“The truth is, atmospheric physics doesn’t fit into an elevator pitch so contrarian arguments from ignorance are part of the furniture. At least for now.”
Yep. Spot on. That’s part of the challenge of science education it seems.
I mean it’s good people don’t accept stuff at face value. It’s healthy to be skeptical and shun what could be seen as learn by rote indoctrination. I’m glad people go ” Aha” if they see a hole in an idea.
I do the same.
It’s incumbent on propagotors of an idea to explain these little ” Aha ” moments. But it can be a challenge too.
I think absolutely clear unambiguous phrasing, with immediate reference to relevant observations is vital.
Reference to relevant consilience would be effective too. (A grounding in the concept of consilience would be an ideal foundation for all participants in a dialogue before the dialogue begins! It’s not a hard concept.)
I have wondered in the past if the Engli sh language may be a hindrance to a um ” elevator pitch ” style of science communication.
And that it could be clearer in say Polish or Urdu or that clicking language in Africa. I know just from forum participation, that there seems to be a sort of formula that the more English that is spoken, the more misunderstandings arise. Could be a universal linguistic thing.

” Aha! If there’s retention, there should be less outgoing! The sun hasn’t changed but the biosphere is retaining
more so LESS should be leaving into space. And yet there’s more leaving according to OLW readings! ”

It’s amazing the way that this ignores the fact that retention (energy imbalance) warms the climate system which must therefore radiate more LW at TOA. How does the system reach an new equilibrium if OLR does not increase as the system warms?

* * *

The truth is, atmospheric physics doesn’t fit into an elevator pitch so contrarian arguments from ignorance are part of the furniture. At least for now.

” So the radiating layer of the atmosphere has to get *hotter* in order to achieve the same efficiency of LW emission that was possible at lower altitude. ”
I like this bit in terms of explaining increased OLW.
What get people confused is a bit of a semantic thing sorta.
Very brief descriscriptions of an increasing GHG effect say something like… More energy will be retained.
And people can nod and go ” OK fair enough”
But some ( I think even Marahosy and Lindzen got caught up in it, and a few other deniers are perpetuating it ) go
” Aha! If there’s retention, there should be less outgoing! The sun hasn’t changed but the biosphere is retaining
more so LESS should be leaving into space. And yet there’s more leaving according to OLW readings! ”
A simple reply of ” Hotter things radiate more ” dosnt really cut it as an explanation to em. I’ve tried.
I get the superficial paradoxical nature and looking for simple truthful pithy explanations.
I think many don’t appreciate that there is no new equilibrium until GHGs stop rising and that stops them visualising it. Cheers BBD.

LiD

What happens is that the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration raises the ‘altitude of effective emission’. This is the height at which the atmosphere is primarily radiating LW to space.

At lower altitudes, CO2 (and other GHGs) absorb and re-radiate LW, inhibiting the loss of LW radiation to space. Increasing the concentration of well-mixed GHGs slowly raises the altitude at which the atmosphere can begin to radiate LW efficiently to space. But it gets colder as the altitude of effective emission is pushed up by increased GHGs. This works to reduce the efficiency at which the atmosphere radiates. So the radiating layer of the atmosphere has to get *hotter* in order to achieve the same efficiency of LW emission that was possible at lower altitude. The only way this can happen is if the entire climate system from the oceans upwards warms up. That’s why GAT increases as CO2 concentrations increase.

I’m in need of some radiative help if anyone is able. It’s about explaining to
deniers or interested people a bit of a seeming paradox. There’s an idea that because of increased GHGs, the biosphere is said to retain more heat so then we should see at the same time less OLR. It was popular a few years ago in a certain quasi academic denier set.
Observations show more OLR I believe. Which is as it should be.
People get a bit tetchy about it cuz it’s counter intuitive.
But I’m not real good at explaining why and I’d love help to improve my current way. Any improvements would be really bloody nice. Here is my current way, roughly.

GHGs don’t trap all outgoing longwave. It’s a leaky system.  This is obvious.
Let’s start by saying we are in a balanced situation. Everything is very stable.
Then add some further GHG, be it CO2 or whatever.
The system heats up in response and sends out increased OLR.
Some of this increased OLR is retrapped by the slightly less leaky system and some isnt. The bit that isn’t results in the higher OLR.
Basically the earth is trying to equalise again by pumping out more OLW from it’s new hotter state.
The trouble is, although it’s trying to equalise , there’s the increased
GHG getting in the way of SOME of it.
A new equalibrum can be reached if
the GHGs hold steady. But until they do, in a continually increasing GHG environment, the earth will keep trying to give up a greater amount of OLR than in our original position.
So you get a situation with a steady sun, rising retained heat, and more OLR too.

I know it’s not real good but it’s the best I can do. Halp!
Oh and thanks to Greg for space to post this up. If it’s too off topic Greg, just delete it please.

Now, where are we seeing signs of hysteria on this blog ?

Grandiose Troll : “climatic hysteria propaganda front” Response: [crickets…..]
More hysterical from HGW. [WTF does that mean in English? Probably makes sense in Russian…]
Perhaps, women heat flashes can also be linked to your AGW ? [Which one of the Russian trolls that populate the BillyR puppet wrote that piece of second language gibberish? Back to the gulag with you. ]
Can we take commentor from climatefoundation.org serious? [Jesus, St. Petersburg. If you are going to waste our time with your fossil fuel suck up puppets, can you at least send someone with a decent grasp of the language?]

Russia, desperate to save its major source of income, flails out at climatologists again and again. Pathetic.

L.A., I see you thumbed yourself up, too.

Sorry to let you down BillyR, well you let yourself down really, but no.

The only times I up-voted my posts was the two I have acknowledged previously. One under anonymous (I had not expected to suddenly not be recognised) and the next post under my Lionel A name.

So sorry about but that you shoot yourself again – take out that tompion next time, or avoid the Judas pistol.

Many responded to those writings that “slow boiling frogs” just die rather than jump.

They were right.

The real title for this thread should be:

Never let a crisis go unused for the dissemination of
the advancement of HGW.

Perhaps, women heat flashes can also be linked to
your AGW ?

“First link to Daily Mail = commentor who can’t be taken serious”

Can we take commentor from climatefoundation.org serious?

The messengers to Stalin and Hitler had the same fear, so they just
lied.

“Looks like the sad git is still up-voting his own posts.”

L.A., I see you thumbed yourself up, too.