Roy: Does More CO2 Cause Warming, Cooling or Nothing?

Roy Spencer confesses his deep inner conviction:

• I’m far from a political moderate, but I’ve been tagged as a “lukewarmer” in the climate wars. That’s because, at least from a theoretical perspective, it’s hard (but not impossible) for me to imagine that increasing CO2 won’t cause some level of warming. 
• Some level of warming can probably be expected, but just how much makes a huge difference. 
• Lindzen and I and a few other researchers in the field think the IPCC models are simply too sensitive, due to positive feedbacks that are either too strong, or even have the wrong sign. But we still believe more CO2 should cause some level of warming. 
• If the current lack of warming really is due to a natural cooling influence temporarily canceling out CO2-induced warming, what happens when that cooling influence goes away? We are going to see rather rapid warming return… 

So Roy believes that more CO2 should cause some warming, and if it doesn't as in the present slightly cooling "hiatus" since 17 years, then it is because it is temporarily cancelled by natural cooling and thus may well return with rapid warming...

But Roy also states that he (and Lindzen) believes that the warming effect of CO2 is smaller than that postulated by IPCC (which is already quite small and smaller in AR5 than in AR4), and thus may well be too small to ever be observed. Roy is not so alone to have this idea as he thinks.

Roy thus can easily imagine a broad spectrum from warming to nothing, but can hardly imagine slight cooling under increasing CO2 like in the present observed hiatus (which he admits is not impossible). A very moderate standpoint, I would say.

I write this as a comment to Roys article since Roy does not want my comments on his blog, but Roy is welcome to comment with hopefully some answer to the title question on this blog.

PS Roy sends the warning::

• The Danger of Hanging Your Hat on No Future Warming

while with respect to the present hiatus, the more relevant warning would be:

• The Danger of Hanging Your Hat on Future Warming.

Roy Spencer: "Back Radiation" is Real, But "Back Conduction" Is Not

Roy Spencer did not appreciate the following comment of mine to his post
A Simple Experiment to Show How Cool Objects Can Keep Warm Objects Warmer Still:

• Roy, I am stunned by the “experiment” you plan to do: Everybody understands that the outside temperature affects the inside temperature of a house under constant inside heating. But it is an abuse of both physics and language to claim that a cold exterior is heating a warm inside, when the true physics is that the a warm inside is heating a cold exterior, that is that there is a uni-directional flow of heat energy from a warm inside to a cold outside, by conduction or radiation.
• I cannot understand from where you get such a strong urge to twist physics and language by claiming that a cold outside is heating a warm inside by “back conduction” or “back radiation” through the space separating inside from outside. Why do you insist propagating false physics which violates the 2nd law?

More precisely, my question made Roy very angry:

• Claes, you are the one abusing physics, and twisting my words. I never claimed that “a cold exterior is heating a warm inside”, only that it affects the temperature of the warm inside. Also, I never claimed there was such a thing as “back conduction”.
• I *do* however claim that the atmosphere emits IR radiation in all directions, and if the atmosphere emits IR downward it must then affect the surface temperature.
• Since you insist on twisting what I say, consider yourself banned along with the other Slayers I have banned.

And yes, my reply where I informed Roy that I am not a slayer, and in mild words repeated my question, did not show up on Roy's blog, and so I now repeat the question on my own blog, inviting Roy to comment: Why do you insist Roy that there is "back radiation" when you don't think there is any "back conduction"? What is the difference Roy?

PS1 If a question is met by an outburst of anger, the question may be a good one.

PS2 The idea put forward by Roy that "the atmosphere emits IR radiation in all directions...and it must then affect the surface temperature", is similar to phlogiston theory in the sense that some form of heat carrying particles (IR radiation/IR photons/phlogistons) are supposed to be emitted from the cold atmosphere, which "affect" the surface temperature by "keeping it warmer still".  What drives Roy into this kind of ideas is a mystery to me. Evidently, Roy does not believe that heat conduction is carried out by some form of heat carrying particles/phlogistons transferring heat energy back and forth between different bodies, but for some reason believes that this is so in radiative heat transfer.

What Is Roy Spencer's Definition of The Greenhouse Effect?

The top Google definition of the "greenhouse effect" is:

• The trapping of the sun’s warmth in a planet’s lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet’s surface.

Roy Spencer ironizes over this definition:

• Actually, the greenhouse effect would still operate even if the atmosphere absorbed just as much solar as it does infrared. When even Google gets the definition so wrong, how can mere mortals be expected to understand it?
• The so-called greenhouse effect, which is an infrared effect, is admittedly not as intuitively obvious to us as solar heating. Every layer of the atmosphere becomes both a “source” as well as a “sink” of IR energy, which is a complication not faced with understanding solar heating, with the sun as the source.
• To understand the greenhouse effect’s impact on surface temperature and the atmospheric temperature profile, there are some basic concepts which I continue to see misunderstandings about. If we can’t agree on these basics, then there really is no reason to continue the discussion because we are speaking different languages, with no way to translate between them.

Spencer then lists 6 basic concepts related to the greenhouse effect which "people most commonly misunderstand". But Spencer does not reveal his own definition of the greenhouse effect, which makes the discussion meaningless.

So Roy, what is then the correct description of the greenhouse effect, which you suggest is a real effect? I have sent the question to Roy and await response.

PS Roy does not give any response at all, not even to any of the many comments on his blog. Roy throws out a bunch of propositions to the crowd and then runs to hide behind a wall of silence. Is this what scientific debate is supposed to be? 

Summary of Debate on the Greenhouse Effect

Here is a summary of the recent debate about the existence or non-existence of a physical phenomenon named "greenhouse effect", including the following groups:

1. Alarmists: There are "ghosts" and they are dangerous.
2. Inside Skeptics: There are "ghosts" but they are not so dangerous.
3. Outside Skeptics/Deniers: No real "ghosts" have been identified.

Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Monckton and Watts belong to group 2, and myself to 3.

There are many possible incarnations as "ghosts" besides "greenhouse effect", like "terrorists", "viruses", "marsians", "islamists", "jews", "drugs", "comets", "aliens"...

Note that from scientific point of view, 3 is the position which is best or easiest to defend, since it puts the burden of proof on 1 and 2 who claim that ghosts exist. Position 2 is most difficult to defend since it both requires identification of ghosts and quantitative assessment of their degree of dangerousness. Position 1 has the advantage of connecting danger and ghost and compensating lack of proof of existence by inflating danger.

One may argue that good science has good defense, and that bad defense gives bad science.

Why Skeptics Need a "Greenhouse Effect"

The Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism is the existence of no-feedback climate sensitivity of global warming of 1 C as the result of a "Greenhouse Effect" from doubling of atmospheric CO2, which by postulated positive feedback is increased to an alarming 3 C.

Leading skeptics including Dick Lindzen, Fred Singer and Roy Spencer applauded by Lord Monckton and Anthony Watts, start from the same Basic Postulate of 1 C and their skepticism is expressed by negative feedback instead of the positive feedback of alarmism, reducing climate sensitivity to harmless 0.5 C. The trademark of their skepticism is thus negative feedback.

In recent posts I have documented an attack by this leading group of skeptics on other skeptics including myself, which question the Basic Postulate. I have asked for reasons for this form of auto-immune reaction and have by a commenter been led to the following answer:

Lindzen at al have invested heavily in negative feedback as special scientific competence, which however is not really needed without the Basic Postulate. The relentless attack can thus be understood as a reptile brain reaction under a perceived threat to core values, a threat which is not real because the real threat is CO2 alarmism and not skepticism to its Basic Postulate.

Why Are Skeptics Attacking Skeptics?

My recent sequence of posts describe an attack by the leading skeptics Roy Spencer and Fred Singer on other skeptics under the name "deniers", an attack formulated under the following harsh headlines directed to the world:

• Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics Bad Name
• Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-step.

The attack is supported by Richard Lindzen under the code word "bizarre" and of course by WUWT describing my work in particular "as pointless and fatally flawed".

I belong to the group of "deniers" under attack and I have tried to initiate a debate with my fellow skeptics in order to understand the reasons for their apparent auto-immune reaction, with skeptics killing skeptics instead of the common enemy of CO2 alarmists, but I have only been met by silence and ridicule.

I again ask Spencer, Singer and Lindzen to come out to a fair debate on the web instead of sniper shooting from protected positions, a fair debate about the central question:

• What is the "greenhouse effect"?
• Can it be detected?

I await input!

Second Thoughts by Spencer

Maybe the recent debate after all has had some effect on Roy Spencer, who in Global Warming As Cargo Cult Science suddenly admits:

• We even see evidence from satellites that greenhouse gases reduce the Earth’s ability to cool to space.
• But to extend those observations to the conclusion that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause substantial global warming is another matter entirely.

That's right Roy: Spectrum is one thing, heat transfer another. Congratulations! The Alabama two-step apparently was a misstep.

Compare with the following from WUWT:

• I have been badgered repeatedly to carry “Slayer” articles on WUWT, and with the exception of one cartoon by Josh, I have refused to do so since I view the work (and its derivatives) as pointless and fatally flawed. In his latest essay, Sir Roy has not only slayed the slayers and slayettes, but has sliced and diced and made julienne fries in two easy steps. – Anthony.

I wonder what drives skeptics to be so unfriendly to other skeptics sharing the same ambition to counter CO2 alarmism?

If now Roy has opened up his mind, will then Anthony follow and reconsider his assault on slayers?

Why Do Skeptics Accept the Basic Dogma of Alarmism?

Leading skeptics including Lindzen, Singer, Spencer and Lord M, all adhere to the Basic Dogma of "radiative forcing" of 4 W/m2 from doubled CO2 which by Stefan-Boltzmann in the form dQ = 4 dT gives a global warming of 1 C.

Skeptics thus jump on the same band wagon as alarmists giving CO2 the alarming capacity of driving global climate. A doubled dose of a trace gas is thus attributed the amazing power of "forcing" global temperature to change by 1 C, and if 1 C why not 3 C?

Why are skeptics giving alarmists the advantage to set the agenda from the beginning with CO2 as the chosen evil to beat?

If we accept from the beginning a dogma that certain people are evil, what does it help then to argue that they are not so evil after all?

When I ask Lindzen, Singer and Spencer, why they are promoting alarmism in this way, by uncritically accepting the basic dogma of alarmism, I get silence or ridicule as response.

If leading skeptics used science to question the basic dogma of alarmism, then the debate would soon be over. Now it can continue for ever. Is this really the objective?

Greenhouse Effect from "Radiative Forcing"

The Basic Postulate of CO2 alarmism is a no-feedback climate sensitivity of 1 C as global warming from doubling atmospheric CO2 according to Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law in the form

dQ = 4 dT with dQ = 4 W/m2 the estimated "radiative forcing" from doubled CO2.

The Basic Postulate is the pillar of IPCC alarmism and has also been accepted as a valid starting point by leading skeptics such as Lindzen, Singer, Spencer and Lord M. From this common no-feedback sensitivity of 1C the debate between alarmists and skeptics then concerns whether feedbacks are positive increasing 1 C to alarming 3 C by IPCC, or negative decreasing 1 C to 0.5 C

by Lindzen et al.

The result is a never-ending debate about feedbacks, positive or negative.

But there is another approach, which I advocate and makes me into a denier in the eyes of my fellow skeptics, namely to question the Basic Postulate with its "radiative forcing".

What is then wrong with the Basic Postulate? Two basic things:

1. It is based on a extremely simplistic model as the simple algebraic model dQ = 4 dT of a very complex climate system.
2. It assumes that the climate system is driven by radiation rather than thermodynamics of winds, vertical convection, gravitation, rotation and evaporation/condensation.

The Basic Postulate thus puts radiation in the drivers seat and uses a extremely simplistic model to let "radiative forcing" drive temperature as a starting point. The focus is then cleverly shifted to the question of how to stop a supertanker already in motion, which is not easy to answer.

The Basic Postulate has been invented by IPCC to drive CO2 alarmism, but if this is not your goal then there is no scientific reason to adopt the Basic Postulate.

If you you don't accept the Basic Postulate then you have to start from scratch without any preconceived idea of what drives the climate system. And then it is not even clear that a bit more CO2 will cause warming. The only thing which is clear is that there is no scientific evidence indicating that it can have any observable effect.

I have asked the leading skeptics including Lindzen et al, why they all cling to the Basic Postulate, which lacks scientific rationale, and thus give IPCC a free ticket to sell CO2 alarmism.

The only answers I get is silence or ridicule. Reasonable?

Note the clever use of the term "radiative forcing":

• Can you question that the Earth + atmosphere is subject to "radiative forcing" from the Sun? No, this would be unreasonable.
• Can you question that the transfer of heat energy from the Earth surface to the top of the atmosphere is driven by "radiative forcing"? Yes, this is reasonable to do.

Note that Lindzen's greenhouse effect from 1997 is driven by a terrible "radiative forcing" with an Earth surface temperature of + 80 C. Is this really reasonable Prof Lindzen? Isn't this a bizarre idea?

Who knows, Prof Lindzen does not descend to answer a simple question from a simple professor of simple applied mathematics in simple little country close to the Polar circle, where radiative heating is not the driver of society nor science except, possibly, during the short Midsummer.

Roy Spencer Slays Back

I have recently challenged Roy Spencer to describe the "greenhouse effect" that he so ardently defends together with Fred Singer, Lord Monckton and Richard Lindzen, an effect supposedly resulting from "backradiation" as heat transfer from cold to warm, which I questioned in Slaying the Sky Dragon.

After thinking quite a bit Roy now hits back with Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step with yet another defense of the

• “greenhouse effect” which makes the Earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be.

OK, so the "greenhouse effect" is something (not defined) with the effect of making the Earth's surface warmer than it would be without the effect (still not yet defined). No wonder that with this circular definition it is impossible to tell how big this effect may be.

OK, Roys presents the following evidence of the "greenhouse effect" (not defined) in as the Alabama Two-Step:

1. Warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (trivial statement).
2. Observation of Outgoing Longwave Radiation spectrum (non-trivial).

I show in From Spectrum to Heat Transfer that quick deductions about heat transfer from a spectrum (like Downwelling Longwave Radiation from cold atmosphere to Earth surface) can be completely misleading. Roy's Two-Step thus scientifically represents a Backward Step.

I do not understand what motivates Roy as a skeptic to spend his energy on slaying other skeptics, rather than taking on the real opponents carrying the flag of CO2 alarmism.

And so: Roy, the arguments you are using to slay the slayers, are scientifically trivial. Wouldn't it be much better to use your energy to come up with non-trivial arguments to beat the alarmists?

Can Roy Spencer Describe the "Greenhouse Effect"?

There is a new post on the Roy Spencer's description of the "Greenhouse Effect" at The World as Computation.

The comments show again how widely spread is the idea of "backradiation" although it is nowhere described in physics literature, not even on Wikipedia. Notable is also the complete absence of physicists in the debate, leaving room for all sorts of free inventions such as IR-photons busy traveling around the universe carrying little units of heat energy which they deliver to everybody without asking anything, in particular not about the temperature of the recipient.

But radiative heat transfer is a collective phenomenon of resonance between bodies in radiative contact, where the resonance is only causing heating in bodies with low temperature as an expression of the 2nd law as proved in Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.

Why Is Roy Spencer Not Serious?

Roy Spencer returns to the "The Issue of Backradiation" in More Musings from the Greenhouse with statements like:

• The existence of this “back radiation” is disputed by some people because of two seemingly counter-intuitive features.
• Imagine two plates at two different temperatures facing one another. Let’s say one plate is at 100 deg. C and the other is at 0 deg. C.
• But now imagine that the cooler plate is nearly the same temperature (99 deg. C) as the hotter plate (100 deg. C). It will be obvious to most people that the net flow of IR energy from the 100 deg. C plate to the slightly cooler plate will be at a slower rate than it was before.
• But why should that be? In both cases the 100 deg. C plate is emitting IR at the same rate, yet the NET flow of IR is reduced if the cooler plate is not as cold.

When I ask in a comment what the scientific evidence Roy has for his proclamation that "in both cases the 100 deg. C plate is emitting IR at the same rate", I get the following answer:

• Yes, Claes you found me out. I have nefarious motives for using certain terminology. It’s simply to annoy you.

This is more than musing, it is nefariously amusing, with nefariously meaning "extremely wicked" or "extremely morally bad in principle or practice".

When I ask Roy to get serious, I get no response.

I ask him here again to get serious and answer my question: What is the scientific evidence Roy, supporting your proposition that emission of IR energy is independent of the surrounding temperature? You can reply as a comment to this post. I am serious.

PS Follow the debate as comments to Roy's post, and see how backradiation is deconstructed into the wardrobe of scientific ghosts.