> Having analyzed some of the S & C TLT data a while back, I do think my > complaints about their work is based on more than some choice based on > results. There are still problems with the S & C analysis, which I > have presented as part of the CCSP process. I also wrote an > unpublished critique.
David Benson wrote in the other thread "All models are wrong. Some are useful." and you pointed out that "the UAH TLT is the result of modelling, starting with the derivation of their original algorithm?" So I see S&C work as a useful model since it first raised the alarm that the climate models were seriously flawed. The radiosondes show that. > What do you think about the Spencer Weart's AIP writeup? You will > note that the analysis didn't become firm until after WW II (down the > page, ref26 or so). > > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm I (and Newton) say that warming is caused by absorption. After WWII they found that the lines were narrower at high altitude, but the radiation has all been absorbed well before it reaches that height. In fact it is nearly all absorbed in the first 30m. John Tyndall reckoned that 10% was absorbed in the within the first 6 feet. > The data I've seen was in an unpublished report. Your comment about > pressure broadening refers to near surface physics. The real issue is > what happens in the stratosphere where there's little water vapor and > the CO2 lines are not saturated, AIUI. There are two things happening. There is the greenhouse warming at the surface of the atmosphere, and there is OLR at the top of the atmosphere. The OLR has to balance the ISR but it cannot change because it is coming from the mesosphere which does not respond to the surface temperature. (I am leaving a lot out, but you should be able to see the picture.) > It took another 250 years to get to the level of understanding needed > to quantify the radiative physics of gases. See the reference above. That is correct. The greenhouse effect was only explained fully, as caused by the vibration of molecules, in the 1920s, but the basis of the radiation schemes was laid down ten years earlier by Robert Emden. It was his ideas that were used by the first climate modellers in the USA, but Weart does not mention him. Weart does mention Chandrasekhar who really muddied the waters by doing the maths for stellar atmospheres. Planetary atmospheres are very different. Cheers, Alastair. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
