emits"... You further
compound your error by implying or claiming that such is the _primary_
mode by which energy is transferred.

Liar. My original post specifically says:

Yes, at a different location in your post (well away from your claim
that "air re-emits"), you include convection as a (apparently a small)
secondary effect. Of course, we noted that convection is in fact the
PRIMARY energy transfer mechanism.

There you go again. Another lie. The words of mine (still quoted below)
make no comparison at all as to the relative magnitude of radiation vs.
convection. Your "apparently a small" annotation is purely a figment of
your imagination.



|This is moderately complex, but not overwhelmingly so. What you need is
|a model that will handle all the absoprtion/reemission cycles, and track
|the heat content of the atmosphere as a function of altitude. (Turns out
|you also need to include energy transfers by convection, too.) The
|primary effects were figured out years ago. For a one-dimension approach,
|I would suggest looking up the names Manabe and Wetherald (papers in the
|scientific literature in the 1960s), and the term "radiative-convective
|model".

See where it says "convection"?

Yes Smith, let us read that again:

"(Turns out you also need to include energy transfers by
convection, too.)"

Yes. Note how it makes no comparison fo realtive magnitude.


That is an interesting turn of phrase, when the truth is that you need
to include energy transfers by convection as the PRIMARY mechanism,
not as "convection, too" (i.e. as a "secondary mechanism")...

...and then you make up the lie that I have claimed it is secondary. In
fact, if you continue just a short distance further down in my original
post, you find that I quote your text where you say

|Feel free to demonstrate how CO2 dominates in those bands which are in
|fact dominated by the broad absoption spectra of water:

and I respond:

| It doesn't need to dominate - just have a measureable effect.

So, my specific words belie your claim that I said radiation dominates
over convection: I'm not even claiming that CO2 has to dominate the
radiative part.

[snip]


Are you going to look up the paper in the literature? I"ve posted the
exact reference twice now.

And this paper is going to disprove my claim that increasing CO2
levels will not have a significant effect, as the IR bands where CO2
absorbs (e.g. 15 um) are already saturated (and have absorbed all of
the energy that was available in those bands)?

I've pointed out how bogus your claim is about "saturation" and "all of
the energy", and you simply repeat it, lying like a rug in every post.

I've given you a reference to a peer-reviewed paper in the scientific
literature that calculates the radiative effect of CO2 and examines
atmospheric temperature response to changes in CO2, all while including
convection, too, and you can't even be bothered to try reading it to see
what it says.

Typical.


Of course it won't address that, you think you can divert the
discussion via a red herring...

To Retief, a "red herring" is something that is contrary to "The One
Truth, by Retief". The paper shows a much better way to do radiative
transfer calculations than the lies you post.


Let us refresh the reader's memory on some studies which serve as
counter-evidence to Smith's claim:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhous...enhouse-X2.png

junkscience.com isn't exactly a peer-reviewed scientific source, is it?
But let's play the game.

You conveniently snipped this from my post to which you replied.

Perhaps because it is junk? But let's see what it says. You've given a
link to a graph, with no discussion of what you want us to see. When I
follow the link, I see a graph titled "Estimating Clear Sky Greenhouse
Effect From Doubling CO2". The Y-axis is temperature, from 0 to 14C. The
X-axis has numbers from 0-600, but no title - it woudl have to be CO2. The
graph has three smooth curves, all starting at 0 and rising to values of
5, 7, and 12 C at 300ppm, then continuing to 6, 8, or about 13.5C at 600
ppm. The three lines have references to three author's work. Does this
graph support Retief's claim, repeated above?:

"that increasing CO2 levels will not have a significant effect"

Well. Each line shows a rise in temperature between 300 and 600 ppm -
the smallest being less than 1C, and the largest being closer to (but less
than) 2C. The legend has numbers that I think are supposed to be the
temperature rise between 300 and 600 ppm, and the values listed there are
0.64, 0.87, and 1.46C.

The graph also shows three horizontal lines, extending to the right of
each curve beginning at the point the curve passes about 280 ppm. The area
between this horizontal line and the rising curve is shaded (between 300
and 600 ppm), presumably to highlight the "Effect From Doubling CO2".

So, the graph Retief is pointing us to actually reports on three
studies that indicate warming of about 0.5 to 1.5C. (The smallest one has
Lindzen's name on it - a well-noted skeptic for large changes, but
none-the-less a skeptic that knows enough atmospheric science to only
claim the rise is smaller than most people believe, not that it is zero.)

This is what Retief thinks is "proof" that increasing CO2 will have no
significant effect!

Now, what does junkscience.com have to say about this graph. If we look
at the page it is embedded in (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/), we
find the section of the web page contains the following text:


#Well, how much does carbon dioxide heat the Earth?

#Oh my, we were afraid you were going to ask that. Because so many of the
#atmospheric processes are still being sorted out and quantified this is a
#non-trivial task. But alright, here goes.

#What we can do is plot some of the more common estimates -- note that
#these are something of a curve-fitting exercise on our part because we
#don't have the full papers and workings at hand. Stay with us while we
#run through a couple of rough sketch graphs, following which we'll try a
#different approach to see if we can't narrow the possibilities.

# We'll offer three of the more commonly used and/or discussed estimates
#for the amount of cooling Earth would experience for a hypothetical
#zero-CO2, cloud-free atmosphere; Lindzen (5.3 °C clear sky, 3.53 °C with
#40% cloud), along with Charnock & Shine (12 °C clear sky), C&S are the
#big number guys in the estimation game (both from Physics Today, 1995)
#and Kondratjew & Moskalenko (7.2 °C, commonly cited but we are not sure
# why, perhaps because Houghton used their estimate in his book, 'The
#Global Climate', 1984) - here these estimates are simply scripted up to
#produce the following graphs and the numbers are imprecise, merely
#adequate to give everyone a reasonable look at how carbon dioxide fits
#into the picture. Note also that there is still dispute over whether
#water would (does) act as a positive or negative "feedback" (multiplier
#effect) since water vapor and droplets (clouds) affect both incoming
#Solar radiation and outgoing Earth radiation.

#Our simple script is logarithmic (remember our example of adding more
#shades over a window) but does not allow for complete saturation of
#radiative wavelengths, likely increases in evapo-transpirative cooling,
#increases in albedo (bright clouds reflecting more incoming solar
#radiation) nor any variation by latitude and so will progressively
#overestimate potential warming from CO2 alone. No matter, it does quite
#well enough to demonstrate the principle.

#You can see how much this little script has overshot the mark since
#Lindzen states explicitly that a doubling from 300ppmv to 600ppmv of
#atmospheric carbon dioxide would result in only 0.5 °C warming. Rather
#obviously, Lindzen's calculations do not suggest a particularly large
#greenhouse influence on post-Industrial Revolution temperatures and,
#significantly, this does not include clouds, so CO2 would really only be
#a fraction of the total effect shown (Lindzen states 0.22 °C if
#calculated with 40% cloud cover). Despite our over-estimation of the
#numbers on the graph it should be apparent there is only moderate warming
#potential from carbon dioxide emissions. These have all been plotted
#simultaneously so you can see the range of estimates for incremental
#change in temperature driven by greenhouse gases and below we show for a
#quadrupling of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas relative to pre-Industrial
#Revolution levels.


So, Retief's studies that are supposed to prove his point aren't even
study results, but are simply junkscience.com's logarithmic extrapolations
of a single number from three authors. Even junkscience.com doesn't
describe the graph the way Retief wants us to interpret it.




Likewise you snipped my request to see your analytical ab-initio model
for the atmosphere and climate system. You have claimed and implied
that you have such a model, in all its complexity...


One more time: read the following paper to see one such model:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.


Until you read it and and provide a criticism of it, I'm not going to
pay much attention to posts that you fill with lies. If you're too lazy to
go read a paper, why should I take the time to write something up and post
it here?

Retief writes:

On 30 Jan 2007 23:37:52 -0600, D Smith wrote:

[large deletions - covered in a previous post]

You apparently think that your transmission fractions are going to
_improve_ as you add more layers...

Oh, so cleverly you have removed the parts where I talk about each unit
of optical depth reducing the transmission by the same ratio. Are you

Well Smith, that fact that you've just "discovered" this effect,

What a laugh! I've known it for 25 years, and the scientific community
has known it for well over a century. OTOH, you have a lot of catching up
to do.


doesn't mean that it's new to the rest of us. You want to pretend
that something was concealed, so why don't you start by showing that
your "cascade" style model produces transmission rates that are
_higher_ than those demonstrated in the 1 km air path


...but we also know that radiation transfer is more than just
transmission. And that the absolute effects of changing transmission
coefficients isn't the same at all optical thicknesses. Something you
still can't seem to get your head around.

[snip]


The reader will also notice that Smith is apparently uninterested in
supporting his claim that increasing CO2 will increase the power
absorbed in those strong absorption bands (e.g. 15 um).

I've demonstrated that you can't summarize the effects on the whole
atmosphere based on one number at an arbitrary distance. Yet you seem to
persist with your "one emission, one absorption" model.

Smith previously complained about my trimming text previously, so I'm
going to leave great quantities of his blathering for the time being:

My compaint goes to taking things out of context. I know it makes it
easier for you to lie about what is said, but I now realize this is
pathological. All you seem to be able to say is:

[...]

We presume that you have a point, here... Would you get to it?

[...]

Again, we presume that you have a point, here... Would you get to it?

[...]

Again, we presume that you have a point, here... Would you get to it?

In other words, Retief is one or more of:

- lost, unable to comprehend the discussion
- unable to come up with any reason why my description of the processes
involved is in error.
- realizes anything he says will proivide further evidence of his
cluelessness.

It appears that the only point Retief has is the one on the top of his
head.

The reader will note that Retief presented no "model" (other than a
simple application of Beer's law). Rather, Retief presented evidence
that is contrary to Smith's claim that increasing the CO2 will
increase the IR absorption.

You've presented no such proof, only a claim. And one that clearly
violates Beer's Law. And if you think that Beer's Law was the only thing
going on in the discussion, you really ARE lost.

[...]

Again, we presume that you have a point, here... You've droned on for
several paragraphs, but I have yet to see your counter-evidence.

Perhaps you should start at the beginning, and show us your ab-initio
analytical climate model, which explains all of these interactions.
You did claim that you have one, if I understood you correctly.

....and I keep pointing you to the following:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.



But his model has one other very big mistake:

No model was presented

Gad, this idiot doesn't even know when he's using a model. I admit,
his model is only a simple descriptive one, and a ****-poor one at that,
but he is using a model.

[snip]



"Emission and absorption lines":

If you are trying to point out the relationship between emission and
absorption lines, then why does your model of the effects of CO2
completely ignore the role of emission of radiation by the atmosphere?

[huge snip of noise]


Now the fun is that if the atmosphere is isothermal (constant
temperature with height) and of uniform composition (in terms of IR
absorption and emission properties), then the NET flux (upward minus
downward) would be zero. It turns out that you need a temperature gradient
in order to have a net flux of IR, and the net direction is from warm to

Wow, after "ONLY" 135 lines of droning, Smith has finally discovered
simple thermodynamics (i.e. heat flows from the hotter to the colder).

Oh, Gawd, This idiot doesn't even know the difference between radiation
transfer and heat transfer. Now he's confusing the two and pretending I'm
the one that's confused.

...or he's just lying again.


[Snipped more paragraphs of Smith's irrelevant droning...]

In the stratosphere (which plays an important role, but is missing in
Retief's 10km tropospheric model), air density is very low, the atmosphere

I presented no model, Smith - I presented counter-evidence to your
claim that increasing CO2 results in significantly increased
absorption of those strong absorption bands (e.g. 15 um).

There he is - clueless about what a "model" is again.


Where is your disproof? Here are studies that show that same thing:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhous...enhouse-X2.png

Explain in what manner the authors of these studies were in error...

That graph (and the text it is embedded in says nothing remotely close
to what you calim it says. [Long explanation is in another post.]


Better yet, where is your ab initio analytical climate model, which
explains all of these intereactions in full and complete detail? We
are still waiting for you to prove your hypotheses.


Yet again:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.


When you look at all of this (upward, downward, all levels), the effect
of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would be to reduce the IR loss to space
by about 4 W/m^2. Not Retief's 0.2 W/m^2. As the system responds to this

Note how Smith tries to compare my simple demonstration example, which
was for a _single_ arbitrarily selected absorption coefficient, to
some sort of multi-wavelength calculation (indeed, very likely a
"regression analysis" - also known as a _curve_fit_), in order to
"prove Retief is wrong". This sort of dishonest nonsense is typical
of the AGW crowd.

Coming from a liar like you, that's quite a claim. Your MODEL (or
"simple demonstration example", as you call it) is so incomplete as to be
almost totally irrelevant to the issue you claim to be proving.

But that is an interesting claim, Smith... MODTRAN reports about half
that value (changing CO2 from 375 ppm to 750 ppm). How did you arrive
at your value? Show us the details of your math. Be specific and to
the point - quit wasting our time with irrelevant droning and text.

Since you sem to be incapable of looking at anything that isn't on the
web, try reading this:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm

For those that don't want to bother following the link, it is the IPCC
estimate (in the TAR), and says (amongst other things):

"The newer estimates of radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 are
between 3.5 and 4.1 Wm-2 with the relevant species and various overlaps
between greenhouse gases included."


Retief claims that MODTRAN gives half that value, without citing a
reference or source. There is a web interface to MODTRAN at:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/c...radiation.html

If you use the default settings on the opening screen, you do indeed
get a reduction of about 2.3 W/m^2 if you change the CO2 to 750 ppm, so
this may be where Retief gets his number.

If you pay attention to that default MODTRAN setting, you also notice
that it starts off with a "mid-latitude winter" atmosphere. If you change
that option to "1976 US Standard Atmosphere", you get about 2.9 W/m^2 for
the change between 375 and 750 ppm (or for the change between 300 and 600,
for that matter). That's close to the IPCC lower bound.

There are a lot of other options on that screen - for both the
atmospheric profile and what sort of clouds you want to include. (The
default is "no cloouds or rain". I've only tried a couple of them. Why
does the choice of the atmospheric profile matter? Because the model
includes emissions, not just transmittance, and emission depends on
temperature...

...and MODTRAN is the sort of model that does all the types of
calculations I've been talking about - multiple absorption/reemission,
multiple wavelengths, multiple gases, etc. You know, the kind of model
that Retief keeps asking me to show?

Retief can't even recognize that type of model when he uses it himself.
And then when he does use it, he can't even use it properly.

Or, he's just lying again.

Also, while you're at it, explain in what manner the authors of these
studies were in error:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhous...enhouse-X2.png

Oh, that cartoon again?

Better yet, present your ab initio analytical climate model, which
explains all of these intereactions in full and complete detail? We
are still waiting for your proof.

Once again:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.

(Or try MODTRAN, if you prefer.)


change, lots of things shift until the IR loss to space balances with the
absorbed solar again, but the direct effect of CO2 is 4 W/m^2. [I don't

MODTRAN shows about half that value (changing CO2 from 375 ppm to 750
ppm). How did you arrive at your value? Show us your math. Be
specific and to the point.

Repeating your error doesn't make you look any better.


Explain in what manner the authors of these studies were in error:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhous...enhouse-X2.png

If I say they aren't, and point out that they ALL show a positive
temperature difference between 300 and 600 ppm, will you still repeat your
claim that increasing CO2 will have no effect?


Better yet, where is your ab initio analytical climate model, which
explains all of these interactions in full and complete detail?

Yet again:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.

And I won't bother doing the calculations here.

Of course you won't, Smith...

Of course, not. Such things are available in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature. To paraphrase Oscar Leroy:

"Have you ever heard of an invention called a library? They have them
at Universities and Colleges. You should try one some time. JACKASS!"


Does that mean that you lied when you claimed to have an analytical
climate model? We were really looking forward to reviewing your
ab-initio analytical model, Smith...

Then why won't you read the following?

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.



[The rest of Retief's post is a lot of meaningless prattle that does
nothing to overcome the fundamental flaw in his model of atmospheric
radiation transfer.]

I presented no model, despite Smith's repeated dishonest attempts to
claim otherwise. However, I have presented a simple mathematical
exercise

...gee. Sounds like a model to me!

which demonstrates

...how fundamentally flawed Reteif's understanding of atmospheric
radiation transfer is.

the falsehood of Smith's claims.

...in your dreams.

And I have directed Smith to data which also refutes his claim, yet
Smith has repeatedly avoided addressing this counter-evidence.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhous...enhouse-X2.png

A cartoon of a simple logarithmic model applied to extrapolate a single
number that doesn't even support Retief's claim.


Thus Smith has demonstrated that he has no analytical model, has no
evidence, nor any proof to support his various hypotheses. The reader
may safely reject Smith's various anthropogenic global warming
hypotheses as unsubstantiated.


The reader may safely conclude that Reteif is either astoundingly
ignorant, or just a troll.

Oops. I guess that isn't an "either-or" question.

[plonk]

On 8 Feb 2007 22:30:15 -0600, D Smith wrote:

[large deletions - covered in a previous post]

You apparently think that your transmission fractions are going to
_improve_ as you add more layers...

Oh, so cleverly you have removed the parts where I talk about each unit
of optical depth reducing the transmission by the same ratio. Are you

Well Smith, that fact that you've just "discovered" this effect,

What a laugh! I've known it for 25 years, and the scientific community

And this is your explanation as to why you spent pages, droning on
about it, as if it were something "new"?

Or are you admitting that you did so as a red herring, as we already
know that increasing the path length will not increase the
transmission characteristics.

doesn't mean that it's new to the rest of us. You want to pretend
that something was concealed, so why don't you start by showing that
your "cascade" style model produces transmission rates that are
_higher_ than those demonstrated in the 1 km air path

...but we also know that radiation transfer is more than just
transmission. And that the absolute effects of changing transmission
coefficients isn't the same at all optical thicknesses. Something you
still can't seem to get your head around.

So Smith is now going to present his proof that increasing the optical
absorber thickness will result in a HIGHER transmission rate?

I am still waiting for your proof Smith.

The reader will also notice that Smith is apparently uninterested in
supporting his claim that increasing CO2 will increase the power
absorbed in those strong absorption bands (e.g. 15 um).

I've demonstrated that you can't summarize the effects on the whole
atmosphere based on one number at an arbitrary distance. Yet you seem to
persist with your "one emission, one absorption" model.

I never claimed that, Smith -- this is a strawman that you persist in
asserting. Smith persists in confusing a demonstration that
increasing the optical absorber thickness results in minimal (indeed,
vanishing small) transmission rates, with his false assertion that the
demonstration was a "climate model". Smith raises strawmen so he can
knock them down. But what Smith hasn't done is prove that increasing
the optical absorber thickness will result in a HIGHER overall
transmission rate (i.e. a _lower_ absorption rate).

Smith is clearly confused as to how science is done. The burden of
proof lies with Smith, to prove his claim (in this case, that
increasing CO2 will result in significant deleterious consequences).

Thus far, Smith has failed to prove anything...

Smith previously complained about my trimming text previously, so I'm
going to leave great quantities of his blathering for the time being:

My compaint goes to taking things out of context. I know it makes it
easier for you to lie about what is said, but I now realize this is
pathological. All you seem to be able to say is:

[...]

We presume that you have a point, here... Would you get to it?

In other words, Retief is one or more of:

In other words, Retief is waiting for Smith to get to the point, and
disprove one of Retief's claims (after all, the reader will recall
that it was these points which Smith was purportedly attacking):

1) Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas.

2) The strong CO2 transitions (e.g. 15 um) are well saturated, and
thus doubling the CO2 will not result in any significant increase of
absorbed energy in those bands.

After pages of your droning, Smith has singularly avoided those
points, and never provided any contrary proof.

- lost, unable to comprehend the discussion
- unable to come up with any reason why my description of the processes
involved is in error.
- realizes anything he says will proivide further evidence of his
cluelessness.

It appears that the only point Retief has is the one on the top of his
head.

Gosh, it's Lloyd Parker again... So "Lloyd", are you ready to provide
your proof?

While you're at it, we're still waiting for the details of your
calculation that resulted in CO2 increases resulting in 4 W/m^2. And
likewise, for your ab-initio climate model.

The reader will note that Retief presented no "model" (other than a
simple application of Beer's law). Rather, Retief presented evidence
that is contrary to Smith's claim that increasing the CO2 will
increase the IR absorption.

You've presented no such proof, only a claim. And one that clearly

I never claimed that I presented a proof, that is another of your
strawman. (Indeed, Smith persists in trying to shift the burden of
proof)

violates Beer's Law. And if you think that Beer's Law was the only thing
going on in the discussion, you really ARE lost.

Apparently Smith doesn't understand Beer's Law. Smith seems to think
that the transmission of an optical band will increase with thicker
layer of optical absorber. Perhaps Smith would like to present his
proof of this contrary effect?

Again, we presume that you have a point, here... You've droned on for
several paragraphs, but I have yet to see your counter-evidence.

Perhaps you should start at the beginning, and show us your ab-initio
analytical climate model, which explains all of these interactions.
You did claim that you have one, if I understood you correctly.

....and I keep pointing you to the following:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.

This paper does not say or do what you claim it does.

But his model has one other very big mistake:

No model was presented

Gad, this idiot doesn't even know when he's using a model. I admit,

Smith has asserted the strawman that what was presented was a "climate
model" or "atmospheric model" -- when in fact, what presented was a
demonstration of Beer's Law, and the consequences of increasing the
thickness of the optical absorber.

The reader may conclude that Smith has disagreed with this
demonstration as:

1) Smith believes that the net transmission INCREASES with increasing
optical absorber thickness.

2) Smith doesn't understand the consequences of Beer's Law.

his model is only a simple descriptive one, and a ****-poor one at
that, but he is using a model.

And again Smith demonstrates that he does not understand the
consequences of Beer's Law.

The reader will again note that Smith has failed to disprove the
statements:

1) Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas.

2) The strong CO2 transitions (e.g. 15 um) are well saturated, and
thus doubling the CO2 will not result in any significant increase of
absorbed energy in those bands (i.e. significant consequences).

"Emission and absorption lines":

If you are trying to point out the relationship between emission and
absorption lines, then why does your model of the effects of CO2
completely ignore the role of emission of radiation by the atmosphere?

[huge snip of noise]

Of course you snipped it, Smith... You seem to think that Quantum
Mechanics has no effect on the system in question.

Now the fun is that if the atmosphere is isothermal (constant
temperature with height) and of uniform composition (in terms of IR
absorption and emission properties), then the NET flux (upward minus
downward) would be zero. It turns out that you need a temperature gradient
in order to have a net flux of IR, and the net direction is from warm to

Wow, after "ONLY" 135 lines of droning, Smith has finally discovered
simple thermodynamics (i.e. heat flows from the hotter to the colder).

Oh, Gawd, This idiot doesn't even know the difference between radiation
transfer and heat transfer. Now he's confusing the two and pretending I'm
the one that's confused.

Heat transfer is energy transfer. Perhaps this freshman level course
will help Smith understand this issue:

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/me...ans_intro.html

"There are three mechanisms by which heat (energy) is transferred
in the atmosphe"

1. radiation
2. conduction
3. convection

But that may still be at too high level for Smith...

[Snipped more paragraphs of Smith's irrelevant droning...]

In the stratosphere (which plays an important role, but is missing in
Retief's 10km tropospheric model), air density is very low, the atmosphere

I presented no model, Smith - I presented counter-evidence to your
claim that increasing CO2 results in significantly increased
absorption of those strong absorption bands (e.g. 15 um).

There he is - clueless about what a "model" is again.

Smith persists in raising a strawman, asserting that a demonstration
of Beer's Law is "Retief's climate model".

The reader will again note that Smith has continued to evade, and
has failed to disprove the statements:

1) Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas.

2) The strong CO2 transitions (e.g. 15 um) are well saturated, and
thus doubling the CO2 will not result in any significant increase of
absorbed energy in those bands.

Better yet, where is your ab initio analytical climate model, which
explains all of these intereactions in full and complete detail? We
are still waiting for you to prove your hypotheses.

Yet again:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.

Your name is Manabe, or are you Wetherald?

This paper lacks detail and is not complete. Show me where your model
addresses the hydrologic cycle, and predicts atmospheric water.

Water is the most important greenhouse gas, and if you do not
understand it, your model will not correctly address it.

When you look at all of this (upward, downward, all levels), the effect
of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere would be to reduce the IR loss to space
by about 4 W/m^2. Not Retief's 0.2 W/m^2. As the system responds to this

Note how Smith tries to compare my simple demonstration example, which
was for a _single_ arbitrarily selected absorption coefficient, to
some sort of multi-wavelength calculation (indeed, very likely a
"regression analysis" - also known as a _curve_fit_), in order to
"prove Retief is wrong". This sort of dishonest nonsense is typical
of the AGW crowd.

Coming from a liar like you, that's quite a claim. Your MODEL (or
"simple demonstration example", as you call it) is so incomplete as to be
almost totally irrelevant to the issue you claim to be proving.

Here Smith asserts that Beer's Law is "so incomplete as to be almost
totally irrelevant to the issue you claim to be proving."

What was disproved was Smith's assertion that the radiation
transmission would _increase_ with a thicker optical absorber layer.

The data (graph) presented showed that the 15 um band was
extinguished, yet Smith persisted in droning an about absorber
thicknesses and whatnot. And with a increasing thickness, the
extinguished band will still be extinguished.

But Smith is invited to prove that an increasing thickness will result
in a greater transmission of IR (thus disproving Beer's Law).

But that is an interesting claim, Smith... MODTRAN reports about half
that value (changing CO2 from 375 ppm to 750 ppm). How did you arrive
at your value? Show us the details of your math. Be specific and to
the point - quit wasting our time with irrelevant droning and text.

Since you sem to be incapable of looking at anything that isn't on the
web, try reading this:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/219.htm

I didn't ask for the IPCC answer, Smith. I asked you to SHOW YOUR
MATH. Surely you can show how you arrived at this answer (other than
pulling it out of the IPCC's ass)!

For those that don't want to bother following the link, it is the IPCC
estimate (in the TAR), and says (amongst other things):

"The newer estimates of radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 are
between 3.5 and 4.1 Wm-2 with the relevant species and various overlaps
between greenhouse gases included."

And thus Smith admits that he pulled this number out of the IPCC's
ass.

Retief claims that MODTRAN gives half that value, without citing a
reference or source. There is a web interface to MODTRAN at:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/c...radiation.html

If you use the default settings on the opening screen, you do indeed
get a reduction of about 2.3 W/m^2 if you change the CO2 to 750 ppm, so
this may be where Retief gets his number.

If you pay attention to that default MODTRAN setting, you also notice
that it starts off with a "mid-latitude winter" atmosphere. If you change
that option to "1976 US Standard Atmosphere", you get about 2.9 W/m^2 for
the change between 375 and 750 ppm (or for the change between 300 and 600,
for that matter). That's close to the IPCC lower bound.

Chuckle... Thus Smith, either through ignorance or imcompetence,
seems to stumble upon "the truth"... Thus Smith concludes that the
IPCC model must be the result of using the "1976 US Standard
Atmosphere".

Let us examine the consequences of this choice:

http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/gl...rowse?s=s&p=89

"standard atmosphe A hypothetical vertical distribution of
atmospheric temperature, pressure, and density that, by
international agreement, is taken to be representative of the
atmosphere for purposes of pressure altimeter calibrations,
aircraft performance calculations, aircraft and missile design,
ballistic tables, etc."

[...]

"It is further assumed that the air contains no water vapor ..."

So, when Smith completely eliminates water vapor as a component of the
atmosphere, he finds that CO2 has a stronger effect (by completely
removing the competition for the energy in those IR bands).

Gosh, isn't Smith just the most clever little troll?

Of course, when water is present, then adding or removing CO2 shows
little effect. Yes, we understand how Smith (and the IPCC) wishes to
falsely magnify the effect of CO2 by removing the competing, and
overwhelming effect of atmospheric water.

There are a lot of other options on that screen - for both the
atmospheric profile and what sort of clouds you want to include. (The
default is "no cloouds or rain". I've only tried a couple of them. Why

So Smith, why don't you tell the reader what you found when you
included clouds? And what happens when you increase the water column
to a realistic value?

does the choice of the atmospheric profile matter? Because the model
includes emissions, not just transmittance, and emission depends on
temperature...

The model depends on the water vapor, which you so cleverly removed
from the model by selecting the dry "standard atmosphere"...

Perhaps next you can ignore the observed variations in solar flux
(indeed, a net increase in solar flux from 100 years ago), so as to
further falsely amplify the claimed effect of CO2. Chuckle

...and MODTRAN is the sort of model that does all the types of
calculations I've been talking about - multiple absorption/reemission,
multiple wavelengths, multiple gases, etc. You know, the kind of model
that Retief keeps asking me to show?

No, Smith was asked to show his ab initio analytical model -- MODTRAN
is not that.

Smith told us that he had an analytical model for the climate system.
All Smith has done thus far, is evade the challenge and cite a paper
which does not answer the question, or do what he claims.

Retief can't even recognize that type of model when he uses it himself.
And then when he does use it, he can't even use it properly.

The reader will note that Smith is the one who incorrectly used a
water-less atmosphere (i.e. "1976 US Standard Atmosphere"), in his
calculation above.

Perhaps Smith thinks he is clever by doing so, and thus Smith is once
again misrepresenting the truth.

Better yet, present your ab initio analytical climate model, which
explains all of these intereactions in full and complete detail? We
are still waiting for your proof.

Once again:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.

This paper is not what you claim.

(Or try MODTRAN, if you prefer.)

MODTRAN is not the ab initio analytical model that you claim.

If you think it is, perhaps you'd like to point us to YOUR
implementation of this computational model. The reader can then
examine your implementation to determine how much is "ab initio" and
how much is CURVE FIT. We are waiting, Smith!

change, lots of things shift until the IR loss to space balances with the
absorbed solar again, but the direct effect of CO2 is 4 W/m^2. [I don't

MODTRAN shows about half that value (changing CO2 from 375 ppm to 750
ppm). How did you arrive at your value? Show us your math. Be
specific and to the point.

Repeating your error doesn't make you look any better.

Continuing to evade the challenge does not make you look any better.
You'll recall that you indicated that you _could_ show the math, but
elected not to...

Explain in what manner the authors of these studies were in error:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhous...enhouse-X2.png

If I say they aren't, and point out that they ALL show a positive
temperature difference between 300 and 600 ppm, will you still repeat your
claim that increasing CO2 will have no effect?

Identify and prove the significant deleterious effect of a 1.6 C
temperature rise. Or prove that Lindzen's 0.6 C will result in a
deleterious effect.

Claiming "the temperature is increasing" is not a deleterious effect
(we note that this happens on a hemisphere scale every year, as we
come out of winter).

Better yet, where is your ab initio analytical climate model, which
explains all of these interactions in full and complete detail?

Yet again:

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.

This is neither a complete model, nor is it Smith's.

And I won't bother doing the calculations here.

Of course you won't, Smith...

Of course, not. Such things are available in the peer-reviewed

So you can cite YOUR scientific paper where you performed this
calculation? Please do so.

Does that mean that you lied when you claimed to have an analytical
climate model? We were really looking forward to reviewing your
ab-initio analytical model, Smith...

Then why won't you read the following?

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.

Why don't you show how this is a complete ab-initio, analytical model?
You won't because it is not, and thus you can not.

[The rest of Retief's post is a lot of meaningless prattle that does
nothing to overcome the fundamental flaw in his model of atmospheric
radiation transfer.]

I presented no model, despite Smith's repeated dishonest attempts to
claim otherwise. However, I have presented a simple mathematical
exercise

...gee. Sounds like a model to me!

The model being Beer's Law, which you have repeatedly attempted to
misrepresent as "Retief's Climate Model".

But Smith has insisted that Beer's Law is wrong, so the reader should
watch for Smith's proof of this claim.

which demonstrates

...how fundamentally flawed Reteif's understanding of atmospheric
radiation transfer is.

We are still waiting to see YOUR model, Smith!

the falsehood of Smith's claims.

...in your dreams.

Thus the reader will note that Smith has still failed to disprove the
statements:

1) Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas.

2) The strong CO2 transitions (e.g. 15 um) are well saturated, and
thus doubling the CO2 will not result in any significant increase of
absorbed energy in those bands (i.e. that there is a significant
deleterious effect).

Oops. I guess that isn't an "either-or" question.

[plonk]

And thus Smith now runs from the fight, which Smith elected to
initiate, after learning that his red-herrings are ineffective...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Smith!

Retief

On 8 Feb 2007 21:24:29 -0600, D Smith wrote:

There you go again. Another lie. The words of mine (still quoted below)
make no comparison at all as to the relative magnitude of radiation vs.
convection. Your "apparently a small" annotation is purely a figment of
your imagination.

So you spent pages describing how a demonstration of Beer's Law (which
you falsely attribute as "Retief's climate model") was not a good
"climate model", and during those pages and pages of your droning, you
didn't happen to notice that the largest term was convection (a
subject which Beer's Law does not address at all)?...

Laughable...

|This is moderately complex, but not overwhelmingly so. What you need is
|a model that will handle all the absoprtion/reemission cycles, and track
|the heat content of the atmosphere as a function of altitude. (Turns out
|you also need to include energy transfers by convection, too.) The
|primary effects were figured out years ago. For a one-dimension approach,
|I would suggest looking up the names Manabe and Wetherald (papers in the
|scientific literature in the 1960s), and the term "radiative-convective
|model".

See where it says "convection"?

Yes Smith, let us read that again:

"(Turns out you also need to include energy transfers by
convection, too.)"

Yes. Note how it makes no comparison fo realtive magnitude.

I understand, Smith... You spent pages knocking a strawman which you
had raised, and in your "excitement", you simply forgot that the
convective term is the DOMINANT feature of the atmospheric energy
transfer.

Since you previously declined to explain how your model provided a
correct solution, may we assume that you are prepared to present your
model at this time?

|Feel free to demonstrate how CO2 dominates in those bands which are in
|fact dominated by the broad absoption spectra of water:

and I respond:

| It doesn't need to dominate - just have a measureable effect.

So, my specific words belie your claim that I said radiation dominates
over convection: I'm not even claiming that CO2 has to dominate the
radiative part.

Indeed! Smith falsely claims that it need only be _measurable_...
Smith doesn't know the difference between "measurable" and
"significant".

Let us cut to the chase. If the temperature change in question does
not produce a significant deleterious effect, your claims are just
silly.

Prove that a "measurable global temperature change" results in a
deleterious consequence (i.e. the _effect_ in question).

Are you going to look up the paper in the literature? I"ve posted the
exact reference twice now.

And this paper is going to disprove my claim that increasing CO2
levels will not have a significant effect, as the IR bands where CO2
absorbs (e.g. 15 um) are already saturated (and have absorbed all of
the energy that was available in those bands)?

I've pointed out how bogus your claim is about "saturation" and "all of
the energy", and you simply repeat it, lying like a rug in every post.

So Smith, tell us what fraction of the available energy is not
absorbed at the 15 um line. Be specific.

Here, maybe this calculation will help you "prove" your point:

http://uploader.wuerzburg.de/mm-phys...a/artefact.htm

Dr. Heinz Hug notes that increasing CO2 from 357 ppm to 714 ppm,
results in a radiative forcing increase of 0.054 W/m^2 resulting from
the wings of 15 um band.

Yes Smith, that is what we call "saturated".

I've given you a reference to a peer-reviewed paper in the scientific
literature that calculates the radiative effect of CO2 and examines
atmospheric temperature response to changes in CO2, all while including
convection, too, and you can't even be bothered to try reading it to see
what it says.

Typical.

And you claim that this paper is your ab initio model, which will
completely describe the climate system? Nonsense.

Of course it won't address that, you think you can divert the
discussion via a red herring...

To Retief, a "red herring" is something that is contrary to "The One
Truth, by Retief". The paper shows a much better way to do radiative
transfer calculations than the lies you post.

I was not doing detailed radiative transfer calculation (i.e. I
presented no "climate model", despite your repeated attempts to
falsely identify it as such). A simple demonstration is all that was
needed to show that the transition in question was saturated.

The reader will note that Smith has not proven that adding optical
absorber layers will INCREASE the transmission rate for a given
wavelength (despite Smith's repeated claims that the example provided
was "completely wrong").

Let us refresh the reader's memory on some studies which serve as
counter-evidence to Smith's claim:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhous...enhouse-X2.png

junkscience.com isn't exactly a peer-reviewed scientific source,
is it? But let's play the game.

Gosh, it that you Lloyd Parker? Smith rejects the message, because
the messenger is not "a peer-reviewed scientific source".

You conveniently snipped this from my post to which you replied.

Perhaps because it is junk? But let's see what it says. You've given a
link to a graph, with no discussion of what you want us to see. When I
follow the link, I see a graph titled "Estimating Clear Sky Greenhouse
Effect From Doubling CO2". The Y-axis is temperature, from 0 to 14C. The
X-axis has numbers from 0-600, but no title - it woudl have to be CO2. The
graph has three smooth curves, all starting at 0 and rising to values of
5, 7, and 12 C at 300ppm, then continuing to 6, 8, or about 13.5C at 600
ppm. The three lines have references to three author's work. Does this
graph support Retief's claim, repeated above?:

"that increasing CO2 levels will not have a significant effect"

Well. Each line shows a rise in temperature between 300 and 600 ppm -
the smallest being less than 1C, and the largest being closer to (but less
than) 2C. The legend has numbers that I think are supposed to be the

So doubling the CO2 will clearly not double the energy absorbed. And
these curves are show the effect of "saturation" which we were
discussing (hint: the small residual asymptotic response is a
_big_clue_ for you).

temperature rise between 300 and 600 ppm, and the values listed there are
0.64, 0.87, and 1.46C.

Yes, that is what the graph shows, isn't it.

Now prove that these changes would result in a significant,
deleterious effect.

And while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to address why the IPCC
claims that we will experience 5 C, 8 C, perhaps even 10 C increases
(all from increasing CO2)? The reader can guess that 1.46 C (or the
0.64 C lower value) is a long ways from the 5-10 C that the IPCC
claims.

And further, while you're at it, you can tell us (indeed, show your
math) as to how you arrive at your 4 W/m^2 forcing from CO2. Tell us
why this is twice as large as what MODTRAN predicts. I note that you
have "cleverly" snipped that from your response. (Oh yes, we know how
you can remove water from the calculation, to falsely attribute the
absorption to CO2... By doing so, you actually prove my point --
showing that water dominates the IR region).

The graph also shows three horizontal lines, extending to the right of
each curve beginning at the point the curve passes about 280 ppm. The area
between this horizontal line and the rising curve is shaded (between 300
and 600 ppm), presumably to highlight the "Effect From Doubling CO2".

So, the graph Retief is pointing us to actually reports on three
studies that indicate warming of about 0.5 to 1.5C. (The smallest one has

We are currently at 380 ppm, not 300ppm. Oh, but you knew that,
right?

Prove that these changes would result in a significant deleterious
effect.

Lindzen's name on it - a well-noted skeptic for large changes, but
none-the-less a skeptic that knows enough atmospheric science to only
claim the rise is smaller than most people believe, not that it is zero.)

Prove that these changes would result in a significant deleterious
effect. Are you having that much trouble understanding what is being
asked of you?

This is what Retief thinks is "proof" that increasing CO2 will
have no significant effect!

What do you think "significant effect" means, Smith? Yes, I can see
that you having a great deal of difficulty understanding what is being
asked of you...

Prove that these changes would result in a significant deleterious
effect!

Now, what does junkscience.com have to say about this graph. If we look
at the page it is embedded in (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/), we
find the section of the web page contains the following text:
[...]
# We'll offer three of the more commonly used and/or discussed estimates
#for the amount of cooling Earth would experience for a hypothetical
#zero-CO2, cloud-free atmosphere; Lindzen (5.3 °C clear sky, 3.53 °C with
#40% cloud), along with Charnock & Shine (12 °C clear sky), C&S are the
#big number guys in the estimation game (both from Physics Today, 1995)

Oh darn, this is the effect of CO2, without accounting for clouds...

How big an effect is this CO2 warming compared to clouds, Smith? Be
specific and to the point. I have asked you this question before, yet
you continue to evade.

But I wonder what Lindzen has to say about this?

"We see that even for clear-sky conditions, the effect of doubling
CO2 from 300 parts per million to 600 ppm (keeping specific
humidity constant) is only 0.5 C, and when 40% cloud cover is
included, this warming is reduced to 0.22 C."

And Lindzen continues:

"The details of the response of dT to the decrease of CO2 is not
without interest. When cloud cover is included, reducing the CO2
from 300 ppm to 19 ppm leads to a cooling of only 1.23 C..."

There is that pesky atmospheric water again...

Likewise you snipped my request to see your analytical ab-initio model
for the atmosphere and climate system. You have claimed and implied
that you have such a model, in all its complexity...

One more time: read the following paper to see one such model:

Perhaps you are having a hard time understanding English - I want to
see YOUR analytical ab-initio model for the atmosphere and climate
system. Unless you are claiming that your name is "Manabe" or
"Wetherald".

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T Wetherald (1967) "Thermal equilibrium of
the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity." Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 24, pp241-259.

Until you read it and and provide a criticism of it, I'm not going to

Where does this model predict the cloud cover and atmospheric water
concentrations? These are well known feedbacks (i.e. water has a
"self-feedback"). "Your model" is using them as inputs (and thus not
providing this self-feedback). Perhaps you don't understand what "ab
initio" means, Smith...

Again, water (vapor and clouds) is the most important "greenhouse
gas".

Perhaps you should present YOUR model, so we can see how you addressed
this water cycle and feedback issue.

Retief