Paul Linsay: An Analysis of Climate Model Assumptions | Tom Nelson Pod

[@Appleblade]

When I teach 'science literacy' is always tell my students to seek out retired professors, emeritus types, no political or financial conflicts, no professional obligations to the department, etc. You have a chance, there, to hear honest opinions based on expertise.

[@jameslee-pevenhull5087]

My career was motor car exhaust analysis for Global Regulations. When I retired, Speciating Sweeping Gas spectroscopy was coming in. I knew CO2 was a scam from the start. Up to Euro 5, CO2 was measured with a Non Dispersal Infared Analyser. Any good scientists will tell you the absorbance is NON linear with concentration. When a certain concentration is reached, absorbance rises very little. Think of a millionaire throwing bank notes into a crowd. The first few rows get them all. Packing people behind the first few rows, those new people still won't get any free cash.

[@MaverickSeventySeven]

I know nothing about exhaust emission calculation but the "Weight" of 'carbon' emitted just does not make sense! Moreover, on wet days, do the emmission from a vehicle exhaust remain on the ground even get washed away?

[@tropolite]

Great presentation... thank you Paul and Tom for bringing it to us.

[@dougsherman1562]

Fantastic talk Paul, thank you!

[@billallen275]

My target is 1250 ppm. Lots of food!

[@HelmutJ-f8m]

Great talk, Paul, and there is a very easy way to debunk the backradiation effect: the pirani vacuum gauge! Tom Nelson Podcast #98 Tom Shula 12:00... Convection does the heat exchange not radiation until you have a very very good vacuum! And the Pirani Gauge is still in use!

[@grahammerritt1329]

"There is no back radiation to heat the surface" Presumably this is easily verified by experiment. I.e. point a detector at the sky and measure the spectrum, comparing results for day and night.

[@sonoftheonlywiseGod]

It is amazing how the authors Yong Ott and Shula keep showing up. I myself looking at IPCC, spotted the radiative energy and back radiation lacked an energy source. I am glad somebody who knows the details can explain to me that I was not crazy.

[@BrinJay-s4v]

I agree secondary radiation from Earth is less energy less frequency. Much as moon beams can never be concentrated to burn paper. The intriguing fact is as a photon is emitted the emitting body has lost energy whatever happens to the photon. That being so radiation from Earth is not blocked, the photon will only transfere energy when it meets a resonant molecule where ever it might be.

[@christophergame7977]

Here is how to understand the back radiation, as it is illustrated in the Kiehl & Trenberth diagram at 4:53. Think of a 'compartment' and look at its energy inflows and outflows. Think of the atmosphere as a compartment. For the sake of understabding, imagine a scenario of steady energy balance. Approximately as follows, units W m^(-2): The energy inflows are (1) upwards thermal radiation from the condensed matter surface, absorbed by the atmosphere 356 (2) sunlight 78 (3) evaporation 80 (4) conduction from the condensed matter surface 18: total inflow 356 + 78 + 80 + 18 = 532. The energy outflows are (5) radiation from the atmosphere to outer space 169 + 30 = 199 (6) back radiation 333: total outflow 199 + 333 = 532. Evidently, total inflow = total outflow. It seems to me that this answers your question as to where the energy comes from for the back radiation. If this doesn't seem right to you, please tell me here, and I will try to address your reasons. (The 40 energy flow that seems to penetrate the clouds actually passes berween the clouds; I checked this with Trenberth when he came to Melbourne some years ago). You can also consider the condensed matter surface as a 'compartment'. Energy inflows: (7) sunlight 161 (8) back radiation 333. Total inflow 161 + 333 = 494. Energy outflows (9) thermal radiation absorbed by the atmosphere 356 (10) thermal radiation direct to space 40 (11) conduction from condensed matter surface to atmosphere 17 (12) evaporation 80. Total outflow 356 + 40 + 17 + 80 = 493. The Kiehl & Trenberth approximate diagram is constructed by people who believe in the man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming scam, so they make it show an energy imbalance of the condensed matter surface of 494 - 493 = 1. The numbers are all approximations, so we needn't concern ourselves about the small imbalance that they contrive for their diagram. The exact numbers are not our concern for your question of where does the energy come from for the back radiation. For this, we are concerned only with the main features of the scenario.

[@timothystraus1771]

excellent presentation!

[@BrinJay-s4v]

I agree CO2 is benign and no longer a force for radiative heating. After the first 20ppm heating declines on a log basis, At current levels heating is insignificant, The reasons for this are interesting with a lack of resonance so energy is not transferred,

[@johnbatson8779]

You mean after the first 200 ppm that CO2 is saturated as to its capacity for radiative heating

[@BrinJay-s4v]

@@johnbatson8779 I dont think so although many say that. When two things interact and it stops perhaps it's a shortage of higher energy photons?. Water with a wider spectrum also uses the same frequency photons? The photon can never be hotter than its emitting surface ie the Sun. The greatest effect is in the first 20ppm. At 340 ppm the Pen uni experiment could detect no measurable heating. as. CO2 is increased there is no rise so the other component is photons that must resonate to transfer energy. I believe Prof Happer and Linzen are the authority on this.

[@DanishGSM]

Thanks so much for the video and info.

[@scottjones6921]

Paul mentioned that all he know of Yong Zhong (Yong Tuition) was that he questions the Ligo gravity measurements. This is the way that science should be conducted - challenge everything. Yong has a number of great ideas, but needs some more scientists to challenge these. This is the way that science progresses, continual challenge and refinement.

[@alangraham8926]

CO2 4 Joules, atmosphere total 8600. Even Al Gore could spot this disparity !

[@ZinzanModelling]

Dear Tom, How can it be that you only have 16k subs? That needs to change! (Subbed) Regards, Z

[@tooyoungtobeold8756]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it” Upton Sinclair

[@MrBallynally2]

This video mainly concurs what Ott et al are saying about both Co2 and convection..

[@MrBallynally2]

And Tom Shula..

[@MrBallynally2]

I wrote that before Tom mentioned it btw..

[@daNorse]

I agree 100%, and many other brilliant scientists are censored because of politics...

[@Tordvergar]

Initially I was not at all skeptical about CO2 warming our planet. Why would I be? We pollute plenty. It just does not hold up to scrutiny. Doubling the CO2 would be greatly beneficial to life on earth!

[@daNorse]

Pollution globally has decimated during the last decades...

[@HoldenMcG]

Tom/Paul: I noticed a typo in one of the graphics used in the presentation at 46:05 "Approximate Relative Relaxation Rates" listed H2O as "10,00,000", whereas it should be "10,000,000." Hate to be 'that' guy, but I know accuracy is critical when presenting this type of content.

[@tomnelson2080]

Thanks!

[@daNorse]

Yes, but if you listened to Paul, he said 10 million.

[@HoldenMcG]

@@daNorse You'll notice that the folks presenting content on Tom's channel are often kind enough to share that material for D/L; so the point is to allow the author an opportunity to correct any error to ensure the highest level of accuracy possible for their reference material.

[@andymcculloch9199]

Interesting presentation 👍

[@madincraft4418]

Lovely chonky science ❤. Going in for a relisten.

[@chrsl3]

brilliant

[@rikardengblom6448]

Great! Many thanks!

[@SmallWonda]

It would be wonderful if Paul could find some young bloods eager to find The Truth by sharing his knowledge & enthusiasm for this critically important subject.of our times. The fact that Money & Power are driving this - and consequently society into the ground - should not be reason to let them get away with it! You'd think if there were enough accredited people singing this message from the roof tops, The People would start listening & once they realized they have been hoaxed and scammed the maddening tide could be turned...

[@daNorse]

There are many already. Check out "The CO2 Coalition" for a starter. If you google it, you first get pages of "fact-checkers" and "debunkers" -- The woke media is at war with anybody asking questions about the "climate change" agenda...

[@daNorse]

Thanks for a very interesting lecture! :) 👍👍👍 I have two questions to Paul. 1. In the slide where you present the GHG-free atmostphere, and you show an isothermal distribution from 11 km to the surface. Would not the lower air be heated by the dry adiabatic lapse rate? 2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics say that a colder object (the upper atmosphere) cannot warm a hotter object (the earth's surface). Therefore "backradiation" is impossible because it breaks a fundamental law of physics?

[@madincraft4418]

Tom, there is an interesting physicist at a podcast called See The Pattern.

[@tomnelson2080]

Thanks! I will take a look.

[@petergrimshaw492]

I am not sure Paul has the whole picture. His Physics is excellent, but he seems to be tilting at 'backradiation'. I would agree, 'backradiation' as a heatsource just doesn't work and is ultimately pretty dumb. UV and solar is the heatsource, the rest is flux. I would suggest Paul googles "Clive Best EEH" ? Clive is super clever. I could be wrong, but I got hung up on "backradiation" for a while. Just shows how complicated atmospheric thermodynamics are ! Or maybe I'm off, which could well be true! But I thought we were all mini Black Bodies, radiating our hearts out ?!

[@greyhorse1211]

When talking about Neptune the slide was labelled Uranus..?

[@eastonjas]

Doubling or tripling C02 could be easy to do and we don’t need to burn any coal or gas to do so. It could be done with Ball Lightning technology.

[@SusanBell-dl5gr]

I know from my own experiance the results depend on who is going to supply the next grant, not always the people that fund the current one, it is always the next grant they look to.

[@JK-rv9tp]

Important to read the paper because a lot can be missed by Paul's halting delivery. There still must be some GHE, simply because there are some photons that do get emitted from the surface that would go straight to space if there were no GHGs. But we know that IR emission is under 10% of surface heat rejection with the rest by collision/phase change, so the GHE can't be 33K, more like 1-3K.

[@MrBallynally2]

I don't think you can call the lw radiation out to space the GHE. It is not the effect people associate w it..

[@daNorse]

Most of the small band of IR at 15 micron is already covered by HO2 and natural CO2, so additional tiny CO2 human caused emissions have no effect. It is already minuscule to begin with. How much can 0.04% of the atmosphere warm the rest 99.96%? Or the 0.0016% human caused atmospheric CO2? ~Zero!

[@JK-rv9tp]

@@daNorseAgreed. If the 1-3K GHE from IR thermalization of the air near the surface due to absorption by GHGs, total CO2 itself might be 1k and the change with concentration from emission could account for some tiny fraction of 1K. There is technically a radiative GHE of a coupe of deg K, but the anthro CO2 contribution while not quite zero it's too tiny to bother with.

[@JK-rv9tp]

​@@MrBallynally2 GHG are actually a net cooling mechanism, offset by a much smaller theramlization component at the surface. Without GHGs the troposphere would be warmer.

[@MrBallynally2]

The comparison between Co2 and H20 in the diagram could be made a tad clearer or simplified. Co2 vibrational mode: 1 ( bending), H2o: 3. Amount of molecules in the troposhere in relation: H2o 15-20 to Co2 1. The amount of collisions between the 2 type of molecules is very different. Elephant and mouse on the bridge stamping comes to mind. Am i wrong?

[@carlosgaspar8447]

i thought joachim dengler pointed out that co2 never reaches saturation because it's such a small component of the atmosphere that it will "immediately" radiate the absorbed kinetic energy to its surroundings.

[@SolvingTornadoes]

You are right to notice there is something wrong here. All of humanity is confused on H2O. It is treated as a gas in the atmosphere and actually it is always a liquid. Look at an H2O phase diagram. Take note of the fact that its boiling temperature (at ambient pressures of the troposphere) is much higher than anything that actually occurs in the troposphere. Moreover, liquid H2O has a very high heat capacity. This has to do with the fact that the bond that exists BETWEEN water molecule is both nonlinear and inverse. This creates an electromagnetic elasticity between H2O molecules. And this elasticity is the mechanism that underlies the high heat capacity of liquid H2O. (BTW, the heat capacity of gaseous H2O is very low and essentially identical to that of CO2. But this is irrelevant since there is zero gaseous H2O in earth's atmosphere.) And this elasticity is the basis of the relatively extreme IR effect of atmospheric H2O in comparison to the negligible IR effect of the rest of the atmosphere (including CO2). We should not expect Paul to be aware of any of this. His generation has been provided a cartoonishly dumbed-down model of H2O that renders all of them inept on these topics --- something for which scoundrels like Al Gore and Michael Mann take full advantage.

[@carlosgaspar8447]

@@SolvingTornadoes i was surprised to learn that al gore didn't even pursue a science major at harvard, and was mostly scraping by and trying to find his niche....propaganda. i don't excuse any guest or scientist that puts their name forward as some kind of authority on any subject if they don't follow counter examples. that is simply not scientific.

[@MrBallynally2]

That is a good and fair point. Water vapour is also what makes it feel clammy on a warm/ hot day. I guess calling it a gas separates it from water and does play an important role in the lower troposphere. But thanks for pointing it out..

[@SolvingTornadoes]

@@MrBallynally2 Water plays a much larger role in the atmosphere than you can even begin to imagine. Water is the basis of the structural properties that enable the transport of energetic low pressure that is transferred from jet streams to the location of a storm. This is only possible because water's surface tension properties that become amplified on wind shear boundaries to produce vortices --- vortices being the delivery mechanism of storms. This is why storms are low pressure. This explains the uplift and the energetic nature of storms, allowing us to get away from superstition-based notions like buoyancy of moist air (moist air is always heavier) and latent heat of condensation.

[@OurPredicament]

But it actually is getting hotter

[@nitrostudy9049]

A couple of thoughts: A simple view of CO2 effect on energy flow from surface to space is ... the missing IR energy in the 'averaged' TOA emission spectrum around ~15um represents energy that must have been converted to other wavelengths to escape earth ... this can only be by i) transfer to water vapor for convection then re-emission to space directly (aided by H20 molar density gradient), or as phase changes (precipitation/ freezing), or ii) absorption of re-mitted ~15um photons at surface or by aerosols (dust, pollutants) then re-emittance/ conduction. Number ii) also includes conductive energy transfers. The Antarctic's TOA emission spectrum highlights water's ability to re-distribute ~15um photons to other wavelengths (in its absence, additional ~15um photons escape to space ... hump instead of valley). Obviously, clouds provide many more permutations to adjust energy flows, but also must dance to other factors such as CCN, water vapor levels, etc. The clear sky floor of the valley in the TOA spectrum at ~15um represents CO2 emissions at height due to reverse thermalisation and escape, or overlapping emissions from water. The above suggests that a simple black body radiative increase at earth surface (average T rise) is not required, or perhaps only partially required for the 2.5% (1/2 of the 5% CO2 molecules re-emitting ~15um radiation) of CO2 back radiation returning to surface. The above argument should also apply for absorption and re-emission in the wings with increasing CO2 concentration. Only a small percentage of the now absorbed photons in the wing wavelengths are also able to return to the earth surface (collisional excitation and emission of wing IR photons is statistically less likely, further reducing back radiation). Thermalisation, convection, and the water vapor gradient with height, collectively act as a funnel or ratchet driving non clear window (direct to space) energy to space.

[@daNorse]

@nitrostudy9049 "..of CO2 back radiation returning to surface..." That is impossible, it breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics which prohibits a colder object (the atmosphere) to transfer heat to a hotter object (the earth's surface)...

[@avatarcowboy2435]

Double CO2 - Plant growth! World better off.

[@jeromejerome2492]

If photons emission from GES was suppressed in the troposhere, how to explain the temperature of emission that one can read on spectrum OLR from satelites , temperature which is the one of the tropopause around 15micrometers wavelength ?

[@daNorse]

That is the 15 micron radiation originating from CO2 that eventually accumulate at TOA (Top Of the Atmosphere). There are few other air molecules (N2 & O2) up there to collide into, and the heat is radiated into space unhindered, and thus maintaining the planet's heat balance. This is the radiation the satellites measures, and not what radiates up from the earth's surface, which is totally absorbed within the lowest 10-20 meters, and immediately transferred to the nearest air molecule (N2 & O2), at a rate of billions per second. Re-radiation only happens sporadically at about 1 per second.

[@jeromejerome2492]

@daNorse Of course. We are agree. There is no suppression Of photons at TOA (because it's what is said in the presentation: "photons emission suppressed in the troposphere ").

[@55jamy]

(the voice -sound was difficult to understand on this video)

[@desbell7431]

Double CO2 from what it is now with zero effect on surface temperature.

[@belagarzo63]

Happer reports that up to 400 ppm, CO2 is able to rip out a significant absorption band from the Earth's blackbody radiation. How this energy is transferred to the environment is a good question. The energy content of phase changes of water vapor is obviously much higher than this. On the other hand, it is clear from Happer that 800 ppm CO2 does not increase the relatively small effect in any way. So regardless of air pollution or by filtering it and burying it, any amount of CO2 can be released into the atmosphere. We will do it if the dark greens are on top of their heads. The other note is that since 2000, presumably due to the decrease in cloud formation, the Sun's radiation may have raised the general temperature the most. In other words, climate change could have been caused by humans by reducing the number of pollutants as precipitation nuclei. Hooray. Here is man-made climate change. The reverse way.

[@harrying882]

Hopefully now trump is the president thinking my change.

[@andrewphilip3308]

Very RFK Junior on the vaccines, Elon Musk on 'scarce resources', folk like Paul Linsay on climate change etc.

[@ground752]

Yes but if you look at goes east full , you will see areas of co2 in atmosphere is where no moisture for rain

[@PavelDatsyuk-ui4qv]

Goes east full?

[@christophergame7977]

To state my bias and prejudice, reached after a decade and a half of study, before my comment on the present KZbin by Paul Linsay: I think it hardly possible to calculate precisely what is the actual value of the so-called 'climate sensitivity'; nevertheless, I think that we can be confident that the value must be less than 1.2°C; that includes a possible nil effect. In other words, I agree that "consensus climate science" is a con. So you know my prejudice. Now to what I think of the earnest effort in this KZbin. Particularly about so-called "back radiation", referring also to Ott & Shula. There is massive empirical evidence for the correctness of Schwarzschild's formula for radiative transfer. Denial or minimisation of back radiation was popular over a decade ago, and is sometimes called 'dragon slayer physics'. It largely rests on blanket rejection of the Schwarzschild formula. It should be evident that such rejection can be persuasive only if it presents clear, detailed, and adequate experimental evidence that Schwarzschild's formula is wrong. Such evidence would most likely include an explicit and detailed replacement for Schwarzschild's formula. Ott & Shula, and Linsay, both propose blanket rejection of Schwarzschild's formula, with no attempt at presenting such evidence.

[@MrBallynally2]

Mayby SE is misused in back radiation theory. You can hypothesise it in the atmosphere but prove it? I dont think so. All i see is a causal assumption..

[@christophergame7977]

This KZbin by Paul Linsay shares the defect of those by Ott & Shula in which they dismiss the Schwarzschild radiative transfer formula. Their case isn't properly stated physical reasoning, because it is physically invalid; it is just handwaving. The properly stated argument about back radiation, given by proper application of the Schwarzschild radiative transfer formula, is supplied by many, but here by Happer and by Wijngaarden. The handwavings of Ott & Shula, and of Linsay, are a kind of bluff, confusing for those who lack expertise in the topic, and eventually damaging to the sceptical or denialist cause, because they seem to represent that cause, and to indicate that it is held by amateurs or persons who lack proper physical understanding.

[@daNorse]

Refuting "back-radiation" is simple. It breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics which prohibits a colder object (the atmosphere) to transfer heat to a hotter object (the earth's surface)...

[@christophergame7977]

@@daNorse Thank you for your comment. I posted an answer to a similar comment, but my post was censored. So this is just a test post to check if it will be censored again.

[@christophergame7977]

@daNorse Ok, it seems that the trial post was not censored. Here is my substantial post. Thank you for your comment. With respect, it isn't quite so simple. The second law refers to processes that start and end with thermodynamic equilibrium, with zero flows either way, and are defined by net changes. In the atmosphere, the start and end states are each far from thermodynamic equilibrium because they are states of strong energy flows. In this scenario, a simple appeal to the second law is inadequate; it is necessary to take into account the continuing inflows and outflows, which are not necessarily equal. To take this into account for radiation, one has to distinguish net changes from the separate counter-flows, upwards and downwards. Net radiative transfer is the algebraic sum of the separate inflows and outflows. At the interface between the condensed matter surface and the bottom of the atmosphere, there are two flows. The upward flow is from the surface into and through the atmosphere, which is not far from black body radiation. Flow into the atmosphere is the part of the upward flow that is absorbed by the atmosphere, as distinct from the part of the upward flow that goes through the atmospheric window direct to space. The downward flow is from the bulk of the atmosphere to the surface; it is called back radiation; it is not full black body radiation, but it is not far from the upward flow that is absorbed by the atmosphere; it is slightly less than the latter. The slight difference is due to the temperature difference between the surface and the bulk of the atmosphere, which favours a slight net radiative flow from surface to into atmosphere. The radiative conditions are governed by the Helmholtz reciprocity principle. I have posted the calculations here, but they seem to have been censored, and I can't see them. The slight net radiative transfer from surface to atmosphere is outweighed by the substantial conductive and evaporative transfers of energy from the surface to the atmosphere. My difference with Ott & Shula, and with Linsay, is not that I deny the substantial importance of conductive and evaporative transfer; no, I recognise that as the main mode of transfer. My difference is that I recognise also the slight net radiative transfer, that accords with the real substantiality of the back radiation. It is not that "the atmosphere heats the surface"; no, it is that the presence of the atmosphere affects the rate of net cooling of the surface.