by Judith Curry
Should probabilistic qualities be assigned to climate model projections?
Are the approaches used by the IPCC for assessing climate model projection quality – confidence building, subjective Bayesian, and likelihood – appropriate for climate models?
What are some other approaches that could be used?
The following paper addresses the above questions:
Assessing climate model projections: state of the art and philosophical reflections
Joel Katzav, Henk Djikstra, Jos de Laat
Abstract. The present paper draws on climate science and the philosophy of science in order to evaluate climate-model-based approaches to assessing climate projections. We analyze the difficulties that arise in such assessment and outline criteria of adequacy for approaches to it. In addition, we offer a critical overview of the approaches used in the IPCC working group one fourth report, including the confidence building, Bayesian and likelihood approaches. Finally, we consider approaches that do not feature in the IPCC reports, including three approaches drawn from the philosophy of science. We find that all available approaches face substantial challenges, with IPCC approaches having as a primary source of difficulty their goal of providing probabilistic assessments.
forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics [link to paper]
This paper covers a lot of the same territory that was covered in my paper Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster with regards to uncertainties in climate models. The part of the paper that I focus on here is the articulation of different approaches for assessing climate model projection quality.
Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the paper describe the main methods that have been used by the IPCC: confidence building, subjective Bayesian approach, and likelihood. These are summarized in section 7 as follows:
As we have noted, WG1 AR4 often uses expert judgment that takes the results of the approaches we have been discussing, as well as partly model-independent approaches, into consideration in assigning final projection qualities. Insofar as final assignments are model based, however, the shared limitations of the approaches we have been discussing remain untouched. In particular, insofar as final assessments are model based, they face serious challenges when it comes to assessing projection quality in light of structural inadequacy, tuning and initial condition inaccuracy. Moreover, they continue to be challenged by the task of assigning probabilities and informative probability ranges to projections.
The main focus of this post is Section 8:
Assessing projections: what else can be done?
We now examine approaches that differ from those that play center stage in WG1 AR4. The first approach, the possibilist approach, is described in the climate science literature but is primarily non-probabilistic. The remaining approaches are philosophy-of-science-based approaches. There are currently four main, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, philosophical approaches to assessing scientific claims. One of these is the already discussed subjective Bayesian approach. The other three are those that are discussed below.
JC note: I focus here on possibilistic and severe testing approaches, which I think are the most promising for the climate problem.
The possibilist approach
On the possibilist approach, we should present the range of alternative projections provided by models as is, insisting that they are no more than possibilities to be taken into account by researchers and decision makers and that they provide only a lower bound to the maximal range of uncertainty. Climate model results should, accordingly, be presented using plots of the actual frequencies with which models have produced specific projections . At the same time, one can supplement projected ranges with informal, though sometimes probabilistic, assessments of confidence in projections that appeal, as the confidence building approach appeals, to inter-model agreement and agreement with physical theory.
Informal approaches to assessing projection quality must address the same central challenges that quantitative approaches must address. So, insofar as the possibilist position allows informal probabilistic assessments of projection quality, it must address the difficulties that all probabilistic approaches face. However, one could easily purge the possibilist approach of all probabilistic elements and assess projections solely in terms of their being possibilities. Moreover, there are obvious ways to develop purely possibilistic assessment further. Purely possibilistic assessment can, in particular, be used to rank projections. Possibilities can, for example, be ranked in terms of how remote they are.
The purged possibilist approach would still face challenges. Presenting CMPs (climate model projections) as possibilities worthy of consideration involves taking a stance on how CMPs relate to reality. For example, if we are presented with an extreme climate sensitivity range of 2 to 11 K and are told that these are possibilities that should not have been neglected by AR3 WG1’s headline uncertainty ranges, a claim is implicitly being made about which climate behavior is a real possibility. It is implied that these possibilities are unlike, for example, the possibility that the United States will more than halve its budget deficit by 2015. Thus a possibilist assessment of projection quality needs to be accompanied by an examination of whether the projections are indeed real possibilities. The same considerations apply to ‘worst case scenarios’ when these are put forward as worthy of discussion in policy settings or research. The threat that arises when we do not make sure that possibilities being considered are real possibilities is that, just as we sometimes underestimate our certainty, we will sometimes exaggerate our uncertainty.
Nevertheless, the challenges facing purely possibilistic assessment are substantially more manageable than those facing probabilistic assessment. To say that something is a real possibility at some time t is, roughly, to say that it is consistent with the overall way things have been up until t and that nothing known excludes it . A case for a projection’s being a real possibility can, accordingly, be made just by arguing that we have an understanding of the overall way relevant aspects of the climate system are, showing that the projection’s correctness is consistent with this understanding and showing that we do not know that there is something that ensures that the projection is wrong. There is, as observed in discussing probabilistic representations of ignorance, no need to specify a full range of alternatives to the projection here. Further, state-of-the-art GCMs can sometimes play an important role in establishing that their projections are real possibilites. State-of-the-art GCMs’ projections of GMST are, for example and given the extent to which GCMs capture our knowledge of the climate system, real possibilities.
Severe testing, climate models and climate model projections
The remaining approach to assessing scientific claims that we will discuss is the severe testing approach. The idea behind the severe testing approach is that the deliberate search for error is the way to get to the truth. Thus, on this approach, we should assess scientific claims on the basis of how well they have withstood severe testing or probing of their weaknesses .
According to Popper, an empirical test of a theory or model is severe to the extent that background knowledge tells us that it is improbable that the theory or model will pass the test. Background knowledge consists in established theories or models other than those being tested.
A crucial difference between the severe testing approach and the approaches pursued by WG1 AR4 is that the severe testing approach never allows mere agreement, or increased agreement, with observations to count in favor of a claim. That simulation of observed phenomena has been successful does not tell us how unexpected the data are and thus how severely the data have tested our claims. If, for example, the successful simulation is the result of tuning, then the success is not improbable, no severe test has been carried out and no increased confidence in model fitness for purpose is warranted. Notice, however, that the fact that claims are tested against in-sample data is not itself supposed to be problematic as long as the data does severely test the claims. Another crucial difference between the severe testing approach and those pursued by WG1 AR4 is that the severe testing approach is not probabilistic. The degree to which a set of claims have withstood severe tests, what Popper calls their degree of corroboration, is not a probability.
How might one apply a (Popperian) severe testing approach to assessing projection quality? What we need, from a severe testing perspective, is a framework that assigns a degree of corroboration to a CMP, p, as a function of how well the model (or ensemble of models), m, which generated p has withstood severe tests of its fitness for the purpose of doing so. Such severe tests would consist in examining the performance of some of those of m’s predictions the successes of which would be both relevant to assessing m’s fitness for the purpose of generating p and improbable in light of background knowledge. Assessing, for example, a GCM’s projection of 21st century GMST would involve assessing how well the GCM performs at severe tests of relevant predictions of 20th century climate and/or paleoclimate. That is it would involve assessing how well the GCM performs at simulating relevant features of the climate system that we expect will seriously challenge its abilities. A relevant prediction will be one the accuracy of which is indicative of the accuracy of the projection of 21st century GMST. Examples of relevant features of the climate the accurate simulation of which will be a challenge to IPCC-AR5 models are the effects of strong ENSO events on the GMST, effects of Atlantic sea surface temperature variations (associated with the MOC) on the GMST and special aspects of the GMST such as its late 30s and early 40s positive trends. That these data will challenge IPCC- AR5 models is suggested by the difficulty CMIP3 models have in adequately 1359 simulating them.
How might the severe testing approach help us with the difficulties involved in assessing projection quality? The severe testing approach allows us to bypass any worries we might have about tuning since it only counts success that does not result from tuning, success that surely does exist, in favor of CMPs. The severe testing approach can thus, at least, be used as a check on the results of approaches that do not take tuning into account. If, for example, the subjective Bayesian approach assigns a high probability to a projection and the severe testing approach gives the projection a high degree of corroboration, we can at least have some assurance that the probabilistic result is not undermined by tuning.
Underdetermination in choice between parameters/available parameterization schemes might also be addressed by the severe testing approach. Substituting different parameterization schemes into a model might result in varying degrees of corroboration, as might perturbing the model’s parameter settings. Where such variations exist, they allow ranking model fitness for purpose as a function of parameter settings/parameterization schemes. Similarly, degrees of corroboration can be used to rank fitness for purpose of models with different structures. The resulting assessment has, like assessment in terms of real possibilities, the advantage that it is less demanding than probabilistic assessment or assessment that is in terms of truth or approximate truth. Ranking two CMPs as to their degrees of corroboration, for example, only requires comparing the two CMPs. It does not require specifying the full range of alternatives to the CMPs. Nor does it require that we take some stand on how close the CMPs are to the truth, and thus that we take a stand on the effects of unknown structural inadequacy on CMP accuracy. Popper’s view is that a ranking in terms of degrees of corroboration only provides us with a ranking of our conjectures about the truth. The most highly corroborated claim would thus, on this suggestion, be our best conjecture about the truth. Being our best conjecture about the truth is, in principle, compatible with being far from the truth.
JC comments: While many of these topics have been covered previously at Climate Etc.,
- Probabilistic(?) estimates of climate sensitivity
- Should we assess climate models in light of severe tests?
- Scenario falsification
- The culture of building confidence in climate models
I like this paper because it provides an integrated framework for assessing climate model projection quality. The IPCC has been mostly relying on confidence building, subjective Bayesian and likelihood methods. Of these, confidence building is a keeper (especially if it includes formal verification and validation), and this should be supplemented by possibilist and extreme testing approaches. The combination of possibilist and extreme testing approaches provides the basis for scenario falsification, which is an approach that I have been arguing for.
Moderation note: This is a technical thread and comment will be moderated for relevance.
You realize that there is actually a formal possibility theory? You also realize that you are advocating taking into account extremely improbable but turn off the lights and leave possibilities? How you gonna deal with them.
head.sand.bury.
Right. Scientists supported by federal research agencies have honed this skill into a fine art.
1. Neon (Ne) isotopes in dark regions of the Fayetteville meteorite, http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Fayetteville_desc.htm ,
first revealed evidence of severe mass fractionation in the Sun:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1964Data.htm
2. NASA paid scientists for the next sixteen years (16 yrs = 1980-1964) to manipulate the observations to promote the possibility that data along the dashed line of our 1964 graph might be produced by mixing together alphabetically labeled primordial neon components, Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, . . . .etc.
D. D. Sabu and O. K> Manuel, “The neon alphabet game,” Proc. 11th Lunar Planet Sci. Conf. (1980) pages 879-899
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Neon_alphabet_game.pdf
Major participants in the “Neon alphabet game” included scientists at the Lunar Science Institute in Houston, the University of Chicago, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Bern, etc. None responded to our criticism.
Like modern-day climatologists, they ignored criticism coming from those outside the stream of federal research funds.
Instead of looking for the possibility of escape from the reality that is revealed by observations and measurements – no matter how unexpected – the basic precepts of science require us to follow Ralph Waldo Emerson’s advice:
“Place yourself in the middle of the stream of power and wisdom which animates all whom it floats, and you are without effort impelled to truth, to right and a perfect contentment.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://www.authorama.com/essays-first-series-8.html
The sad state of society and government today are the direct result of giving pseudo-scientists public funds to promote the possibility that world leaders can control the fate of mankind and therefore do not need to submit themselves to “the stream of power and wisdom which animates all whom it floats”.
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
To avoid experimental evidence that “the entire solar system may have condensed primarily from a single, local supernova”, University of Chicago researchers suggested the possibility that
a.)in situ decay of a volatile superheavy element 115 (or 114, 113) might explain the enrichment of heavy Xe isotopes in mineral fractions of the Allende meteorite, and
b.)“isotopic fractionation by an unknown mechanism took place during trapping that enriched the light isotopes of Xe and the heavy isotopes of the other four gases.”
There are limitless possibilities to avoid reality; None of them work.
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
To avoid inescapable evidence of local element synthesis, when first revealed by these observations from the University of Chicago in 1975:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm
A well-known Harvard astrophysicist was inserted into the program already scheduled for the AGU meeting in April 1976 to proclaim the possibility that the explosion of a nearby supernova at the birth of the Solar System might explain the enrichment of heavy Xe isotopes in mineral fractions of the Allende meteorite.
That possibility was in fact falsified by the association of heavy Xe isotopes with primordial helium.
Here is a copy of my letter to Dr. Frank Press after the AGU meeting:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/LetterToFrankPress26Apr1976.pdf
axe. ground. again.
No, PDA, it is important that the public know the sequence of events that produced Climategate – from the time of the sudden deaths of thousands of innocent citizens on 6 Aug 1945 until the the release of Climategate emails and documents in Nov 2009 – but continued axe grinding benefits nobody. That ass the point of my recent comment in the New York Times:
http://tinyurl.com/9ea7ras
“John Paily of India is exactly right. Instead of instead arguing about differences of opinion, we should support these common interests of ordinary citizens:
1. We all want world peace.
2. An end to racism and nationalistic warfare.
3. An end to the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation.
4. Cooperative efforts to protect Earth’s environment and bounty.
5. Governments controlled by the people being governed, including.
6. Transparency and veracity (truth) of information given to the public.”
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear/Space Science
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
Correction: That was the point of my . . .
Any animal cornered is extremely dangerous, even naked apes:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/wtf-national-weather-service-buying-hollow-point-bullets/
That is why we all need to support these common interests of ordinary citizens:
1. We all want world peace.
2. An end to racism and nationalistic warfare.
3. An end to the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation.
4. Cooperative efforts to protect Earth’s environment and bounty.
5. Governments controlled by the people being governed, including.
6. Transparency and veracity (truth) of information given to the public.”
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
I don’t know. What are you going to do when the Klingon warbird decloaks?
The mere possibility of an answer different than eli has accepted leads him to question the very dangerous activity of looking at the problem from a different perspective. Almost as if he is certain that the current answer cannot be improved upon. the lack of curiousity is perplexing
Perplexing from a science stance. No so perplexing in other ways.
“The mere possibility of an answer different than eli has accepted leads him to question the very dangerous activity of looking at the problem from a different perspective.”
That’s one interpretation. Or you could look at what he actually said:
“You realize that there is actually a formal possibility theory?”
. . . in which case you realize ER is questioning not the act of looking at a problem from a different perspective, but the act of invoking a theory you know next to nothing about, which when examined with a modicum of alertness does not seem to support what the author thinks it does; i.e., the WUWT special.
I second the question.
you could actually look at what he says
‘You also realize that you are advocating taking into account extremely improbable but turn off the lights and leave possibilities? How you gonna deal with them.”
Regardless of whether or not Dr. Curry understands all the details of the formal theory, a point which is decidedly besides the point, the fact remains that she does realize that this approach advocates taking into account extremely improbable events. She has said as much, here and in person. His last question, “how are you going to deal with them?” borders on retarded. Dr. Curry is in no position to deal with these issues and has never suggested that she is in charge of dealing with these issues.
The simple fact is that when anyone suggests an alternative way of looking at problems there is a certain class of people ,heavily invested in the solution they believe with certitude, who question the very notion of looking at things from a different perspective. Anti intellectuals.
Doctor: we like to test you for polycystic kdeny disorder.
patient: oh crap, there’s no cure, what are you going to do if I have it?
I don’t want that test.
Like i said. head. sand. bury.
Steven, differentiate please between solutions and issues. It is irrational to believe that humans are not making massive changes to the atmosphere, the solid surface and the upper ocean, both physical and biological. (you can have a pass on the mantle and maybe as yet for the deep ocean). It is clear that many of these changes are dangerous, locally, regionally and globally. What to do is the question. If you have a better idea than others speak up.
Eli
Re: “extremely improbable”
What if the projections of the present GCMs turn out to “extremely improbable”?
If there are other substantially “lights out” scenarios that are more probable, should we consider them? e.g. see Near Earth Orbit
I have several previous threads that discuss possibility theory. See the post with the link scenario falsification. This is how I think it should be done. And yes this provides us a rationale for considering the plausible worse case scenario (as well as the ‘nothing’ scenario)
I don’t think there is a plausible ‘nothing’ scenario. It’s in the realms of possibility that we could see a net zero change of a particular variable (say, GMST) over a period of time, but that’s different from nothing happening. Whatever else may be the case, increasing GHGs will significantly alter the thermal properties of the atmosphere, which can’t fail to have some effect at the surface.
I’ve wondered for a while what would be the consequences of living in Lindzen’s world, where strong negative feedbacks through cloud changes dominate. It sounds like a fairly major alteration of the hydrological cycle, which may carry considerable effects.
True on both points. Since there is no plausible nothing or better scenario all possibility theory can do is widen the range of damaging scenarios. That is not exactly reassuring.
I’m going to recommend Fooled By Randomness 2nd Ed. by Nassim Taleb, as its commonsensical and self-effacing approach to the topic of probability and uncertainty with a possibilist point of view.
That said, possibilism is an extraordinarily hairy discipline, and not preferred in discussion of Policy without some very strong reasons; one such is War Games (all possibilities imagined by a group are contrived, and the strength and weakness of all responses to same are considered to see if there are any responses common to all possible scenarios that do well or poorly).
Yup. in war gaming everything is on the table
But we would not advocate using the worst case scenarios from war gaming to guide our policies at exorbitant cost. Although some have ……..
Not directed at you Steven.
Bill | August 13, 2012 at 10:07 am |
And yet, North Carolina’s approach of banning the use of anything other than ‘sunny day’ scenarios is distinctly intellectually unsatisfying, and might I also add fiscally bankrupt. Oh. Wait, am I talking about one single policy of NC, or NC as a whole?
Yes
It is striking that the assessment methods of Katzav, Djikstra, and de Laat (henceforth KDL) would be unaltered if there were *no* First Law and Second Law of thermodynamics — whose existence is nowhere accounted in the KDL article.
In practical terms, this means that KDL-type statistical methods are (perhaps!) reasonably suited to the assessment of local climate fluctuations … for the physical reason that in consequence of ubiquitous transport phenomena (like wind and rain and ocean currents) the First Law and Second Law do not hold locally, but hold only globally.
Conversely, KDL-type statistical methods are poorly suited to the assessment of global balance-type models as described in (for example) Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications. The reason is, that by their lower-order postulates, and concretely in consequence of their close-coupling to fundamental thermodynamic principles, balance-style global models are generically more reliable in their global projections, than local models are in their local projections.
Conclusion No one style of evaluation criteria suits all styles of climate models.
Thank you for a fine post, Judith Curry! :) :) :)
The Hansen paper you cited claims that they have measured the change in the HEAT content of the Earth, and also of incoming and outgoing flux.
They claim to be able to measure a change between the influx and efflux of 0.208% +/- 0.042 (an alteration of 0.5 +/- 0.1 W/m2 against a calculated levels of 240 W/m2).
This claim displays better accuracy than each of the individual components that went into its calculations.
The result is therefore, bogus.
Eli, the merits of a formal possibility/probability theory is of absolutely no use to those who hid, ignored or manipulated experimental data.
This is just another smokescreen to try to delay addressing experimental data and observations that were ignored out of fear and a deep sense of powerlessness and guilt for the “nuclear fires” that consumed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 Aug 1945 and 9 Aug 1945.
World leaders established the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 and paid government scientists to obscure the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the cores of:
a.) Heavy atoms like uranium and plutonium
b.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
c.) Ordinary galaxies, like our Milky Way, and
d.) Some planets like Jupiter, Saturn, and perhaps Earth.
World leaders are in fact totally powerless over the “fountain of energy” Copernicus discovered at the center of the Solar System in 1543 to start the scientific revolution.
This “fountain of energy” – far beyond the control of world leaders – made our chemical elements, sustains our lives, and still exerts dominant control over Earth’s constantly changing climate.
The scientific method and the Constitutional form of government that we inherited at the birth of our nation in 1776 have both been undercut since 1945 to promote false delusions of grandeur in the minds of frightened world leaders who sought to reduce nationalism and the threat of destruction by “nuclear fires” by building a one-world government.
That is why the first step to restoring:
a.) Integrity to government science is
b.) Constitutional limits on government
Summary: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
Forbidden Energy: “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron Journal 19, 123-150 (2012) http://tinyurl.com/7t5ojrn
Manuel, you are in great need of either a rest home or a posting limit.
Is it possible to validate/invalidate IPCC’s models with “severe tests”? Or will the projections again be published independent of “inconvenient” constraints?
Natural oscillations: ~20 & ~60 year
How about applying natural climate oscillations as a severe test? cf
Testing an astronomically-based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models
Nicola Scafetta, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 124–137 (preprint)
Forecast/Hindcast
Can the global climate models forecast/hindcast based on tuning from half the data to predict the other half?
Cloud check
Clouds appear to have been underestimated by a factor of two. See:
Observations of stratocumulus clouds and their effect on the eastern Pacific surface heat budget along 20°S Simon P. de Szoeke, Sandra Yuter, David Mechem, Chris W. Fairall, Casey Burleyson, and Paquita Zuidema, Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00618.1
Abstract
The Hockey Sticht notes that:
Can the models be recalibrated to fit this actual cloud data?
CO2/Energy projections
Energy use CO2 emissions appear to be similarly exaggerated.
Höök, M., Sivertsson, A. & Aleklett, K. ”Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios”
Natural Resources Research, 2010, Vol. 19, Issue 2: 63-81
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11053-010-9113-1
Test against >30 year temperature trends
Lucia Liljegren’s comparisons of the IPCC’s mean 0.2 C/decade projection indicates that it is about 2 sigma hotter than the red corrected satellite temperature trend (UAH TLT) of 0.138 C/decade [0.083, 0.194]. That suggests that the IPCC’s model mean exceeds 97% of all temperature trends based on UAH satellite data.
When will that count as F for Fail?
Will the scientific method be brought to bear and assign an R for Reject?
Or do we continue down the rabbit hole with Alice?
If you like scaffettas curve fitting I have a better one
Steven Mosher
I look forward to evaluting your results and how well they have
withstood “severe testing”.
Any ref/links? Any physical foundations? Any fore/hindcasting?
Any validation by more accurate predictions than IPCC?
Halley’s hypothesis was proved by its accuracy.
I find the IPCC’s projections unreliable for their inaccuracy.
Physical foundation? yep better than scafetta’s: C02 and volcanos.
Steven Mosher
I searched you blog, but nothing came up for CO2 or Volcanos (or volcanoes). Any suggestions for links to your paper/post?
On CO2, what evidence that the CO2 leads or lags?
i.e., which is the cause and which the consequence
What about solar forcing?
e.g. see David Stockwell Solar Accumulation Theory showing temperature lagging the solar cycle by ~ Pi/2 (90 deg.)
Until you link to / reference a paper/post, Stockwell and Scafetta are the best I have found for quantitative predictions closer to the data than IPCC’s 0.2C/dec.
PS compliments on strong Chinese interest in CRUtape letters. September 16, 2010 at 8:31 AM | #2. What languages has it been translated into?
Steven
I found your On Volcanoes and their Climate Response at The Blackboard. I see numerous requests for details of your method, and the code, but no particular response that I saw.
Steven Mosher: If you like scaffettas curve fitting I have a better one
“like” is the wrong word in this context. Is Scafetta’s model to be considered one of the “possibilities”? Should its model forecasts be tested by the future data? I think that the answer to both questions should be “yes”.
The cloud article is interesting. A quote from it:
Coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP3) simulations of the climate of the 20th century show 40±20 W m−2 too little net cloud radiative cooling at the surface. Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds.
Yes, that IS interesting and appalling if we’re just learning about the model deficiency this year. The research vessel certainly wasn’t doing anything earth shattering or using recently invented instruments to make measurements that weren’t possible before now. A fuller quote:
“Clouds appear to have been underestimated by a factor of two.” Wrong Mr Hagen. Try a factor of 19.
The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel.
Continuous measurements of the shortwave (SW), longwave (LW), and net cross-atmosphere radiation flux divergence over the West African Sahel were made during the year 2006 using the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mobile Facility (AMF) and the Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget (GERB) satellite. Accompanying AMF measurements enabled calculations of the LW, SW, and net Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) and surface Cloud Radiative Forcing (CRF), which quantifies the radiative effects of cloud cover on the column boundaries. Calculations of the LW, SW, and net Cloud Radiative Effect (CRE), which is the difference between the TOA and surface radiative flux divergences in all-sky and clear-sky conditions, quantify the radiative effects on the column itself. These measurements were compared to predictions in four Global Climate Models (GCMs) used in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change fourth Assessment report (IPCC-AR4). Reproducing the SW column radiative flux divergence was problematic in the GCMs and SW discrepancies translated into the net radiative flux divergence. Computing cloud-related quantities from the measurements produced yearly averages of the SW TOA CRF, surface CRF, and CRE of ~ −19 Wm−2, −83 Wm−2, and 47 Wm−2, respectively, and yearly averages of the LW TOA CRF, surface CRF, and CRE of ~ 39 Wm−2, 37 Wm−2, and 2 Wm−2. These quantities were analyzed in two GCMs and compensating errors in the SW and LW clear-sky, cross-atmosphere radiative flux divergence conspired to produce reasonable predictions of the net clear-sky divergence. Both GCMs underestimated the surface LW and SW CRF and predicted near zero SW CRE when the measured values were substantially larger (70 Wm−2 maximum).
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00072.1
Critics will say this study was just one year in one region (2006 over the African Sahel) but if global climate models don’t understand cloud microphysics and the radiative effect of the condensed water vapor that covers 60% of Planet Earth, then they can’t predict the climate anywhere. The pretense that predicting climate 100 years in advance is somehow easier than predicting a single year is illogical. 100 years of climate modeling means adding up 100 years of errors. The errors don’t cancel out, they accumulate.
Markus
The abstract I quoted states:
“models have ~50% too few clouds”
In grade school I learnt that 1/2 = 50%.
When you cite another paper, that is new matter.
Please explain your 19x, as it is not in the abstract.
Yes Mr Hagen, I was spruking to catch your attention. Models not only underestimate # of clouds but also radiative effect. That’s ~19 times larger than the Co2 effect.
Miller et al 2012 find that some models predict clouds to have a net shortwave radiative effect near zero, but observations show it is 70W per square meter.
Markus
G’ day. Clear statements with sound physics would go over much better.
Cloud models have the highest uncertainty. See IPCC, and especially Nigel Fox of NPL’s TRUTH project.
PS Re spruking (sic) see spruik
It is impossible to invalidate the IPCCs models, because they don’t come with any statistical confidence intervals.
IPCC completely corrupts usual scientific standards of confidence by using weasel words insteads of Bayesian probabilities.
Some how we all need to keep in mind that the raw data that all this climate conjecture is based upon values from instruments never intended for or capable of providing that precision or accuracy necessary to measure a degree or two of global temperature change. Assuming that situation can be improved upon in any meaningful way by passing that data through statitical algorithms of any sort is our base falacy. A statitician may know a great amount about statistical methods. That does not qualify him to judge that raw instrument data meets requirements to make his analysis algorithms valid. The real world is not a simple random noise generator.
The original raw data uncertainty must be carried through to projection descriptions. Instead we continually see historic temperature values described to the nearest tenth or even one hundredth of a degree. Trusting those historic temperature values as a valid comparison to current temperatures is poor judgement at best. Trusting them to provide a basis for climate projections of the magnitudes and precision we are quoted is quite silly.
Amen.
“Instead we continually see historic temperature values described to the nearest tenth or even one hundredth of a degree.”
Satellites, buoys and land stations agree to within tenths of a degree.
So quite clearly we can measure the warming to tenths of a degree.
lolwot,
Well, too bad you cannot say the same for historic data that is used as a basis for claiming it is warmer now then way back then. Surely you are not claiming data from 1900 has an accuracy to tenths of a degree.
Our older manually read and recorded temperature records are remarkably good for their intended purpose. That was to be able to record climatic conditions for different parts of the country. The data collected showed the great variety of climates found around the world. The instrumentation and techniques employed were targeted for monitoring diurnal veratiation of tens of degrees and annual temperature variations in the range of sixty degrees celsius or more over the course of a year. They were never intended for or capable of providing accuracy to tenths of a degree, no matter how many statistical algorithms are run on the data.
Now if you want to limit your discussion to the few high accuracy stations that were placed in service in recent years, you might have a case for tenths of a degree accuracy. However, you must remember, at thermometer reading tells you only the temperature of the thermometer. Just cuz you intend to measure air temperature, does not mean you have configured it to do that to the accuracy of the instrument itself.
I’l just repeat what I said because you didn’t address it.
Satellites, buoys and land stations agree to within tenths of a degree.
So quite clearly we can measure the warming to tenths of a degree.
And here’s a picture to prove it
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/rss/offset:-0.0923176/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.247178/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.350546
lolwot,
OK, we agree we can make measurements today to tenths of a degree accuracy, in some special cases. My point is that though we can do that today, we could not in the past. It is simply invalid to quote temperatures from a century ago to tenths of a degree. Is that something you disagree with? If you are using a historic temperature value with an accuracy of plus or minus a degree or two to compare with current temperatures, you cannot claim a trend accuracy any better than that one or two degrees per century. Even though you can measure today’s temperature at a good site to a tenth of a degree, that does not make your temperature trend line accurate to one tenth of a degree per century.
So you are saying the late 20th century warming happened but the early 20th century warming might not have happened? So the 20th century temperature record might look like a sharp hockey stick?
lolwot,
You must be trying to pull my chain. My statements are about the use of historic temperature measurements for determining LONG range temperature trends. I am pretty sure some warming has happened over the last century. I am enclined to accept the records from newer high accuracy stations placed around the USA at face value. They do, of course, cover a fairly short period of time climate wise. It is the records from those century old stations that I am taking issue with with respect to claiming a CENTURY LONG temperature trend.
In 379 at bats I got 130 hits. I like the sound of .400. Say I hit .300, and I punch you in the nose. So lets settle on .343.
The Philosophy of modelling.
I used to believe years ago, that any complex dynamic system could be modeled accurately enough to provide useful information on its performance under the wide range of conditions to which it could be subjected. Where the system included human action with discretion extra difficulties arose, but non-linearities abound in nature and are included as is stationery randomness, or even defined non-stationarity, although systems with random elements will give probabilistic results. There are other instrumental problems like having a computer with sufficient memory and speed as well as a suitable programming language and a team of multidisiplanary experts.
In recent years there has been less discussion of computer power. Have we at last reached computer nirvana? As I watch each little cloud float over in the Australian summer I wonder about its effect on our climate. I remember the original Hansen models and reflecting that the smallest cloud would have to be about 300km. How useful was that? How do clouds join up to make larger clouds? Seems like you need to model the micro-climate in every cloud. Cell sizes in the oceans also have to be adequate.
I used to be known as the father of model validation before it was widely practiced in USA or anywhere else and always insisted that every dynamic process in the model be validated before the whole model was checked. I think that is still an important principle.
“I remember the original Hansen models and reflecting that the smallest cloud would have to be about 300km. How useful was that?”
Pretty useful (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm). Heck, Svante Arrhenius did a climate model with cell-by-cell hand calculations, and he did pretty well.
OT – read your Catalina Tales. Enjoyed them very much. Wished there were more of them. My father was a tail gunner in a B-26 Marauder. He completed his 25 flights over Nazi Germany and returned home. One out of three of all B-26 crew didn’t live to complete their 25 missions. My father didn’t talk about it much. He was an 18 year-old boy full of piss, vinegar, and pride on his first flight and a 21 year-old man humbled and thankful to be alive at the end. His best friend, a belly gunner, caught some flack that blew his body apart all over the inside of the glass turret. My father was the first to find him. For the rest of his life my father, who grew up on a farm, retched at the faintest whiff of sour milk because it smelt like the inside of that belly turret. I have nothing in my life to compare with that for which I am thankful. My hitch in the US Marine Corps 1974-1978 was peaceful and routine.
David Springer, Thank you for your comments on my Catalina Tales. It is a coincidence that our first air/sea rescue of the Pacific war was a B26 crew. One of them, a wireless operator, used to attend our reunions in Australia every year. I had a lot of respect for B26 crews – 2 very powerful engines and hardly any wing, so they flew like a brick, but they were fast. more like a rocket than an aircraft. Just taking off and landing were dicey.
Judith, this thread seems weird to me.
I am a mathematician. Statistics and probability as I know it is derived from basic principles, as all math is.
Only from deriving it from basic principles can we know that it works and is true.
I don’t see how we can have a discussion on model projections without it being mostly math. It seems to me that anything else is mostly heuristic (at best).
Am I wrong? And if so, can someone please educate me as to why I am wrong?
Adam,
You probably aren’t wrong.
But Judith now clearly feels she was wrong when she wrote: (2007)
…if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small. Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon.
It sounds OK to me though. But I’m more a physicist/ electronics engineer than a mathematician, so what would I know?
But, if you are more qualified, maybe you could educate Judith as to why she was right then?
Perhaps Dr. Curry considered this: Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can Be Dangerous.” Opinion. Boston.com – The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind
Main point: “Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.”
“Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent.”
I’ve been saying that for several decades.
tempterrain quoting Dr Curry: may be
How is it “clear” that she now considers “may be” to be “wrong”?
Its clear to me that Judith has changed the tone of her argument. But, Judith may (?) be somewhat more uncertain on the extent of that clarity to others.
Adam, perhaps statistics has changed a bit since you learnt it. Rather than using basic principles, probabilities are now sometimes assigned based on the opinions of ‘experts’, so-called ‘subjective Bayesianism’. This paper points out some of the obvious weaknesses of this approach (eg circular reasoning) on page 38.
Adam, I think you’re right. As far as I can figure, the most reliable statistical prediction of the future is a linear regression through all available data. Humans being the cognitively biased beings they are think they know better. People using computer models think they know better than everybody else.
I think bookies would have a better chance of predicting temperature outcomes that climate scientists because they have to put their money where their mouth is.
Nobody without a significant personal stake in prediction accuracy and the prospect of making a loss has the proper incentives to be right.
Blouis79, the history of science provides no support for this assertion, and every theoretical physicist in the world disagrees with it.
Ouch! :) :) :)
One way to appreciate the weakness of prediction-centric philosophies of science is to visit the celebrated mathematical website The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS).
Enter three-or-four random integers into the OEIS … the OEIS will supply a mathematical relation that predicts the next integer! Amazing! :) :) :)
Here the point is that the OEIS concretely supplies prediction-stripped-of-explanation … which is useful solely as a supplementary means for discovering true mathematical explanations … and lots of fun too! :) :) :)
Oops — here’s a working link to the (AMAZING!) predictive-but-not-explanatory website The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS).
The KDL philosophy narrowly depicts climate-science very similarly to the way that the OEIS narrowly depicts mathematics — which is to say, a too-narrow focus on KDL/OEIS methods totally misses the meaning, and the fun too, of what’s really going on, eh? :grin: :grin: :grin:
blouis79
You make an excellent point (which “fan” has missed completely).
Climate researchers in general have “a personal stake” in a high CO2 climate sensitivity.
The higher the better – for getting the public alarmed, politicians motivated and taxpayer funding flowing for (guess what?): more climate research.
A low climate sensitivity makes a large part of climate research redundant.
And which climate researcher would want that?
Quite simple, actually.
Max
“A low climate sensitivity makes a large part of climate research redundant.”
Which part?
lolwot
You ask: Which part of climate research becomes redundant with a low climate sensitivity?
Duh!
Think about it a bit.
If the “C” is taken out of “CAGW”, there isn’t much public interest in pursuing AGW-related research, ergo not much political incentive to fund AGW research, ergo funding dries up and AGW-related research stops.
Pop!
The bubble bursts.
Got it?
Max
Follow the Money!
We know that academia is very money-driven, however much they try to protest about their intellectual independence. Remember the ludicrous defence of Mann:
‘He brings a lot of money to us and if he were a bad boy then nobody would give him all that loot. Therefore he’s innocent. The big cheques prove it’
And no climatologit in their right f…g mind would even think about publishing a paper that finished:
‘The consequence of the demonstrated low climate sensitivity is that future worries about climate change/global warming have been wildly exaggerated. There is little need for further research at all’
They’d be torn limb from limb by the Union of Alarmist Climatologists before having their body fed to hyenas. Then ritually burnt with low CO2 fuel. Hansen might have apoplexy and Romm would likely explode all over a TV studio.
Max, more specifically, they don’t have *any* stake in measured prediction accuracy. It’s the same for stock brokers vs share market investors, investment bankers vs banks/governments. Who makes a real loss if the prediction is wrong?
Max,
You obviously are of the school of thought that everything in this world is driven by money. So, maybe you could advise climate scientists on how to maximise their research grants?
Aren’t they are making a big mistake? Instead of giving the impression of the ‘science is settled’, and advising the world to reduce their CO2 emissions, they should be taking a leaf out of Judith’s book and playing up the level of uncertainty. Of course, they’d also say this would be resolved in they only had a bit more money.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Adam
The proof of scientific pudding is in the validation, regardless of “expert” probabilities. See above.
For actuarial and statistical perspectives on more important trends see Gail Tverberg at OurFiniteWorld.com and William M. Briggs
Keep probing, testing and searching for gold refined by fire.
Adam: Only from deriving it from basic principles can we know that it works and is true.
I think that is wrong. Derivations from basic principles are always based on simplifying assumptions; only by testing the result can we know that the result works, that there was not, paraphrasing Einstein, too much simplicity. The Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster revealed post hoc that there had been too much simplicity. And some results that work were never derived from first principles, such as Kepler’s laws of motion, and Hooke’s law.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it.” –Alfred North Whitehead
Words to live by.
In climate science, there seems no need to use basic statistics
or experimental physics or in fact any method which might be too open to scrutiny from outsiders.
Adam, you might have more fun reading Claes Johnson’s blog and Garth Paltridges book “The Climate Caper”.
Mostly because you have to estimate the forcing scenarios and those have physical, biological, economic and political drivers. Even if you had a perfect global model, you would have a wide range of possible outcomes, and some of those drivers are not controllable.
DrJC, OT. I noticed Matt Ridley’s blog isn’t on your blog role. Intelligent, thoughtful, and knowledgeable guy, many thoughts on climate change, and an interesting recent piece on confirmation bias.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog
Long set of data showing certain repeatability (due to natural oscillation) as the CET is, it can be forward extrapolated by a short period (perhaps 10-15% of its total length) with a reasonable probability of the oscillations reoccurring
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
The physicist David Deutsch wrote a book titled The Fabric of Reality that is much-admired by practicing scientists, and is quite respectful of Karl Popper, and yet it is in many respects completely opposed to the philosophical view of climate-change science that is presented Katzav, Djikstra, and de Laat (henceforth KDL).
The bulk of Deutsch’s book is (rather technically) concerned with quantum dynamics, but the first chapter, titled “The Theory of Everything”, is mush broader in scope, and it is very charming and fun to read … and very fortunately this chapter is freely readable on Google Books.
Deutsch’s chapter is highly recommended for reading in parallel with the KDL manuscript. Here are excerpts:
According to Deutsch’s philosophical framework, the scientific work that seminally explained climate-change was the justly-celebrated 1981 article by Hansen and colleagues titled “Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide“.
All subsequent work, including the IPCC reports, are from a Deutschian point-of-view an extended verification and validation process, that has affirmed that the 1981 scientific explanation of Hansen et al. was essentially correct.
Can we tighten the confidence limits associated to our predictions of future climate change? Surely the passage of time, and the acquisition of more and better data, and perhaps even the statistical methods that KDL propose, will help us to do this.
But as for the all-important scientific explanation of climate change … heck … that is a done deal, eh? :) :) :)
A quote from Deutsch expresses the above point in one short sentence:
The KDL manuscript focuses solely on the assessment of predictive power, and has little to say regarding explanatory power, and thereby misses the essence of what modern climate-change science — indeed all of modern science — is really about.
If the predictions are wrong, the explanations are wrong and have no “explanatory power.” The explanations are the guts of how the predictions are generated.
No amount of post-normal, deconstructionist subjective Bayesian onanism, computer model intercomparison projects, infilling, change point algorithms, urban heat island cover-ups, erasures of the MWP and the 1930’s, late night rewrites of the summary for policy makers, circular reasoning or wishful thinking can obscure this, though it is certainly not for lack of trying every one of those and more.
Now that more people are noticing the comprehensive failures of prediction, we are being told that in real science, including climate science, “explanatory power” (TM) is more important than accurate prediction in testing theories. As if they were separate and as if this were a seminar in semiotics.
Quinn, as an example of vituperative demagoguery, your post is exemplary.
As an example of rational analysis, not so much! ;) ;) ;)
Do you see that, in the last week, Intrade’s Arctic sea ice extent prediction market has increased the odds of record melting this year from 30% – 40% – 50% – 60% – 70%? :eek: :eek: :eek:
So the odds that “James Hansen is right” are increasing too, eh? :grin: :grin: :grin:
The market has spoken, Quinn! :grin: :grin: :grin:
In a planet of of two halves,asymmetry often gets in the way of a good story.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1990/mean:12
/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1990/mean:12/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1990/mean:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1990/mean:12/trend
Hansen arguments are to downplay the early 20th century warming,such as the 1930s dust bowl.
Legitimate scientific debate on the natural variability,cannot unambiguously explain the early 20th century warming and its effects on polar ice. eg Semenov and Latif
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/2037/2012/
An interesting property of the ETCW is the antarctic,ie it was coolest 1920-1940 having been warmer prior,
Glad you liked it. I am no fan of deconstructionism, least of all in science, and this thread is about philosophical reflections, isn’t it?
It is a deconstructionist perversion of logic and the scientific method to say that “explanatory power” is more important than predictive validity when predictive validity is the actual test of explanatory power.
The predictions of AGW theory, including and especially those of Hansen, are so comprehensively refuted by empirical data that the theory can only survive where the refutation of a theory by the failure of its predictions is no longer decisive. Hence the ardent embrace of Deutsch, who lends a patina of respectability to the scam.
I’m not yet persuaded of Intrade’s explanatory powers or predictive validity. Maybe it’s just a comforting story with no basis in fact – lots of explanatory power, zero predictive validity. Does Intrade have bidding on the increase in antarctic ice? Or when Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster and the Tropical Upper Tropospheric Hot Spot will walk into a bar, pull back their chaps and see whose explanatory power is bigger?
Cheers!
As Robert Duvall and Michael Caine said in their family classic film Second-Hand Lions: This-here carbon-selling salesman is *GOOD*! :lol: :lol: :lol:
@Quinn the Eskimo
You write:
An excellent observation, which summarizes the current situation and explains the need for “philosophical reflections on the climate model projections” where they have been falsified by the actual observed empirical data.
Max
Mackacker, you and Quinn the Eskimo — and many other Climate Etc — sustain by the practice of personal abuse, cherry-picking, sloganeering, and demagogic denialism, a deliberate ignorance of the basic science of CO2-driven climate change that willfully ignores the striking daily verification of Hansen’s 1981 predictions.
Everyone appreciates that Intrade’s market-driven probability of a record Artic ice-melt in 2012 is looking more like a “hockey stick” every day. :) :) :)
In striking accord with Hansen’s predictions, of course! :grin: 2¢ :grin: 2¢ :grin:
That’s the common-sense reason why (what Robert calls) “industrial grade denialism” is nugatory! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now that more people are noticing the comprehensive failures of prediction, we are being told that in real science, including climate science, “explanatory power” (TM) is more important than accurate prediction in testing theories. As if they were separate and as if this were a seminar in semiotics.
Enough people recognising comprehensive failures in the prediction methods necessitated a change in tactics:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS
VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS
by
Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong
We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles.
Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
So now to further distract from the IPCC bias to use science terms but not science disciplines to create global warming scares, we’ll get:
Sorry, the Green/Armstrong quote should have been in blockquote; it ends: “Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.”
““Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.””
Sure, if you don’t understand physics.
lolwot: Sure, if you don’t understand physics.
Actually, you can understand “the” physics and understand that the claims that the earth will get warm lack credence. All you have to realize and accept is that “the” physics is not complete or accurate. Consider the adiabatic lapse rate: is there an adiabatic process any where on earth, that has been shown to be adiabatic? It is a useful approximation, but it is an approximation, and the resulting quantitative relationship may not be sufficiently accurate to use in understanding what an increase in CO2 will effect, given the earth as it is now.
A fan of more discourse, quoting Deutsch: “Even in purely practical applications, the explanatory power of a theory is paramount and its predictive power only supplementary.”
Predictive accuracy is what tests the explanatory power. Neither one nor the other is entirely satisfactory by itself. To my knowledge, no one has an explanation for gravity, but the inverse square law us useful for guiding interplanetary exploration because it is sufficiently accurate. In like fashion, there is no explanation for why like charges repel and opposite charges attract. At bottom, science accepts some things that just are and have been used in accurate prediction without understanding.
Predictive power is the only thing of practical concern. We might have a theory that explains how an airfoil generates lift but if it predicts a takeoff distance of 1500 feet and we try it on a 2000 foot runway and find that that the takeoff distance was actually 2200 feet then Houston, we have a problem. Accurate prediction doesn’t prove an explanation but it can disprove it. Karl Popper is spinning in his grave at the lack of basic understanding of philosophy of science around here.
Deutsch gets it right–Fan is selectively quoting him. Deutsch says that prediction is the only way to establish explanation quality. But he asks for more than prediction, not less, when he demands explanations. Following Popper, he is an anti-inductivist. Deutsch points out that an unexplained data-fitting rule, or even a mysterious oracle that correctly predicted the outcomes of many experiments, would always leave us unsure about its range of validity–would it continue to work in new cases?
A chicken is fed by a farmer day after day and inductively fits the law “arrival of farmer leads to feeding.” It works perfectly until the farmer decides the chicken is fat enough to be slaughtered. The chicken didn’t have a good explanation of the farmer’s behavior.
Excellent analogy, climate skeptics and energy cornucopians are like stupid chickens .They will never realize what hit them when the inevitable occurs.
Web Hub Telescope: Excellent analogy, climate skeptics and energy cornucopians are like stupid chickens .
Why does the analogy not apply as well to extrapolators like James Hansen and the “Peak Oil” gang?
Personally, I almost always write “If present trends continue”, and specify a range such as 5 – 20 years. I think I recently wrote that “a trend continues right up until it ends” — but maybe in an email and not on a weblog.
Fan
So “climate science” has sunk to where prediction errors of > 150% mean “Hansen et al. was essentially correct”?
Linking to the “science” of WUWT is an automatic fail.
Try a credible source next time. ;)
One of the great mysteries of the ages is how WUWT ever got crowned as “Best Science Blog”. Naive passers-by can actually lose intelligence by reading that stuff. On second thought, that might be the objective of the blog.
Dear WebHubTelescope, in May 2012 WUWT found a fatal mistake in a Gergis et al. article that has passed peer reviews. The article was then withdrawn. What is your objective? What are your reading preferences?
That even a blind pig can find an acorn every once in a while?
People actually get stupider by reading most of that stuff.
WebHubTelescope: Naive passers-by can actually lose intelligence by reading that stuff.
They generally link to original sources, and they permit anyone to link to original sources in rebuttal. They address their attention to the cavities in the knowledge base. It is not that readers lose intelligence, but that readers risk losing belief.
Cavties? You may be right. Looking at that WUWT garbage is more like looking at a caveman’s tooth decay.
If you want to be engaged and challenged, I suggest following John Carlos Baez’s Azimuth blog or something similar. No? You don’t like the fact that smart people have political viewpoints that don’t match yours? Then go to Lubos Motl’s blog.
WebHubTelescope: John Carlos Baez’s Azimuth blog or something similar.
I’ll give it a try.
John Carlos Baez’s Azimuth blog or something similar.
He recently “discovered ” Symplectic geometry and suggested that it may have applications to thermodynamics.Next week maybe the wheel and fire and its application to transport solutions.
WebHubTelescope: That even a blind pig can find an acorn every once in a while?
What I can’t get from reading your posts is whether you do or do not believe that climate science, and in particular the science of climate effects of CO2, has serious limitations.
That remark tells me lots about your character. Baez has recently summed up his approach as trying to reveal patterns and increase understanding via his skills and facility with formal mathematics. He starts from first principles and works his way through the math in the hopes of finding something new. Certainly, he will often get to a place that someone has explored before, and some commenter will point that out. But then again, his path could take him to some unexpected place that actually reveals something novel. The fact that he does that in the open, with a Wiki and many collaborators, makes him very visible to trivial gaps in his knowledge. Big deal.
I think you are also practicing loads of projection. Baez knows more than anyone what it takes to become classified as a crackpot. His years of moderating the Usenet forum Sci.Math and his writing the Crackpot Index (Google it) puts him in a special position to understand the lay of the land in which the skeptics such as at WUWT inhabit.
Do the same for Lubos Motl, cause I ain’t going there.
Thank you. This is pretty cool: http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/category/climate/
Certainly, he will often get to a place that someone has explored before, and some commenter will point that out. But then again, his path could take him to some unexpected place that actually reveals something novel.
There is a deep literature,that is well researched on this from Poincare’s 1889 application to the n body problem,That it is an important aspect of Hydrodynamics and dynamical systems theory is neither a projection nor a novel application,that a mathematician can overlook an entire school of theory is alarming.That it has been set learning at specialist high schools in both the soviet and post soviet eras is also troublesome.
Whilst exploring new ideas and applications to problems is indeed a worthwhile endeavour, the application to the mapping problems on the rotating planet for example,however constraints are always within any theory (where problems have been clearly identified) it is only then can we state our limitations.
Robert – WUWT, in large part, is simply an aggregater. There are original posts, but typically even those link to the source article or data. I can see why you wouldn’t like it as it rejects CAWG religion.
Robert
Since you apparently find it difficult to follow the scientific method or scientific English (?!), here is the original Was ist eigentlich aus James Hansens Temperaturvorhersage von 1988 geworden? Zeit für eine Überprüfungby Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) (c/o Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning)
PS Don’t shoot the messenger. Examine all things. Keep what is good.
Your link to WUWT’s abortion of an argument is a fail.
So you think you can redeem yourself with un-reviewed, self-published denialist garbage?
That’s two strikes. Got anything credible?
Robert
Try a refresher on the scientific method:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”— Albert Einstein
Science Says Rob Kaplan, or Attributed to Einstein. Quoted in Alice Calaprice, The Quotable Einstein (1996), 224
The burden of proof rests on Hansen to uphold his assertion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming over the null hypothesis of the full range of natural climate variations. No amount of ad hominem attacks on the messenger will every change that burden of proof.
To date Hansen’s hypothesis is Not Proven.
“The burden of proof rests on Hansen . . .”
The burden of proof to support your assertions with evidence rests with you. You have failed to support it. Third strike, better luck next time.
“his assertion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”
Citation needed. We were talking about the 1988 predictions — you need to cite Hansen asserting in that context that there will be “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.”
Since that is a straw man invented by deniers many years later, I suspect you’ll fail. Again.
The burden of proof is on Hansen and his ilk.
“null hypothesis of the full range of natural climate variations”
Don’t you think a more narrow null hypothesis would be more appropriate?
Let’s not do anything until the Antarctic icecap has completely melted.
“If I can find my truck we could drive out!”
Bob
The Antarctic icecap is always below freezing on the average. It won’t melt in the lifetime of your grandchildren!
Natural variations includes the rate of change from natural causes.
Upholding the scientific method is foundational. ”
A more narrow” null hypothesis is not science.
David, whether or not the Antarctic icecap melts in the lifetime of my grandchildren depends on a number of things.
It depends on the boundary of the Antarctic ice cap, if you include the entire continent and the ice shelves attached to the continent, then parts of the icecap have already melted, as we have witnessed the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf.
Depends also on the rate of the mass loss from Antarctica as measured by the GRACE satellites, which is accelerating, and if that acceleration continues, we could well see significant global sea-level rise in the lifetime of my as yet unborn grandchildren.
If you want to keep the null hypothesis to +5 C to – 10 C from current global mean temperatures, by all means go ahead, but to call anything less unscientific shows your lack of rigor. Shows you don’t know what science is.
bob droege
Always conduct a reality check on alarmist global warming claims.
The “acceleration” in West Antarctica results in a loss of ice that is now about up to the level of the accumulation of ice in East Antarctica.
2006
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006GeoRL..3311502C
Compare 2012
Global sea ice shows a very small trend.
That does NOT include the bulk of Antarctic ice.
Total Antarctic ice is about “30 million cubic km of ice”
~ 3*10^16 t of ice.
Taking the W/E difference as about 10 Gt/30,000,000 Gt ~ 2.6 * 10^-6 per year. i.e., If I have my calculations right, it will only take about two million years till the Antarctic glacier melts at current rates.
(Please check the estimates. )
I don’t think I will hold my breath or have any nightmares about sea level rise in the near future.
Think that’s wrong, I get about 100,000 years and that excludes any acceleration.
“Please check the estimates.”
They’re wrong.
Please check your own source. It says mass loss from Antarctica is accelerating.
Robert
Re: “mass loss from Antarctica is accelerating”
Read more carefully. Note:
The 2012 “acceleration” was only:
lolwot
Please explain your calculation. 1 cu mile ice ~ 1 Gt. 30 million cu mi ~ 3*10^7 Gt. 10 Gt/30 Gt ~1/3*10^-7. or 3 million years – Assuming the difference between East-West Antarctica is actually loosing 10 Gt/year – with the large uncertainties listed, it could equally be gaining.
PS Whether Antarctica will melt in 100,000 or 1 million, both are well beyond the age of your grandchildren. Plenty of time to adapt – or enjoy.
Greenland glaciers naturally flow into the sea. For a dose of reality see:
Why the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets
are Not Collapsing
2012: The Year Greenland Melted (AKA Alarmists Gone Wild)
“So “climate science” has sunk to where prediction errors of > 150% mean “Hansen et al. was essentially correct”?”
This same subject came up on the other thread where David Springer, Edim, Girma, and Manacker were all trying to claim the real world followed Hansen’s scenario A and therefore we should have expected scenario A warming.
WUWT does the same thing. So does Jo Nova and countless other skeptics. Plus they never learn from the mistake. I don’t see any evidence the aforementioned bodies learned their mistake on the last thread and fully expect them to parrot and defend the same false claim in the future.
It’s wrong, real world emissions were below scenario B. Here’s a direct response to solheim’s same error:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1502
What then is the basis, if any, for concluding that Scenario B was the more “plausible”? I doubt whether Hansen was really thinking about differences between near-time Other Trace Gas concentrations when he said that Scenario B was “more plausible” for the near-time dispute with Michaels. The 1988 paper strongly suggests that he was thinking about “deep time” differences out past 2025 where exponential versus linear actually matters. … – Steve McIntyre
The above is why Girma’s 1.9% growth rate is meaningless. The astounding thing here is Max fully understands resource limitation as he often cites data that supports the notion of around 1100 ppm being the cap for the contribution to anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels.
Scenario A is totally implausible and cannot be BAU.
The real world more than followed Hansen’s scenario A regarding CO2 emissions only. That was my point and it’s correct.
It’s incorrect, not correct.
But thanks for stopping by.
No it is not. You are an incorrect contrarian. You don’t see a divergenence in 2012.
WebHubTelescope: You don’t see a divergenence in 2012.
I think a fairer statement is that the divergence is not statistically significant in 2012. If the trend in the divergence continues, then the divergence will become statistically significant. As it is, the divergence shows that there is no reason to think his projections provide a sound basis for policy.
You are right, lolwot. The real temperature increase is much less than scenarios A, B, or C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/fun-with-summer-statistics-part-2-the-northern-hemisphere-land/
Fan –
Thank you for that post. In particular, I think that this quote is very useful:
This is the problem with the climate debate food fight writ large. I think it relates, also, to the discussion of post-normal science (and to the influence of motivated reasoning on the debate).
Agreed 100% Joshua.
Even a perfectly predictive climate-change theory, by itself, would convey no scientific understanding, just as The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), by itself, conveys no mathematical understanding.
It is the understanding of how climate-change works that is the main “deliverable” of climate-change science, eh? :) :) :)
No amount of “philosophical reflections” can alter this key point! :) :) :)
Deutch should probably be spelled Douche. We have no explanation for gravity. Yet we can still make amazingly accurate predictions based upon observations of gravity so consistent and repeatable that we skip the hypothesis of gravity, the theory of gravity, and go straight to a law of gravity. Prediction isn’t everything but it’s the most important thing by far.
Eli apparently remembers from the distant pass something called the Higgs boson being found.
I do not think the models provide a lower bound on possibiliy, not until they show cooling as a very real possibility. Warming is built in at this point, as a certainty, which is completely unrealistic.
So in assessing the possibilities for a skydiver who has just jumped, what likelihood would you assign their flying upwards and attaining orbit?
Robert
You ask:
About the same as the 2K to 11K extreme climate sensitivity range mentioned in Juidith’s article (i.e.anything over around 2.5 to 3K).
GIGO = GIGO
Max
“GIGO = GIGO”
A fine tag line for you, Max. It describes your mind very well.
Robert
Duh! Yer so witty!
MIMO
David Wojick, please reflect that warming is built-in to the models because warming is build-in the the physics of heat transport in an enriched-CO2 atmosphere.
There is not much anyone can do to change that physics — and for the past thirty years, people have looked mighty hard for loopholes — because “Nature cannot be fooled.”
That is why the explanatory aspect of the climate-change debate is ending. Now attention is focusing (per the KDL manuscript) on refining the nitty-gritty predictive elements of climate-change science. Here there is no substitute for the grind-it-out strategy of more data, higher quality data, longer observational periods, and more refined statistical methods.
But barring some out-of-the-blue scientific revolution — which happen exceedingly seldom in science — the scientific explanation of CO2-driven climate change is a done deal, eh? :) :) :)
The thing is that this heat transport (?) is just a small part of the physics of climate, much of which is not well understood. The models should be experimenting with possibilities, not making forecasts. This is the institutional problem.
David Wojick, you are of course correct that there is still much to be learned about climate dynamics. And yet:
• If the sun’s energy input is relatively stable
(which is true), and
• increasing CO2 traps more of that energy
(which is true), and
• other processes conserve energy and increase entropy
(which is true), then
• the planet will get warmer
(independent of model details),
There are still plenty of uncertainties associated to auxiliary factors like clouds and aerosols (as the main examples), yet as our understanding of these auxiliary factors grows, and we observe no shockingly unexpected dynamics associated to them, then confidence in the above basic understanding of climate-change steadily increases.
It’s not easy, but neither is it complicated David Wojick! :) :) :)
Fan
Earth has also swung between ice ages and warm interglacial periods.
This raises the issue of how probable it is for earth to descend into the next glaciation in about 1500 years with the long term cooling from the Holocene climatic optimum about 8000 years ago.
See Determining the natural length of the current interglacial 2012
Compare
Did Shakun et al. really prove that CO2 preceded late glacial warming? [Part 1]
Evaluating these issues will require understanding the causes of natural variations including glacial periods, and of anthropogenic global warming, and of the full uncertainties in both models – including Type II errors with the associated Unknown Unknowns!
a fan of more discourse: other processes conserve energy and increase entropy (which is true), then
Photosynthesis is a process with conserves energy and reduces entropy.
It seems not to account for a large amount of the total energy flow, but increase in CO2 will probably speed up the rate of conversion of CO2 to high energy carbon bonds in small structures.
Convection is a process that carries energy from the surface and lower troposphere to the upper troposphere; how CO2 increase will affect the rate of that transport is not known.
Far be it for me to take Fan’s side, but photosynthesis does NOT reduce entropy. If you think so, you’re drawing the envelope wrong.
“• increasing CO2 traps more of that energy (which is true),…”
This is far from true, it’s just a speculation. Radiative cooling is not dominant at the surface (evaporation/convection) and the atmosphere is cooled exclusively by radiation. Most of the total outgoing planetary radiation is from the atmosphere, not from the surface…
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
On the face of it, CO2 cooling effect is more likely, but probably insignificant and easily overwhelmed by other factors.
P.E. | August 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
“Far be it for me to take Fan’s side, but photosynthesis does NOT reduce entropy. If you think so, you’re drawing the envelope wrong.”
Well, it does reduce entropy on the earth. You have a bunch of molecules rattling around in the atmosphere at random (brownian motion)which photosynthesis and other processes in the plant cell assembles into very orderly botanical structures. That is, by definition, a reduction in entropy.
Very good, David Springer! :) :) :)
Assignment Take out your pencil-and-paper, and calculate the entropy change associated to the sun’s incoming radiation (part of which lit the leaves of the plants) and the earth’s outgoing radiation (part of which was emitted by those leaves).
Prediction The net entropy change will be positive! :) :) :)
———————
Question What is the Bayesian probability that the above scientific prediction is correct?
Answer If you are applying Bayesian probability theory to answer the question, this verifies that your understanding of mathematical physics and the scientific process needs deepening. The lesson is that late-stage statistical verification cannot substitute for early-stage valid understanding, eh? :) :) :)
———————
Hopefully working this example problem will enlighten you regarding naturality in scientific validation and verification processes, Dave Springer! :grin: 2¢ :grin: 2¢ :grin:
fan of more discourse: Assignment Take out your pencil-and-paper, and calculate the entropy change associated to the sun’s incoming radiation (part of which lit the leaves of the plants) and the earth’s outgoing radiation (part of which was emitted by those leaves).
There is no doubt that the entropy of the complete Earth/Sun system is increasing. However, the tree splits the C-O bonds in CO2 and stores the energy and C in high-energy C-C and other bonds in compact structures like sugar, lignin and cellulose.
It is not a question of “whether”, but of “how much” and “when”. A preliminary question is what happened to the observed data on its way to model tuning and reporting.
That is why the explanatory aspect of the climate-change debate is ending. Now attention is focusing (per the KDL manuscript) on refining the nitty-gritty predictive elements of climate-change science. Here there is no substitute for the grind-it-out strategy of more data, higher quality data, longer observational periods, and more refined statistical methods.
The explanatory aspect is ending so soon? Does that mean the science is all known and settled? I was hoping there were still some details to work out.
As for refining predictive elements, I’m afraid lots of people are going to be very disappointed. Check back on this after they get fusion working.
More better data, legit stats, that I can agree with.
Prepare for this: even if a prediction turns out to be right, you won’t really know if it worked.
they do show cooling as a real possibility. Over the short run individual realizations show cooling. Over the long range since the laws of physics must be respected more watts in means a higher temperature.. whether those watts come from the sun or GHGs
The “laws of physics”? Are you nuts? You have no vague idea what is going on scientifically, do you? I rest my case. The models must warm. It is the law.
Watts don’t come from GHGs. They all come from the sun.
Trite. Changes in radiation wavelength come from interactions with matter — the earth and it’s atmosphere. Mosh can call it an effective power and be correct.
A thought experiment. Assume that a thin layer of shiny metal foil instantaneously covered the entire world. The interaction of EM radiation with the conductive skin layer would reflect the photons without heating. This is a change of absorbed power not due to the sun, but all due to changes in the earth’s composition.
I thought you were an engineer?
Steven Mosher: Over the long range since the laws of physics must be respected more watts in means a higher temperature.
You have decided that increased cloudiness is not one of the possibilities.
MattStat
If you design your model to match recent climatology (which includes cloud modelling of summer/winter/tropical/temperate etc. regions) then typically the model will not give you any increase in cloudiness with warming. And you need a lot of increased cloudiness to counteract the increase in humidity caused by the warming.
So presumably you would only get the necessary increased cloudiness if you “build it into” the models as David Wojick might say.
MattStat,
I can’t speak for Steve Mosher, but I suspect you are drawing too many conclusions from unsaid things.
Technically, Steve Mosher was only saying that it must at least be warmer with more Watts. If it is not even warmer with more Watts there is no change to cause a change in clouds to stop the warming! I think he was making this relatively trite point to undermine David Wojick’s implication that somehow building basic physics into the model is just not cricket. Robert’s skydiver example was similar.
That is a cogent point Steve Milesworthy! :) :) :)
Dave Springer, for example, is another exemplar of the burgeoning “basic physics into the model is just not cricket“ school of climate-change denialism.
Indeed, the article that Judith Curry posted — by Katzav, Djikstra, and de Laat (KDL) — is itself exemplary of “basic physics is no cricket” denialism.
We have seen Bayesian denialism before in history: “no one knows the true mechanism of lung cancer” … “the so-called evolutionary chain is missing many links” … and even “we cannot be confident that the world is round, as no-one has yet sailed around it.”
The KDL analysis had noble aspirations, but was crippled by the author’s failure to recognize that scientific validation originates in our understanding of natural laws, such that scientific validation is both prior-and-post to scientific verification which *is* (of course) susceptible to statistical analysis.
So try again, KDL! :) :) :)
Steve Milesworthy: I think he was making this relatively trite point to undermine David Wojick’s implication that somehow building basic physics into the model is just not cricket.
I don’t think that is it. What may be false, though “cricket”, is to limit the model to a subset of the basic physics. For example, to omit mention of the non-radiative mechanisms of heat transfer, or to restrict analysis to the approximate equilibrium cases, or to restrict attention to “adiabatic” approximations.
Steve Milesworthy: So presumably you would only get the necessary increased cloudiness if you “build it into” the models as David Wojick might say.
In order for the model to predict cloudiness, some mechanism by which the warmth predicts the increased cloudiness has to be built in to the model. On that we agree. Then the measured response of cloudiness to temperature change (or CO2 change) tests whether the “possibility” of increased cloudiness, represented in the model, remains viable in light of evidence.
I think that Steven Mosher rules out a priori any model that has increased cloudiness built in. That is, he excludes it from the class of possibilities to be considered.
You ought to clam up on the physics, Steve. I think you’ve got some talent for actuarial science but physics not so much. The only energy input of any significance is the sun. That’s where the Watts come from. GHGs are like putting on a sweater. They can only retain heat that is generated elsewhere. And the surface temperature that “must rise” can be the surface of the clouds instead of the land or water below them.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
======================
“More watts in?”
From where?
(Obviously only from the sun – not from CO2.)
But how about the incoming energy from the sun that is reflected back out into space by clouds (i.e. the “watts” from the sun that never make it to the surface of the Earth to cause warming)?
Spencer + Braswell 2007 showed, based on CERES satellite observations, that the NET feedback from clouds with surface warming was strongly negative, IOW that the net increase in SW reflection from increased clouds with warming exceeded the added LW absorption from clouds.
These observations are in direct contrast with earlier IPCC AR4 model-based estimates of a strong positive feedback from clouds with warming.
IOW it appears that clouds act “as a natural thermostat” (as Kevin Trenberth concluded in a recent interview regarding the unexplained “missing energy” he had referred to as a “travesty”).
Max
I am sorry, but maybe I am just too simpleminded. The only way to validate any model is to have it predict the future in an unambiguous way, and then get the observed data to see whether the prediction was correct. You do this a sufficient number of times so that any apparent valid projection could not have occurred by chance. Until this is done, we can never actually validate any model.
We see the problem with Hansen’s predictions which are obviously so weasel worded that people like Steven Mosher can say, when it seems clear that the predictions did not come true, that what Hansen seemed to have said was not actually what he said, and his predictions were completely correct.. The sort of predicitons which we need are like Smith et al Science August 2007. This prediction was clear, unambiguous, and on a sufficiently short time frame that we will know whether it was right at the end of 2014. But we need many more than one such prediciton. If Smith et al turn out to be wrong, then we know the models cannot be made valid by hindcasting. But if the prediction is correct, it could still have occurred by chance.
You are way overrating the consequence of a decadal forecast being wrong.
JCH you write “You are way overrating the consequence of a decadal forecast being wrong.”
Why? I am looking at a peer reviewed study that claimed it had validated iit’s model for future forecasting by hindcasting the data. It then used theodel to forecast the future. It claimed that this forecast was valid for the time period considered; namely one decade. So, if the forecast turns out to be wrong, it seems to me that this proves that using hindcasting to “validate” a model is proved to be wrong. Why is this overrating the paper?
The only way to validate any model is to have it predict the future in an unambiguous way
So if the rain comes an hour later or earlier than the forecast predicted it the forecast model is invalidated? Not untrue if your validation demands perfection (eg. the Queen is having tea with the US President on the lawn at 2pm when the rain arrives). But untrue (in my view) if your model system tends to reliably predict rain to a certain level of precision.
The Smith et al paper promises only substantially improved skill by its attempt to predict “internal variability” – certainly it’s prediction is closer to reality than the ensemble mean of IPCC projections.
The observations are still just within the 90% envelope given by the forecast so technically it has not failed. That most certainly doesn’t rule out some unknown unknowns that have caused the model to go wrong, but it also doesn’t rule out some known unknowns, such as the effects of the weaker solar cycle, differences in emission rates of cooling aerosols.
So we’re some way off from scrapping the model, but if you don’t put your predictions out there for critical assessment you will probably never improve them, and you won’t have an incentive to continue to tackle the uncertainties.
It’s decadal. Described as difficult to impossible to pull off. It’s one of the first attempts. If it’s wrong they will figure out reasons why and go again. And they will ignore you because you are unreasonable and obstinate.
Smith et al correctly predicted natural variation would swamp the AGW signal in the years up to ~2010. They appear to be correct. Was it skill or was it luck? On the only temperature series that measures the temperature of the planet, they remain in position to be correct about the planet. On the region of the planet covered by HadCrut3, not so much.
Thank you steve and JCH. A few points. Smith el al, quite properly, put probability limits on their predictions. This should be true for all predictions. If the observations fall outside the probability range, then the forecast fails.
It is quite true we dont know, yet, whether Smith el al are correct. We will not know until toward the end of 2014. What we do know is that while Smith el al forecast the return to CAGW would occur around 2010, Keenleyside el al said this would not happen until 2015. Both of them cannot be correct.
Yes, we will have to wait until 2014 becfore we can make a judgement. I just want to make sure Smith et al is not carefully forgotten before that time. I am sure the proponents of CAGW will have all sorts of wonderful reasons why the forecast was in fact correct, whether it was or not. The religion of CAGW cannot afford to have this sort of prediction NOT be correct.
Jim,
The fact that the British government have invested an extra several million in resources for seasonal forecasting will ensure that seasonal and decadal forecasting in the UK will remain in the forefront of many people’s minds. I don’t think you need to worry about it being forgotton if temperatures stubbornly refuse to rise! My impression is that Smith et al is regarded as a better attempt than Keenleyside et al, but that could be because it was easy to see that all of Keenleyside’s hindcasts were biased cool in their early years.
JCH: You are way overrating the consequence of a decadal forecast being wrong.
The climate (at least as it is measured) has too much random variability for an incorrect decadal forecast to be statistically significant. If the disparity between the forecast and the measured record continues to grow at about the same average rate through 2050, then we’ll be on good ground for concluding that it won’t be accurate enough for 2100.
Judith Curry
Thanks for an insightful and interesting post.
Climate science is a “hairy” topic.
Philosophy is “hairy-fairy”.
I prefer things that are more fact-based.
As you point ou, the “possibilistic approach” you propose can only work if the input assumptions and their remoteness can be quantified objectively.
GIGO climate model projections, such as an extreme 2 to 11K climate sensitivity range, remain GIGO, no matter how they are analyzed.
The past 150 years have shown us that the observed temperature rise was around 0.7 degrees C.
Over that period, CO2 rose from an estimated 280 ppmv to a measured 392 ppmv.
We know from solar studies that solar activity during the 20th century reach a highest level in several thousand years (and is now on the decline).
IPCC tells us that forcings from other anthropogenic factors (minor GHGs, aerosols, etc.) cancelled each other out.
So we can estimate that the observations would lead to an observed 2xCO2 climate response of between 0.8 and 1.4 degC.
Let’s go along with Hansen’s circular “in the pipeline” logic and assume that up to half of the GH warming is still “hidden in the pipeline” (where we are unable to see or measure it). [Talk about “hairy-fairy”!]
Even then we end up with a range of 0.8 to 2.8 degreesC, NOT the totally absurd 2 to 11 degrees C.
You point out that the real threat “arises when we do not make sure that possibilities being considered are real possibilities”.
That’s what I just pointed out (WITHOUT resorting to “philosophy”).
Max
I don’t know what’s sadder; that you are trying to overthrow climate science with third-grade math or that you got the math wrong.
Robert
Sorry, but that’s what the physical observations and the math show.
If you are unable to confirm this for yourself, let me know and I’ll do it for you.
Max
Max, you write “IPCC tells us that forcings from other anthropogenic factors (minor GHGs, aerosols, etc.) cancelled each other out.”
Most of what you have written makes complete sense. I just dont like you quoting the IPCC as if what they say is valid. It is not. The effects of random noise do not cancel out unless the time constants of the nosie are short compared with the time over which the observation is being made. Since we have no idea of what these time constants are, we cannot know whether they cancel each other out.
But you are absolutley correct is pointing out that the ONLY valid way of arriving at what the climate sensitivity of CO2 actually is, is to calculate the value from the observed data. The hypothetical estimations are completely meaningless.
Jim Cripwell
I agree with you that there may not be any sound empirical evidence to support the IPCC model-based estimate in AR4 that all other anthropogenic forcings beside CO2 cancelled one another out.
I accepted this assumption at face value in order to simplify the CO2 to temperature effect. Had I assumed that there was no net negative forcing from human aerosols over this long period, the CO2 climate sensitivity would have come out even lower.
The other IPCC assumption was that solar (natural) forcing was only 7% of the total. Here IPCC concedes that its “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”, so I have checked other sources. Several solar studies agree that around half of the warming (not 7%) can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity.
So, using the 7% to 50% range for solar impact with the balance from CO2 forcing and the observed changes in CO2 and global temperature, I arrived at the 0.8C to 1.4C 2xCO2 temperature response.
Using Hansen’s circular “hidden in the pipeline” logic to arrive at the upper end of a climate sensitivity range, I came up with a range of 0.8 to 2.8 degrees C.
I agree with you that there are already a lot of dicey assumptions required in order to reach an upper climate sensitivity limit of 2.8 degC.
But it could be considered as an upper limit of the range.
An upper limit of 11 degC (as Judith mentioned) is obviously a result of GIGO climate model projections and should be discarded as such.
Max
Thanks Max, we agree.
“I can give you links to the “several solar studies” which agree that around half of the warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity.”
You’re right to put “studies” in quotation marks. What garbage.
Please, link to that trash . . . it’s good to laugh. At the end of the day, the reality is still going to be 7% +/- a few percent. And incidentally, you’ve admitted you were lying when you attacked Hansen’s math . . . since the way you came to a different number was by pretending the solar forcing was seven times too large.
“So, using the 7% to 50% range for solar impact with the balance from CO2 forcing and the observed changes in CO2 and global temperature, I arrived at the 0.8C to 1.4C 2xCO2 temperature response.”
In other words, you exaggerated the solar forcing by a factor of five, using the excuse that it was uncertain. You did not, however, follow the logic out, and consider the possibility of a negative solar forcing, along the lines of 7% +/- 43%.
Another very basic mistake on your part.
“But it could be considered as an upper limit of the range.”
Nope.
By a factor of seven, excuse me.
Robert – In case you’re interested in understanding Max’s approach to accountability:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/11/week-in-review-81112/#comment-228259
Robert
You must learn to do a better job of reading before you post.
I can give you links to the “several solar studies” which agree that around half of the warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity.
From these and from IPCC’s estimate of only 7%, which it concedes is based an a “low level of scientific understanding” of “solar (natural) forcing”, I got the range of CO2 temperature response.
Got it?
It’s really not that complicated if you read what is written before shooting off a silly response.
Max
Max:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/11/week-in-review-81112/#comment-228259
there is no secular trend in TSI.
If you don’t believe warming can be “in the pipeline” (which is moronic, but you’re a moron, so let’s proceed) climate sensitivity is very easy to calculate:
Warming since 1980: 0.6C
Change in CO2 forcing since 1980: 5.35 * ln(392/340) = 0.75 W/m^2
(+0.6C) * (3.7/0.75) = 2.96 C/doubling
Wow, I just used your own unrealistic assumptions to derive a climate sensitivity of 3C. Perhaps you need more practice working through the logical consequences of your own arguments . . . maybe some training in logic . . . perhaps a philosophy class?
Robert
You are falling into the “short term” trap.
It makes you look like “the moron”.
My longer-term look (using data from 1850 and including Hansen’s circular “hidden in the pipeline” logic for the upper end) comes out at 0.8 to 2.8 degC.
As I point out to Jim Cripwell, the upper range is based on some dicey assumptions backed by circular logic and low level of scientific understanding, but I showed it anyway as an upper limit, which could be considered in Judith’s “posibilistic” approach.
Got it? (Or are you the “moron”?)
Max.
“You are falling into the “short term” trap.”
Nope. I’m taking an assumption I describe as moronic and showing some of the conclusions that follow from it.
“My longer-term look”
If there is no warming “in the pipeline” then there is no need for a longer-term look. If there is, then your method fails completely. So: 3C, or you’re just completely wrong. Those are the logical possibilities.
Robert
Sorry. You have not proven anything except that the “moron” label might fit for you.
The figures/observations still show that a CS of 0.8 to 2.8 degC seems to be a reasonable range and that the 2 to 11 degC range cited in our host’s post is simply a GIGO climate model projection.
Max
Sorry, little moron, but you’ve just proved you don’t understand your own argument.
You lose, little moron! Thanks for playing!
:):):):):):):):)
Just like Manacker is confused by where half of the CO2 is going, he is also confused by where the excess heat is going.
Heat diffuses just as CO2 diffuses.
A deep heat sink is exactly the same in diffusive terms as a deep sequestering site for CO2.
The math is very similar between the two.
For heat diffusion, one uses the heat equation. Normalizing the diffusion coefficient, it looks like this:
For uncharged particle diffusion w/o forces, one used the Fokker-Planck master equation minus the drift term. Normalizing the diffusion coefficient to unity, it looks like this:
The detailed science behind many of these phenomena is reserved for scientists that know what they are doing. Hansen has used this concept since 1981, as far as I can tell. From my perspective, it looks like he knows what he is doing.
I also understand why and how a heat sink works on a PC — obviously so that the excess heat doesn’t burn up your computer’s CPU. Manacker doesn’t understand this concept, and prefers to wax philosophically about where the excess heat is going.
This is all conventional science describing natural physical phenomena . I may sound harsh, but that’s the way it works. If you don’t follow, then you flunk the course. Ask Curry how this works, as I bet she has had to flunk a few.
wht,
“For uncharged particle diffusion w/o forces….”
You mean perhaps without gravity which causes particulates in a “sink’ to, well, sink?
And “an uncharged particle” doesn’t apply to a lot of things in the ocean, certainly not CO2 which is present as carbonate or bicarbonate anions.
In science and engineering you have “sources” and “sinks”. A heat sink absorbs the excess heat.
I didn’t add the drift term in the Fokker-Planck equation because the force (an electric field for charged particles and gravity for particles with mass) is pretty much non-existent. Heat does not have charge and has no mass. CO2 does not have an electric field forcing it anywhere. One can say that convection currents can carry the heat and dissolved CO2, but eddy diffusion is the main factor and subsumes convection.
Retaining only the diffusion term is a perfectly acceptable approximation, which.is what Hansen did 30 years ago.
BTW: What a retarded little Fokker you are.
WebHubTelescope | August 15, 2012 at 1:54 am | “Michael Hart | August 14, 2012 at 10:25 am |
wht,
“For uncharged particle diffusion w/o forces….”
You mean perhaps without gravity which causes particulates in a “sink’ to, well, sink?
And “an uncharged particle” doesn’t apply to a lot of things in the ocean, certainly not CO2 which is present as carbonate or bicarbonate anions.”
In science and engineering you have “sources” and “sinks”. A heat sink absorbs the excess heat.
======
In science and engineering we have properties and processes.
For example: Carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle which cools the Earth around 52°C to bring temps down to 15°C, think deserts, which means that carbon dioxide has the same mean residence time in the atmosphere as water, 8-10 days, in rain – all pure clean rain is carbonic acid.
For example: carbon dioxide is heavier than the heavy voluminous fluid gas which is our atmosphere, subject to gravity carbon dioxide will always sink to the Earth’s surface if no work is done to change this, it does not readily rise in air.
Therefore: carbon dioxide cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.
Myrhh is scary delusional. I didn’t this was common much past the 16th century. Maybe too much frankincense in his bong.
Robert,
[“If you don’t believe warming can be “in the pipeline” (which is moronic, but you’re a moron, so let’s proceed)…”]
This is a polite question:
Why do you say it is moronic to disbelieve the “in the pipeline” warming? Do you have any real (non-modelled) evidence to support such a belief?
If so, where is the evidence?
Thanks in anticipation.
“Why do you say it is moronic to disbelieve the “in the pipeline” warming?”
Because to hold that (dis)belief you have to be not only scientifically ignorant, but profoundly lacking in common sense.
“Do you have any real (non-modelled) evidence to support such a belief?”
Yes.
“If so, where is the evidence?”
Any undergraduate course in climate science.
“Thanks in anticipation.”
Glad I could help.
Robert,
Take a look at yourself dude. I asked a polite question which you have not only refused to answer (by not providing evidence) but have managed to infer I am scientifically ignorant, something you could not possibly know.
You mentioned common sense. Would you not agree that common sense would dictate that an inferred (or hypothesised, if you prefer) “pipeline warming” has had well over two centuries to show some sign of existence (the IPCC states that 1750 was the start of anthropogenic emissions). If there was “pipeline warming”, the warming should be increasing at an accelerative rate. In order to speak with any sort of scientific authority about said warming, you will have to produce evidence. Telling me to do an undergraduate course is a cop out. Either produce some real evidence or retract your remark.
Oh, and by the way, you weren’t any help, and you won’t be unless you can provide something to back up your opinion.
At least Steve Milesworthy was polite (see below).
Ah, but there’s the rub. If you do not, in fact, believe that there is warming in the pipeline, you could simply state that, and say why you believe that.
If you are not scientifically ignorant, you are aware of the argument you are asking me for, aware that it is widely accepted by the scientifically literate, and that the burden of proof fails on you to cast doubt on this element of a well-established scientific theory.
Hence, your question is fundamentally insincere. You want to challenge this aspect of climate, but you do not want to be put to the trouble of formulating an argument and supporting it with evidence. So you ask me to teach you this basic science — without, I might add, offering any compensation — but not because your intention is the learn, but rather to shift the burden of proof away from your challenge to the science.
This form of “weaponized ignorance” is incredibly common. Some people will play along with you, but unless I am in a very, very generous mood, I prefer not to.
Let me lay out for you what I think is an honest way of engaging on this question, one that would get a more data-driven response from me:
Actual Skeptic: I’m aware that climate scientists think there is warming in the pipeline. Their argument, as I understand it, is “x, y, z.”
Actual Skeptic: I think that argument is dubious, because of “a, b, c.”
Actual Skeptic: If you are still convinced there is warming in the pipeline, how do you respond to “a, b, c.”
If you are not scientifically ignorant, you should be able to summarize the state of the science now and explain where and why you disagree. If you pretend to be ignorant of the science in order to avoid the burden of articulating and supporting your own ideas, I will always take you at your word and treat you as ignorant. And this goes for anyone who deploys that “I don’t know of any evidence” crap. Rob, I’m looking at you.
Nicely done, Robert.
“Nicely done Robert?”
Are you serious?
Robert,
Take away all the “I-just-want-to-win-the-tangential-argument-that-I’m-inventing-because-I-have-actually-no-idea-how-I-can-answer-the-SIMPLE-question-without-making-myself-look-like-a-complete-buffoon.” diatribe and all you are left with is an inability to defend your own position.
I’m not interested in hand-waving gobbledeygook about what you feel about me; I’m interested in you answering the simple question.
“What evidence do you have that the “pipeline warming” actually exists?”
Stop playing silly games and either answer the question or retract the asinine insinuation that someone who disbelieves in “pipeline warming” is a moron.
Arfur –
I could do without Robert’s personalizing – but I think his point is valid.
IMO, the better way for you to frame your question would be for your to state what the theory is, which parts you disagree with and why, and ask for counterarguments.
Why don’t you just humor Robert, and go with that? Either he’ll be able to respond or not. If he can’t respond, then there will be no way for him to legitimately avoid that he’s failed your challenge.
Joshua,
Robert’s personality-driven argument is irrelevant to the question. IMO opinion it simply shows he is incapable of carrying out a rational discussion.
Thank you for your input. I agree that your, had I wanted to discuss a certain theory, I should re-phrase the question. However, the question I asked initially is perfectly valid.
Robert stated: [“If you don’t believe warming can be “in the pipeline” (which is moronic, but you’re a moron, so let’s proceed)…”]
I merely asked him to provide evidence of his assertion that [disbelief = moron]. That’s all. There was no hidden agenda. The fact that I may not agree with him is irrelevant to the question. It is a very simple question and, as Robert made the original statement, it is fair that he should be asked to back up his assertion. No deflection of the exchange is required or invited.
Either he provides evidence to back his assertion up, or he retracts the ad hominem.
Simples.
ps, I may not be able to answer for about 8 hours or so as I have to go to work…
Again, thanks for your input.
Joshua,
Sorry, typo. Second paragraph, second sentence should read “I agree that, had I wanted…”
Arfur,
Actually, I hadn’t read from the beginning of the kerfuffle. So I was missing context. I only jumped in at the level to which I responded – and in that I think that Robert was capturing a problematic dynamic that I often see in these debates – what he describes as weaponized ignorance.
Reading the full context, I have gained some sympathy for your position relative to his.
I think that “burden of proof” arguments in blog debates are mostly just games of confirmation bias (each side says the other side has a burden of proof to avoid having to make their own arguments legitimate) – but in this case, in one sense, I think he does hold the “burden of proof” for his statement.
In another sense, I think that there may be some truth that your question is insincere? The way that I read your question there is that you are familiar with the theory and think that the evidence in support is invalid. It seems that you are using a gambit here. I think that rather than entering into the “moron” debate with Robert, you’d be better to state your critique of the theory and see if he takes up that challenge. It seems to me that’s where you want to head – why put obstacles in the way or set up options for detours? Just to be clear, I agree it isn’t your responsibility if Robert throws out the moron challenge.
Joshua
“In another sense, I think that there may be some truth that your question is insincere?”
Insincere question.
What could be a Insincere question?
Asking what seems like a simple question?
The heat hiding in the ocean seems pretty silly.
But ignoring the ocean is the first place, sets the stage
for such silliness.
It’s laziness- if the task to resolve the issue
of global warming.
If the task is silliness, why not say the heat could have lost melting all that glacial ice?
In a warming world, most would assume ice melts and oceans warm.
So what is missing is Hansen didn’t choose to include these factors- in other words Hansen was *way out line* talking about earth becoming Venus like, because he failed to include basically all factors which were relevant.
Insincere question: something making it clear that Hansen’s modeling [and all modeling done all the climate geniuses to present] is not a comprehensive model of global climate.
But that is already a given, and why rub noses in it?
Hence the case of the insincere question?
Vaughan Pratt
If you wish to discuss the 2005 Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” paper, the I suggest you READ it first.
Hansen’s logic is as I explained it above.
It is “circular”, as I pointed out.
His “arithmetic” is sloppy as well, but that is a minor point.
Max
Joshua,
[“Actually, I hadn’t read from the beginning of the kerfuffle. So I was missing context. I only jumped in at the level to which I responded – and in that I think that Robert was capturing a problematic dynamic that I often see in these debates – what he describes as weaponized ignorance.
Reading the full context, I have gained some sympathy for your position relative to his.”]
Thank you for having the good grace and integrity to admit that. I would do the same myself, so I appreciate the honesty.
[“In another sense, I think that there may be some truth that your question is insincere?”]
I can understand how you could come to that conclusion, and I’m afraid that is the way of the climate blog world! However, I can assure you that, although I am sceptical of cAGW by nature, if someone can provide suitable evidence to support their standpoint, I would welcome the chance to find out whether my scepticism is justified. Hence, there is no point in having a hidden agenda when seeking an answer. “Weaponized ignorance” is a very good term (I like it!) in some cases but, in this case, any ignorance I may have is not being used as a weapon. Why would I, if I genuinely do not know if the requested evidence exists? It would be ‘self defeating ignorance’ to ask such a question as a weapon, as the production of evidence will make me look even more ignorant!
I have simply never seen any ‘real’ evidence to support the idea of “pipeline warming”. I may have missed it, or forgotten it for some reason, but I ca’t think of any. Which is why the straightforward production of ‘yer actual evidence’ from Robert would have been met with either “Thanks for that Robert” or, possibly, an argument against the evidence because it was not empirical. Whatever.
Finally, as to discussing with Robert the validity of any theory, that was not the reason for the question. I’m not really into deflecting the point of debate. I saw his statement and simply queried the validity of it, that’s all.
I repeat, Joshua, thank you for discussing in a mature and honest fashion.
Regards,
Arfur
It is your responsibility to understand what you are skeptical about, not mine to convince of something you have never bothered to learn.
If you have not seen any evidence, then I advise you to study the science. If by claiming you have not seen any “real” evidence, you mean you are familiar with at least some of the evidence but disagree with the science, then you should explain exactly what you disagree with and why. That’s your argument to make, and your burden to meet.
Oh, Arty, you got whipped good. You’re out on your feet.
The simple question is: what is the non-“real” evidence you’re referring to? What is your argument that the scientists are wrong about warming in the pipeline?
Actually, you misquoted me. I said the belief was “moronic,” not that all that held it were morons. You are, obviously, but it’s not necessarily universal.
So explain to me why I should teach you science. Especially when you won’t explain why you don’t think the evidence presented for pipeline warming is “real” (or maybe saw the real evidence and you’ve forgotten it; you aren’t sure.)
Robert,
[“It is your responsibility to understand what you are skeptical about, not mine to convince of something you have never bothered to learn.”]
So… no actual evidence to support your statement then.
[“Oh, Arty, you got whipped good. You’re out on your feet.”]
Thank you, Robert, for giving me the opportunity to practice the virtues of patience and tolerance.
Good day to you.
“So… no actual evidence to support your statement then.”
Arty, it’s not my responsibility to support your outlandish claims.
You claimed there was no evidence (or no “real” evidence) for warming in the pipeline.
You couldn’t prove that. You were too afraid to even try. Hence we’re left with the science as it was before you embarked on your evidence-free rant.
You’ve failed to support your claims with evidence, and lost every point.
Come back soon, an easy target is always welcome. :)
Serious as a heart attack. I should add, Nice Job, Robert.
Grade: A
BTW, I don’t think Arfur understands the principle of a heat sink.
He should try detaching the heat sink and fan from his computer’s CPU and see how much longer he can keep typing his ridiculous comments before his PC dies on him.
ha ha.
Arthur Bryant and Robert
Not to get embroiled in your exchange, but if one reads the Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” paper it becomes clear that it is based on circular logic, to simplify:
Hansen’s models tell him that he should have seen a GH warming since 1880 of X, yet we have only seen around 0.5X.
Therefore he concludes NOT that his model was wrong, but that the balance (0.5X) must still be “hidden in the pipeline” somewhere.
His arithmetic is also a bit sloppy, but that is a secondary problem.
Max
manacker in = manacker out
You don’t understand your own argument — it’s no surprise your critique of Hansen is worthless!
I’m sorry to be blunt, but you’re just too ignorant and stupid to grapple with Hansen, and your laughable misreading of him underscores that.
Manacker,
Don’t worry about getting embroiled – it seems to be catching!
There is no logic to “pipeline warming” without some evidence. Its about as naff as the “oil tanker analogy”… :)
Hansen’s models tell him that he should have seen a GH warming since 1880 of X, yet we have only seen around 0.5X.
Huh? Why would you suppose Hansen’s “pipeline” entails a delay of any more than 15 years, Max? 1880 was 132 years ago, where did Hansen mention any delay remotely that long?
Or haven’t you noticed that rapidly rising CO2 is a relatively recent phenomenon that in 1880 was still a century away from having even the small impact of 1980-2010, let alone the coming crushing impact during the 21st century?
@Vaughan Pratt
(reposted in the right sequence)
If you wish to discuss the 2005 Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” paper, the I suggest you READ it first.
Hansen’s logic is as I explained it above.
It is “circular”, as I pointed out.
His “arithmetic” is sloppy as well, but that is a minor point.
Max
2005 paper? You really have to read Hansen’s 1981 paper first. The concept of a ocean heat sink hasn’t changed for 30 years.
JCH
Yes, the oceans are large and very cool at depth. Do you agree that we have very poor information on heat exchange from the surface of the oceans to the ocean’s depths and that the idea of heat in the pipeline is only a theory? It is just as possible that the heat is effectively lost in the actual system.
Absolutely not. The warming/cooling in the pipeline is essentially our earth system interacting with future sunlight. There is nothing hidden about it.
There is this notion that “warming in the pipeline” is hidden somewhere in the earth’s system. It’s not. Not in the land, not in the sky, not in the water. Not here. Not anywhere here.
Future weather is in the oceans, and it will have its temporary influences up and down on SAT.
No one seems to be disputing that the surface temperature rose substantially between 1970 and now. What I understand JCH to be arguing is that the ocean is the heater. The opposite position would be that the ocean is the heatsink preventing the warming from being even greater.
If the ocean is the heater then JCH is right about no pipeline.
But if the ocean is the heatsink then it’s going to work like a heatsink on a CPU when there’s no fan. At first most of the CPU heat is soaked up by the heatsink, but after some time the heatsink warms up and stops doing its job so well.
The pipeline theory is that ocean is not the heater but the heatsink, and that in due course it has to warm up, at which point the surface temperature won’t be held in check so effectively and that will have to go up some more. That in a nutshell is the pipeline.
JCH may be right that the ocean is the heater, though I believe that among climate scientists this is a distinctly minority opinion.
Vaughan
You wrote what seems to be an overly simplistic comparison of the oceans to a heat sink to the point of being misleading. The oceans would be an exceptionally large heat sink that has the ability to continuously re-cool. Circulating water from the surface to depths where it is heated by the sun to depths of over 1000 M where it is pretty close to 4 C. Are you trying to suggest that the water temperature at over 1000 M will increase to over 4 C due to AWG? This is an interesting issue. The deep oceans seem to logically overwhelm any surface heating.
Rob, you’re reading things into my comment that I did not say. Just as we don’t have to know how the heat is distributed in a CPU heatsink (which is far from uniform) in order to know that the heatsink can’t cool the CPU forever, we don’t have to know how the heat is distributed in the ocean (which is also far from uniform) in order to know that the ocean can’t keep absorbing surface heat at a constant rate forever without itself heating up.
How long the ocean can function effectively as a heat sink is not something my comment addressed. It is however an excellent question that has been addressed by a score or more of theoretical ocean models.
I’m not convinced that we can learn much from such models because it’s very hard to do. A better approach in my view is to look at the Argo data and try to infer the extent to which the oceans can delay global warming.
My own approach is to look not at the ocean itself but at the HADCRUT temperature, from which I estimate that the oceans delay global warming by a little under 15 years. I’m looking forward to seeing how this stacks up against estimates of this delay based on the Argo data.
But let’s look at the question theoretically anyway, my misgivings about doing so notwithstanding. It seems to me that the ocean heat content is not relevant to this question, nor is the temperature profile itself since its basic shape is unlikely to change, but rather how that profile responds to warming. You presumably know that the profile goes more or less straight down for a couple hundred meters then at what I’ll call “corner 1” jogs sideways (to the left in the usual depiction) for the next kilometer down (the thermocline) to around 4 C and then at “corner 2” reverts to going almost straight down again into the deep ocean, getting slightly cooler but also more saline with each further km of depth.
Assuming this basic shape remains unchanged, and that the 4 C portion doesn’t change, the curve has three fundamental degrees of freedom in responding to warming:
1. “Corner 1” can move right. This corresponds to the surface layer warming (fixed volume of water with temperature increasing).
2. “Corner 1” can move down. This corresponds to the surface layer becoming deeper (increasing volume of water with fixed temperature, making the thermocline shallower as depicted).
3. “Corner 2” can move down. Similar effect to 2 except that the thermocline becomes steeper as depicted.
If 2 and 3 both happen then the thermocline retains its slope as the surface layer grows larger (i.e. deeper). If all three happen then the surface layer increases in both volume and temperature.
Not being a theoretical hydrologist myself I don’t have any thoughts on which of of 1-3 are more likely. If you do I’m all ears.
None of the concerns you raise rule out any of these three possibilities, which don’t involve any changes at all to the deep ocean. Such changes could happen, which would be a fourth degree of freedom, namely “corner 2” moving right, corresponding to the deep ocean warming. Even a 0.1 C warming of the deep ocean would profoundly increase ocean heat content, but already the first three possibilities (and their combinations) are a lot for a model to try to predict correctly. That’s why I’d prefer to look at the Argo data rather than try to play favorites with ocean models.
Note that using HADCRUT without ocean data involves no commitment to any of these profile changes since it is a direct measurement of the delay itself however caused (which moreover need not be 100% ocean).
Vaughan Pratt – in terms of 2100, I actually believe the opposite. I think the energy in the oceans can cause weather – natural variation, but it can neither warm nor cool the climate in any long term way because they’re cycles – what they add they eventually take away; what they take away they eventually put back. Pedal the cycles long enough, their tires will always be flat .
And it very much confuses the issue of the pipeline. Once energy is stored in the ocean it is a part of the earth’s system: its tank, and it most definitely is not in the pipeline. The pipeline brings sunlight, and the existent earth system will determine whether it replaces lost heat, or fails to replace lost heat, or adds additional heat (which is what I think Hansen is calling warming in the pipeline.) Because we’ve changed the atmosphere, the energy brought with future sunlight will be less able to escape, so it will be stored here – an additional amount in the atmosphere and a large amount in the oceans. Weather will slosh it back and forth, which is why so many have allowed themselves to believe there has been no warming since 1998, which is total bullchit. On average, there is additional warming every day.
When climate scientists say the heat will come back out of the oceans to haunt us, they should also add that cooling will come back out of the oceans to haunt them. Which is sort of what Tsonis and Swanson are saying. The weather is temporary. I don’t hang my hat on it.
So from our perspective, depending on the makeup and physics of our atmosphere, I think the pipeline can deliver one of three things: cooling, equilibrium, warming.
Vaughan Pratt, “My own approach is to look not at the ocean itself but at the HADCRUT temperature, from which I estimate that the oceans delay global warming by a little under 15 years. I’m looking forward to seeing how this stacks up against estimates of this delay based on the Argo data.”
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/hadsstversusRSSshinapproxWm-2.png
HADSST2 versus RSS southern hemisphere using 2002 to 2010 baseline in approximate Wm-2 based on the ARGO ocean surface temperature.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/RSSnhversusshinapproxWm-2.png
RSS NH versus SH same baseline and approximate Wm-2. During the first half, ~15years, the NH lagged SH in energy/temperature. In ~1995, the hemispheres appear to have become balanced. This coincides with the 1995 Stratosphere shift to neutral from cooling. The “~14.5 year lag” appears to be due to an internal oscillation, not GHE, IMHO
We may be talking about different lags (easy to do since there are so many things that can lag each other). What I had in mind was the delay between CO2–induced global warming and the resulting rise in global temperature as indicated by HADCRUT. Changing from HADCRUT3 to HADCRUT4 slightly modified other estimates such as climate sensitivity and preindustrial (more specifically c. 1700) CO2, but not that delay, which stayed firmly at 14.5 years.
Vaughan, “We may be talking about different lags (easy to do since there are so many things that can lag each other). ” I don’t think so. Using UAH NH land versus Mauna Loa I was getting a very good “signature” of CO2 with the typical noise. When I compared the ocean extratropics and tropics I was seeing a ENSO harmonic with a shorter NH lag than SH lag with what looks like a reflected return complementary wave. 1998 pretty much looks like a rogue wave signature and 1995 had the weird precursor signature. Remember I am playing with the chaotic pattern recognition or super tea leaf reading if you prefer :) You should see the same thing comparing Fourier transforms of the extratropic and tropical oceans.
That leads me to believe the NH CO2 was amplified by NH ocean lag of the SH oceans and land use. The two would look about the same, but the post 1995 coordination hints that the internal variability is the stronger signal. The major land use and black carbon impact in the NH starts around the time Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands Campaign went south with their version of the dust bowl.
There are a lot of lags and variables, but the internal natural variability appears stronger than expected with much longer pseudo cycle periods, much like A. M. Selvam predicts.
cd, let me define the lag I’m estimating at 14.5 years, which has nothing to do with chaos (as far as I know). But first let me set the context with the general methodology.
I jointly fit a model of CO2 warming, “AGW,” and a model of ocean oscillations, “SAW,” to HADCRUT (3 or 4). But in place of the usual least-squares criterion for goodness of fit, aka minimizing the unexplained variance, I first low-pass-filter the unexplained portion (the residue after subtracting the two models from HADCRUT) and minimize its variance instead. Since the filtered residue has a far smaller variance than the unfiltered residue, I get a more sensitive test for the best fit—the high-frequency components of the unfiltered residue magnify the contribution to unexplained variance of the low-frequency components in a non-uniform way that makes it harder to estimate.
So where does lag enter? Well, that’s one of three adjustable parameters in my AGW model, the other two being preindustrial CO2 and climate sensitivity. (CAGR of *anthropogenic* CO2 is also a parameter but I estimate that one using CO2 data from CDIAC data on land use changes and fossil fuel emissions and the Keeling curve from Mauna Loa, as a separate estimation task.)
I model lag by the simple expedient of sliding the non-delayed AGW warming model right to represent delay. Sliding it right 15 years is equivalent to using CO2 from 15 years ago (around 360 ppmv) in a model with no delay.
Exactly what physical delays are modeled in that way is a good question. I would imagine the time it takes for SST to respond to global warming is a big part of that, but I don’t have a precise answer.
What I do have is a precise notion of the lag my model claims to measure, namely the best fit achievable by sliding AGW sideways.
If the AGW model were a straight trend line, as would result by taking the log of an exponentially growing CO2 level, then all lags would yield exactly the same fit and lag in my sense could therefore not be measured even very approximately. But in the model I’m using, due to David Hofmann, CO2 doesn’t grow exponentially, but rather as the sum of a constant natural background level and an exponentially growing anthropogenic contribution. Taking the log of that gives a concave-upwards curve typified by y= ln(1 + exp(x)). Sliding *that* curve laterally gives varying goodnesses of fit, and the best fit then defines lag (along with the other parameters giving that fit).
With no lag, observed climate sensitivity is around 2.1 C/doubling. With a lag of 14.5 years a slightly better fit is achieved, and the observed climate sensitivity then rises considerably, as one would expect, namely to around 2.8. The 14.5 number is robust at least to the extent that it doesn’t change at all when HADCRUT3 is upgraded to HADCRUT4, though climate sensitivity rises to 2.9.
Vaughan Pratt, Interesting on the 14.5 year lag. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in SST prior to 1960, but I do see a northern hemisphere lag that may be what you are seeing. But is that global response to CO2?
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/joethevolcano.png
I was playing around with scaling the volcanic forcing that BEST used just to see how much it impact it had on things. The Northern Hemisphere is much more sensitive to Volcanic forcing, probably because the Volcanoes where north of the equator. Using the 2002 to 2010 baseline because of my doubts in the SST record, I still don’t see a strong “global” CO2 signature. The way your model match HADCRU4 with a little higher sensitivity, I am still thinking land use amplification of CO2.
I will look a little harder though.
Vaughan Pratt, Shifting CO2 by 14.5 years does produce a better fit with the global data, but with the Mauna Loa compared to RSS I don’t see a good reason to do that. With the land use flux, I do see the amplification though just as before. BTW, the Soviet Union land use data looks low to me, but there is an experiment in progress.
http://neespi.org/web-content/meetings/Jena_March_2008/Day2_6_Belelli.pdf
Vaughan Pratt, here is a little better explanation why I don;t think shifting CO2 is the right move.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/LandUseversusHADSST2.png
Since you were focusing on the oceans, that is the HADSST2 plot with the Land Use Flux anomaly. The yellow is a trailing 15 year moving average. Without doing anything fancy you can see a lag correlation. The difference is that using the land use CO2 flux as a proxy, is that land use has a legitimate physical lag, Soil degrades, gets compacted, holds less moisture and over time has a larger warming impact and can have an initial cooling impact.
Just my 2 cents
cd, the CDIAC’s estimates of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement production has reached 10 GtC/yr and is (somewhat) steadily climbing while that for land use changes has been hovering around 1.45 GtC and fluctuating. The year-to-year fluctuations of the latter are less than 0.1 GtC, whereas the former add another 0.3 to 0.4 GtC every year.
These amounts are in the context of a current total of 800 GtC atmospheric carbon. (Conversion: 1 GtC equals 0.47 ppmv based on 5.14 petonnes of atmosphere, so today’s 394 ppmv equals 394/.47 = 840 GtC.) We are currently emitting 1/80 of this per year, of which nature appears to be absorbing about half into the biosphere, land, and oceans (which acidifies them).
If climate sensitivity is less than 5 C per doubling of CO2 (I estimate 2.8-2.9 based on HADCRUT’s rise since 1850), you are not going to see any sign at all in the temperature record of year-to-year fluctuations of 0.1 GtC in CO2 as caused by land use changes. You need a much larger change over a much longer period. The only known contributor to atmospheric CO2 meeting those conditions is fossil fuel emissions.
Since 1958, nothing beats direct observation of atmospheric CO2 for inferring its level. For all practical purposes the level is rising perfectly smoothly.
Vaughan Pratt, Yes, I know that the forcing due to land use increases in CO2 is small in comparison with fossil fuel Co2 emissions. I was using the land use CO2 flux as a rough proxy of land use impact which is primarily water resource changes, increased soil temperature and changes in the rate of energy storage and release. The land use impacts would be amplified by overall CO2 forcing.
Admittedly, this is not a main stream consideration since the apparent impact is cooling based on satellite albedo estimates, but based on the conservation farming data, the change from conventional tillage to no-till has a large impact on soil temperature and moisture retention. Conventional tillage increases the length of the growing season by nearly a week and in high latitude farming, spreading peat dust, ash, compost and/or low albedo chemical sprays to melt spring snow can add weeks to the gerowing season. Surprisingly, one of the disadvantages of no-till farming is it reduces the length of the growing season by slowing soil warming too much in some regions.
I was using the land use CO2 flux as a rough proxy of land use impact.
Oh, I completely misunderstood where you were going with that.
So would it be fair to say you’re reverse engineering the analyses that obtained the land use CO2 flux in order to recover the data on which they were based? (It has to be obtained that way since it’s not feasible to measure the flux itself directly—there’s no separate Keeling observatory for it.) If so that’s a creative labor-saving approach, though it has the downside that the results of the analysis lose a lot of the original information.
If there were regional analyses each on a 5 x 5 degree grid you’d have a lot better basis for drawing conclusions about regions, but I’m not aware of such. What would be the point when CO2 diffuses too quickly within each hemisphere for regional estimates to be of much interest?
One approach might be to contact the authors of the studies to see what data they’re willing to share with you. This might turn up more of the sort of information you’re hoping to extract from the land use CO2 flux.
Vaughan Pratt, “One approach might be to contact the authors of the studies to see what data they’re willing to share with you. This might turn up more of the sort of information you’re hoping to extract from the land use CO2 flux.” That looks well down the road. The model I am working on is an attempt to reverse engineer or reanalysis the data. The plot I made was just to show you that even the rough land use proxy using the CO2 flux estimate can produce close to the same lag you are seeing and attributing to CO2 forcing. That is not really an indication that land use “done it”, as much as, an indication that a longer term natural variability can make land use, CO2 forcing, commodities prices, solar cycles or anything influenced by a non-linear relationship with another system, look like it “done it”.
V. A. Selvam has a lot of papers on the similarity of nonergodic systems, but not much on the why they are so similar. That requires a little less standard approach than currently used, which is what I am playing with.
A more polite answer would be to say that shortwave radiation absorbed by the earth (so warming the earth) and longwave radiation emitted by the earth (so cooling the earth) are both being measured. Although there are uncertainties in these measurements, they suggest that the former is bigger than the larger, so warming is still ongoing. Eg.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml
Or you could simply ask yourself how long it will take for the oceans to reach thermal equilibrium, since obviously until that point more warming is in the pipeline. Or you could ask yourself what it implies that the aerosols put out by volcanoes influence the climate for only a few years, while CO2’s residence time if measured in centuries. Or you could ask yourself if the ice sheets are in a state of equilibrium at present . . .
Steve,
Thank you for your sensible reply.
Please see my reply to Robert. If warming is ongoing, is it cumulative and, if so, why is it not accelerating?
Regards,
Arfur Bryant,
If warming is ongoing, is it cumulative and, if so, why is it not accelerating?
I think there are multiple sub-meanings of “in the pipeline”. Robert hinted on some of them. Maybe Robert can help me out with which of these he thinks is most likely. Assuming we accept at face value(*) that observations of an energy imbalance are correct, we know that definitely something needs to change to return the planet to balance, and that probably what needs to change is the surface and atmosphere have to get warmer (so it radiates more longwave radiation to space).
The things that could be stopping the surface from getting warmer *could* be that: oceans are taking up some of the heat at a higher rate than expected; there are a larger amount of aerosol emissions than we think; there is a bigger impact from the low solar cycle; there are other forcing changes that we’re unaware of (stratospheric water vapour?).
Whether the “warming in the pipeline” will accelerate soon depends on whether these processes are temporary or long term. If the aerosol levels are higher it’s temporary because aerosols don’t last for long in the atmosphere whereas CO2 does – eventually warming will accelerate (within a few years at the very least). If it is related to ocean heat uptake, then the impact *may* be more long term (lots of things affect the rate of ocean heat uptake – some will be short term and some long term).
* I think the alternatives to taking the observations at face value are that one decides the observations of the imbalance are wrong, or are not the full picture (eg. the imbalance is less or is temporary). One would then require that the climate will somehow adjust to the additional CO2 forcing such that, for example, changes in clouds will cause the reflection of more solar radiation – a negative feedback.
Steve,
Thank you for the post. There is a lot in there to digest!
The total warming since ‘accurate records started” (IPCC) is less than 0.9 deg C. That is 161 years. The IPCC states that anthropogenic emissions stated in 1750. Obviously the emissions were slight back then. However, any “pipeline” effect would start then, however small. Robert doesn’t say what the length of the pipeline is (decades or centuries?) but, however long it is, there should be some cumulative effect. There is no justification in assuming that ‘some CO2 molecules don’t interact because they are in the ‘pipeline’, so the justification might be that the residence time leads to the CO2 effect being effective for a longer period. Either way, as each year has passed, the effect of the previous year’s CO2 must – if the pipeline theory is correct – be added to the current year’s effect.
Therefore, the theorised significant warming effect must increase and, logically, increase at an accelerative rate. It was an accelerative rate of warming that was sold to the world with the publication of the MBH98 graph.
The problem now is… there is no acceleration and there is no indication of “pipeline” warming, unless someone can produce some direct, empirical, non-modelled evidence to support the postulation. To call someone a ‘moron’ (as Robert did) for not believing in said postulation is, at the very least, bad form, especially when the production of evidence could lay the argument to rest immediately.
If you wish to put forward the argument that the CO2 effect did not start until a later date (c1950 seems to be favourite), then you have to ask yourself why there was an entirely similar warming period just prior to 1950 (1910 to 1945). Any “pipeline warming” would have started at c1950. So, what has happened to that pipeline warming since 1998?
The logical answer is that any cooling factors (from whatever source) have outweighed not only the initial ‘significant CO2 effect’ but also the ‘CO2 pipeline effect’. Hmmm. This means that the warming period between 1970 and 1998 could have been due to the same unknown(?) factors that caused the 1910-1945 warming. But this would mean that the theorised effect of CO2 is far smaller than theorised. In science, the production of empirical evidence generally either supports or falsifies a theory. All I asked Robert was to provide some supporting evidence.
My point about the small and non-accelerating warming is in reply to your point about “what needs to change… to bring the planet back into balance…” and your point about “…observations being wrong…”.
I’m not sure I can see any significant imbalance in the long term data, particularly using coherent datasets. There is no doubt that warming has occurred since 1850 but the overall rate is less than 0.06C per decade with no current sign of acceleration. I would politely suggest that consideration should be given to looking into whether the theory is wrong, not the data.
Kind regards,
See, when you give your argument in a positive form, it’s much easier to correct it.
First, the warming has accelerated. You claimed 0.9C of warming in 161 years. That’s 0.055C/decade. The last three decades have warmed at more than three times that rate. So by your own numbers, there has been an acceleration.
Second, your formulation of what happens to the heat makes a simple mistake: “the effect of the previous year’s CO2 must – if the pipeline theory is correct – be added to the current year’s effect.” The blinding obvious thing that you miss is that if a certain proportion of the additional heating went “into the pipeline” last year, a similar amount will go “into the pipeline” this year.
You are attempting to apply logic to a process you don’t understand, and make very basic mistakes in the process. This makes your conclusions neither logical nor rational.
I would advise you to ditch the metaphor and think hard about what’s actually going on in the system: with the oceans, the ice, and the aerosols especially. If you understand what is really going on when you burn a ton of coal, you will understand equilibrium climate sensitivity and not need the metaphor.
Robert does not understand that he wishes people to change their behaviors, but is unable to demonstrate to them that there is a valid justification to implement what he supports.
No valid justification=no behavior change.
What rate is it warming at due to additional CO2? It looks like a doubling of CO2 will lead to somewhere between 1.0C and 3.0C of temp rise. Somewhere between no problem and a potentially problem.
What will be the net impacts to humanity of a warmer world? Will it be positive or negative for the world overall and the USA in particular? We don’t know, but Robert believes everyone should still do what he wants.
Heat up the grill. Throw on some chicken. If you do not believe in heating in the pipeline, eat it the second it hits grill. Yummy, cold, bloody chicken meat.
Are you writing that the sun got hotter but it has not yet warmed the planet?
Robert,
Again, you are being selective. You have selected a short-term period out of a longer-term dataset. If the overall trend is 0.055Cpd (I agree), then your argument of (the last three decades) fails to show overall acceleration. Since 1998, there has been NO warming (and, yes, I am using HadCRUt3). If the overall trend was one of acceleration, then the trend of 0.055 would be the highest. It is not. The highest overall trend was in 1879 at around 0.07Cpd. If the warming was accelerating, the linear trend would be increasing. There would have to be a very significant increase in order to reach that figure.
For the rest of your post, I will simply ask you to provide evidence to support your postulation. I have politely asked for this before with no result.
Either produce some evidence or stop making unsupported statements.
The sun cycle is what it is. We have slowed the rate at which heat leaves the planet. The oceans are a big pieces of chicken, and they’re still cooking.
Again, we see that asking climate “skeptics” to state their arguments pays dividends.
The idea that “Warming stopped in 1998” is a discredited fallacy. Let’s find you some links:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-stopped
If you have a new argument that warming stopped in 1998 — please present it. For the moment, I’m unconvinced.
This is just nonsense, not even wrong. You aren’t doing your “But I’m not a moron!” case any favors here.
My position is that you haven’t convinced me the science is wrong. I’ve shown you several places where your argument went wrong — more than enough to falsify your “Instantaneous equilibrium” hypothesis.
I suggest you correct the mistakes I’ve pointed out in your argument, and then, if you want, try and make a better argument for your “Instantaneous equilibrium.”
Robert said, “The idea that “Warming stopped in 1998″ is a discredited fallacy. Let’s find you some links::
The shift was actually in 1995. The overall impact timing will vary with region. Most of the change should not be obvious in the global “average” surface temperature for another 10 to 15 years. Large capacity non-linear systems don’t turn on a dime.
Arfur Bryant
The “forcings” that impact the planetary energy balance are not just from rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2. There are many other forcings including those from aerosol emissions, volcanic aerosols, dust and solar changes.
In the following, the first graph is a plot of all forcings as used in the latest set of runs done for the next IPCC report can be seen. The bit to the left of the 2000 period is the central estimate of all forcings (including volcanic). To me, there is very little change till, really, the 1950s.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/
Part of the reason for that is put down to the fact that as well as emitting CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, burning coal has caused emission of sulphate aerosols which act to cool the planet.
So nothing much was being pumped into the pipeline till fairly recently.
Little grammar error here:
Fixed!
I just used your own unrealistic assumptions
I just used your own unrealistic assumptions
I just used your own unrealistic assumptions
So you made two major mistakes: you substituted 0.8C for 0.6C for some reason, and you treated assumptions I described as unrealistic as things I was claiming were true.
Better luck next time! :)
Robert,
[“The idea that “Warming stopped in 1998″ is a discredited fallacy.”]
You attempt to provide evidence from two warmist blogs? Its pathetic.
Look at the HadCRUt3 graph since 1850. If I was a climber climbing the profile, the highest point I reach would be 1998. It is now 2012. I am currently ‘lower’ than I was in 1998. I have not been higher than I was in 1998 at any point since. Therefore, in the overall route I have taken, I have stopped ‘climbing’. I may be ‘higher’ than I was in, say, 1970 (and that is not disputed) but I am certainly not ‘climbing’. In fact, since 1998 I have ‘descended’ overall. Your attempts to deflect away from the specifics of the debate are puerile. There has been no warming since 1998. Deal with it.
[“I suggest you correct the mistakes…”]
I suggest you answer my original question about ‘pipeline warming’. That might get you some respect.
Steve,
Yes, I understand that that is what the models say, which is why I asked for non-modelled, empirical evidence. Modelling just does’t count as evidence. I’m not sure you read my last post to you fully. Maybe you missed this part:
“If you wish to put forward the argument that the CO2 effect did not start until a later date (c1950 seems to be favourite), then you have to ask yourself why there was an entirely similar warming period just prior to 1950 (1910 to 1945).”
If, as you suggest, the forcings did not start until 1950, then you are forced to concede that ‘something’ (or a compilation of factors) caused the earlier warming of the same amount. This being so, it cannot be stated with any conviction that the later warming was ‘due to CO2 etc’. It also cannot be stated with any conviction that any ‘pipeline warming’ exists without evidence to support that postulation, as the later warming (which may have been caused by other factors) has effectively stopped since 1998.
Like I said earlier, I am arguing from a standpoint of observations, not theory. Unfortunately, the data does not support the theory. No amount of modelling will change the fact that, eventually, the data has to support the theory.
“If I was a climber climbing the profile, the highest point I reach would be 1998. It is now 2012. I am currently ‘lower’ than I was in 1998. I have not been higher than I was in 1998 at any point since.”
not true
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/from:1980
“You attempt to provide evidence from two warmist blogs?”
Stevie, all legitimate science is “warmist.” If you disregard evidence because it doesn’t come from climate deniers, you’ve created a little self-deceptive loop for yourself.
I don’t need to provide evidence that a discredited fallacy is still discredited. I provided some sources purely for your education. You claimed that warming stopped in 1998; the burden is on you to make a convincing argument for that. I would merely warn you that you’re unlikely to succeed, because the notion is bunk.
“Look at the HadCRUt3 graph since 1850.”
Cherry-picking a single data set out of several. Fail.
“If I was a climber climbing the profile, the highest point I reach would be 1998. It is now 2012. I am currently ‘lower’ than I was in 1998. I have not been higher than I was in 1998 at any point since . . .”
Cherry picking your start date. Elementary fail.
“Therefore, in the overall route I have taken, I have stopped ‘climbing’. I may be ‘higher’ than I was in, say, 1970 (and that is not disputed) but I am certainly not ‘climbing’.”
Logic and metaphor fail: you can certainly be climbing, regardless of whether you have been higher in the past. By your logic, anyone who flew to Nepal can’t climb Everest (presumably they descend to the peak?)
The world has warmed since 1998. Deal with it.
Arfur Bryant,
The plot I linked to are the *inputs* to the models. Other than that they are nothing to do with models. They are the central estimates of all the forcings that we’re aware of.
Aside from that, if you are against the models you are conducting a circular non-argument. The models encapsulate scientists’ understanding of the climate in formulae and algorithm. You cannot claim that scientists have internally inconsistent views and then reject the tools they use to validate those views. Now while I wouldn’t dogmatically claim that the models will be right about 21st century warming, I will claim that they are in the right ball park, and they are certainly good enough to demonstrate the “heat in the pipeline” effect.
lolwot,
[““If I was a climber climbing the profile, the highest point I reach would be 1998. It is now 2012. I am currently ‘lower’ than I was in 1998. I have not been higher than I was in 1998 at any point since.”
not true”]
Yes, true. As a climber, I do not have the luxury of smoothing out five years of my travel. My statement, as it stands, is correct.
Robert,
[“Logic and metaphor fail: you can certainly be climbing, regardless of whether you have been higher in the past. By your logic, anyone who flew to Nepal can’t climb Everest (presumably they descend to the peak?)”]
Oh dear. Splicing two datasets (flying and climbing) and coming up with a fallacy. Now where have I seen that before?
Still no answer to my original question, I notice. Ah, well.
Thanks for the discussion, Robert. It has been most enlightening. I wish you all the best for the future.
Arfur Bryant
If, as you suggest, the forcings did not start until 1950, then you are forced to concede that ‘something’ (or a compilation of factors) caused the earlier warming of the same amount. This being so, it cannot be stated with any conviction that the later warming was ‘due to CO2 etc’.
The warming at the beginning of the 20th Century is not the same as recent warming as it was preceded by a relatively rapid cooling event and succeeded by another relatively rapid cooling event. It is quite reasonable to assume that the apparent similar trend only exists if you carefully choose end-points.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:84/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1897/to:1948/trend
Once you try a trend of more than 40-odd years, the earlier warming trend starts to get less steep. Remember also that the recent warming is *on top* of past warming, so “climate cycle” arguments struggle to explain it, and I don’t buy the “recovery from the LIA” claims while no physical reason for such recovery is offered.
Obviously there are subjective judgements to be made – I’m simply pointing out that you cannot bank on the claim of similarity between the two periods.
We also have additional evidence that the current warming is less temporary than the previous warming was because it is accompanied by continued rises in ocean heat content – enough heat has gone into the oceans since 1998 to warm the atmosphere by 7 degrees C.
Steve,
[“The plot I linked to are the *inputs* to the models. Other than that they are nothing to do with models. They are the central estimates of all the forcings that we’re aware of.”]
The inputs to models are nothing to do with models? Are you sure about that? They are, indeed, estimates – or assumptions. As such, they do not represent evidence.
[“I will claim that they are in the right ball park, and they are certainly good enough to demonstrate the “heat in the pipeline” effect.”]
As long as you accept that it is just a claim. That claim is based on either an estimate or an assumption, or both. It still does not represent evidence.
Thanks for the posts. At least you are able to discuss the subject in a reasonable fashion, for which you have my thanks and respect.
Regards,
“Oh dear. Splicing two datasets (flying and climbing) and coming up with a fallacy. Now where have I seen that before?”
Poor Arthur. He doesn’t believe that the height of an airplane can be measured and compared to the height of a mountain.
Those are called facts, Arthur. Sorry if you’re unfamiliar with the concept.
“Thanks for the discussion, Robert. It has been most enlightening.”
Arthur, I’m glad you can recognize when you’re licked. Shows good common sense on your part. While you didn’t ever achieve any insight into your own mistakes, you did finally articulate some of them so that it was easy to see where you’re going wrong.
I hope in the future you can find the courage to face the facts you’re hiding from.
Arfur,
You attempt to provide evidence from two warmist blogs? Its pathetic.
Firstly, comments such as this somewhat undermine your “I’m just a guy asking questions” act. Secondly, if you won’t accept evidence from sources on the basis they disagree with your position then it’s rather pointless engaging in this kind of discussion at all.
I’ll let Robert and Steve continue to address the “heating in the pipeline” argument but I will say something about your “no warming since 1998” claim. Over the long term it is expected that the effect of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a steady warming signal, but in the short term there are other influences which can cause temperatures to fluctuate over peiods of a few years or even less. Sometimes this will counteract the warming signal from CO2, sometimes it will add extra warming on top. In 1998 there was an exceptionally strong el Nino event which had a pronounced warming effect and so resulted in that year’s average temperature being higher than it would have been due to CO2 alone. As always this effect was temporary and the following year temperatures dropped back down again and the gradual climb continued.
Therefore I hope it is clear that making a pronouncement about temperature trends starting in 1998 is misleading, especially when considering the long term effect of CO2, because you are beginning at a point when there was a temporary spike in temperatures which was nothing to do with CO2.
and one way of removing the enso spikes is to smooth the data, but arfur don’t wanna do that.
“Maybe Robert can help me out with which of these he thinks is most likely.”
They are all likely in the sense that, by some fairly immutable laws of physics, they “hide” heat from the atmosphere.
Probably the most important “hiding spot” in the near term is the aerosol forcing.
The amount of science you need to know to understand how the aerosol forcing puts warming “in the pipeline” is utterly trivial. It shouldn’t be beyond anyone who is not very determined to guard their ignorance.
Andrew Adams,
[“Firstly, comments such as this somewhat undermine your “I’m just a guy asking questions” act. Secondly, if you won’t accept evidence from sources on the basis they disagree with your position then it’s rather pointless engaging in this kind of discussion at all.”]
I’ll try to keep this straight and succinct, Andrew.
Firstly, my question was not an ‘act’, it was just a question. The question was simple, specific and quite polite. The question can be (one would have thought) easily answered by the person to whom the question was addressed. Producing some evidence would have been the easy way to answer the question. If you think that the two links posted by Robert in any way constitutes ‘evidence’, then please tell me why. Please also note that, in my original post, I asked “Do you have any real (non-modelled) evidence to support such a belief?” Where in either of the two links, do you find any such evidence?
I am perfectly entitled to question non-evidence. Evidence cannot ‘disagree with my position’ if it is factual. You might have an opinion that I cannot accept evidence but I’m actually trying to get to the truth. What I’m not going to do is just accept irrelevant bull because ‘John Cook says so’.
<["Therefore I hope it is clear that making a pronouncement about temperature trends starting in 1998 is misleading, especially when considering the long term effect of CO2, because you are beginning at a point when there was a temporary spike in temperatures which was nothing to do with CO2."]
OK, maybe you joined the discussion mid-stream. The only trend that I have espoused is the overall trend. I have used HadCRUt3 because it started in 1850 and was used by the IPCC. I totally agree that short term trends are relatively meaningless but saying that warming stopped in 1998 is not quoting a trend – it is stating a fact (as far as HadCRUt3 is concerned). The overall trend is less than 0.06Cpd, and the steepest trend was c1878/9. Trends are a whole different argument. ‘Warming’, as quoted by the IPCC, refers to atmospheric warming, not ocean heat. Nobody in the climate science cabal quoted ENSO effects as being the reason for the high temperature in 1998 – it was put down to CO2. Now, because the data does not fit the theory, warmists have started quoting ENSO spikes, ocean heat, thermal lag and pipelines as excuses why the theory is unsupported by evidence. If you can provide me with any evidence to support ‘the long term effect of CO2’, as you state, then please do so. But don’t give me models and don’t give me warmist opinion. I’ve seen plenty of both, thanks.
Ok, so maybe not that succinct! :)
Arfur, you completely evaded any discussion of the evidence. You simply resorted to the irrational (and circular) complaint that the evidence came from “warmists.”
Now you ask, pathetically, for someone else to tell you “Where in either of the two links, do you find any such evidence?”
It’s your job to grapple with the facts. It’s about your education — if you chose to maintain your ignorance, you can certainly do so.
By repeating discredited nonsense — “Warming stopped in 1998” and similar howlers — you have made yourself entirely unpersuasive on the subject of climate science.
You were given empirical evidence and immediately fled from it in a cloud of mealy-mouthed excuses. It was predicable, cowardly, and honestly, pretty funny.
It has been suggested here that “warming in the pipeline” came into being in a paper by Hansen in 2005. This pipeline warming was described as being hidden.
So do a search for James E. Hansen, “hidden in the pipeline”. Nothing.
There is nothing to hide, so I do not think he used the word “hidden” in the paper.
Nor was the concept invented to rationalize model failure in 2005. So far the earliest reference I’ve found using the phrase wrt climate change is 1989.
So look at this graph. Is this proof that in 1989 there was warming in the pipeline? How would I know? How about Arfur’s 1998 climbing zenith? Looks to me like maybe he should have taken up scuba.
Arf, Arf; it is embarrassingly obvious that Robert is in a position where is authority is rarely questioned. Imagine being at his mercy.
The recovery from the Little Ice Age, and the recoveries into the Minoan, the Roman and the Medieval Optima? Most likely millenial scale forces which we do not understand yet, but are probably solar in origin.
Three times in the last century and a half the rate of temperature rise was the same and only in the last of these was CO2 rising significantly also. I know this because Phil Jones heself admitted it. Granted, there are volcanoes, variable aerosol forcing and other knowns and unknowns, but the regular rise and fall into climate optima and little ice ages begs for an explanation, so far ungiven. Until these are understood, claiming CO2 for the temperature rise since 1750 is ignorant. It becomes slowly disingenous as the present lack of temperature rise becomes so prolonged.
And then we note that the temperature rise since 1750 has been accompanied by a great increase in civilization, expected in a warmer world. The next 1.5 C. of temperature rise will also grant similar widespread benefits, but just where is that pony under the Christmas tree? It’s gotta be there. They promised.
===========
‘Where ‘his’ authority is rarely questioned’. I once knew a doctor who thought he could change the diagnosis with an exercise of the will.
==================================
@Arfur Bryant: Firstly, my question was not an ‘act’, it was just a question.
Apparently Andrew understands you better than you understand yourself. A couple of years ago I came to the same conclusion: I got thoroughly fed up with your act, which made all attempts at communication pointless and which hasn’t changed one bit in the intervening two years. I don’t mind David Springer being snarky to me, at least he doesn’t pretend to be something he isn’t.
Robert,
You have proved yourself to be completely unfit to carry out a rational discussion. Make as much puerile capital out of that statement as you want. You haven’t provided any real evidence, and neither has anyone else. It is not remotely comforting that you and others are now trying to deflect the discussion away from the starting point, which was you saying it is ‘moronic’ to disbelieve in the “pipeline warming” of CO2, and then calling Manacker a moron. Why not comforting? Because, at the end, it serves no purpose to avoid the truth. Models are not truth. Opinions are not truth. Not all evidence may be truth but at least unmolested observational data is as close as we can get at the moment. I feel sorry that you are so immersed in your own mire of self-inflated hubris that you are unable to carry on a civil discourse. If I maybe so bold, I think you should take a real hard look at yourself.
JCH.
Thank you for that genuinely ineffective input.
Kim,
[“Until these are understood, claiming CO2 for the temperature rise since 1750 is ignorant. It becomes slowly disingenous as the present lack of temperature rise becomes so prolonged.”]
One of the more intelligent comments on the subject!
Thanks for the support. I agree with all that you have said, and I think I have covered the lack of logic (and science) used by warmists when discussing the earlier 20th century warmings in an earlier post.
Unfortunately, some folk just will not behave when their beliefs are challenged. I thought it was a fair question to ask Robert when he was rude to Manacker. Although Manacker can take care of himself, I was genuinely interested to see if Robert could back his claim up. Apparently not. The factors which have caused either cooling periods or not-warming periods since 1750/1850 (1750 start of IPCC ‘anthropogenic emissions’ and 1850 start of IPCC accurate readings) are obviously easily capable of combating not only the theorised effect of CO2, but also the much-vaunted ‘pipeline effect’. One has to wonder if a reverse of those factors (or different combination) could have caused the warming. No, that would necessitate a revisitation of the ‘theory’ of cAGW. Hmmm, curious.
ps, Did the doctor ever succeed?
pps, Still waiting for the Christmas tree! Isn’t it exciting?
Vaughan,
Again, thank you for a genuinely irrelevant and ineffective input. Your attempt at deflection is duly noted.
You keep saying that . . . as you keeping talking and talking . . . about everything except the facts. ;)
I’m still waiting for you to make a serious argument that “Global warming stopped in 1998.” This discredited nonsense had its moment in the stoplight in 2010 . . . even hardcore deniers rarely invoke it anymore.
So without cherry-picking the data set or the start date, can you prove your claim? And can you prove that the oceans haven’t warmed since 1998? If global warming stopped in 1998, the oceans shouldn’t be gaining heat . . .
But all its been is ducking and dodging from you. You demand that we educate you in basic science. Why should we? You haven’t shown any willingness to deal honestly with the sources offered you. The logical conclusion is that you’re willfully ignorant.
It all comes back to your willingness to learn . . . if you are willing to grapple honestly with the facts, you’ll find no end of people to discuss the science with you. But “If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding./ How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?”
[“Again, you are being selective. You have selected a short-term period out of a longer-term dataset. If the overall trend is 0.055Cpd (I agree), then your argument of (the last three decades) fails to show overall acceleration. Since 1998, there has been NO warming (and, yes, I am using HadCRUt3).”] Arfur Bryant
To anyone who is still reading this tennis match…
Let me remind you what started the exchange. Robert called Manacker a moron and said it was moronic to disbelieve in CO2 ‘pipeline warming’. I politely asked him if he had real (non-modelled) evidence to support such an assertion. No evidence ensued. Robert did produce a graph from John Cook’s skepticalscience blog which portrayed the increase in Total Heat Content for ocean and land/atmosphere and proclaimed “Voila”… pipeline warming! This, of course, was not evidence at all. There was no explanation of why Robert thinks it was evidence, and Robert has repeatedly avoided answering the direct question. He now tries to deflect the discussion because he can’t find any ‘real’ evidence. So be it.
As to the ‘no warming since 1998’ tirade, let me clarify things. The context of the discussion, at that time, was about the global atmospheric temperature. I specifically explained to Robert that I was basing my statement on the HadCRUt3 dataset (see quote at the start of this post). Now Robert wants to deflect the discussion toward Ocean Heat Content. I have made no comment about Ocean Heat. I am happy to accept that the OHC has increased but the graph shows that ocean heat has increased MANY times more than atmosphere. How this can be achieved by an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 115 parts per million over 162 years with no corroborating rise in sea surface temperature hardly constitutes proof of ‘pipeline warming’:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2012
In addition, Robert has asked me to provide evidence to support my contention that warming stopped in 1998. Ok, unlike Robert, I will oblige. As previously explained, the context was atmospheric warming and, in particular, HadCRUt3, so here it is:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to
In order to avoid any suggestion of cherry picking, I have shown the entire dataset. Why do I consider this evidence of my point? Because, although I know there are other datasets which show a higher temperature after 1998, the HadCRUt3 dataset was the original one used by the IPCC and it is also the only surface dataset which is supported by both of the satellite datasets in showing no higher temperature than 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2012/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2012
For these graphs, I have chosen 1979 as the start date of HadCRUt3 for direct comparison. This does not constitute cherry picking as I have previously shown the entire dataset.
Now, in case anyone feels the need to talk about ‘spikes’, let me remind you that no-one talked about spikes when the MBH98 graph was sold to the world as evidence of anthropogenic CO2-induced warming. The graph was sold as evidence that global surface and near-surface temperature was accelerating and would continue to do so. I certainly didn’t hear any climate scientist put a caveat on the graph to the effect that “it’s just a short term high due to natural factors”. It is quite clear from the graphs linked above that the highest point reached was in 1998. The fact that ALL current global datasets show the present temperature as being several tenths of a degree below 1998 after 14 years of ‘pipeline warming’ and ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ should make a rational person at least begin to doubt the cAGW theory. I don’t expect Robert to be one of those people.
I’ve probably said enough. But in case anyone still believes that ‘pipeline warming’ exists, ask yourself how come we have had over 161 years of pipeline and yet the warming is not increasing at an accelerative rate. There have been short periods of acceleration (along with periods of cooling) but certainly not since 1998. The overall trend today is lower than it was in 1879 (hence no overall acceleration):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1879/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:2012/trend
Robert,
I am away on work for the next two weeks. I will not be online except briefly but I will check this thread when I return. Please feel free to make whatever comments you think are appropriate for an adult discussion.
Bye for now.
Very lucid, Arfur; thank you for the precis.
========
Arfur – first, I think I’m the one who linked to the graph made by somebody at skeptical science from data from the Church et al (2011) paper, not Robert.
I said I do not know if it proves there was warming in the pipeline.
The first usage on Google Scholar I found of the phrase “warming in the pipeline” was in 1989, and I’m pretty sure it predates that. The graph indicates the earth has stored a great deal of energy since then, and great deal since 1998.
Can natural variation do that? I do not think so.
Imo, HadCrut3 is pretty much a total waste of time. I do not think it measures the surface temperature of a planet called earth. So yes, on the regions of the earth covered by HadCrut3 no year since 1998 has exceeded 1998. Since 2005 and 2010 clearly exceeded 1998 on planet earth, HadCrut3 is…
Do I think Max is a moron for not thinking there is warming in the pipeline? I think he’s very wrong.
I’ve read your various debates on blogs. You win. Nonetheless, the earth will continue to warm significantly because of man’s emissions of GHG.
Robert,
Your attempts to provide evidence from warmist blogs and WoodForTrees Kung fu is pathetic.
To talk about the 1998 meme, here’s how Pat Michaels himself likes that meme:
> Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all… If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/15396965101
Let us note the us all. Would that be a team?
Go team!
Just to prove I have kept my word and revisited this thread after my time away…
Kim Very lucid, Arfur; thank you for the precis.
Thank you, Kim. Coming from you, who I very much respect, I consider your words high praise indeed:)
JCH I’ve read your various debates on blogs. You win. Nonetheless, the earth will continue to warm significantly because of man’s emissions of GHG.
That sentiment, JCH, is a triumph of faith over rationality:) But thanks for your input.
Regards,
Arfur
ps, It was definitely Robert’s skepticalscience link to which I was referring, not yours:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/12/philosophical-reflections-on-climate-model-projections/#comment-229020
Arty, there are so many lies and logical fallacies in your screed, one hardly knows where to begin.
It’s helpful that you admit looking at the evidence for warming in the pipeline, but were unable to understand it. Makes things much simpler.
I particularly enjoyed your admission that you went to Skeptical Science, but were only able to look at the pretty picture (“Robert did produce a graph”), and completely ignored the article and the list of works cited. Unless you are literally illiterate and dictating these screeds, I’m afraid you’ve indicted and convicted yourself of gross stupidity.
You continue to reiterate your resentment of the scientifically literate, and declare you will ignore any evidence provided by the scientific literate. Unfortunately, I am scientifically literate, and so it is hard to see what point further discussion serves. Since you have not once but twice stormed out of the discussion declaring it served no useful purpose, and despite multiple attempts have totally failed to produce anything resembling a rational argument, I hereby invoke the mercy rule: you lose. But thanks for playing! :)
Robert,
[“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are
the easiest person to fool.”] Richard Feynman
I wish you all the best, wherever your path takes you.
Arfur
Robert you write “Warming since 1980: 0.6C”
I know I am wasting my timne asking this question, as you are clearly never going to answer it. But it needs asking. How do you prove that the 0.8 C warmimg since 1980 was caused by the additoinal CO2 in the atmopshere?
It’s not all CO2. Some of it is land use changes, black carbon, methane, or other greenhouse gases.
“How do you prove that the 0.8 C warmimg since 1980 was caused by the additoinal CO2 in the atmopshere?”
Attribution studies. What have you read so far?
Robert you write “Attribution studies. What have you read so far?”
How about a peer reviewed reference that I can read?
“Some of it is land use changes.” Your global attribution studies appear to indicate that land use change have had a cooling impact. Regional studies tend to indicate land use change has a warming impact.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/06/siberia-burns.html
Happy to send you some links.
Just to be clear: you’re saying you know nothing about the science of attribution, have read nothing at all about it.
Is that correct?
Robert, you write “Happy to send you some links.
Just to be clear: you’re saying you know nothing about the science of attribution, have read nothing at all about it.
Is that correct?”
Let me be clear. What I want is a peer reviewed reference that proves that the 0.8 C rise in temperature was definitively caused by the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. That is all. I am not in the least bit interested in the science of attribution. I dont have time for irrelevances.
“I am not in the least bit interested in the science of attribution.”
That’s honest, at least. But if you’re not interested in science, I can’t help you. Try a church. :)
If you develop an interest in science, I’d be happy to start you on your way. ;)
Robert, you write “That’s honest, at least. But if you’re not interested in science, I can’t help you. ”
Of course I am interested in science. I want to get to the bottom of why you claim that all the rise of 0.8 C from 1980 was caused by the additional CO2. You refuse to provide a peer review reference that shows your claim to be correct. When I have seen the peer reviewed paper that does just that, then I will believe it is correct. Until them I have an expression for your claim. It is complete and utter scientific garbage. There is absolutely no science whatsoever to support the contention that all the warming you note was caused by the additional CO2. Period.
Jim, you just said you weren’t interested in the science. It may be the first honest thing you’ve said here.
Demanding proof, but rejecting science, leaves you with a Catch-22. The proof is scientific in nature.
Robert, you write “Jim, you just said you weren’t interested in the science”
As usual, when a proponent of CAGW loses the argument, he reverts to a personal attack, and neglects the science. You are putting words in my mouth. Of course I am interested in science. I am not interested in irrelevant science. When I ask how you prove that the 0.8 C rise since 1980 is all caused ny additional CO2, I do not consider an answer of “Attribution studies” a satisfactory response. I expect to be told HOW “attribution studies” prove that all the warmign was caused by CO2.
I know that no true believer in the religion of CAGW is ever going to actually admit that they were wrong. I have learned all I am going to from this exchange, and that is all I am interested in.
You have no science to show that all the warming you claimed was due to CO2. Period.
“As usual, when a proponent of CAGW loses the argument, he reverts to a personal attack,”
Jim, quoting you is not a personal attack. You said you weren’t interested in the science. Now you’re desperately trying to backtrack. If anything, you’ve insulted yourself.
What climate deniers are losing the argument, that like to trot out their fake theory of “CAGW,” which they invented when the failure of their attack on plain old AGW got too embarrassing.
“There is absolutely no science whatsoever to support the contention that all the warming you note was caused by the additional CO2.”
Now you’ve made a positive claim (an incorrect claim, but still . . . progress!)
Now all you have to do is support that extraordinary claim with some extraordinary evidence. Remember to show your work (cite and link!)
Robert, you write “Now you’ve made a positive claim (an incorrect claim, but still . . . progress!)”
I have NOT made a positive claim. I have made a NEGATIVE claim. It is inpossible to ever prove a negative claim. I cannot prove that there is no science to support your POSITIVE claim. In scientific circles, which you seem to be unfamiliar with, it is normal when you make a claim to provide the reference to support that claim. This you have studiously refused to do, despite my many attempts to, politley, request a peer reviewed reference to prove that all the 0.8 C rise was due to additonal CO2. This reference does not exist. Now, of course, I cannot prove this either. It is another negative claim. But you couild very eaasily prove me to be wrong. But you will not, because no such refeerence exists.
“I have NOT made a positive claim. I have made a NEGATIVE claim. It is inpossible to ever prove a negative claim.”
So you’re saying your argument is impossible to prove?
Sucks to be you, I guess.
Still waiting for your argument in support of this assertion:
“There is absolutely no science whatsoever to support the contention that all the warming you note was caused by the additional CO2.”
Citation needed. Show your work!
Because you made the claim. I didn’t. You claimed that:
“There is absolutely no science whatsoever to support the contention that all the warming you note was caused by the additional CO2.”
Prove your claim. I made no such claim. I offered to link you to some attribution studies, but you weren’t interested in the science. None of that constitutes a claim on my part. You made a truth claim. Prove your claim.
Sorry, Robert. You accuse me of not being scientific. If you dont understand the simple truth that it is impossible to prove a negative claim, then it is impossible to discuss anything scientific with you.
“If you dont understand the simple truth that it is impossible to prove a negative claim, ”
So you made a claim. You admit can’t prove it (and don’t want to try). You knew you couldn’t present any evidence for it when you made the claim.
So you’re both A) On the losing end of the argument, and B) By your own admission dishonest.
Are you done digging yourself in deeper, or would you like to keep going? :)
JIm Cripwell,
[“You have no science to show that all the warming you claimed was due to CO2. Period.”]
Of course. All anyone can say is that an unknown (and currently unknowable) portion of the 0.8C rise may or may not be due to CO2 increase.
Robert can’t give you an answer because then he would have to explain what caused the similar warming between 1910 and 1945. Then he would have to explain why that warming stopped and why the later warming has stopped since 1998 without invoking specious arguments about pipelines…
Regards,
That’s certainly all the scientifically ignorant can say.
Of course, to the scientifically ignorant lots of things are “unknowable.”
If you are claiming that people who know the science can’t say more than this, I wonder what evidence you have for that claim. It seems quite dubious. Why do you think your personal ignorance is a general state of affairs?
Citations and links, please.
Robert, you write “So you made a claim. You admit can’t prove it (and don’t want to try). You knew you couldn’t present any evidence for it when you made the claim.”
For once, you are absolutely correct. I knew when I made the claim that it could not be proven. That is the nature of negative claims. I made the cliam to show the difference between us. You made a POSITIVE claim, which can be proven. You have provided no proof for your positive claim. All I was trying to do was to demonstrate the difference between us. And you assiduously refuse to prove a reference to support your positive claim.
But I didn’t make a positive claim, so your argument fails apart.
You’ve admitted you made an assertion knowing you were unable to support it with evidence — that’s dishonest.
Your argument fails, and your integrity meter is reading zero.
And I suppose that’s where we’ll leave it.
Robert,
Asking me to prove that fairies don’t exist doesn’t excuse you from having to prove they do.
If you have some real evidence to suggest that the cause of the warming is additional CO2, please provide it.
Jim Cripwell
I read how you are painstakingly trying to get Robert to cite you some specific studies, which demonstrate based on empirical scientific evidence that most of the 0.6 degC warming he claims has occurred since 1980 is caused by CO2.
Your efforts are in vain. Robert sidesteps the issue with fancy footwork and hot air.
Robert cannot cite these studies quite simply because they do not exist.
Max
Robert, you write “But I didn’t make a positive claim,”
Garbage. What you wrote was
‘Warming since 1980: 0.6C
Change in CO2 forcing since 1980: 5.35 * ln(392/340) = 0.75 W/m^2
(+0.6C) * (3.7/0.75) = 2.96 C/doubling
Wow, I just used your own unrealistic assumptions to derive a climate sensitivity of 3C. Perhaps you need more practice working through the logical consequences of your own arguments . . . maybe some training in logic . . . perhaps a philosophy class”
If that is not a positive claim that all the warming of 0.8 C was caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, then would you mind explaining to me why it is not a positive claim. Maybe my science is not so hot, but if you are claiming that you do not assume that all the warming is caused by CO2, then you are not being honest.
Max, you write “Your efforts are in vain. Robert sidesteps the issue with fancy footwork and hot air.“
Thanks Max. I know that. But Robert has been very rude to me in the past, and it is fun pulling his chain, and seeing him squirm trying to explain the unexplainable.
He is making a wonderful ass of himself, and I am thoroughly enjoying it.
The difference being that you’re the one claiming fairies exist — magical energy-eating fairies.
But you won’t step up and make an argument.
Why do you believe in energy-eating fairies?
“But Robert has been very rude to me in the past, and it is fun pulling his chain . . .”
Poor little Jimmy! This is his excuse for getting whipped in the argument:
“I wasn’t really trying to win, I just wanted to waste Robert’s time.”
Nice excuse for losing, Jimmy!
Unfortunately to get there you had to admit you weren’t interested in the science and didn’t want to know about it. That’s going to come up again, I would think . . .
Doctor, Doctor, give me the news.
Got a sad case of believin’ youse.
===================
“Raypierre,
You wrote that, after an unforced change in climate state, there is
“a tendency for the state to relax back to an equilibrium with a certain time constant. What’s more, that time constant is proportional to the climate sensitivity”
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/07/there-are-no-steps-it-is-constant.html
Non-systems are complicated.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/07/strangely-attractive.html
“We know from solar studies that solar activity during the 20th century reach a highest level in several thousand years (and is now on the decline).”
De Jager, Cornelis, and Silvia Duhau. “Sudden Transitions and Grand Variations in the Solar Dynamo, Past and Future.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate 2 (June 25, 2012): A07. http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/swsc/2012008&Itemid=129
Watts, Anthony. “Weak Solar Convection – Approximately 100 Times Slower Than Scientists Had Previously Projected.” Scientific. Watts Up With That?, July 9, 2012. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/
@Pooh, Dixie
There are many studies of solar activity from the 19th century to today. Here is a link to one:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
The study shows the average Wolf Number for solar cycles as follows:
SC 10-15 (1858-1928) was around 90
SC 18-23 (1945-2008) was around 148 (peaking in SC19 at 190)
(i.e. a 64% increase over the earlier 6 SCs)
Other studies have concluded that this solar activity was the highest in several thousand years and that roughly half of the past global warming can be attributed to it..
SC23 had already slowed down to 120 and current SC24 is starting off very inactive, but who knows what the future will hold?
The paper you cite by De Jager and Duhau does not expect that there will be another Grand (Maunder Type) Minimum (to throw us into another Little Ice Age), but that SC24 will have a maximum sunspot number of 62±12, IOW be a fairly inactive SC.
But it’s all speculation and I wouldn’t count on it.
Max
Max: I was too brief. The paper is contemporary, using a technique unavailable for most of our sunspot history. Also, it focuses on what is happening now — no history to it.
My understanding of this may be faulty, being a bear of little brain. Anyway, here goes. The poloidal component is mostly “vertical” to the sun’s direction of rotation. From the surface, it descends into the interior, picking up heat energy. It then ascends, where some of the energy can be radiated to earth. It stands to reason that the slower the poloidal motion, the less surface energy available for transfer/radiation.
Although it is true that the authors exclude a Maunder minimum, they do not address the possibility of a Dalton. Having expended reserve capacity on such things as ethanol, that would be bad enough.
If I have read the paper wrongly, I am open to correction. We live in interesting times.
This is an interesting concept w/r/t thinking about uncertainty.
It’s would also be interesting to see how some “skeptics” might apply this thinking to their certainty about other various issues, such as:
Certainty about the positive benefits of increased atmospheric CO2
Certainty about the economic impact of a carbon tax
Certainty about the impact of ACO2 emissions on the chemical properties of ocean water.
Certainty about the cost going into the future of alternative energy sources relative to fossil fuels (especially given the negative externalities in addition to climate impact of fossil fuel – particulates, environmental impact, socio-economic impact of keeping oil flowing, etc.)
Certainty about the impact of climategate (Judith gets a special call-out for that one).
Certainty about what drives public opinion on climate change
Certainty about the motivations of the AGW cabal
Certainty about whether Muller is a “skeptic.”
Certainty that the Earth is warming even though – apparently – they feel that the data recording that warming is unreliable.
Certainty about the universe being created by a supernatural being (Roy Spencer gets a special call-out on that one).
That should do for starters.
Certainty about the motivations of the AGW cabal
“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.” Nicholas Stern. Is there a vegetarian bacon?
Certainty about the universe being created by a supernatural being (Roy Spencer gets a special call-out on that one). A supernatural “being” is a product of uncertainty. If there were no uncertainty there would be zero possibility of a supernatural entity existing. To some, Microsoft Corp. is GOD.
Seems interesting, but I can’t quite follow your point.
Some “skeptics” are absolutely certain about the existence of a supernatural being (not sure why you have a problem with that word. I’m fine with entity – but it doesn’t accurately describe their beliefs).
So, I wonder how “skeptics” who, based on the philosophical tenets offered in the article Judith linked think that AGW theory is too uncertain to instill confidence, reach their level of certainty about the origin of the universe.
I would imagine that some aspect of their certainty about the origin of the universe is because they find other explanations too uncertain. Is that your point?
But that doesn’t explain why their acceptance of their particular explanation passes a test of skepticism, given the philosophical tenets of the linked article. Further, it doesn’t account for other factors influencing their belief such as faith, the underlying psychology of humans, cognitive biases, etc.
My point is that these philosophical considerations, like much in the climate debate cafeteria food fight, are applied selectively to confirm biases.
Along similar lines:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/the-perils-of-reason/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
“My point is that these philosophical considerations, like much in the climate debate cafeteria food fight, are applied selectively to confirm biases.”
Most intelligent people pick their battles carefully. “Never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table.” That is because both subjects require rationalization. To me there is not difference between Spencer rationalizing religion and BartR rationalizing revenue neutral carbon policy. Both fill a void created by uncertainty. Ideology is ideology.
The more relevant question, Cap’n, is whether you see any different between BartR rationalizing revenue neutral carbon policy and Spencer rationalizing the economic outcomes of carbon policy, or in rationalizing his skepticism about the impact of ACO2 on the climate.
Your question reveals much. Give it some thought. My question was whether or not some “skeptics” are selective in their application of the tenets of the philosophical considerations discussed in the article. If they are, why is that? Of course, the same question is applicable to “realists.” I would never, ever, question that.
The only difference I see between Spencer and BartR rationalizing carbon policy is that Spencer tends to have a little bit more realistic grasp of the situation. That is likely due to my own biases I.e. I am more certain that land use – natural variability are larger factors than CO2 and that governments are wasteful when they try to usurp markets.
Joshua | August 13, 2012 at 10:22 am |
There’s a difference between rationality and rationalization.
Also, you overlook some nuance. In mathematics, there’s such a thing as mathematical certainty. We can be absolutely certain 7×13=28.
Bart –
I hope you realize I was only accepting Cap’n’s use of you as an example for the sake of argument.
In reality, as opposed to “skeptics,” you would never rationalize anything and all your opinions are completely rational.
Joshua | August 13, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
Uh.. there’s a difference between ‘utterly detached from reality’ and ‘cites Abbot & Costello on Mathematics’.
I readily recognize that to many, my arguments may always, mostly, or sometimes sound like rationalizations. They certainly sound that way to me, but then I’m rabidly hostile to my own opinion. And opinion in general. Though I recognize my fellows’ right to hold opinion, I hope it differs from my own. I know where mine have been.
A revenue neutral (to government, on first order) Carbon Cycle fee and dividend system is, however, not the rationalization. It’s the conclusion of a set of inferences and reasonable conclusions from the data available and the principles of Market Capitalism.
The rationalizations I put forward within the proposal are along the lines of, ‘why should I set a price, when the Law of Supply and Demand will do it for us all?’
That’s a bit of mental laziness on my part. Were I willing to undertake the research, and reconstruct some now long-forgotten upper year Managerial Economics coursework, I could estimate the prices of the fees one would expect the Market to set. I suspect as a ballpark the average US citizen with a paycheck would gross on the order of $200 per paycheck from Carbon Cycle fees. 70% of the dividend recipients would come out ahead by somewhere between $10 and the full $200 per paycheck as the costs of Carbon Cycle fees make their way through the Market.
Think about the impact on the USA of every wage earner’s taxable income going up $200? Or of the relative growth in the US Economy of GDP when the price of the Carbon Cycle is figured in? Those aren’t rationalizations. Those are hard Economic possibilities. Am I certain of them? I’m above 95% certain this is how things would come about, given the experience of two dozen other sovereign systems implementing some variation on carbon taxes, at least two endeavoring to be partially revenue-neutral, and moreover the experience of every other form of privatization of Commons in history, from Cell Phone Bandwidth on back.
The rationalization is when I don’t go into those details, or do the work, on the lazy excuse that this stuff is pretty obvious, and only a thick dimwit would need to be led by the hand to understanding because the average person ought see it right off. See the difference between (ir)rational and rationalization? ;)
Now, the ideology of Market Capitalism, that I agree with you about, somewhat. Except of course for the nuance that many claim the banner, from literal bullionists like Ron Paul, to neobullionists for whom the glitter and spark of burning fossils is as good as gold, to mercantilists and other corporate charity chasers who expect government to hand them everything in exchange for providing a trough for unelectable politicians to sidle up to between campaigns.
Bart –
I think this is one of those occasions where sarcasm didn’t translate over the internet.
That wasn’t supposed to be your voice, it was supposed to be mine, or a stereotypical “realist” argument, or actually the structure of most blog posts.
I wasn’t saying that you rationalize your rationalizations. I was mocking myself, really (it’s a Jewish thing) – to suggest that I could never admit that someone on “my side” (whatever the F that means) would engage in the behaviors I was identifying in “skeptics.”
I was serious about going with your “rationalizations” just for the sake of argument.
For me, the starting point for evaluating the revenue neutrality of a carbon tax needs to begin with a comprehensive evaluation of the negative exernalities of fossil fuel. If we eliminated those externalities, there would be a lot of room for economic loss over gain before we’d hit a point of neutrality. At that point, then I think that your argument does, indeed, kick in. Who really knows what an honest market price would be? The “concerns” about government interference in the market in the form of a carbon tax ignores the reality that the government has already shaped the market.
And we see similarly blind arguments about “spending” on public education or transportation, when the returns when viewed comprehensively (fewer people in jail, economic stimulation from transportation hubs, decrease commute times, fewer people on welfare, etc.) are better than we’d ever get in the market unless we were CFOs leveraging our assets 40-1 to buy bad debt and pass if off on someone else.
We can be absolutely certain 7×13=28.
Sorry, this is the integers mod 62 club. You’re looking for integers mod 63, next door on your right. :)
Joshua | August 14, 2012 at 1:40 am |
Sometimes I miss irony. Sometimes I miss it on purpose; this may just be a rationalization. ;)
I’m not a believer myself, but it seems like bringing belief in god into the conversation is a stretch. Most agree that it requires an act of faith, that it is a belief and not proven that god exists. Therefore it is outside the realm of science and not relevant to this conversation.
Bill –
I agree with you, but in fact, “most” people disagree with you. “Most” people consider the existence of a creator as proven. Personally, I view it is a product or logical thought – but with one particular starting condition (that the bible is infallable, that a creator must exist, that a creator has spoken to them directly, that they have seen evidence of a guiding hand in their life, etc.).
Two additional, related, points:
The first point is that if you read what Spencer says, he doesn’t agree with the dichotomy you are creating. He says that his opinions about the creation of the universe are based on scientific reasoning processes. Our much beloved denizen. David W., says that anyone who thinks that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory doesn’t know anything about science.
The second point is that I think that you are creating a false dichotomy between science and faith. The product of human cognition is not so cleanly differentiated.
Actually, Dr. Skeptical Gates had a good example of rationalization a while back. He linked to a study that indicated that charred hamburger consumption is linked to cancer. Charring or caramelizing is the more relevant link to cancer. Heat in general causes changes that can lead to cancer. Hot tea is carcinogenic. Hot herbal tea can be just as carcinogenic as passive smoke. Hamburger though appears to hold a special place of bias in Dr. Gates rationalization process.
Only Gates does this?
Or is there some reason that his rationalization sticks out in your mind?
Joshua, everyone does it :) It is whether they realizing they do or not than matters.
I met Bruce Ames back in 84-5. He was telling us how he developed the ‘Ames’ Test for mutagens and potential carcinogens.
I asked the question, he must have been asked 1,000 times before:
Me: What is the most mutagenic thing you have found.
Bruce: Chinese herb tea.
Ames is an example of a scientist completely changing his view. In the 70’s many people speculated that man-made chemicals were more likely to be muta/carcenogens than natural compounds; as we had evolved with the latter and not the former.
When Ames discovered that many ‘natural’ compounds were mutagens, he completely changed his view on mans place in ‘nature’ and the origins of cancer.
Doc said, “Me: What is the most mutagenic thing you have found.
Bruce: Chinese herb tea.”
Yep, and Chinese green tea supposedly triggers a hormetic response, at least in Asian genetics. A Caucasian health nut drinking copious amount of hot green tea would not likely enjoy that effect. Damn non-linearity relationships are a certainly a challenge for a linear no threshold society…
OT.. but you might like him
Nice. I like the concept of mixing non-legacy solutions with social capital. I
It reminds me of managers who fail to realize that the “power” in their company is in their employees. They try to squeeze them as hard as they can to extract as much power out of their employees as possible, thereby debilitating and enervating their most generative resource. Instead, they should be providing nutrients to that resource because if you think things through without over-complicating them, you see that with a little bit of sunlight and water, your employees can very efficiently output huge amounts of energy.
Such a simple and obvious reality, but for some reason people have such a hard time seeing it.
The same obstacle applies – the legacy of wrongful thinking.
Thanks for the clip.
No sweat Joshua. The first time I saw his manufacturing curve was years ago when I worked in aerospace so that part of it appealed to my experience.
during 800 k years of ice core data, there were major warming that were relatively short and major ice ages that last about 100 k years. During the last major warming, the ball game changed and since then we have had smaller warming, like the medieval warm period and the current warm period and smaller cooling, like the little ice age. There is nothing in modern data that exceeds the max or min bounds of the past ten thousand years and modern data is not headed toward getting outside the bounds of the past ten thousand years. The largest probability is that the next ten thousand years will follow the pattern of the last ten thousand years inside the same bounds. The only thing that says we have a problem is the Models and they have not been right so far. The past 15 years have not warmed as the Models predicted.
@HAP: The past 15 years have not warmed as the Models predicted.
Now that we have Muller’s BEST climate data we can check your claim, HAP. The
BEST data for 1970-2010 shows not the slightest abatement of global warming during 1995-2010. Where is your data contradicting this?
Climate skeptics keep repeating the mantra that the world is cooling in the hope that mere repetition will cause it to happen. Lots of luck with that. :)
Vaughan Pratt
BEST data are for land only.
“The world” (as you put it) includes the sea.
The “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature (HadCRUT3, for example) has NOT warmed since mid 1997, i.e. over the past 15 years.
Max
Gosh, and I’d just upgraded to HADCRUT4. I’ll have to switch back to HADCRUT3 to keep you guys happy.
The only other alternative I could think of was NASA GISTEMP but that didn’t pan out any better than HADCRUT4. Ok, so HADCRUT3 it is, Max.
But isn’t this all moot given that the Santer minimum for avoiding cherry-picking is 17 years, not 15?
(Oops, sorry about that GISTEMP data, it should have been this GISTEMP plot. My bad.)
minimum for avoiding cherry-picking is 17 years, not 15
That works for me. keep a link to this around for a couple more years. If we both live long enough, we can revisit this every 5 years or so. Or, every year.
I’m all for that, HAP. Every year is fine by me.
Vaughan, the lack of a trend in water vapor would seem to contradict warming since 1995 unless there is a reason why I shouldn’t be able to use water vapor as a proxy for temperature?
@steven: unless there is a reason why I shouldn’t be able to use water vapor as a proxy for temperature
Certainly if temperature wasn’t available I’d look for proxies for it, while acknowledging that a proxy is rarely as good as the real thing.
Are you talking about a situation where the temperature itself is not available? If not then I don’t understand the point of substituting a proxy, unless it’s to exploit a difference between the proxy and the real thing, in which case there’s your reason right there.
steven is bat crazy. If the ocean did change by 1C then with a heat of vaporization of around 0.4 eV, the partial pressure of H20 would only change 5%. Since 1995, the change is even less. How measurable is that? If the oceans change by 3C, then the humidity would rise by closer to 20%. This is the positive feedback effect that climate scientists are worried about.
Differential CO2 levels are actually a better proxy for ocean temperature variability:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/isolate:60/derivative/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1960/mean:12/isolate:60
This is also a positive feedback,
Do the same plot for water vapor and you will see a similar correlation I bet.
Vaughan, you toss out a land only series comprised of data that may be contaminated by UHIs, land use, and boundary layer turbulence and refer to that as “the real thing”? You asked for data that would support no warming. I gave you a series that would. What you decide to do with it, like ignore it since it doesn’t fit what you have decided is true, is none of my concern.
You asked for data that would support no warming. I gave you a series that would.
You did? Then I have four questions.
1. When did you give me a series, and where can I find it?
2. What trend did this series show for 1970-1995?
3. What trend did it show for 1995-2012?
4. In the case of temperature, 15 years is not quite long enough to obtain stable values for estimated trends. Is water vapor better or worse than temperature in that regard?
Without 1 there is no data to work with.
Without 2 there is no way of interpreting 3. (If there was no change during 1970-1995 then what bearing does your answer to 3 have on warming.)
Without 3 there is no way of evaluating your claim of no change in water vapor during that period.
Without 4 there is no way to evaluate your claim that water vapor is preferable to temperature for deciding whether warming has occurred.
Vaughan, the IPCC states there should be a 7% increase in water vapor per 1 C increase in temperature. The coverage prior to satellite measurements would not have been global so even if they didn’t show a trend, and I believe at least the majority if not all studies did show an increasing trend, they would have been disregarded as not being global because without a correlation between water vapor and temperature we would be spending all our time arguing over ocean acidification instead of the meager amount of warming that CO2 could cause without an increase in water vapor. I still have no reason to fall back on prior time periods because the only options are the satellite measurements are wrong, the temperature measurements are wrong, or the models are so far out in left field we can ignore them completely.
Here is the series
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/new-paper-weather-and-climate-analyses-using-improved-global-water-vapor-observations-by-vonder-haar-et-al-2012/
Since I made no claim for 1970 to 1995 I don’t see where that matters to my argument. Perhaps you have an argument it matters for in which case you should state it and provide your supporting material.
It showed no trend for 1995 to 2010.
You say 15 years is not long enough to determine trends for temperature yet this paper states it is long enough to falsify models at the 95% should there be no warming.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/j/global_temperatures_09.pdf
I don’t know if water vapor would require more time or not. Preferable or not will only be known when we know which is closer to the truth, water vapor or land temperatures. I don’t know which one is closer but you seem to. I just don’t know why you know. How do you know?
The ocean has increased about 0.3 C since 1989, according to HADSST3.
If water vapor has an activation energy or heat of vaporization of 0.42 eV, then an increase of 0.3C will raise the partial pressure of water vapor by about 1.6%.
So 1.6% of the partial pressure they show in Torr (or mm Hg) is 0.016 of ~25 mm or 0.4 mm. The question is whether one can detect that small a change when the seasonal fluctuations show noise and can go +/- 2 mm. The water vapor readings have certainly gone up. If it went up too much, I wouldn’t be able to explain it from the thermodynamic properties of water vapor.
Wolfram Alpha equation of vapor pressure activation
Does everyone understand this? This is essentially a homework exercise.
Are you asking me a question Web? If so I would state that AR4 claimed a 0.4mm +/- 0.09mm accuracy. I assume our ability to measure has not degraded since then.
So the uncertainty is about the same delta change expected from outgassing.
The pieces fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and any one piece can’t deviate too much or something is very wrong. Just have to wait it out.
@steven: Since I made no claim for 1970 to 1995 I don’t see where that matters to my argument. Perhaps you have an argument it matters for in which case you should state it and provide your supporting material.
I already gave my argument in the paragraph “Without 2” above. Putting it another way, if B doesn’t change when A does, B would be a terrible proxy for A. If water vapor changes only a little when temperature changes a lot, and you have no way of defining what “a little” means, no calibration in other words, then it’s a completely useless proxy for temperature. An uncalibrated instrument can’t be relied on.
Granted the series in the Pielke page does not show an obvious trend between 1989 and 2009. But so what? Had it shown a strong upward trend for the preceding 20 years then we could look at the whole 40 years and declare that water vapor had slowed down (though that would still leave open the question of whether it was an adequate proxy for temperature).
If on the other hand the previous 20 years were just as flat then the series would have told us nothing.
@steven: You say 15 years is not long enough to determine trends for temperature yet this paper states it is long enough to falsify models at the 95% should there be no warming.
I agree with the paper. Moreover, 18 months before Santer et al offered 17 years as a lower bound for trends, I calculated on a different climate blog on Feb. 19, 2010 (well before Climate Etc. began) that 15 years is necessary to determine a trend. This calculation was based on a detailed analysis of 3120 windows of widths between 5 and 17 years within the period January 1979 to December 2009. So I’m not at all opposed to the 15 year figure.
What I wrote here was “15 years is not quite long enough to obtain stable values for estimated trends” (emphasis added). Without the stability requirement I’m comfortable with 15 years as I calculated 30 months ago. The 95% confidence level means one mistake in every 20 judgments, which I wouldn’t exactly call “stable.” With the stability requirement I’d lean towards Santer’s 17 years.
Vaughan, you Say: Climate skeptics keep repeating the mantra that the world is cooling in the hope that mere repetition will cause it to happen. Lots of luck with that.
Thanks! Earth is providing the data and the data is on our side!
Pay real close attention during the cold part of 2012-2013 to the massive snow and cold that will occur because the oceans are warm and the Arctic is open.
Pay real close attention during the cold part of 2012-2013 to the massive snow and cold that will occur because the oceans are warm and the Arctic is open.
One year? You’re kidding. The only thing I pay attention to is the temperature difference between years that are 15 years apart or more. Less than that is statistically meaningless because the fluctuations drown out the small drift over shorter periods.
EARTHWEEK, in the Houston Chronicle, Sunday, August 12, 2012, “Climate changes heat” quotes Hansen: “severe droughts in Texas last year were caused by our greenhouse gas emissions.”
There is nothing unprecedented about the modern drought in Texas.
Look at the actual data. What is likely to happen in Texas is bounded by what has happened in Texas and worse droughts have happened and can happen again with or without manmade CO2.
Here is some peer reviewed information about drought in Texas that says there were droughts before 1930 and 1950 and 2011 that were worse.
http://journals.tdl.org/twj
http://journals.tdl.org/twj/issue/view/199
http://journals.tdl.org/twj/article/view/2049
This next link is the PDF
http://journals.tdl.org/twj/article/view/2049/5840
Texas Water Resources Institute
Texas Water Journal
Volume 2, Number 1, Pages 54–96, December 2011
Extended Chronology of Drought in Texas
By the way, the Texas Water Journal is peer reviewed.
Psychology of Intelligence Analysis
Richards J. Heuer, Jr.
This book is easy to understand and uses straight forward examples which a layman/woman can understand. It really helps the individual to analyse his or her own thought processes. It is available for download from the CIA’s website for free, though it would be well worth paying for if it were in the shops!
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/index.html
There are intriguingly simple chapter titles including:
Chapter 1: Thinking About Thinking
Chapter 2: Perception: Why Can’t We See What Is There to Be Seen?
Chapter 4: Strategies for Analytical Judgment: Transcending the Limits of Incomplete Information
Chapter 5: Do You Really Need More Information?
Chapter 6: Keeping an Open Mind
Chapter 8: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses
Chapter 9: What Are Cognitive Biases?
Chapter 10: Biases in Evaluation of Evidence
Chapter 11: Biases in Perception of Cause and Effect
Chapter 12: Biases in Estimating Probabilities
Chapter 13: Hindsight Biases in Evaluation of Intelligence Reporting
Dr Curry,
Something seems wrong with the fact that your inital post is ‘Philosophical’, but you are going to moderate for ‘Technical’.
I know we live is confused times, but this is rather blatant.
Andrew
We have just this problem in our own philosophy department at Stanford. There is an ongoing split between the fuzzies and the technicals. So far it hasn’t gotten to the point reached by our anthropology department over a decade ago, fingers crossed.
Hi Dr. Pratt
Nice to see you back. When I was at university (electronic engineering) two year philosophy course (classic & modern) was compulsory. It was taught by certain Dr. Hann (ex German?!), no fuzziness was tolerated.
Something wrong with just calculating the percentage error?
There is a delightful book that deals with models gone wrong titled “Structures: Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down” by JE Gordon, an engineer. It has many examples of things which failed or did not work even though they were derived from models that showed that thy should be stable structures or function well. Models are not reality, that is why they are called models; no amount of statistics or computer power or statistical manipulation can obviate the need for verification in real time and real life. I recommend that JE Gordon’s book be read by all who work with models including climatologists. It is a good antidote to human hubris.
The flip side is when you have a simple model that is faithful to reality. Your ability to predict what will happen rises dramatically.
Vaughan
And when models are shown that can accurately forecast the weather 1, 2, or more years into the future it will be easier to not be skeptical about claims that someone KNOWS what is happening in the system
WARNING: SCIENCE CONTENT
Rob, consider a cup of coffee with a temperature of 160 degrees, in a climate controlled room which is maintained at 70 degrees.
The temperature of the coffee in five minutes turns out to be a non-trivial problem involving fluid dynamics. The equations are non linear and are fairly difficult.
The temperature of the coffee in 24 hours, however, is easy to calculate: 70 degrees.
Moral: predicting short-term fluctuations is different from predicting long-term trends. Predicting the equilibrium state can be quite a bit easier than predicting the short-term fluctuations.
Robert
It would not be difficult to calculate what the temperature of the coffee in the cups will be if one understands the volume of coffee, the mass of the cups, the size of the opening exposed to the air and the material that the cups were constructed from. That is science and we could easily test our model to validate the accuracy of our cooling forecast.
Robert- The earth is a complex system, why should people do what you think makes sense, when you acknowledge that you do not understand the key attributes of the system.
You do not know how much CO2 is causing the system to warm, but fear it will be harmful.
You can provide no reliable evidence to demonstrate that a warmer world will be worse for humanity overall, or for the USA specifically, but you want people to suffer by paying higher taxes because of your fears.
You do not know how much emissions will be reduced due to the taxes you wish to impose.
You cannot even determine what will happen to the feared conditions as a byproduct of imposing the higher taxes you support.
Will the conditions you fear be avoided or lessened if we impose the taxes you advocate? You don’t know! All Robert does know is that he has fears and that we should do what he thinks makes sense.
Actually, it’s not that simple at all. Initially the top of the cup, exposed to the air, will cool faster than the coffee in the interior. This creates a temperature gradient. The rate of cooling at that point depends upon the mixing of the layers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_mixing.
You’re confused; I acknowledge that you do not understand key attributes of the system. This is to be expected, as you’re not a scientist and haven’t learned the science.
I can’t pick next week’s lotto numbers. It doesn’t mean I don’t know how the lottery works. :)
Robert
You are wrong regarding the temperature gradients impacting the temperature of the cup of coffee during cooling. The effect would be very, very minor and if they developed at all they would redistribute quickly in something the size of a cup. You are no engineer or scientist.
Robert compares the lottery to the climate. You can’t predict the lottery tomorrow and you can’t predict with any accuracy how much more CO2 will warm the planet or if that is really a bad thing, but you do advocate that CO2 emissions need to be taxed.
@Rob Starkey: You are wrong regarding the temperature gradients impacting the temperature of the cup of coffee during cooling. The effect would be very, very minor and if they developed at all they would redistribute quickly in something the size of a cup. You are no engineer or scientist.
Spoken like a true theoretician, Rob. :)
Since these trivial heat distribution problems present no challenge to you, you should have no trouble predicting the outcome of the experiment pictured here. This photo (whose EXIF info shows it was taken this evening at 10:56 pm Pacific Daylight Time) shows a glass pitcher about 10 cm diameter filled with water to a depth of 20 cm, initially at 25 C, into which has been inserted a thermometer and 300 watt immersion heater, which you can buy for less than $8 if you want to do the experiment yourself.
The boiling just barely apparent in the photo started 8 minutes after turning on the heater at 10:45 pm (the photo was taken 3 minutes after boiling commenced).
At 11:10 pm, 25 minutes after turning it on, I read the thermometer. According to your understanding of these things,
1. Would you expect the thermometer to have registered more or less than 30 degrees C when I read it?
2. 10 minutes later (i.e. 11:20 pm, 35 minutes after turning it on), would you expect the thermometer to have risen more or less than 50 degrees C during those 10 minutes?
Your portfolio manager produces outcomes that are better than random?
Of course not. My concern with DLH would be that they were worse than random.
@Rob Starkey: And when models are shown that can accurately forecast the weather 1, 2, or more years into the future it will be easier to not be skeptical about claims that someone KNOWS what is happening in the system
This is an impossible condition.
1. No matter when you raise it, we will not know what the future holds at the time you raise it.
2. Even ten years is impossible to forecast, let alone 1 or 2, it is too short a time period to obtain stable values. Models that can forecast 20 years into the future on the other hand are more feasible.
(This may seem counterintuitive until you consider that we can’t reliably forecast whether next Thursday will be hotter or colder than today. However we can pretty reliably forecast that next February will be colder (or hotter in the case of the Southern Hemisphere) than this month.)
@Vaughan Pratt: “… we can pretty reliably forecast that next February will be colder …”
The reason we can do this reliably is because year after year we, and our ancestors, have experienced colder weather in February as compared to August. We are confident in our prediction because odds are good next year will follow the same pattern that we have seen in the previous thousand years.
Our confidence in this prediction doesn’t come from an untested hypothesis springing from our imagination.
Your analogy sucks.
There is nothing “untested” about my claim. It is an undeniable fact, based not on hypothesis but on direct observation, that for the period 1970-now, trends in periods shorter than a decade fluctuate up and down at random while every trend in periods longer than 15 years points upwards. (The Santer et al paper proposes 17 years for a more robust outcome but the idea is essentially the same.)
Climate skeptics go LALALALA when confronted with this data. They refuse to accept it and cry “untested hypothesis.” It is no such thing. Anyone who doubts this is invited to submit the results of their own investigation demonstrating otherwise.
So far no skeptic has ever done this, they simply refuse to accept this easily demonstrated fact. This is pure antiscience.
LALALALA yourself. I don’t dispute your data, but I do dispute your calling it the equivalent of test results. In my opinion, all you have in the way of data right now is sparse circumstantial evidence supporting an untested hypothesis.
Look, between 1970 and now you have at most three independent data points showing 15-year upward trends. (I doubt you even have three.) So you have in effect seen a coin flipped three times and witnessed it come up heads three times in a row. Now you’re saying based on that result you have proven this is a two-headed coin.
I think you’re jumping to conclusions.
all you have in the way of data right now is sparse circumstantial evidence supporting an untested hypothesis.
Recall that my hypothesis was in response to Rob’s remark “when models are shown that can accurately forecast the weather 1, 2, or more years into the future it will be easier to not be skeptical.” My hypothesis was that although short periods like that were impossible to forecast, for the period 1970 onwards, significantly longer ones were.
Before we can test my hypothesis we need to formulate it more precisely. Let me claim that, starting in 1970, we can reliably predict each year that the annualized HADCRUT3 global land-sea temperature in 20 years time will be hotter than this year’s. You were ok with a forecast that in August of any year we (in the NH) could reliably predict that next February would be a colder month. Moreover your basis for your confidence was that we’d observed this many times in the past. You then claimed that 20 year forecasts of annual climate were an entirely different thing.
I don’t see much difference.
If we actually look at HADCRUT3 we find that in 1970, 1990 will be 0.320 C hotter.
Move on to 1971: 1991 will be 0.384 C hotter.
Checking every year from 1970 to 1991, the closest our hypothesis came to failing was in 1973 when 1993 was a mere 0.045 C hotter. The biggest difference was in 1978 when 1998 will be 0.590 C hotter. On average for that period, 20 years hence was 0.315 C hotter.
So we have a well-defined hypothesis, one that can be tested, and one that passed with flying colors, every bit as well as the hypothesis that next February will be colder than this August. (Maybe better for all I know: has there been a recent year in which the NH have an August colder than next February?)
Look, between 1970 and now you have at most three independent data points showing 15-year upward trends.
For the record I repeated the above for 15 years instead of 20. The closest my hypothesis came to failing was in 1981 when 1996 was only 0.029 C hotter. The average was 0.246 C hotter in 15 years time.
For the latter test, that’s 27 data points, 1970 to 1996 inclusive, not three. (22 points for 20 year forecasts.) I don’t know what you mean by “independent,” but is there any sense in which the annual temperature from year to year fails to be independent in a way that does not apply equally to the temperature in August from year to year?
If there’s a relevant difference from the hypothesis that February will be colder than August, I don’t see it.
So you have in effect seen a coin flipped three times and witnessed it come up heads three times in a row.
The way I see it, I flipped a coin 27 times and it came up heads 27 times in a row. Calculate the odds of that!
Vaughan
It is not impossible, it is simply not within our current capability today using the current approaches.
I won’t write that your forecasting approach is wrong. Let’s see how well you do over time. Will your approach be more accurate than Girma’s? Time will tell
@Rob Starkey: Let’s see how well you do over time.
Well, assuming say the 15-year forecast (which has a higher chance of throwing tails than the 20-year one), so far we’ve flipped heads 27 times in a row. I like the idea of continually flipping the coin year after year to see whether we ever flip tails. Based on the Laplace Law of Succession applied to the specified period, 1970 onwards, the odds of tails for next year are 1 in 29. And if it’s heads the odds of tails for the following year drop to 1 in 30.
Will your approach be more accurate than Girma’s? Time will tell.
The nice thing about my approach is that it lets you flip the coin annually to see if it keeps on coming up heads. Assuming temperature from year to year varies randomly instead of climbing steadily, which the temperature record bears out pretty well, next year’s flip of the coin should be independent of this year’s.
What exactly is “Girma’s method”? He keeps coming up with all sorts of arguments why global warming doesn’t exist, or isn’t serious, etc. And how do you define “accuracy” for the method you have in mind? I have yet to see even one statement from Girma that could be called “accurate.” Girma creates curve fits with WoodForTrees the way artists create paintings with Photoshop. He clearly has never encountered the concept of R2 in connection with his fits, which invariably have uselessly low R2 values, making them the antithesis of “accurate.”
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Whathappened.png
That might be interesting. It is a plot of all 15 year trends for HADSST2, GISS LOTI, GISS Land only, RSS NH and RSS SH. There have definitely been a lot of heads tosses. The problem with coin tosses though is there are only two options.
The problem with coin tosses though is there are only two options.
That doesn’t seem to have been a problem for computers. 27 bits corresponds to a numerical precision of 8 decimal places. That’s already more than 3 times the amount of data that the world’s largest quantum computer to date can represent, and at the present rate this ratio looks like it’s only going to increase.
@Vaughan Pratt | August 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
“I don’t know what you mean by “independent,” …”
By independent, I mean don’t count the same coin flip more than once. I believe your method counts the same coin flip many times more than once. Calculate the auto-correlation coefficient for a one-year time step on 15 years of temperature data. If you get a value quite different from “0”, then your two flips are correlated and you need a bigger time step to get an independent flip.
Vaughan Pratt
Re: “next year’s flip of the coin should be independent of this year’s.”
Ah, but next year’s weather isn’t independent of this year’s weather because of climate persistence, technically known as Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics. See Koutsoyiannis et al. at ITIA
e.g.,
Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in paleoclimate reconstructions Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in paleoclimate reconstructions, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2010, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 12, Vienna, EGU2010-14816, European Geosciences Union, 2010.
With persistence, the natural standard deviation evaluated using Hurst Kolmogorov dynamics is about double that of classical statistics. Thus Hansen’s 3 sigma turns out to be 1.5 sigma taking into account the full range of natural variations with persistence.
@DLH: next year’s weather isn’t independent of this year’s weather because of climate persistence
I don’t understand. Are you saying that the average temperature for next year is not independent of this year’s, yet the average temperature for this year’s August is independent of next year’s August? Is this because Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics applies to climate averaged over 12-month periods but not over one-month periods?
Recall that willb was fine with predictions of monthly weather six months into the future, with the tests being spaced 12 months apart (from one August to the next), but objected to predictions of annual weather made 15 years in advance, with the tests again being spaced 12 months apart (from one year to the next). We seem to have narrowed the difference down to that between monthly averages and annual averages, there being no other difference here.
Is this difference studied and/or explained in some article or book about Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics that you can refer us to?
You are replying to your own post with superstitious babble Pratt. If today’s weather was not even is some small way related to yesterday’s weather then a monkey throwing darts would be as good predicting future weather as any climatologist. While that is true, still, knowledge of the past does make for more accurate predictions of the future–at least among those who are not ideologically motivated to appreciate nothing more than their own preconceived notions about reality.
@Vaughan Pratt
If there is persistence in a time series, consecutive time steps won’t be independent. And there is all kinds of persistence in the year-to-year temperature record. The low-frequency patterns over time are plain to see without doing any rigorous statistical analysis. What you are doing with your year-by-year 15 year delta measurement is counting virtually the same data point over and over again. You see a head come up on the coin flip, you blink rapidly 15 times and then you say “Wow, 15 heads in a row! Amazing!”
Look at your example of August to February temperatures. What if you applied your technique on a day-by-day basis to predict the temperature six months into the future? Temperatures from one day to the next look somewhat random and unpredictable. So you compare Aug 1 to Feb 1, Aug 2 to Feb 2 and so on for 20 consecutive days. At the end of twenty days you say “Holy sh*t! It’s always colder than today if we wait six months! I have twenty data points! What are the odds of that! I confidently predict that it’s going to be colder than today in six months!” Alas, it is now Feb 20. In six months it will be August and you’re going to have egg on your face.
(Oops, should have come back here sooner, sorry.)
@willb: In six months it will be August and you’re going to have egg on your face.
But you were the one who accepted the August-to-February prediction while rejecting the y to y+15 year prediction. Now you’re arguing against what you previously accepted. How does that shoot down my y to y+15 year prediction?
(No need to apologize. It’s a blog.)
@Vaughan Pratt: “But you were the one who accepted the August-to-February prediction while rejecting the y to y+15 year prediction. Now you’re arguing against what you previously accepted. How does that shoot down my y to y+15 year prediction?”
What do you mean? I still accept the August-to-February prediction and I still think your 15-year prediction is nothing more than a wild guess. Why do you say I’m arguing otherwise?
Look, you made the rather bold statement that you could confidently predict temperatures 20 years into the future. You went on to support this prediction by applying some butchered statistical analysis. I’m simply trying to point out why your statistical analysis is crap.
To paraphrase Vaughan Pratt (August 19, 2012 at 2:08 pm above): You are going LALALALA when confronted with this and you refuse to accept it. This is pure anti-mathematics.
You went on to support this prediction by applying some butchered statistical analysis.
But your statistical analysis was just as butchered. In response to my “we can pretty reliably forecast that next February will be colder …” you said “The reason we can do this reliably is because year after year we, and our ancestors, have experienced colder weather in February as compared to August.”
The objection that 1970 and 1971 are not independent applies equally to one August and the next. The August-February example consists of examining the temperature difference T(m) − T(m+6) for a number of values of m corresponding to August. You argued thousands, but suppose I’m 30 years old and haven’t read the literature but have observed that this difference between August and February had been positive for every one of the 27 values I could remember. It seems to me that it would be reasonable to expect that next February would be colder than this August on the basis of those 27 values. In fact an extreme skeptic would only trust the evidence of his own eyes. Yet it seems to me you would have to argue that this extreme skeptic is committing a statistical fallacy on the ground that this August is not independent of last August.
I don’t see how this independence thing can demolish one argument without demolishing both. Please explain how statistics distinguishes these two situations.
To paraphrase you again: “Suppose I’m 7 months old, born August 1, and haven’t read the literature but have observed that this difference between six months ago and today had been positive for every one of the 28 days in February? It seems to me that based on these 28 values it would be reasonable to expect that six months from now it would be colder than today.”
This is in effect what you are doing, except you have spread out the prediction time from six months to 15 (or 20) years and the sampling interval from one day to one year.
Yes. I agree that comparing August 1 with February 1, then August 2 with February 2, and so on, is closer to comparing 1970 with 1985, then 1971 with 1986, and so on. Provided, that is, that every such comparison goes the same way (there is no n for which February n is warmer than August n).
But explain to me what statistical fallacy I’m committing if I find that February n is colder than August n for every n from 1 to 27, and infer that February 28 is therefore extremely likely to be colder than August 28. How does the lack of independence between the days of August invalidate that inference?
If anything, any lack of independence should strengthen it, not weaken it. As an extreme failure of independence, August 1-27 might be the same temperature every day, and likewise February 1-27. In that case I’d be willing to put more money on my prediction, not less.
Vaughan Pratt
There are natural cycles to weather. e.g. the annual cycles you observed. So to a 1500 year cycle from which we see about a linear increase from the Little Ice Age. See Loehle & Singer Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity. Thus next years climate is more likely to show this underlying cycle than stochastic variations (noise).
See the predictions of Nicola Scafetta at Duke U. showing that natural cycles dominate. e.g., Scafetta N., 2012. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models. (Science and Public Policy Institute).
See publications on Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics. by by Koutsoyiannis et al. at ITIA.
Hurst Kolmogorov Koutsoyiannis c/o Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis clearly show that climate is not “white noise” about the annual cycle.
Koutsoyiannis is working seeks to establish a mathematical/physical basis for HK dynamics: Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics as a result of extremal entropy production Demetris Koutsoyiannis
On the credibility of climate predictions
Note also: Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.
Predicting the Feb 28 temperature on Feb 27 is a one day prediction. That is not the equivalent of your original claim. The equivalent of your original claim is that, on Feb 27, your series of 27 6-month data points would allow you to confidently predict the future temperature 6 months ahead. That would be Aug 27, not Feb 28. Unfortunately, your methodology predicts that Aug 27 will be colder than Feb 27.
Predicting the Feb 28 temperature on Feb 27 is a one day prediction. That is not the equivalent of your original claim. The equivalent of your original claim is that, on Feb 27, your series of 27 6-month data points would allow you to confidently predict the future temperature 6 months ahead. That would be Aug 27, not Feb 28. Unfortunately, your methodology predicts that Aug 27 will be colder than Feb 27.
My original claim concerned the following comparisons where year y was 1970.
y + 0 — y + 15
y + 1 — y + 16
y + 2 — y + 17
…
y + 26 — y + 31
and I claimed that if all 27 of these comparisons were the same then the comparison
y + 27 — y + 32
could be reliably predicted.
The comparison I thought you were describing was day d being August 1 in the following:
d + 0 — d + 183
d + 1 — d + 182
d + 2 — d + 183
…
d + 26 — d + 209
allowing the reliable prediction of the comparison
d + 27 — d + 210
meaning the comparison of August 28 with February 28.
Please explain how you were able to turn this into a prediction of August 27. You seem to be scrambling two different things by taking bits out of one and bits out of the other, which makes no sense.
@David L. Hagen: There are natural cycles to weather. e.g. the annual cycles you observed.
Say, aren’t you the one who was claiming recently that probabilities had to be computed from infinite series? You clearly have no idea what a sample space is. Thank god you’re not managing my portfolio.
Your portfolio manager produces outcomes that are better than random?
Your portfolio manager produces outcomes that are better than random?
Of course not, at least after his commission. My concern with DLH would be that they were no better than random before his commission.
@Vaughan Pratt
When you say ‘forecast’, what exactly do you mean? In the comment of yours that I keep replying to, you say:
“Models that can forecast 20 years into the future on the other hand are more feasible.”
Does this not mean you are talking about making a prediction 20 years into the future? In your time series, if
y + 31
is the present, is that not equivalent to
y + 31 – y + 46
and not as you suggest
y + 27 – y + 32 ?
What do you mean by ‘forecast’ when you say this?:
“However we can pretty reliably forecast that next February will be colder … ”
Does this not mean you are talking about making a prediction 6 months into the future? In your time series, if
d + 209
is the present, is that not equivalent to
d + 209 – d + 392
and not as you suggest
d + 27 – d + 210 ?
HK statistics are simply fat tail, caused by a variant in the denominator. That’s why mainstream science is not interested in it and why DK can’t get his papers published. He is barking up the wrong tree. How else to explain it? You tell me? He certainly can’t, other than magically pulling a magic power-law exponent out of the air, which is the essemce of HK.
@willb: In your time series, if
d + 209
is the present, is that not equivalent to
d + 209 – d + 392
It would be if (a) the previous observation had made the comparison
d + 208 – d + 391,
and the one before that
d + 207 – d + 390
and so on back for 27 comparisons, and
(b) if all 27 of those comparisons had turned out the same.
If that was the case then I’d feel very confident predicting the outcome of the comparison
d + 209 — d + 392
But you seem to have something else in mind, whose relationship with what I described earlier is unclear to me.
Another arrogant, nasty comment from Vaughan Pratt who has a habit of accusing others of being rude. What a hypocrite.
Ok Vaughan Pratt, just how far down the rabbit hole do you live?
When I asked you if, in your time sequence example, Day 209 represented the present, you replied:
“It would be if … the previous observation had made the comparison
d + 208 – d + 391 …”
So you are claiming you can get an observation from Day 391 when Day 209 is the present? Through what sorcery are you acquiring this observation from 182 days into the future? And if you can in fact observe the future, why are you even bothering with models for predicting future temperatures?
Or am I misinterpreting what ‘Observation’ means down here at this level of the rabbit hole?
Another arrogant, nasty comment from Vaughan Pratt who has a habit of accusing others of being rude. What a hypocrite.
Peter, if you would kindly indicate the offending sentence you had in mind on this occasion (or the most offending if several) I will try to do better in future.
Through what sorcery are you acquiring this observation from 182 days into the future?
Ah, I see the problem now. It’s equally a problem for my original statement when worded as, knowing that the temperature 15 years hence would be hotter than this year for the 27 years 1970 through 1996, one could very reliably predict the same thing in 1997.
To remove the element of sorcery bothering you, simply say the same except taking the present to be the 27 years 1985 through 2011, with the observation being that it was colder 15 years ago than this year. Having made that observation correctly for all 27 years, I would feel extremely confident predicting in 2011 that next year would be hotter than 1997, even though I had not yet seen a day of 2012.
The corresponding modification to the August-February thing is that on February 27, having observed that every day this month had been colder than 183 days ago, I would be very confident in predicting the same thing for tomorrow, even though February 28 had not yet begun.
That’s equivalent mathematically, but without the sorcery.
Vaughan Pratt: “Having made that observation correctly for all 27 years, I would feel extremely confident predicting in 2011 that next year would be hotter than 1997 …”
No doubt.
On the planet surface, where I normally reside, what you are doing is called making a one-year over-under prediction, relative to an adaptive threshold. Only at depth would this be considered a 15-year forecast.
On the planet surface, where I normally reside, what you are doing is called making a one-year over-under prediction, relative to an adaptive threshold. Only at depth would this be considered a 15-year forecast.
While “over-under prediction” is common in sporting circles, the idea of measuring anything relative to an adaptive threshold has only emerged within the last half decade as far as I know, though I’d be happy to learn of earlier uses of the idea.
But your terminology and its provenance is beside the point here. I think we agree on the basic concept. If I’ve understood you, what’s at stake is whether it’s reasonable to refer to T(y) − T(y − 15), namely the difference in temperature between two years that are 15 years apart, a “15-year forecast.” I will readily agree with you that it is different from the notion of making a prediction of an event 15 years in the future, and that some other term for the concept I had in mind would be preferable.
Looking back at my original informal comment, it occurs to me that I may have formalized what I originally had in mind wrongly, leading us up a garden path. I think what I may have had in mind is something quite different from a mere sequence of 15 observations, namely a model based on all the data solely up to 1970, going back to 1850, that actually did predict that T(y+15) − T(y) would be positive for all y from 1970 onwards. Given that there was little hint of this happening in 1970, such a model would seem extremely unlikely at the time, if not so unlikely now in 20/20 hindsight.
Fair enough.
Possibilistic approach requires judging what is “real possibility”. What does that mean? The only way of making that relevant for practical considerations is to give effectively a lower limit for the probability of the outcome. That’s the only way I can imagine of making a difference with alternatives that cannot be proven to be impossible but that are obviously so unlikely that everybody agrees on their irrelevance.
Severe testing requires judging what is severe. That has a natural role in Bayesian approach but what is severe if we do not want to discuss probabilities.
We are bound to consider probabilities, also prior probabilities. All approaches come back to that when a serious attempt is made to apply them in practice. It’s not necessary to search for precise values of the probabilities but without some feeling on them we cannot get anywhere.
The paper of Katzav et al discusses many important issues but for me those fall rather in the questions of methodology than philosophy of science. They are issues that are considered by competent scientists independently on their interest in the philosophy of science.
I like to read philosophical considerations but reading this paper I get irritated when very many things that I would not classify as a philosophical problems are discussed as such.
Pekka, I still cannot figure out why you think that a human judgement about an unknown future event, such as it being “very unlikely”, must be translatable into a probability. There is no basis in mathematical probability theory for your claim, as probabilities are based on infinite series if identical random events. This mathematical model simply does not apply to scientific guesses about the future. It applies if you are playing poker, or worried about your house burning down, because these are part of a large set of random events, which at least roughly approximate the mathematical case of an infinite series. It does not apply to scientific speculation.
The human concept of likeliness is hundreds of thousands, if not a million, years older than probability theory. That the latter should explain the former is a wild guess, and a bad one at that.
David,
My argument is that no decisions can be made that don’t imply a preference and the preference can be translated to a inequality which involves a combination of values and their probabilities.
Decisions provide an ordering. That’s mathematically less than providing values but a larger number of orderings bring us closer and closer to having numerical values.
I’m perfectly aware that the process is not precise and that intuition is involved, but my claim is that all progress towards more reason and less random and unjustified choices implies also more understanding and better estimates of the expectation values.
There simply is no other alternative as long as the concepts are not forced to something more restrictive than what I try to explain.
@David Wojick: There is no basis in mathematical probability theory for your claim, as probabilities are based on infinite series if identical random events.
So when you took Statistics 101, David, they taught you to compute the probability of snake eyes in rolling two dice using an infinite series? You and I should shoot craps sometime to see whether the finite approach they taught us works faster or slower than the infinite approach they taught you.
I was re-reading some of Issac Held on the S&B paper and I think he stated something that I think should be used as a way of looking at the post Dr. Curry has given us. He stated to the effect high frequency noise is not necessarily a problem if the model is well constrained and behaved. I am reminded of the Tebaldi and Knutti Royal B paper examining what possibilities existed for showing that attribution and respone had been done correctly. I think some of these could be used in severe testing, or should be considered.
Cooling has been predicted. Some look to when no if.
Question: Shall prospects of global cooling be considered a disaster too?
Answer: Note: Nikola Scafetta believes that, “The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040.” Scafetta’s forecast is based upon, ‘physical mechanisms’ and ‘the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators,’ such as for examples, ENSO effects and solar activity. Qing-Bin Lu believes that, “a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.” Humanity will adapt and global cooling need not necessarily be considered a disaster for everyone. Even so there will be many challenges, as for example, Canadian wheat production. And, there always is the possibility of disaster. Walter Starck noted that if only humans really were able to heat the globe, “and it helps to prevent another ice age, this would be the most fortunate thing that has happened to our species since we barely escaped extinction from an especially cold period during the last ice age some 75,000 years ago.”
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/answer-key-to/
Projection in a graph => http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmstModel.png
“Should probabilistic qualities be assigned to climate model projections?”
Disappointing to see this question even being asked.
Answer:
Only as a form of creative ART.
Here is an example of searching form error:
IS THE NON-FEEDBACK CLIMATE SENSITIVITY 1.2 OR 0.6 DEG C?
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
Q = kT^4 (Equation 1)
Where Q is the radiation energy emitted by the surface of the earth and k = 5.67 x 10^(-8) W/(m^2 K^4)
Differentiating Equation 1 with respect to T gives:
dQ/dT = 4kT^3 = 4*(kT^4)/T = 4Q/T (Equation 2)
Taking the reciprocal of the above equation gives:
dT/dQ = T/(4Q) (Equation 3)
From the above equation, the small change in global mean temperature dT as a result of change in the emitted radiation energy dQ by the globe may be calculated using the equation:
dT = T*dQ/(4Q) (Equation 4)
At equilibrium condition, the radiation energy Q emitted by the earth is assumed to be equal to the solar energy absorbed at the earth’s surface:
Q = (1-a)Sp/2 (Equation 5)
In this equation, Sp is the solar constant of 1370 W/m^2 at the mean distance of the earth from the sun distributed on its projected area Ap = Pi*r^2. Instead of the projected area, the solar energy from the sun is actually distribute around half of the spherical surface area As = 2*Pi*r^2. As a result, the solar energy distributed around half of the spherical surface area is given by Ss = Sp* Pi*r^2/(2*Pi*r^2) = Sp/2. The solar energy Ss does not reach the surface of the earth because part of it given by a*Ss is reflected by the atmosphere, where “a” is the albedo of the atmosphere. Therefore, the solar energy that reaches the surface of the earth is Ss-a*Ss = (1-a)Ss = (1-a)Sp/2.
Equation 5 could also be written as:
4Q = 2*(1-a)Sp (Equation 6)
Substituting Equation 6 into 4 gives:
dT = T*dQ/(2*(1-a)*Sp) (Equation 7)
The increase in forcing for doubling of CO2 is estimated to be dQ = 4 W/m^2. The global mean temperature is T = 288 K, the earth’s albedo is a = 0.3 and the solar constant Sp = 1370 W/m^2. Substituting these values into Equation 7 gives an estimate for the non-feed back climate sensitivity:
dT = 288*4/(2*(1-0.3)*1370) = 288*4/(2*0.7*1370) = 0.6
This means that the non-feed back climate sensitivity of the earth is 0.6 deg C for doubling of CO2.
Do you mean that somebody should point out, where you made the error that resulted to the wrong result of 0.6?
Yes Pekka
Why? Isn’t that simple enough for everybody – and more instructive to figure out independently?
OT – Pekka, Tamino has a new post on Hansen.
JCH,
Thanks. I checked Tamino not long before that post, but didn’t know about this yet.
I have tried to make it clear that my strongest criticism is on the value of the paper as a scientific contribution and on it’s claims on the change in variability. On these points Tamino’s new post tells that he agrees that the problems remain. It’s understandable that Tamino is careful in his wording, I don’t have the same need to moderate my statements but I try to my best to avoid exaggerating the problem. Doing that, I continue to believe that the paper should not have been published as it is, the authors should not have written it that way and the reviewers should have stopped the publication. Tamino obviously agrees that the new discussion paper does not answer at all his main criticism.
Tamino notes then exactly the same point I mentioned in one of my recent comments. (Point 1) here ). Whether it’s true that the heat waves have got stronger and increased regional differences or not is not studied properly by Hansen et al. Neither has Tamino made any studies on that. Tamino just observes the same one or two incidents as I did. My second point notes that such few episodes have very little statistical significance. We have the opposing evidence that tells about more warming at high latitudes and specifically more warming in the coldest periods (winter nights) even there. Is there some increase in the frequency of heat waves at middle latitudes is not answered by any of these observations.
Concerning Tamino’s disagreement with Cliff Mass I see some merit in that but I see also very much merit in the argument of Cliff Mass. Tamino is correct in noting that the likelihood of events of some fixed high temperature has increased by a large factor. At the same time Cliff Mass is right in stating that there’s no evidence that the temperature of an one-percent event would have increased more than the average temperature has risen.
Every reasonable person should agree on Tamino’s point (and he writes at the beginning of the new post that there’s nothing new in that). The paper of Hansen et al is supposed to show the opposite of of what Cliff Mass tells, but it doesn’t because an severely erroneous analysis cannot say anything on that until it’s corrected. Tamino probably agrees on this, but does not like the way Cliff Mass states his points.
@Pekka August 13: Why? Isn’t that simple enough for everybody – and more instructive to figure out independently?
Ding. Girma, you’ve had a week to find your error and you still haven’t. If no one else is going to clue you in then I’ll give a hint.
The problem comes where you say “the radiation energy Q emitted by the earth is assumed to be equal to the solar energy absorbed at the earth’s surface: Q = (1-a)Sp/2 (Equation 5)”
Since the earth’s surface is 4 times that of the surface intercepting the insolation, Equation 5 should be Q = (1-a)Sp/4.
In your explanation you reasoned incorrectly that the Earth’s surface is only twice the surface intercepting the insolation. Perhaps you were thinking that you shouldn’t count the part of the surface that the Sun wasn’t shining on, but why would you ignore the half of the surface that is getting no sunlight at all? That would make no sense.
Hansen et al, 2011
Earth’s energy imbalance and implications
If the CO2 amount in the air is doubled, the forcing is F = 4W/m^2. The opacity of a greenhouse gas as a function of wavelength is calculated via basic quantum physics and verified by laboratory measurements to an accuracy of a few percent. No climate model is needed to calculate the forcing due to changed greenhouse gas amount. It requires only summing over the planet the change of heat radiation to space, which depends on known atmospheric and surface properties.
I am wrong.
In Equation 5, I equated W/m^2 instead of W. A tricky mistake. Non-feed back climate sensitivity is 1.2 deg C for doubling of CO2 concentration.
Sorry, didn’t see this before I posted the above. I deduce from your agreement that nonfeedback CS is 1.2 that you figured out where you lost a factor of 2, even though you didn’t say so. (W/m^2 instead of W does not explain a factor of 2.)
A philosophical remark is that “modellers are entrenched and
obstinate”…”.they do not want to go one step BACKWARD although
their results of simulating around is only probabilistic… ”
this is “post-normal”…..
“I like this paper because it provides an integrated framework for assessing climate model projection quality.”
The paper and post in question are simply on large Question Begging exercise. In science one assesses ‘projection’ quality by empirical replication. Full stop.
If there is any manner — with any sense of propiety — to establish ‘correctess’ or ‘quality’ outside and completely separate from empirical affairs? Then that needs to be proven. But this post and paper are starting with the assumption that we do not need empiricism at all. That we may assume our way to The Truth by avoiding empiricism, relying on Authorities and Priests, or by using our Biases circularly to show our Biases are Acceptable. Or any of the above. But this isn’t anything passing as rational, and so not acceptable to Pure Philosophy either.
For I should sorely like to see you demonstrate that you can demonstrate truth without demonstration… by failing to demonstrate it. The entire notion is absurd even if we’re not having contentious arguments about thermometers. But better to have the right argument about the right topic rather than skip two paces ahead and obfuscate it.
dT=255*4/(2*.7*1341)=0.54 ?
dT = 288*4/(2*(1-0.3)*1370) = 288*4/(2*0.7*1370) = 0.6 ?
Notice something?
You can estimate TOA emissivity all day long, but there is latent, convective and conductive energies from substances with different thermal capacities that are not part of the radiant only estimates.
That was for Girma
Given that GCMs have not been tested and shown to be reliable at projecting future climate – an elementary requirement in science – I don’t see how you can hope to quantify uncertainty. And spare me the hindcasting – you tune and retune until you get correlation, and then you claim you understand something?
I think the best they can say today is that they’ve done their best to understand the working of planetary climate, and that GCMs are the field’s best guess as to what will happen decades in the future. That statement would be reasonable, rational and properly constrained by the existing level of uncertainty. Anything beyond ‘best guess based on the evidence and our current level of understanding’ is just pseudo-quantification.
MarkB | August 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Reply
“Given that GCMs have not been tested and shown to be reliable at projecting future climate”
Not even close to reliable. What makes you think that?
Sorry. Misread that. Thought you wrote GCMs are tested and reliable.
I agree with half of that. The models ARE tested. That’s the part I disagree with. They’re not reliable. That’s the part I agree with.
Running a model doesn’t test a model. Models are not tested/verified against what they purport to project – future climate. We are told by climate scientists that not enough time has passed yet to test whether models are wrong yet.
you tune and retune until you get correlation, and then you claim you understand something?
That would be silly wouldn’t it. Good thing that’s not the way it is done.
If I ever post on here again, I will change my user name, so as to avoid confusion, as I am not the same person as you.
Good post though!
Yes, I ‘m quite sure that you are not the same person as me. Unless it was true what they said about those drugs I took back in the 70s. ;-)
Scientists can’t write for crap. Judith excepted.
Don, I know what ;you mean. I am not a scientist and I have just been here for a few days. There have been some good posts by knowledgeable people, but the majority are made by people who just want to win arguments and ridicule people who disagree with themselves, or by people who stray completely away from the subject in question. Both of these are of things that Judith specifically asked people not to do.
Compared to other forums, message boards etc., this one fails to meet its objectives by more than any other that I have seen, which is a shame because the concept of it is so good and the subject manner is so important. And furthermore Judith is working so hard to put new material on here everyday.
This forum makes the contributors on some other forums, such as chess.com and betfair, seem like gentlemen and saints, when we know that this is not the case with most chess players and gamblers.
Mark, this is what it’s always like when the projections are based on just-so stories and believers want policy decisions that effect everyone are made based upon the stories. Big money is at stake based upon the strength of the narrative. Narratives aren’t science. At least not the science that policy decisions are based upon. Policy decisions need to be based on experimental science – stuff that doesn’t need a “consensus” but rather rests on repeatable experiments. The earth’s climate isn’t amenable to experiment and there’s nothing that can change that fact.
Well, I’m just saying that the prose excerpted above is just poorly written regardless of its content. Perhaps they should always take their papers and pass them through the English departments before publishing.
Then, “How might one apply a (Popperian) severe testing approach to assessing projection quality?” might become “How can projection quality be rigorously tested in a manner consistent with Karl Popper principals?”
or something even more straight forward.
How do you falsify something without a quantitative value?
One more thing: determining how something relates to reality before you test it is circular. The question of the models already affirms what it is looking for.
Run it by disinterested (good luck finding them) people with PhD’s in probability. I know one. Double PhD in fact – one in probability and another in Philosophy of Science. I already know what he’s going to say. There’s not enough data nor understanding of the system being modeled to provide probability estimates. What’s the probability for instance, that solar magnetic fields throttle cloud formation? Multiply the level of uncertaintly in that by the probability that you know the polarity of feedback from clouds.
It’s a joke, Curry. Global warning science is a cottage industry for academic rent-seekers and opportunists in politics and business. It’s all about money and power. The science is nothing but narrative. Just-so stories.
“when a proponent of CAGW loses the argument, he reverts to a personal attack”
Welcome to Robert.
JC
Correlation data analysis as shown below:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmstModel.png
This pattern is established by the oceans and has lasted since 1895 and with a high correlation coefficient is not going to change in the next two decades.
Very high correlation coefficient of 0.997 between the observed and model smoothed GMST curves.
Correlation with smoothed data?
yes bob.
Lolwat
Is not CO2 AGW’s villain?
Has not the mean CO2 concentration growth rate per year increased from 1.5ppm in 1988 (Senario A of Hansen et al.) to 2.1 ppm now? For CO2, isn’t the observed growth rate now greater than that for Scenarion A of Hansen et al, 1988?
Here is the graph that shows atmospheric CO2 concentration growth rate now is greater than that in 1988 => http://bit.ly/PlhcsI
CONCLUSION:
For CO2, the current observed annual CO2 concentration growth rate is greater than that for Scenario A of Hansen et al, 1988.
#—————————————————-
#Data from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
#http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
#—————————————————-
#
#File: co2_mm_mlo.txt
#
#Time series (esrl) from 1958.21 to 2012.62
#Selected data from 1978
#Selected data up to 1998
#Least squares trend line; slope = 1.47795 per year For 1988
1978.04 335.107
1998.04 364.666
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 349.887
#—————————————————-
#Data from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
#http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
#—————————————————-
#
#File: co2_mm_mlo.txt
#
#Time series (esrl) from 1958.21 to 2012.62
#Selected data from 2002
#Selected data up to 2012
#Least squares trend line; slope = 1.96214 per year NOW
2002.04 372.897
2012.04 392.518
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 382.707
As engineer working for both European and French Space Agencies, I recently attended a conference given by 2 NASA veterans, dealing with “Lessons learned”. They described and “husked” 42 cases of failures in huge programs (mainly NASA ones of course) trying to extract from those failures the main keys for success. One of those few keys lays in these 3 words : TEST TEST & TEST !
All NASA successes in space exploration have been built upon extended testing experience and on models that have all been anchored on these test data, and thus duly validated. NASA has developed strict and powerful technics, rules and standards for assessing the quality / reliability / confidence level of models and of their projections, and of course for verifying and validating those models. They mainly consist in confronting and rescaling models outputs for different “test cases” using various sets of initial / limit conditions, with the test results obtained with the same conditions.
Those technics and standards are widely recognized and used in almost all fields of science… Almost because climate science remains the only but remarkable exception! As a travesty it may appear, none of the nice climate models has even been subjected to any verification and validation process. And none of them is even close to pass such a process since none of them is able to hind-cast / reproduce past climate data and patterns.
Even NASA/GISS totally failed applying the agency’s own standards for assessing and validating its own GISS-E model ! This is exactly why NASA “49ers” wrote to C. Bolden, just asking GISS to make real good science and to apply the rules and standards on which NASA has built its successes and reputation, especially bringing Man to and safely back from the Moon.
Model consistency is important.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/29/tisdale-on-the-17-year-itch-yes-there-is-a-santer-clause/
Since Bob Tisdale picked the 1995 starting point because of Santer’s 17year trend requirement, you can’t tell how skillful the models were prior to the 1995 climate shift from those graphs, but since then they seem to pretty consistently run warm. some might think that the shift is due to the ocean heat uptake slowing as a thermal capacity limit is approached.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/are-climate-models-spatially-consistent/
Then building model consistency would probably require a better understanding of past climate. Some might think that flat and then a hockey stick blade might not accurately represent past climate unless you lived under or near an ice sheet. Possibly using tropical or ocean reconstructions could be of use.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/60000yearsofclimatechangeplusorminus125degrees.png
Then that might require considering natural variability with cycles on the order of hundreds maybe even1470 +/- 500 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
An ocean model could have some advantages since the majority of the heat is absorbed and contained in the oceans, if anyone was curious. Curiosity though doesn’t seem to be a climate science forte..
Hey, cd, would you buy 14.5 years for the delay attributable to the ocean for the impact of radiative forcing on surface temperature?
If you ignore this delay the climate sensitivity seems to be around 1.8 C/doubling. Taking it into account gives somewhere between 2.8 and 2.9 C per doubling.
Vaughan, There are several lags or delays that make the puzzle interesting. The 14.5 appears to be a combination of the ~11 year solar cycle and ~3.5 year ENSO harmonic. The ENSO harmonic varies with the OHC of the northern versus the southern oceans. If I use 1900 as initial conditions, I would get around 3C, 1951-1981 about 1.8C. If I use 21.1 C average SST, I get about 0.8C. In other words, natural variability appears to be 1.9C with harmonics.
The 1.9C appears to be due to salt versus fresh freezing sink temperature. Ice amount and location appears to be a fairly critical energy budget consideration :)
Vaughan, since Tamino has a post on the issue of whether there is a trend or not, here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/fifteen/
I thought I would play.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/HADSST15.png
That is 60 year, 45 year, 30 year and 15 year trends for HADSST2. Of course, a fifteen year trend is just below the cutoff of being “significant”. The last 30 years would be significant but the variation between that trend and the 45/60 year trends is not significant.
Notice though that with the exception of the 1998 El Nino, the variance in the last 30 years is significantly less than the variance in the first 30 years. That could be because the early data is crap compared to the later data. That also could be because the oceans are approaching a heat capacity limit.
ARGO hasn’t been around long enough to be of much use yet, but
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/WabbitsFolly.png since the ENSO cycles is kinda important NOAA has about 30 years of ENSO region heat capacity that is pretty flat.
Personally, I am pretty sure that land use change has a grossly underestimated impact making the “global” temperature average nearly worthless for estimating climate change due to CO2 enhancement, so I tend to use the oceans and southern hemisphere for a base line for attempting to predict future climate.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/RSSSH15.png
Breaking the more politically correct RSS into similar lengths for comparison, the 1996 to present flatness seems to agree quite well with the HADSST2 and the ENSO region data. That could also be a remarkable coincidence :)
In order to get the ~2.8C of sensitivity you estimate, it would seem that rate of ocean heat uptake reducing rather dramatically might tend to be an issue. I am sure you have a good deal of confidence in your model, but what margin of error do you think is appropriate for your estimate :)
Since there seems to be some newer paleo versions getting archived at ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Kobashietal2012.png
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.txt
According to the authors, -29.9C is the 2001 to 2010 average temperature at the site. So it was warmer for around a century during the MWP and about as warm as today during the Roman Warm Period . Notice that the coldest temperatures precede the modern warm period and the Roman Warm Period appears cooler than the MWP in Greenland at least (interesting huh? tonyb might get a chuckle out of that. ).
“So it was warmer for around a century during the MWP”
I hope you aren’t calling that bump around 700AD the MWP. A bit early isn’t it?
According to that data Greenland was cooler than today when the Vikings settled in the 10th century AD.
That “bump” is before the “MWP” as it is defined, “Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Kobashietal2012from600ad.png
That may indicate that the MWP wasn’t all that exceptional, the Little Ice Age may have been the exception.
Eric Ollivet
Input from another NASA veteran: from 1995-1999 – lead scientist at the NASA Independent Verification and Validation Facility in Fairmont, WV, USA:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?page_id=2
He’s rather more complimentary than these unnamed veterans you cite.
As a travesty it may appear, none of the nice climate models has even been subjected to any verification and validation process.
Wrong.
And none of them is even close to pass such a process since none of them is able to hind-cast / reproduce past climate data and patterns.
Suggests you don’t really understand V&V. Did Curiosity fail in its mission because it missed its target by 2.4km?
Steve Milesworthy
“unnmed veterans” are not as anonymous as you claim.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
S. Easterbrook is a well known AGW activist. But he remains unable (as well as you are) to provide any reference of a validation report for any climate model, because none of them has ever been duly validated.
I will be definitely wrong once someone would have provided with a validation report for any of these nice climate models : I know I can wait for years and even decades.
As you obviously have no idea about what could be a relevant pass / fail criterion, I guess you are even more understand what V&V means.
Eric Ollivet
S. Easterbrook is a well known AGW activist.
Do you have a substantive criticism of his review of the V&V of climate models, or only unsubstantiated ad hominem.
As you obviously have no idea about what could be a relevant pass / fail criterion, I guess you are even more understand what V&V means.
Your idea would fail even a perfect replication of Earth, because our knowledge of forcing data is imperfect, and because internal variability would result in differences. So clearly your idea is not adequate – unless you’d like to provide more details.
Steve Milesworthy,
That seems rather hypocritical of you. You refused to consider what Roger Pielke Jr says claiming he is an untrustworthy source. You weren’t even prepared to consider what the the Kaya Identity demonstrates because Pielke Jr. had used it.
Aren’t you being rather hypocritical calling out others for making ad hominem comments?
Peter Lang,
I did not say he was an untrustworthy source. I said that I thought that you linking a lot to Pielke Jr was an indication of not being objective – remember that at the time you were criticising someone else for not being objective.
If we were specifically discussing a view expressed by Pielke Jr I’d be happy to address the particular view if I felt able to and I wouldn’t summarily reject him. If I recall a recent discussion, I disputed a plot you linked to (on rates of decarbonisation) because there was no explanation of how one calculates what a measure of decarbonisation was, not because it came from Pielke Jr.
Steve Easterbrook as discussed quite clearly and openly the methods for validating and verifying climate models, why these methods have led to quality codes, and why other methods for V&V would not be appropriate. There is plenty for Eric to get his teeth into if he could be bothered.
Steve Milesworthy,
Now you are being untrustworthy. You said “I do not trust Pielke”. I’d referred you to these two links:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/decelerating-decarbonization-of-global.html
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/reality-check.html
and you would not read then or take any notice of them because you did not trust Pielke.
So much for your credibility and integrity.
So much for you calling out others for ad hominem attacks.
Peter Lang,
You would seem to be as untrustworthy as Pielke. One you missed off the second part of the sentence where I said why I did not trust the decarbonisation link and two saying that I do not trust Pielke is different from saying Pielke is untrustworthy for some unsubstantiated reason. Further, Pielke is a a well-known political operator whereas Easterbrook is not, so I’m entitled to distrust him.
If you want to know why I don’t trust him is because he is completely US-centric. If the rest of the world loses 20 billion and the US gains 1 billion, he will be happy. That’s a succinct summary of my first interaction with him some 5 year ago.
One of the most commonly used technic for probabilistic analysis / assessment of complex processes is the Monte Carlo approach. But you need a probabilistic law characterizing (quite faithfully) each of the parameters… Not easy…
What observations would be sufficient to serve as falsification of anthropogenic global warming?
What’s the climate science equivalent of the Precambrian Rabbit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit
Too much is at stake here, and agw is not even wrong to be falsified like that. The ghg/aerosol game can be played for a long time. IMO, a rapid cooling in this decade (and the next) will do it – they cannot postulate increasing aerosols (or whatever negative forcings) ad nauseam.
For the record, I expect rapid cooling at the latest after the sc24 plateau (2014/15).
And we come full circle, as if we’d made no progress in a year.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/18/climate-models-as-ink-blots-2/#comment-113686
Correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t your prediction last year rapid cooling at the latest by this year? Wait. I am wrong. I was thinking of Mr. Orssengo’s not dissimilar claims, two years ago. Or Mr. Ellison’s.
It’s so hard to keep track of all the people predicting cooling; if only some journalist or website did it for us. http://www.durangobill.com/RogerCohen.html
But here, let me help you research how to get rich with your confidence in solar cycles: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+derivatives
Good luck.
I think we’ve made some progress. The paradigm is getting weaker. Yes, you’re wrong about my prediction.
Edim | August 14, 2012 at 2:26 am |
The paradigm is getting weaker.
The paradigm. It surprises you even know Solow and Hartwick’s paradigm of weak sustainability. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_sustainability_(ecological_economics) ); how it relates seems.. dubious, however.
Still, this is important philosophical stuff. Carry on.
Yes, you’re wrong about my prediction.
Which makes two of us!
Edim
I’m more interested in what “The Team” would accept as falsification not what skeptics will accept. It’s their hypothesis and as such they get to set the criteria for falsification. Inability to define what constitutes falsification disqualifies the hypothesis as scientifically valid.
Lack of falsification criteria is best summed up IMO by the expression “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” If the AGW hypothesis encompasses and explains all possible observations then it is not valid science. As analogy God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis through the definitive statement “Through Him all things are possible”. Any observation can be explained as an Act of God. If any observation of climate can be explained by anthropogenic causation it ceases to be scientific and becomes a belief system not unlike religious belief systems. I believe for many AGW pundits it has already crossed that line which is why I’m asking for specific falsification criteria. Curry wanted philosophy of science and I’m well prepared to provide it. She may not like what she gets. One should be careful what one wishes for.
@ David Springer | August 14, 2012 at 11:06 am
“I’m more interested in what “The Team” would accept as falsification”
“The Team” have *zero* interest in falsification.
1. Propose a testable hypothesis for a physical mechanism of greenhouse warming – The Team: the atmosphere is so complex we can’t possibly perform any valid experiments on parts of it (JC is still in this camp)
2. Propose proper statistical tests for prediction accuracy and assess the GCM predictions statistically over time – The Team: GCMs provide projections, not predictions, so they can’t be formally assessed, but we know they’re liell to be reliable.
3. Propose an experiment to demonstrate: the thermalization of IR by GHGs, or the radiative blanket effect, or surface IR emission delay in the atmosphere or whatever – The Team: It’s already been done in the radiative transfer data and radiative transfer models.
Progress will only be made when people *not* on the team propose hypotheses for how they think The Team’s greenhouse effect might work and test them experimentally. When The Team’s chairs and tables have no legs left to stand on, those not on “The Team” will be able to declare “The Team” was wrong. “The Team” will forever proclaim the models are right but we need to further refine the parameterisations (fudge factors).
David Springer | August 14, 2012 at 1:24 am |
What observations would be sufficient to serve as falsification of anthropogenic global warming?
There we must get into philosophical definitions. Do you mean to falsify all hypotheses of AGW, or just one particular one?
If you can rigorously state the hypothesis (es) you wish to falsify in the language of strict inference, then you only need to decide on the appropriate type of test.
For some types of inference, there are simply applicable tests that rely only on a single outcome of the experiment to falsify a particular hypothesis. This is what Rutherford was referring to when he is said to have asserted, “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
If you can show a thin film of gold reflects back some alpha particles and lets some through, then you’ve disproven a great many hypotheses about the structure and nature of the atom.
However, to get to the real interesting details of that structure, statistics become a powerful toolset to apply, and in the substructure of the substructure, CERN for example is almost all statistical inference in the search for the Higgs Boson. It would be inappropriate to dismiss the results of CERN simply because there is currently no Boolean test for the Higgs particle.
So, which AGW do you mean? What’s it’s strict inferential description? I’m unaware of any interesting AGW hypotheses that haven’t exhausted the available straightforward tests (thereby ‘passing them’) without falsification; the ones that remain have the problem that we only have one planet, and it looks like the lapse rate for CO2 and other climate-related parameters and dependencies combine to require about two decades to entail a single observation, on top of which we have horrible data gathering.
Paleo reconstruction that combine higher precision than is currently available (for the most part) over many more regional climate basins (at least 30) than currently produce usable paleo proxies for 600 years at a granularity of monthly observation could get you enough temperature observations for the feat. If the observations were so far out of line with your AGW hypothesis as to falsify it statistically (ie, in a Bayesian sense, reduce your confidence in your belief below some threshold value). But then that’s always hairy.
More to the point, Newton addressed the real import of this question. Until so much new data is available as to unseat the current hypothesis, we ought treat the best of the AGW mechanisms as accurate or very nearly true, in order to avoid falling into the trap of standing for nothing and becoming susceptible to all untested hypotheses, that Richard M. Nixon so succinctly characterized as, “who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
Bart R | August 14, 2012 at 1:53 am | Reply
David Springer | August 14, 2012 at 1:24 am |
What observations would be sufficient to serve as falsification of anthropogenic global warming?
——————————————————————–
“There we must get into philosophical definitions. Do you mean to falsify all hypotheses of AGW, or just one particular one?”
No, the philosophy ends at the point where we agree that any hypothesis must be falsifiable, at least in principle, for it to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis. The second sentence there is a valid question. The specific hypothesis is that continued anthropogenic generation of CO2 through fossil fuel combustion without abatement or mitigation will result in catastrophic warming.
“If you can rigorously state the hypothesis (es) you wish to falsify in the language of strict inference, then you only need to decide on the appropriate type of test.”
Yeah okay. I did. Unfortunately we can’t test. We can’t take one earth and put in experimental controls to isolate the variable of interest (anthropogenic CO2) and compare the climate change results at different CO2 levels. So given we can’t perform repeatable experiments with the planetary atmosphere we can only make predictions based upon the hypothesis and say that these predictions, if they don’t happen, falsifies the hypothesis.
So what observation or set of observations would constitute falsification?
David Springer | August 14, 2012 at 10:44 am |
.. the philosophy ends at the point where we agree that any hypothesis must be falsifiable, at least in principle, for it to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis. … The specific hypothesis is that continued anthropogenic generation of CO2 through fossil fuel combustion without abatement or mitigation will result in catastrophic warming.
A couple of dubious points here. There’s going to be philosophy throughout, no matter how we try to avoid it. And you’re blurring the distinctions between ‘scientific’ and ‘experimental’ an awful lot. There are Mathematical hypotheses, Aesthetic hypotheses, Philosophical ones and so forth, I’m sure. The standard of their validity varies; almost none of the hypotheses of String Theory are experimentally falsifiable. Does this make all of Physics after CERN non-Science or invalid?
Also, you don’t demonstrate much rigor in your statement of your hypothesis. What do you mean by catastrophic? If one person’s death is to them a personal catastrophe, or the death of their favorite garden plant to be ludicrous, does that count?
“..Unfortunately we can’t test.” | “We can’t take one earth and put in experimental controls to isolate the variable of interest (anthropogenic CO2) and compare the climate change results at different CO2 levels.”
These two statements are far from equivalent. We can — and people have exhaustively — test the underlying mechanisms and assumptions of hypotheses, in particular the AGW hypothesis you have proposed, and competing or contradictory ones. And AGW still stands. What you’re talking about appears to be a form of proof by exhaustion, also known as brute force and ignorance. We don’t need to take the most ignorant possible approach to science to achieve confidence. That’s the whole point of having Science in the first place.
So you set an impossible standard, knowing you’ve already seen sufficient and necessary proof by the accepted standards, as a way to avoid the logical outcomes of the decision process. For shame.
What’s the climate science equivalent of the Precambrian Rabbit?
Excellent question, Dave. How about the core-mantle slip of 1960?
It is well-known that tidal friction has been continually transferring angular momentum from the Earth to the Moon, absorbed by the Moon by moving away from the Earth so as to increase its moment of inertia without changing its angular velocity. However the tidal forces slowing the Earth’s crust need to be transmitted to the Earth’s core via the mantle in order to slow the whole planet, which over time builds stress in the mantle.
Eventually that stress results in a seismic event at the core-mantle boundary that results in a temporary redistribution of heat in the mantle, raising the temperature of the upper mantle. Such a slip happened in 1960, resulting in a dramatic rise in surface temperature over the next half century. We’ve now hit the peak of that rise and can look forward to a restoration of the default distribution, which will cool the surface back to its pre-1970 temperature.
Good enough?
(Between you and me, I suspect the slip actually happened around 1900 and is responsible for the impressive rise between 1910 and 1940.)
The slip that happened in 1960s was solar system wide:
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wnosuf.html
I don’t think that answers my question, Vaughn. The Precambrian Rabbit is an allusion to what physical evidence the AGW believer would accept as falsification of the AGW (CO2-causation) hypothesis. Evidently the satellite record showing no global warming at all since the year 2000 despite unabated growth in production of anthropogenic CO2 during that time. Evidently the lack of warming at all in Antarctica in the decades of measuring temperatures there is not sufficient despite the rise of CO2 in Antarctica matching the rise elsewhere on the planet.
So I’m just curious as to what observation or observation they would accept as falsification of the CO2-driven AGW hypothesis. If no falsification criteria can be stated then the AGW hypothesis is no hypothesis at all and is nothing more than a just-so story which is immune from the consequence of failed predictions.
The fallacy in your objection to my example, David, is that you are asking AGW believers to accept your argument based on a mere 10 years of temperature data. That would be fine if one could see global warming in a single decade. To see that you can’t, look at the land temperature for 1980-1990 (smoothed to 1/40 the width of the plot, namely 3 months, for the clearest possible picture). Then change the From-To dates to see the other three decades. You cannot tell them apart, they all look equally flat.
But when you look at all four together (again smoothed to 1/40 the width for a clear picture) it becomes obvious that each of the four decades is rising, and by the same amount: 2000-2010 is not the slightest bit different from the other three decades when seen in context. Every decade is clearly rising.
Focusing on one decade at a time is the climate debate equivalent of an art historian arguing that the Mona Lisa is not smiling based solely on the relevant corner of her mouth, without showing the context of the rest of her face.
A more immediately relevant example would be Benjamin Wells’ ten arguments against evolution, which are too easily refuted by those familiar with the science. Evidence for a precambrian rabbit on the other hand would (so that argument goes) constitute legitimate evidence that would not be as easily refuted as Wells ten arguments.
(Actually Wells’ second argument is that all major animal groups appeared fully formed at the Cambrian explosion, which he apparently believes. This is about as close as anyone’s come to actually asserting the existence of precambrian rabbits, not counting the biblical literature. So far no one’s found a rabbit anywhere near the first three hundred million years of the Cambrian explosion, but if one were to be found Wells would suddenly be the proud owner of a strong argument against some core aspects of evolution. Such a rabbit would not need to be strictly precambrian to support Wells’ case, just early Cambrian.)
The point of my seismic event in 1960 was that evidence for such would constitute a scientifically plausible explanation for why the temperature rose thereafter. To shoot it down you would need to refute the evidence itself, just as you would need to shoot down the evidence for a precambrian rabbit were such to be adduced. This is because if the slip had actually happened and stirred up the mantle, you would have a scientifically valid explanation of the last four decades of rise as an alternative to the hypothesis that CO2 caused the rise.
In contrast, your evidence against AGW consisting of a single decade is too easy to shoot down. That you cling to such an easily refuted argument shows how weak the supposed scientific evidence against global warming is. You flatly refuse to accept that you can’t see global warming in a single decade, it happens too slowly for that. Muller made this point in his interview. Ben Santer et al made this point in their paper calculating 17 years as the minimum window needed to see global warming. The graphs above should make the point vividly clear.
But as long as your 10-year argument remains your strongest one I predict you will continue to cling to it, no matter how many people point out to you why your argument doesn’t work.
Vaughan, I agree somewhat, but you”ll need a lot of warming to catch up in the next few decades. What will you say when we have 30 years of no warming? The same argument? Don’t forget, the alleged anthropogenic forcing is highest ever and it will increase further.
@Edim: I agree somewhat, but you”ll need a lot of warming to catch up in the next few decades
Regarding “catch up,” which dataset did you have in mind, Edim? If you agree that more than a decade is needed to make a meaningful forecast, is there a dataset whose last say 20 years does not show a strong warming trend? Or even last 17 years (the Santer minimum)?
What will you say when we have 30 years of no warming? The same argument?
I would say “thank god climate science got that wrong.” There are a lot of people out there, particularly those much younger than me, who really do not want any more of this damned global warming.
It would also be great if climate science had overstated the impact of increasing CO2 on decreasing ocean pH.
I suspect a lot of climate skepticism amounts to projecting those kinds of wishes onto reality. Wouldn’t it be great if climate science was seriously wrong on global warming and ocean acidification?
“If you agree that more than a decade is needed to make a meaningful forecast, is there a dataset whose last say 20 years does not show a strong warming trend? Or even last 17 years (the Santer minimum)?”
I see no logic here. Forecast? I forecast rapid cooling after ~2015 and 30 years of no trend (flat) by ~2020.
three records since 1997.9-1998.9
And we’re likely going to get another one 2012.9 to 2013.9.
JCH
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.9/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.9/to:1998.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004.9/to:2005.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2006.9/to:2007.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2009.9/to:2010.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.9/trend
What wags the tail? That’s right pilgrim, the big dog wags the tail. I bet you are good picking stocks :)
As I have said before, I think the UAH satelite data is already sufficient to falsify AGW. It shows no GHG warming for the last 32 years, just a single step warming coincident with the 1998 super ENSO. But the believers are simply not prepared to disbelieve. Under such circumstances, theory saving is always possible. In the short run there is always a way around the data. Falsification takes time.
I disagree about the step. It’s arbitrary.
There is no warming before, and none after. How is this arbitrary? Science is about specific observations. This pattern is clearly there.
These steps do seem to be real, but I don’t know how to explain them.
I assume one gets if cooling also.
David,
The data has far too much variability to provide any credibility for your view. The oscillating line that Spencer shows on his page looks a little better but that and your step are just two alternatives out of very many that agree equally well.
Only two things can really be concluded from that amount of data:
– there has been warming of some kind
– there’s a lot of variability on the time scale of a few years (certainly affected by ENSO, but the data alone does not tell that).
Everything beyond that requires supporting data from other sources or is empty speculation as your step interpretation clearly is.
All of the warming is in the discontinuity between the flat trends. The timing of the step(s) is arbitrary. Here for example there’s some cooling until 1994 and strong warming since:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:1994/trend/plot/uah/from:1994/trend
Pekka, I do not agree. The first flat period was about 20 years, the second over ten. Of course it is an oscillator as well, but the step pattern is clearly there. Something happened in the super ENSO and it does not look like GHG warming.
Edim, sorry but I do not understand your point.
The usually excessively verbose gbaikie says this:
Now we know his thought process. He doesn’t understand science but that doesn’t prevent him from making unwarranted assertions.
How can an El Nino in 1998 heat the SAT in 2000, or any other year? You analysis is hopelessly flawed. You are saying an El Nino instantly heated the SAT, and then the heat essentially stayed there. It obviously did not. It mostly goes to outer space. The 1998 El Nino made the atmosphere very hot in 1988. Making trend lines from that crest is like getting lost in the woods.
Both prior to the 1998 El Nino and after it, AGW marched ever upward.
The UAH series starts in a period of El Nino dominance, and it totally distorts the trend to 1998. Starting the trend in 1982 clearly shows it is little different than GisTemp.
Even if we only allow at most one step every 25 years on average, we can use the “it was just a step” argument to show that except for the occasional step the world has been steadily cooling ever since 1850. This can be seen from this graph. Moreover the cooling is accelerating, with the (barely visible) yellow line starting in 2001 being the steepest!
This exploits the fact that by picking the start of the decade appropriately one can find plenty of decades that support any trend hypothesis you want.
In bygone times this also worked for periods much longer than a decade. But once we embarked on the period of strong global warming, over the past half century, there ceased to be any 20-year periods showing a decline, only single decades, half of which go up and (slightly less than) half go down.
@gbaikie: These steps do seem to be real, but I don’t know how to explain them.
Well, all five steps in the above graph certainly seem to be real, though I’m sure explaining them would be an easy exercise for a creative writing class. :)
David,
You can see the step change from the 1998 ENSO occur in Arctic sea ice about 18 months later. The pulse of warm water took about 18 months to make its way along the conveyor belt and began an accelerated ice melt at that time which culminated in about 1 million square kilometers less ice several years later. Ice extent then settled in moving marginally above or below that new point.
David Springer said, ” The pulse of warm water took about 18 months to make its way along the conveyor belt”
And the “reflection” of that pulse can be seen in the tropics 18 months later. A 36 month pseudo-cycle. The southern hemisphere “pulse” is smaller and with a longer period. The internal harmonics of the system are fascinating
Yes, they are fascinating. The speed and volume of the conveyor belt in all directions isn’t well enough characterized IMO but certain sections of it, especially the surface currents like the Gulf Stream, are well studied.
One of the biggest questions I have in this regard is how did the global ocean acquire an average temperature of 4C, taken top to bottom, without that being the long term average of the surface temperature. The lower 90% of the ocean’s volume is a pretty constant 3C from equator to pole. Sea water reaches its greatest density at -1.9C which also happens to be its freezing point. Most people don’t happen to know that the salt content of the ocean alters its temperature/density profile. So given that the bulk of the ocean below the mixed could be colder than 3C because that’s not its point of greatest density then how did it get that way? And what keeps the mix rate between the warm surface layer and the frigid deep from accelerating in a positive feedback scenario which causes a rapid end to the interglacial warmth? That frigid ocean and the fragile transient nature of the warm mixed layer is what worries me more than anthropogenic CO2. I consider any warming of the surface due to anthropogenic CO2 a hedge against the day the Holocene interglacial begins to end.
The 4C appears to be heat capacity and density phenomena. The energy of an object at 4C degrees is ~ 334Wm-2 and the heat of fusion is 334 Joules per gram. That is more than just an odd coincidence to me. Adding salt negates the fresh water maximum density at 4C, but doesn’t change the actual heat of fusion, the best I can tell.
That makes 4C a more “likely” temperature not a solid reference temperature. I am not particularly sure how to proceed with that, but a prolonged solar minimum should have about twice as much impact as estimated. If it does, then I may have a better handle on what is really happening.
Even more interesting;
4C radiant emittance = 334Wm^2 verified here:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
334 * 4 = 1336 which is within half a percent of the solar constant currently measured at 1366W/m2. And of course the ratio of the surface of a disk is one fourth that of a sphere of the same diameter.
I believe this is what I’d call a BINGO moment. The above is very very unlikely to be a coincidence.
So what are the implications of this? I think we can reasonably say that the average ocean temperature is fixed and set by the solar constant. Given that the atmosphere is heated mostly by the ocean then the whole ballgame is about the rate of diffusion between ocean mixed layer and the bulk of the ocean below it. Sound reasonable to you?
David, yeah, but I have been stuck on BINGO for about two years now :(
I have a model that I was working on where I stayed with S-B energy values and was looking to incorporate permittivity to use the Relativist Heat Conduction to connect all the energy transfers. That is complicated but should work. Proving stuff is the bitch.
David” I think we can reasonably say that the average ocean temperature is fixed and set by the solar constant. Given that the atmosphere is heated mostly by the ocean then the whole ballgame is about the rate of diffusion between ocean mixed layer and the bulk of the ocean below it. Sound reasonable to you?”
Ocean mixing layer and sea ice balance. Most of the surface temperature variation is due to the imbalanced land mass percentage. The properties of salt water limit the SST range to 21.1 C +/- 1 approximately. It kinda blows the “faint young sun paradox” out of the water because if there is any liquid water near the equator, the oceans will warm to ~21 C. Pretty neat I thought.
“The above is very very unlikely to be a coincidence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology
Someone better with probability and statistics might be able to say what the odds are of average ocean radiant emittance of 334W/m2 being almost exactly the same as the solar constant projected onto a sphere to within about a quarter of a percentage point. Offhand I’d say the odds are about 400:1 in favor of there being a fixed relationship between average ocean temperature and solar constant. You don’t find numbers in the real world that line up that well very often. I’m chagrined that I never noticed it before. Has this relationship been noted in the literature anywhere?
That should have been average SST ~21C.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/07/first-day-of-global-warming.html
Just some thoughts I jotted down.
David, “Has this relationship been noted in the literature anywhere?” Not that I am aware of. It really makes it a challenge when you may be onto something new. It could be a complete waste of time or “ground breaking” In either case, you are a whack job until you either prove or disprove the relationship on your own.
captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4 | August 14, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
“David, “Has this relationship been noted in the literature anywhere?” Not that I am aware of. It really makes it a challenge when you may be onto something new. It could be a complete waste of time or “ground breaking” In either case, you are a whack job until you either prove or disprove the relationship on your own.”
The relationship itself only depends on a few well-established givens:
1) S-B emitted power of a 4C black body is 334W/m2
2) solar constant is 1366E/m2
3) solar constant projected onto a sphere is 341W/m2
4) average temperature of the global ocean is 4C
I would venture to say it’s not possible for a 1366W/m2 solar constant to keep the average temperature of the global ocean above 4C. So basically what we’re dealing with is probably something like Ferenc Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse and the surface air temperature is largely a reflection of how much mixing occurs between main body of ocean and top 300 meters. Top layer of ocean at the equator can reach much higher than average temperature and because it’s bouyant over colder water and can spread away horizontally. At the equator we can get 668W/m2 at the surface which equates to 59C if it could be captured in the top few centimeters of water (which it can’t). Interestingly 58C is the highest air temperature ever recorded over land which CAN capture that much in the top few centimeters. Izzat a coincidence too?
I’ve never been really suspected the atmosphere is more than the tail on the dog and the brunt of its effect is providing enough pressure so liquid water can exist in a 100C range at sea level.
I’ve never been really suspected the atmosphere is more than the tail on the dog and the brunt of its effect is providing enough pressure so liquid water can exist in a 100C range at sea level.
I think the phase diagram of water answers the question of what happens to the oceans when the atmosphere is removed. The triple point is at 612 Pascals, corresponding to removing 99.4% of the atmosphere. Down to that pressure water freezes at essentially 0 C. Even if what remains is 100% water vapor, that won’t be enough greenhouse effect to prevent the oceans from freezing over.
But if the pressure were to drop below that, the frozen ocean would gradually sublime away, the same way dry ice does.
However this would tend to maintain the water vapor in the atmosphere. I would guess that, with all other gases gone, it would take relatively little of the ocean to sublime in order to maintain the pressure above the triple point, which would prevent further sublimation. The atmosphere (all water vapor at that stage) would then stabilize at a tad over 600 Pascals.
Were Ming the Merciless to then steal all of Earth’s atmosphere for the benefit of Mars in one massive heist, the atmosphere should fairly quickly return to 600+ Pascals, still all water vapor.
(This all assumes that no other gases are emitted by anything, of course.)
Added complication: the noonday sun in the tropics should melt the top layer of ice to slush. However the pressure at sea level should be the same around the globe including the poles. I would guess the tropics would be the main contributor to keeping global sea level pressure at very close to the triple point of 612 Pa, but that’s just a guess. Nice question for your physics and climate science friends.
David Springer, “1) S-B emitted power of a 4C black body is 334W/m2” Check
“2) solar constant is 1366E/m2” Actually for the Faint Sun Paradox I was using 70% of 1341Wm-2 and considering only a local albedo of 0.08 for liquid water. For the Faint Sun Paradox I could have used 1380Wm-2 available during perigee. Since the problem only requires maintaining liquid water, the global albedo is irrelevant initially.
“3) solar constant projected onto a sphere is 341W/m2” Approximately 341Wm-2, but 431Wm-2 minimum for a the day half cycle is more important than global average. Because of the Mpemba effect and ice insulation, that would allow a net energy gain for a 24 hour period. As water vapor is increased in that atmosphere, that additional heat capacity/insulation potential would help with the increase in albedo as a trade off. Remember, I started this because of the faint young sun paradox conference which I did not attend.
“4) average temperature of the global ocean is 4C” Roughly. The main thing is the salt density stratification which allows 21C average surface temperature with roughly 4C average volume temperature. The depth of the mixing layer would vary with heat content and salinity with the ~4C maintained by -1.9C sinking water at the ice formation boundary. If the oceans weren’t saline, we wouldn’t be here.
Vaughn – ah, that explains why there’s a water vapor atmosphere on the moon and mars.
No, wait. I seem to recall something about photodissociation of water vapor bombarded by high energy particles at TOA, the hydrogen is lost, and the free oxygen oxidizes the f*ck out of whatever it touches until there isn’t any more of that gas either. Then you’re just left with water ice below the surface.
http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/3940/
Vaughn
No, wait. Even better. Venus has virtually no water left because it couldn’t remain liquid and the vapor photodissociated. Something was nagging at the back of my mind that Mars and Luna couldn’t hold much of any atmosphere (water vapor or otherwise) because gravity was so weak solar wind could blow it all away. But I was pretty sure that earth gravity isn’t enough to hang on to hydrogen so sure enough, Venus is the example I wanted because of similar gravitational constant as Earth:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm
As always, thanks for playing. There’s a consolation prize waiting as you exit stage left. :-)
@capt dallas
I never heard of no global average SST of 21C. Range is 14-16C that I’ve read. 21C would substantially raise average temperature above 4C which is widely accepted and/or it would drastically decrease the average depth of the mixed layer. I’m not buying it.
David Springer, the 21.1C SST average is based on the Aqua satellite data which is the only one I have found not in anomaly,
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/playingwithaqua.png
The water Venus originally had is now gone because of a process called dissociation.
Good point. Ming the Merciless’s cunning disguise. :)
However you’re considering only the limit when all the water is gone, while I was considering what happens as long as there’s any water left to sublime. Until persuaded otherwise I’m sticking to my claim that the atmospheric pressure at sea level will hover around 600 Pa all around the world as long as any water/ice remains somewhere on the surface of the planet, dissociation of the atmosphere notwithstanding. Only when no surface water remains will dissociation due to UV then be able to reduce the pressure below 600 Pa. Getting to that point could take a while.
The point about the solar wind is well taken though. Unlike UV which is mere energy that can only dismantle H2O molecules but not push them around perceptibly, the solar wind also has significant momentum that could easily blow intact H2O (and don’t forget O2) molecules off the planet without any assistance from UV.
When both mechanisms are in effect in this scenario, it’s a good question what proportion of the dissociated oxygen atoms escape being blown off the planet by the solar wind before they have time to oxidize some heavier atom (presumably metal) resting (relatively) safely on the surface. And even those are at risk of being dissociated by UV, since the binding energy between oxygen and metals is in the same ballpark as for both H2O and O2 molecules, in the range 4-8 ev.
I would guess that in this scenario of a planet whose only atmosphere is water vapor, only a miniscule fraction of the dissociated oxygen atoms would escape being blown off the planet. To escape that fate they would need to find refuge deeper than the top layer of molecules resting on the surface before the UV dissociated them again, a tall order statistically speaking.
Vaughan Pratt, “Added complication: the noonday sun in the tropics should melt the top layer of ice to slush. However the pressure at sea level should be the same around the globe including the poles. I would guess the tropics would be the main contributor to keeping global sea level pressure at very close to the triple point of 612 Pa, but that’s just a guess. Nice question for your physics and climate science friends.”
When I started looking at this I did assume that the Young Earth would have more geothermal activity to initiate equatorial open water to start the process. Without out that, there is still current geothermal, tidal forces and the weak solar absorption.
With current geothermal at the ocean floor of about 1Wm-2 and a temperature of +2C degrees, there is up to 4 C leeway for liquid water under the surface of an ice layer. Depending on the thickness of the equatorial ice, if it did exist, with liquid below and tidal forcing there would likely be openings in the ice that would allow solar energy to penetrate to some depth. That would allow some conductive and latent energy transfer to an atmosphere with a much smaller radiant spectrum and add to the stored energy of the oceans.
It doesn’t matter if it is only a few milliwatts per meter squared retained, the atmosphere would warm somewhat and with O2 in the atmosphere there would be a tropopause with a stratospheric inversion. The conditions are there to drive the system over some time period to a liquid water world.
Of course, with volcanic activity, the surface ice would be dirty decreasing albedo helping the whole process along. What is interesting it that even though the surface average temperature may be close to 255K degrees, the oceans would still be about 277K degrees which is close to the ideal black body temperature without any greenhouse effect with the current solar constant.
Yes, cd, these are all reasonable points if one is seriously contemplating exactly what would happen if the atmosphere were removed. I was treating it more as an idealized puzzle question, minimizing such complications so as to make it easier to solve.
Not sure if you had it in mind, but the points you raise are relevant to the question of how to melt a SnowBall Earth, which I’ve found very interesting. Some you mention, like geothermal activity (radioactivity being perhaps the main contributor) and dirty snow, are ones that Ray Pierrehumbert didn’t consider in his 2005 paper “Climate dynamics of a hard SBE” in JGR. A high albedo indeed prevents the sun from melting the ice, but by Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation it also prevents the ice from radiating to space the heat it receives through the crust from the mantle.
If the albedo were 1 the surface could not radiate at all, and the temperature gradient from there to the core would gradually decrease. Since the radioactivity in the mantle and crust would maintain the temperature lower down, this would have the effect of raising the ocean temperature until the ice melted.
This would be a slow process as the crust is a good insulator, but with billions of years to spend on it, melting SBE by that mechanism shouldn’t present a problem.
Dirty snow would shift some of the heating task from below to above, which I would imagine would only accelerate the melting.
Unfortunately for the above argument it depends on the surface being a perfect insulator. In reality an albedo of 2/3 (the ballpark used by RPH and others for SBE) is high enough to freeze the Earth without being high enough to trap geothermal energy, whose flux is only a few hundred milliwatts per m2. That small amount should be easy to radiate to space when the albedo is 2/3, preventing it from melting the ice.
If so, that would seem to make dirty snow a better answer than geothermal energy.
@pratt re; snowball earth
Volcanoes don’t stop belching CO2 & ash. Eventually the surface darkens, CO2 goes through the roof, and positive feedback melt starts. Atmosphere is super fertile with CO2 and ground with nutrient-rich volcanic ash. Environmental niches mostly empty. Free for all for evolution with so little competition & so much food from primary producers, but I digress. Geothermal is only about 100mW/m2. A single percentage point increase in albedo is 1000 times greater than geothermal. It’s millions of years at most before a runaway melt. Probably first supervolcano does it as soon as the ash settles out. You either need more earth science facts at your disposal or need to spend more time correlating them or both.
@pratt re; snowball earth
mibad above – every percentage point in albedo is closer to 100x geothermal than 1000x – dropped a decimal point there – one point albedo is worth about 130W/m2 and geothermal is well under 100mW but isn’t well known so I usually just round it up
@pratt re; snowball earth
mibad above – every percentage point in albedo is closer to 100x geothermal than 1000x – dropped a decimal point there – one point albedo is worth about 130W/m2 and geothermal is well under 100mW but isn’t well known so I usually just round it up
good grief – it’s past my nap time or something I just can’t get that decimal where it belongs – 1 albedo point worth 13.0 W/m2
Eventually the surface darkens, CO2 goes through the roof, and positive feedback melt starts.
According to Pierrehumbert in his 2005 JGR article, even 200,000 ppmv of CO2 (200 mbar or 1/5 of an atmosphere) is not enough to melt SBE.
I would think darkening the surface with volcanic ash has a better chance. However this could just as well happen as a result of some precambrian microbes (microrabbits?) evolving on or just below the surface and soaking up all that lovely sunshine.
Geothermal is only about 100mW/m2.
Right, my recollection of 300 was too high. 60-80 is about the right range. In either case nowhere near enough for less than 100% albedo.
1 albedo point worth 13.0 W/m2
I would agree with that if peak insolation (at high noon) was the appropriate value to use in that tradeoff. Wouldn’t the average value (1/4 of that amount) be a more appropriate value?
But if it suffices to get the melting started just at the equator, then maybe the ratio should the diameter of the Earth divided by the length of the equator, namely 1/pi, slightly more than 1/4. With that ratio, one albedo point would be worth 13.67/pi = 4.35 W/m2. So even an albedo of 0.999 would render the geothermal leakage through the crust useless for melting the ice even at the equator, it would escape to space too quickly. You’d need around 0.99999.
Vaughan,
The snow has a high albedo (low emissivity and absorptivity) at visible wavelengths, but it’s almost black for LWIR. Measured emissivity is 0.97±0.08 according a 1985 paper of Kondo and Yamazawa. MODIS tells similar values for all wavelengts from 3.34 to 14.5 um. They stop at that wavelength but continuing a bit further is not likely to change the results. (It’s possible that their experimental setup would have been influenced by the CO2 absorption peak and that may have limited their range of measurement.)
That was me again. Forgot to change the name and link proposed by WordPress.
Thanks for the MODIS table for ice emissivity, Pekka, silly of me not to look for it myself.
In his 2005 JGR paper I cited above, PierreHumbert takes the albedo of “bare sea ice” to be 0.5 independent of wavelength. He might well have gotten quite different results with 0.95, especially with CO2 at 0.2 atmospheres (the top level he considered)! I wrote to him a couple of years ago to ask him about what had happened since his work back then but he didn’t respond—probably doesn’t know me from a bar of soap.
People, show me experimental proof that changing albedo (or material composition) has any effect at all on equilibrium temperature when exposing the material to alternating heating and cooling cycles.
What goes up must come down. If it heats faster, it will cool faster. If it heats slower, it will cool slower.
Hand wave all you want. I want to see a real laboratory experiment.
The null hypothesis: changing albedo or material composition (without the addition of work) will make no difference.
On the “snowball earth” hypothesis: if we consider the case of an earth with no sun and no ability to radiate. In such conditions, the earth would be isothermal. Isothermal earth would not be a snowball, it would be rather hotter because of the molten core. It is the ability to radiate and lose heat to space (there is no other mode of heat loss to space of note) that results in the real earth surface including a sun warming it being cooler than an isothermal radiatively insulated earth with no sun.
Show me a model that can correctly predict these boundary conditions.
@blouis79: On the “snowball earth” hypothesis: if we consider the case of an earth with no sun and no ability to radiate. In such conditions, the earth would be isothermal. Isothermal earth would not be a snowball, it would be rather hotter because of the molten core. It is the ability to radiate and lose heat to space (there is no other mode of heat loss to space of note) that results in the real earth surface including a sun warming it being cooler than an isothermal radiatively insulated earth with no sun. Show me a model that can correctly predict these boundary conditions.
You already have one: the one you used to determine what you think will happen.
Furthermore every model that predicts the same outcome as yours would need the same feature as yours: a surface with zero emissivity. Other details would then be largely irrelevant.
As a picky point, from a real-world physics standpoint your question is purely hypothetical. If we take “surface” to mean the top layer of molecules, zero emissivity is not remotely approachable physically. The thickness of such a surface would be 0.0001 of the wavelength of emitted radiation. That layer, and for that matter several thousand such layers deeper, would have essentially unit emissivity. This is because such layers are largely transparent to the thermal radiation they emit. You need a thickness on the order of a wavelength to even begin blocking thermal radiation.
But in that case conductivity kicks in to warm the top molecular layers from below. That is, the outgoing thermal flow is weakly conductive up to the top few microns, and strongly radiative thereafter.
This conductive flow from the core up to the top few microns can be estimated at around 60-80 mW/m2. Without the Sun to keep it warm, the surface of the Earth would lose heat at essentially that rate. As it cooled, practically all of the atmosphere would freeze and settle on (and hence become) the surface.
When equilibrium with the 2.7 K temperature of space was reached, the temperature of the surface would be roughly 35 K, while the core would remain molten, kept warm by the decay of radioactive elements, for the order of their half-life anyway.
I computed the 35 K surface temperature as sqrt(sqrt(.09/sb)) where .09 W/m2 is is a tad more than the current rate of heat flow from the core to the surface, and sb is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 5.67 x 10^-8. The outgoing heat from the core dwarfs all incoming heat from space whence the latter can be neglected.
35 K under the real-world assumption that a wavelength of thermal radiation is thousands of molecules wide is a very different outcome from a model that assumes exactly zero emissivity.
@VaughanPratt
What would be the surface temperature of an earth with no sun and completely covered by water?
What would be the surface temperature of an earth with no sun and no IR emitting GHGs?
David –
I will always give you credit for being a “skeptic” who is consistent in his argument about whether there is or isn’t warming.
But let’s be clear here. I am told over and over that “sketpics” don’t doubt that there has been warming, and that to some degree it is due to ACO2.
Now aside from the fact that now I need to make room for you under one of the already very packed spaces under buses, you need to be clear that it isn’t only “believers” who are “simply not prepared to disbelieve” — unless under the label of “believers” you include both “realists” and “almost all” “skeptics.”
Sorry Joshua, but I do not understannd your comment. Are you asking me a question? If so what is it? If not, what is your specific claim?
My point about preparedness is simply that in the cacophany of the debate no one has noticed my simple point about AGW already being falsified. Nor are they likely too. It is very funny if I am right. I laugh more than I cry.
David –
My main point was to make sure that realize you need to include many “skeptics” under your label of “believers.” In fact, according to Watts and many other “skeptics,” you have to make space under that label for “most” “skeptics.” Typically, in climate blog vernacular, “believers” is reserved for “realists” (often derogatorily referred to as “warmists”).
My secondary point was to ask whether you’d prefer an aisle or window spot in your location under bus #55? Judith doesn’t listen to “skeptics” who doubt that the ACO2 has warmed the climate – so you must be thrown under the bus. Don’t worry – you won’t be lonely under there, I can assure you. The group under buses is much larger than it seems Judith estimates.
Joshua is concerned about who on the bus. As in:
“To throw (someone) under the bus is an idiomatic phrase meaning to sacrifice another person (often a friend or ally), who is usually not deserving of such treatment, out of malice or for personal gain.
The phrase has been widely popularized by sports journalists since 2004 and was picked up by the mainstream media during the 2008 primary season. It has frequently been used to describe various politicians distancing themselves from unpopular or controversial figures.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw_under_the_bus
I personally don’t like buses.
But in terms of a metaphor, being on the bus is “where the money is” or suppose the bus of pros of Dover- the professional climate and golf club.
And Joshua has courageously volunteered to be the bus bouncer.
I am guessing one needs a validated bus ticket.
So the Jewish bouncer has very moderate demands- all you need to say is that CO2 may caused some warming. But if you claim CO2 doesn’t cause any warming, Joshua will have throw under the bus.
So, the bus ride is pretty cheap.
Interesting:
Not sure how my cultural heritage is even remotely relevant.
Whatever, the point is for your noting my cuture, gbaikie, I’m not the one who developed the criterion for determining who should be thrown under the bus. That was Judith and other “skeptics.” They have said that people who think that CO2 cannot warm the climate are not “in the room,” are not worth “listening” to. They are the ones who say that “skeptics” don’t doubt that the Earth is warming and that ACO2 is contributing to that warming.
It weren’t I.
My point is to highlight the hypocrisy in those statements, by noting the number of “denizens” who must be thrown under buses. In my observation, there is a very inconsistent standard being applied by some “skeptics.” Some “skeptics” claim that climate “skepticism” is not monolithic, but selectively disregard, at some times and not others, those “skeptics” who have some views they find to be “inconvenient.” They do this as they contradict their own arguments about “skeptics” not being monolithic – because they, themselves, exclude some “skeptics” from their in-group.
Joshua
I agree it was inappropriate for anyone to mention that your heritage is Jewish. Imo that is meaningless.
Imo, you also frequently disparage Judith because you believe she reacts to other people’s opinions or positions in a manner differently than you believe is appropriate. My point is that nobody appointed you to decide how others should behave. Your reactions in regards to Judith seem immature at best.
Regarding the positions of “skeptics”, imo; if a skeptic is defined as someone who is skeptical as to whether some or many of the conclusions of the IPCC make sense; there would logically be a wide range of skeptical positions. Some of these would logically be in conflict and some will be found to be inconsistent with validated science over time. Is there some type of duty for skeptics to spend time discussions invalid skeptical positions?
“Interesting:
So the Jewish bouncer has very moderate demands- all you need to say is that CO2 may caused some warming.
Not sure how my cultural heritage is even remotely relevant.”
Just seemed a bit strange. Sort of reminds me of something out of Seinfeld.
“Whatever, the point is for your noting my culture, gbaikie, I’m not the one who developed the criterion for determining who should be thrown under the bus. That was Judith and other “skeptics.” They have said that people who think that CO2 cannot warm the climate are not “in the room,” are not worth “listening” to. They are the ones who say that “skeptics” don’t doubt that the Earth is warming and that ACO2 is contributing to that warming.
It weren’t I.”
And bouncer doesn’t set the rules either :)
As for the point about CO2. I don’t have much opinion on the matter.
But if CO2 cools to any great degree, I need explanation for planet Venus.
“My point is to highlight the hypocrisy in those statements, by noting the number of “denizens” who must be thrown under buses. In my observation, there is a very inconsistent standard being applied by some “skeptics.” Some “skeptics” claim that climate “skepticism” is not monolithic, but selectively disregard, at some times and not others, those “skeptics” who have some views they find to be “inconvenient.” ”
“They do this as they contradict their own arguments about “skeptics” not being monolithic – because they, themselves, exclude some “skeptics” from their in-group.”
{{ Ah. I didn’t understand what you saying [for some reason}. But after
broke your paragraph [above] I understand. As I say below- it is political.
So, yes Judith and etc are making political choices.
This blog is a political choice made by Judith.
Also probably an experiment. :)
In my opinion a significant *thing* Judith has done is political. The politics involved is getting people engaged.
And so it would make her happier, if people reduce the amount name calling, and other versions of spamming. As her recent interest limiting to 25 posts a day, sort of indicates.
As I posted awhile ago [months], it seems to me Judith trying to end a war- thru diplomacy [which of course, is a political activity] }}
Originally what was saying-
It seems to me that skepticism applies to every thing science.
And in general in terms regarding climate science, it seems more hopeful that with robust skepticism there could be progress.
And I think the flag waving for the team has been encouraging an enormous waste public dollars and public time.
But I believe what you generally discussing is political in nature, rather about science. Judith and etc are talking political aspects or personal preference [which seem reasonable] which of course we can all respect but not necessarily need to adopt. And I can see how it’s sort of waste of time, quibbling over much of the warming in last century or so, has been due to CO2- the evidence isn’t clear. Though If anyone wants to argue that CO2 has caused 99.97% of the warming, then it might worth the bother. But what has been asserted is rather vague and within realm of possible.
To continue:
So a monolithic [or peaceful relations] is something which is reasonable to want. But what been claimed is there is a “denier movement”. And this is fantasy.
But a movement for real skepticism- is just, science.
Skepticism is the badge or clothes of science.
Rob –
My perspective is that I criticize Judith for selective reasoning and selective application of standards – not because she reacts to opinions differently than I.
My point is that nobody appointed you to decide how others should behave.
I never suggest that I have some exalted status in that regard. I comment on the reasoning of others in this arena, just as does virtually everyone else here. What I find interesting is why, sometimes, I get selected out for that behavior.
Perhaps. I will say not as a defense but in simple response to your argument that it is interesting that you would single out some folks for immature behavior but not others.
The determination of what is “validated science over time” seems to be in much dispute in these threads. I read smart and seemingly knowledgeable people debate those issues all the time here and elsewhere in the blogosphere. I think it is hypocritical for some “skeptics” to object to their beliefs being, what they see as arbitrarily, excluded from the “validated science club” on the one hand and then turn around and just as arbitrarily exclude others from that group.
No. I don’t think that anyone has a “duty” here. I think that everyone would be better served with more consistent application of standards and less tribalism/motivated reasoning. That goes for me. For you. And for Judith.
“WebHubTelescope | August 14, 2012 at 8:21 am |
The usually excessively verbose gbaikie says this:
“These steps do seem to be real, but I don’t know how to explain them.
I assume one gets if cooling also.”
Now we know his thought process. He doesn’t understand science but that doesn’t prevent him from making unwarranted assertions.”
Web:
Assertions would be:
These steps are real. One also has cooling steps.
And Web doesn’t understand science.
gbaikie not only doesn’t understand science, he makes a mess out of it and essentially fouls the scientific discussion with gibberish word salad.
What observations would serve as falsification of the germ theory of disease?
Or the theory of natural selection?
Or the law of gravity?
In the case of AGW, you could falsify the greenhouse effect in any garage with a little CO2 and a heat lamp. If it were false — which it isn’t.
I suggest you try heating a body of water that’s free to evaporate with downwelling infrared at 10 microns. There is a new family of lasers that operate in that frequency range.
http://www.boselec.com/products/irtun.html
Let me know how it turns out.
But that doesn’t answer the question. I asked what real world observations would falsify the CO2-AGW hypothesis. It’s a given that CO2 absorbs energy in wavelengths emitted by the earth. What’s not given is the response to that at the surface of the planet where latent fluxes on average dominate radiative fluxes. In general hypotheses aren’t proven correct by experiment. Math offers proofs. Science offers tentative explanations that are always open to falsification through contrary observations. The point at which no contrary obervation can falsify a scientific theory is the point at which it ceases to be a scientific theory and becomes dogma.
Why should I do an experiment, when you are the one trying to falsify the theory?
I await word of your experiment falsifying AGW. If you have the guts to try it.
That’s a lie, David. Your quote is right here:
I guess you know you’re beat — since you’re lying about what you wrote above.
Suppose we embrace your weaseling and ask “what real world observations would falsify the CO2-AGW hypothesis.”
Are you suggesting that your garage is not part of the real world? That lab experiments do not take place in the real world? All the science done at the bench is not “real”?
That’s very funny. But not at all persuasive. I gave you one way to falsify the theory of AGW. There are many others. But you can only falsify things that are false. Tough luck! :)
Replace “real” world with natural world. That would exclude my garage.
Why don’t I do the experiment? Because it’s not cheap or easy for an individual without a lab to perform and my taxes in part pay for academics in public universities with well equipped laboratories and graduate student slave-labor to do things like that. This is not to mention doing more than my financial fair share footing the bill for NASA and NOAA.
One of the most basic ideas in science is that the same physical laws apply across space and time. The idea that there is one set of physical laws for your garage, and another for your back yard, is utterly silly.
Demonstrating the greenhouse effect is incredibly easy and can be demonstrated experimentally with a fraction of the time and energy you’ve spent expressing strong opinions about science you don’t understand.
I’m skeptical you pay more than your fair share; but please feel free to link to your tax returns. Data and code, remember!
There are a myriad of science experiments immortalized in peer-reviewed papers whose results confirm the theory of AGW. Papers falsifying it do not exist, because it isn’t false. You might as well complain that there’s no proof you’re the king of England. There isn’t — because you’re not.
If you want to give money to someone to produce comforting myths about the world, try the collection plate. It’s even tax deductible!
The answer of course is the confusion the believers have between AGw/climate change and climate science.
Germ theory vs. the idea that we can use anti-biotics endlessly to fight disease or Evolution vs. eugenics.
The fanatical believers in the climate consensus confuse their apocalyptic clap trap with basic science.
It would be more entertaiing if so many idiots like robert were not tracking it so closely and demanding so much money for their sad examples of acting out.
lurker – are you hunter?
Robert | August 14, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Reply
“What observations would serve as falsification of the germ theory of disease?”
Observation of diseases caused by genetic abnormalities, viruses, nutritional deficiencies, toxic chemicals, and so on and so forth. The germ theory of disease doesn’t explain all disease so I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking about.
“Or the theory of natural selection?”
The Precambrian Rabbit according to Haldane.
“Or the law of gravity?”
Monkeys flying out of your ass and attaining low earth orbit.
“Observation of diseases caused by genetic abnormalities, viruses, nutritional deficiencies, toxic chemicals, and so on and so forth.”
None of those things falsify the germ theory of disease, sorry. Gosh, you really don’t know very much about science, do you?
When you find it, let me know. ;) But that would not falsify the theory of natural selection.
“Monkeys flying out of your ass and attaining low earth orbit.”
Basically, then, you don’t know what it means to falsify a scientific theory. You’re simply repeating words you’ve heard other people say without understanding them. I imagine the flying monkeys you stuff up your ass could do better.
JBS Haldane said a Precambrian Rabbit was good enough falsification for him.
J. B. S. Haldane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with John Scott Haldane.
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010)
J. B. S. Haldane
J. B. S. Haldane
Born
November 5, 1892
Oxford, England
Died
December 1, 1964 (aged 72)
Bhubaneswar, India
Residence
United Kingdom
United States
India
Nationality
British (until 1961)
Indian
Fields
Biologist
Institutions
University of Cambridge
University of California, Berkeley
University College London
Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta
Alma mater
University of Oxford
Doctoral advisor
Frederick Gowland Hopkins*
Doctoral students
John Maynard Smith
Known for
Population genetics
Enzymology
Notable awards
Darwin Medal (1952)
Linnean Society of London’s Darwin–Wallace Medal in 1958.
Notes
*Cambridge did not have PhD degrees when Haldane was there,[citation needed] but he worked directly under Hopkins, who was the equivalent of a doctoral mentor.[citation needed]
You sir, are no JBS Haldane. If a Precambrian Rabbit is good enough for Haldane it’s good enough for me. At least he had the courage to drive a stake in the ground and unlike you he attached his real name to his opinion.
There’s no way a precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution. That the rabbit itself was actually precambrian would be more in doubt. If it was genuine it would create a paradox. We’d have to seriously entertain the idea that the rabbit time traveled.
@lolwot: There’s no way a precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution.
Unintended (?) subtext: we’re all prone to confirmation bias, no matter which side we’re on.
Actually a physicist named R.W. Wood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood
did the only real test of the greenhouse gas theory and found it wanting. Wood was an extremely accomplished physicist in the relevant fields:
I looked for serious efforts to replicate or improve upon his experimental work with modern equipment and found none. A couple amatuers using Saran Wrap and cardboard boxes, including Mythbusters, with flaky disagreeable results from one to another not suitable for publication in a reputable physics journal. To date Woods experimental results have simply been dismissed by hand waving. Welcome to climate science.
David Sprinter, the part of your post that *IS* correct is not about climate science, and the part of your post that is about climate science is *NOT* correct. :grin: 2¢ :grin: 2¢ :grin:
Thank you for this teaching opportunity, David Springer! :grin: :grin: :grin:
To date Woods experimental results have simply been dismissed by hand waving.
Actually it’s the other way round. You seem to think that cardboard boxes are the hallmark of an amateur. Well, Wood’s 1.5 page note in the Feb. 1909 issue of Phil. Mag. said only that he’d measured 65 C in his two cardboard boxes, didn’t like that, added a sheet of glass which reduced it to 55 C, and that was enough to satisfy him that infrared trapping had no heating effect. The only numbers in the note were the above two: in particular he gave no dimensions, making it impossible to duplicate his experiment (were his cardboard boxes 1 inch cubes, 1 foot, 1 yard, shallow or deep, were his windows 1/16″ thick or 1/2″, was the extra glass over one box or both, etc. etc.).
Five months later Charles Abbot, the Director of the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory, published a careful 5-page rebuttal of Wood’s 1.5-page hasty note referring to a similar experiment done 12 years earlier at the observatory, using wooden boxes, not cardboard, that attained a temperature of 118 C. (I was surprised Abbot did not also refer to the much earlier work on such boxes in the 1780’s by Horace de Saussure.) Abbot also worked out much of the theoretical basis for what Wood should likely have seen in Baltimore, which Wood seemed incapable of doing, which Abbot summarized with “it would seem strange that [Wood] observed no difference at all.”
Four months later Wood published a second paper in the same journal, on Talbot’s fringes, which attempted unsuccessfully to be more theoretically grounded. Embarrassingly for Wood it was shot down by the reviewer, Sir Arthur Shuster, in the same issue (at the reviewer’s request and with Wood’s permission, all very gentlemanly), who pointed out that Wood’s main error in arriving at his wrong conclusion was failure to distinguish between coherent and incoherent light. As the author of the textbook “An introduction to the theory of optics” published several years earlier Shuster was much better qualified than Wood in theoretical optics.
Your characterization of Wood as the professional and his critics as mere amateurs is exactly backwards. And if I were being introduced as a speaker whose main qualifications were that I had “numerous degrees” and had became a “full-time professor” I’d feel rather insulted.
Feel free to point to the the superior version of Wood’s work in a peer reviewed journal and preferably replicated somewhere. Or wave your hands around some more if that’s more your speed.
“Five months later Charles Abbot, the Director of the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory, published a careful 5-page rebuttal of Wood’s 1.5-page hasty note referring to a similar experiment done 12 years earlier at the observatory, using wooden boxes, not cardboard, that attained a temperature of 118 C.”
Have reference?
Ouch! Oh dear, David Springer! :sad: :sad: :sad:
Professor Vaughn Pratt maintains a web page that describes a thorough, modern replication of Woods’ experiments including many futther references (it took less than one minute to locate this page by Google). Yes gbaike, the Charles Abbot, reference you seek is there.
Summary of the Springer-Pratt Exchange
• Vaughn Pratt’s posts are entirely in the right, and
• David Springer’s posts are entirely in the wrong, and
• David Springer’s abusively insistent ignorance provides perhaps Climate Etc’s clearest-ever example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Score Vaughn Pratt wins the debate by a smashing knockout! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dear John Sidles,
I spanked Vaughn Pratt in private email before that blog exchange happened. Ask him where the promised results are for his improved experiments with rock salt windows. Go ahead, I dare ya. I won’t repeat what he wrote to me in private unless he denies it or says something different now.
Seriously? Dave gets utterly spanked in a public forum, and his response is:
“Uh, I won another debate . . . uh, it was earlier . . . in private, and nobody was around, but I beat him good . . .”
Fun excuses, Dave! But you still lost the big show!
The redoubtable Professor Pratt’s web page provides a scanned image from Volume 18, Number 103 of “The Philosophical Magazine” (July 1909, pages 32-25), of Charles Abbot’s:Notes on the Theory of the Greenhouse“ .
For his thoughtful, factual, sharing discourse with regard to this historical treasure, Vaughn Pratt deserves appreciation and thanks from everyone at Climate Etc.. Thank you, Vaughn Pratt! :grin: :grin: :grin:
We can all appreciate Dave Springer too … although this is a considerably tougher contract, as Mark Twain might say! :grin: :grin: :grin:
Conclusion References to Wood’s experiments in the climate-change denialist literature thus stand revealed (needless to say) as being utterly and inexcusably bogus. :grin: :grin: :grin:
gbaike
Abbot’s Gedankenexperiment in reply to Wood’s real experiment.
http://boole.stanford.edu/Wood/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
Oh, and Vaughn. After you write up the results of your rock salt window experiments (in due time of course, it’s only been two years) please relay the further results of my suggestion of what happens when instead of making the inner surface a solid black body making it a body of water free to evaporate which is, after all, what we’re interested in.
I might also suggest you round up a grad student there at Stanford and cut to the chase by using a 12 micron CW laser to simulate downwelling infrared from CO2 and see if you can warm water with it when the water is free to evaporate in response.
Here’s a source for the lasers. New stuff. Woods couldn’t do this. You can. See if you can do better than cardboard, scotch tape, and saran wrap to construct it and maybe in a laboratory at Stanford instead of next to your geraniums on your back porch.
http://www.boselec.com/products/irtun.html
It’s been suggested by the description that Wood’s setup was a cold frame although “packed in cotton” implies something smaller to me. The way he describes the secondary glass pane suggests it covers both of the primary panes but why don’t you just do it both ways?
Or just modernize the whole shebang by illuminating water with a 12 micron CW laser and see if evaporates or warms or both in response in increasing power. Woods did his experiment in 1901. He’s got a good excuse for using cardboard and cotton wadding. So would a third grader at at science fair. One presumes Stanford PhDs and their grad students can do better than kiddie science fair projects. One might expect it would be so much better it would be unfair to compete at the same level. But maybe I’m grossly overestimating Stanford is all.
I should apologize for allowing other projects to push lower on my stack my duplications of Wood’s experiment, to which I had attached insufficient importance. After working with glass-vs-saran-wrap I decided that glass-vs-salt was going to be the only way to properly duplicate Wood’s experiment, not because saran wrap isn’t a good substitute for salt but because skeptics want to see all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed. (Not that I expect skeptics to pay the slightest attention to these results, like alarmists they’re confirmation-biased.)
Optically clear salt being much more fragile than glass, commercially available salt windows tend to be very small—I had to buy two 2″x1″x1/4″ windows to assemble a single 2″x2″ window sitting on a 2″x2″x2″ box. No one knows what size box Wood used, but I would be surprised if different sizes gave dramatically different results. I would be even more surprised had he found a 12″x12″ salt window in his physics department’s supply store.
The experimental setup I built two years ago (and haven’t had time to play with since) had three TMP05B digital temperature sensors on each box daisy-chained together and sampled every 5 seconds with a microprocessor. The three sensors measured the temperature at the top and bottom of the interior of the box, and the top (exterior) of the window.
My first attempt at box fabrication pointed up various flaws that are on my list to correct on the next build whenever that happens. That said, here are the numbers in Celsius I have to date for the three thermometers top to bottom using the two windows, based on averaging 40 readings for each box taken over two 100 second periods during the early afternoon of a cloudless summer’s day in Northern California. Between the two periods I swapped the windows but not the thermometers and boxes so as to reduce any biases that might favor one type of window over the other. (I have thousands more readings but too scattered to compare properly.)
Glass
38.7
54.4
75.4
Salt
36.5
48.2
74.3
Conclusion based on this very limited and flawed experiment (therefore to be taken with a grain of glass and salt respectively):
At the bottom of the boxes “there was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures” (Wood’s exact words without the location qualifier). At the top of the interior of the boxes the difference was over 6 degrees.
Most shocking however was the observation that the top-to-bottom difference was 21 degrees for glass and 26 degrees for salt!
By far the biggest flaw in Wood’s experiment is his assumption that “the temperature inside the box” was a well-defined number. Had he placed the thermometers at the bottom of the boxes he would have found some consistency between them, but not at the top.
With readings of 65 C, then 55 C with extra glass, for both boxes, it may have been that Wood put the thermometers somewhere in the middle. But in that case one could get any result one wanted simply by not putting both thermometers at exactly the same height, since the variation within each box is so huge, 21 degrees for glass and 26 for salt. (The top-to-bottom temperature is more uniform for the glass window because less heat is leaking out through it, hence less of a difference across the height of the box.) Wood was apparently oblivious to this effect and therefore would not have realized that thermometer height was crucial.
It should be borne in mind that 1 cm of glass has very close to the IR absorptivity of atmospheric CO2 at 1000 ppmv. So today’s 400 ppmv level corresponds to 4 mm of glass, in the sense that if all the atmosphere’s CO2 froze and settled out on the surface of the Earth as solidly packed dry ice it would form a layer 4 mm thick. This is not far from the 6 mm (1/4″) I was using for both kinds of windows. So whatever difference glass makes to temperature when trapping IR, CO2 could make a similar difference.
How to translate altitude within a box to altitude in the troposphere is a separate question since lapse rate matters in the atmosphere but is immaterial in a 2″ box. Also the glass is concentrated in the top of the box while the CO2 is uniformly mixed into the atmosphere.
The real conclusion here is that skeptics and alarmists should pay attention to respectively the bottom and the top of Wood’s boxes. :)
David Springer | August 15, 2012 at 12:01 am |
gbaike
Abbot’s Gedankenexperiment in reply to Wood’s real experiment.
http://boole.stanford.edu/Wood/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
To quote from pdf:
“It may interest some to know that much higher temperatures
can be reached within a “hot-box” than observed by
Professor Wood. if precautions are taken to diminish the
loss of heat by convection from the warmed outer surface of
the cover. On November 4, 1897, the thermometer recorded
118°C within a circular wooden box 50 centimeters in
diameter, 10 centimeters deep, insulated with feathers, covered
with three superimposed and separated sheets of plate glass and
exposed normally to the sun rays in yard of the astro-
physical Observatory at Washington. The temperature
outside was 16°C.”
Seems 118°C was probably mistyped or something. Probably meant
118° F.
At this point, I’m not sure it’s worth participating further in David Springer’s parade of disproved fallacies. It appears in his mind he considers each of these insufficient, wrong, inaccurate, disproven, contrived ‘possibilities’ to be counterexamples to AGW, be they the experiments of Wood (which had unexplained discrepancies in observations, poor methodology, insufficient grasp of theory and mechanism, and irreproducibility going against Wood), or the far too short and variable satellite record of the UAH, or the faith-based argumentation of Spencer, or whatever fossil rabbit he can drag out of the fertile ground of blogospheric junk science from the past 30 years.
The quality of evidence matters in falsification. The question of how much evidence is necessary to falsify AGW isn’t a question of listing possibilities (which when examined turn out to be fictions) and seeing who has the biggest list. This is exactly what Newton warned about in Principia, the practice of manufacturing alternate hypotheses.
In that sense, not because AGW can’t be posed in a falsifiable form for experimentation, but because it’s a gross misreading of Popper and of the basics of the Scientific Method to hold to the pretense that it is enough merely to propose (feign) hypotheses.
From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-principia/#MetPri :
..Newton saw the Principia as illustrating a new way of doing natural philosophy. One aspect of this new way, announced in the Preface to the first edition, was the focus on forces:
For the whole difficulty of philosophy seems to be to discover the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces. It is to these ends that the general propositions in books 1 and 2 are directed, while in book 3 our explication of the system of the world illustrates these propositions. For in book 3, by means of propositions demonstrated mathematically in books 1 and 2, we derive from celestial phenomena the gravitational forces by which bodies tend toward the sun and toward the individual planets. Then the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea are deduced from these forces by propositions that are also mathematical. If only we could derive the other phenomena of nature from mechanical principles by the same kind of reasoning! For many things lead me to have a suspicion that all phenomena may depend on certain forces by which particles of bodies, by causes not yet known, either are impelled toward one another and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled from one another and recede. Since these forces are unknown, philosophers have hitherto made trial of nature in vain. But I hope that the principles set down here will shed some light on either this mode of philosophizing or some truer one. [P, 382][2]
A second aspect of the new method concerns the use of mathematical theory not to derive testable conclusions from hypotheses, as Galileo and Huygens had done, but to cover a full range of alternative theoretical possibilities, enabling the empirical world then to select among them. This new approach is spelled out most forcefully at the end of Book 1, Section 11:
I use the word “attraction” here in a general sense for any endeavor whatever of bodies to approach one another, whether that endeavor occurs as a result of the action of the bodies either drawn toward one another or acting on one another by means of spirits emitted or whether it arises from the action of ether or of air or of any medium whatsoever — whether corporeal or incorporeal — in any way impelling toward one another the bodies floating therein. I use the word “impulse” in the same general sense, considering in this treatise not the species of forces and their physical qualities but their quantities and mathematical proportions, as I have explained in the definitions. Mathematics requires an investigation of those quantities of forces and their proportions that follow from any conditions that may be supposed. Then, coming down to physics, these proportions must be compared with the phenomena, so that it may be found out which conditions of forces apply to each kind of attracting bodies. And then, finally, it will be possible to argue more securely concerning the physical species, physical causes, and physical proportions of these forces. [P, 588]
A third aspect of the new method, which proved most controversial at the time, was the willingness to hold questions about the mechanism through which forces effect their changes in motion in abeyance, even when the mathematical theory of the species and proportions of the forces seemed to leave no alternative but action at a distance. This aspect remained somewhat tacit in the first edition, but then, in response to criticisms it received, was made polemically explicit in the General Scholium added at the end of the second edition:
I have not as yet been able to deduce from phenomena the reason for these properties of gravity, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this experimental philosophy, propositions are deduced from the phenomena and are made general by induction. The impenetrability, mobility, and impetus of bodies and the laws of motion and law of gravity have been found by this method. And it is enough that gravity should really exist and should act according to the laws that we have set forth and should suffice for all the motions of the heavenly bodies and of our sea. [P, 943][3]
During most of the eighteenth century the primary challenge the Principia presented to philosophers revolved around what to make of a mathematical theory of forces in the absence of a mechanism, other than action at a distance, through which these forces work. By the last decades of the century, however, little room remained for questioning whether gravity does act according to the laws that Newton had set forth and does suffice for all the motions of the heavenly bodies and of our sea. No one could deny that a science had emerged that, at least in certain respects, so far exceeded anything that had ever gone before that it stood alone as the ultimate exemplar of science generally. The challenge to philosophers then became one of spelling out first the precise nature and limits of the knowledge attained in this science and then how, methodologically, this extraordinary advance had been achieved, with a view to enabling other areas of inquiry to follow suit.
If we allow the Springers of the world to invade Science thus, armed with all the salvos Cato and Heartland and the GWPF and SEPP can furnish, generating FUD endlessly, then we will end up in a world much like it was before Newton waded into the fog that held the world in ignorance and scythed down the practice of feigning hypotheses relentlessly. A world where more adults believe angels are real than do not. A world where decisions of policy are made at the behest of wealthy patrons for their interests against the commonwealth. A world where we do not do great deeds for just causes informed by great thought. We will end up living in the USA as it is right now.
And not one single US patriot wants that.
I don’t know the optical properties of rocksalt glass.
But I think the point of Wood’s experiment is to show
that it wasn’t the optical properties of normal glass
which causing the trapping of radiant energy of sunlight
But rather it simply that a transparent materials allows
energy of sunlight in enter, and it blocked the convection
of heat. And it was the blocking of convection of heat that
permitted the air temperature [and surface temperature] to
get warm.
It seems possible that rocksalt glass may have been more
available to professor Wood in his time and situation.
And in modern world in which a lot more in known one could
find something better than rocksalt glass.
An example:
“IR Optics
There are numerous glass types available for the visible spectrum, but there are only a small number of materials that can be used in the MWIR (mid-wave infrared) and LWIR (long-wave infrared) spectral bands.
Germanium is a crystalline material. It is one of the most common infrared materials, and it can be used in the MWIR and the LWIR band. Germanium has a very high refractive index (n = 4.0243), which makes elements with long radii feasible. It has a large dn/dT (396 ppm/K) which can cause large focus shifts with temperature changes. This could make athermalization difficult.”
http://www.elcan.com/Capabilities/germanium.php
Somehow I doubt the rocksalt glass is used for infrared goggles.
But I think the issue that convection is the main loss of heat- it’s why the interior of cars are hot if the windows rolled up in a parking lot on sunny day.
So Wood was simply proving this and that there wasn’t any significant amount infrared energy was trapped [and something like few degrees- wouldn’t be considered significant].
So it seems the convection correct, and perhaps an issue can be about how significant radiant trapping of glass [or CO2 or whatever can be].
Now, I don’t one can trap much radiant energy- using kind of glass or any amount of greenhouse gas [water vapor, CO2, Methane, super greenhouse gases, whatever].
If you make any kind greenhouse exceed 80 C [surface or air] then one going prove that radiant trapping properties are significant.
@gbaikie: If you make any kind greenhouse exceed 80 C [surface or air] then one going prove that radiant trapping properties are significant.
Exactly so. And no, Abbot’s 118 C was not a typo for 118 F, which would have been a very feeble 48 C, well below the 65 C and 55 C temperatures observed by Wood.
And not one single US patriot wants that.
You mean not one single true US patriot wants that.
Vaughan Pratt | August 16, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
I never deny using fallacies myself, as anodyne, in humor, educationally, or when I slip up and fall into bad habits..
In this case, the irony is so many self-proclaimed patriots do seem to want exactly a world where more adults believe angels are real than do not, where decisions of policy are made at the behest of wealthy patrons for their interests against the commonwealth, where we do not do great deeds for just causes informed by great thought.
I’m not just saying this because I look at the USA and see Mitt Romney selecting the closest substitute for Sarah Palin he could find without offending those who believe women shouldn’t have careers outside the home, and Joe Biden forgetting which millennium we’re in. After all, I have a great deal of sympathy for someone from a northern state who wants less taxes and less snow, and for anyone who doesn’t trust the businessmen who crookedly wrecked the entire world’s economy and laughed all the way to the, excuse the expression, bank.
I’m saying this because being informed by great thought requires us to learn great thought, and while everywhere the tools and technologies that should allow us to do this blossom, we find technical solutions for social problems do not always work. I see Udacity and EdX offering courses in introductory Physics and Statistics and that develop logical thinking, so tens of thousands of people have freely acquired certified competency in these qualifications, and yet the Climate blogosphere every hour reveals how sorely needed an Climate Literacy Online University Degree program is.
David Wojick, would it hurt you to raise your aim a little from the brainwashing of defenseless kiddies into writing an outline for adults instead? Professors from five countries visit Climate Etc. — likely more — who could easily set out a curriculum of Physics, Statistics, Critical Thinking, Earth Sciences, that would serve far better than raising the question, “Have you read six journal articles?”
Any takers to found a free CLOUD for certifying competency?
The possibilist approach ha no merit whatsoever, except when something is deemed impossible, like creating/destroying energy, decreasing entropy of a closed system, deciding if gravitational pull in a small enclosed cabin is due to acceleration or a nearby mass concentration, measuring both location and velocity of a particle with arbitrary precision, transmitting information faster than the speed of light in vacuum, etc. This kind of reasoning is called physics.
Otherwise literally anything is possible, which is not terribly informative in itself.
And yes, the probabilistic approach is doomed to failure, whenever the sample space is not readily given. Without it one can’t even start to define a probability measure.
It can get quite serious in case of nuclear accidents or plane crashes, where sophisticated probabilistic failure models are set up in advance, but ex post facto analysis regularly reveals there was an event involved in the actual scenario which was missing from the model, therefore no probability was assigned to it.
In real world applications one always has to take into account the law of fat tails: rare events happen often. That is, a significant portion of events unfolding in complex systems is a once-in-a-lifetime event. Each one is easily dismissed in an a priory analysis as next to impossible, still, collectively they make up the bulk of our daily experience. Most of these possibilities are so weird, they do not even come to mind in advance.
The only reasonable way to deal with this phenomenon is to keep your eyes open and retain flexibility.
Quinn (13/08 10.59am) and max, ( 14/08 6.17am) re explanation, prediction and empirical data. It’s the scientific method isn’t it? Explanatory power in science jest can’t be assessed on whether there are questions to which a theory gives a seemingly plausible answer, but whether the explanation offers opportunities to learn more about the facts in future and that means testability. Explanation isn’t explanation w/out predictability.
Guess models’ hindcasting doesn’t fit the bill.
.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/extinction-climate-change-modeling-mayhem
Beth Cooper, that is a good point!
As an example of how verification, validation, and understanding operate in climate-change science, please note that Hansen and colleagues in their 2011 article Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications concretely predict:
• sustained planetary energy imbalance, and
• acceleration of sea-level rise this decade.
Moreover, Hansen and colleagues call for larger, longer, higher-quality observational datasets for all planetary heat reservoirs and radiative transport processes, most especially those reservoirs and transport processes relating to clouds and aerosols. They predict that these augmented data sets will show
• substantial negative forcing by human-made aerosols.
These concrete predictions serve to verify the valid scientific understanding of climate-change, founded upon simple energy-entropy principles, that Hansen and colleagues affirmed in their seminal 1981 article “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.”
Hopefully this simple explanation of the slow, steady process by which verification, validation, and understanding are achieved in climate-change science, will be helpful to you Beth Cooper, and also to Quinn the Eskimo! :) 2¢ :) 2¢ :)
And thank you especially, Beth Cooper, for your many fine posts, poems, and questions, which are a wonderfully good-spirited contribution to Climte Etc! :grin: :grin: :grin:
The global warming monster… will continue to scare people as long as it can. It will continue to devour billions of dollars until it ultimately chokes of its own gluttony. Unfortunately many innocent people may be hurt before the beast is dead. The threat of massive sea level rise has been the primary weapon of fear for those looking to control how we make energy and who rules the world. ~Art Horn, Meteorologist
Unless, of course, Hansen’s scentific understanding of CO2-driven climate change is verifiably valid (V&V).
In which event, James Hansen’s strategy of climate-change V&V amounts to plain-and-simple, old-fashioned conservative, ordinary common-sense, eh Wagathon? :grin: 2¢ :grin: 2¢ :grin:
Common sense says we look at historical data. Hansen would argue that we accept his speculations about the future even though there is no evidence that his understanding of what the future holds is even remotely true. The Earth has been cooling since the time of Jesus (that’s about 2,000 years for the secular socialists).
The real inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperature has been falling for 3,000 years as revealed by the Greenland ice core data. Current temperature changes are but tiny blips in the overall cooling. The temperature has dropped some 3.75 degrees Fahrenheit since the Minoan Warm Period some 3,300 years ago. The ultimate irony will be that if the long term trend continues shivering future generations may look back and wonder why we saw warming when the next ice age was staring us in the face. ~Art Horn, Meteorologist
What evidence do you have for a “Minoan Warm Period”? 2C warmer than today? Verrry unlikely.
You mention the Greenland ice core data. The last time the EPICA site was warmer than present was about a hundred and twenty thousand years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
Global reconstructions using many different proxies (i.e., not just Greenland) also do not find any evidence of a “Minoan Warm Period” warmer than the present:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
(For the sourcing of those graphs, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record)
Google scholar comes up with some blog posts and comments by deniers, and one paper, cited only six times since publication, that alludes to a “Minoan Warm Period” during a discussion of how global warming is caused by natural “cycles,” but without discussing where that notion comes from.
I’m skeptical of this “Minoan Warm Period.” Evidence please.
he’s no doubt talking about GISP2.
it’s the usual case where some climate skeptic falls over themselves backwards to incorrectly interpret central greenland proxy as global temperature.
SkepticalScience have a good series of articles debunking such incorrect advocacy of GISP2 and in particular have produced this chart:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/c4u-chart7.png
You can see the Minoan warming on there. This is central greenland not the globe though, so what skepticalscience have done is add the instrumental warming from central Greenland in thick blue to the end (plus marking 2010), something skeptics usually neglect to do or do incorrectly.
Nice catch.
Thanks for interpreting the denierspeak.
I dub thee, “The Pseudoskeptic Whisperer.”
This is kinda interesting.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Kobashietal2012.png
Kobashi et al. show a warmer MWP than Roman warm period?
” The current decadal average surface temperature (2001–2010) at the GISP2 site is -29.9°C. The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001-2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum.”
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.txt
So is this Kobiashi guy an idiot or is Skeptical Science living in the climate science past?
But that’s just Greenland. You know who else says it was warmer in Greenland during the MWP? Michael Mann (see Mann et al 2009)
Robert
Forget Wiki
Greenland was as warm as today in the 1930s
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml
The Medieval Viking farmhouses found buried in today’s permafrost are clear physical evidence that it was warmer there during Medieval times.
The current temperature in Greenland is not unusual “over the past 4000 years” (Kobashi et al. 2011)
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
Max
“The Medieval Viking farmhouses found buried in today’s permafrost are clear physical evidence that it was warmer there during Medieval times.”
And yet your reference to Kobashi et al. 2011 shows it was colder during the MWP than today.
lolwot, The red line is -29.9C or the 2001 to 2010 average that Kobashi used in his paper.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Kobashietal2012from600ad.png
So the MWP proper was about the same as “today” and it was warmer longer than generally thought in Greenland. This is getting more interesting every day.
Art Horn is flat out wrong.
3.75 degree F cooling in Greenland is not 3.75 F global cooling.
So many skeptics like Art Horn create a facade that they know what they are talking about, but really they don’t have a clue.
lolwot – What is your opinion of Muller’s idea to transfer fracking technology to China? His is the first workable idea I’ve heard. What say you?
surely they can just steal it
lolwot – your reply makes you look disingenuous.
Flat wrong? Siberia and the American NW are the Earth’s coldest continental airmasses. The atmosphere there is very dry due to the bitter cold–i.e., not much ‘greenhouse’ going on. If the temperature changes there “from -40° C to -38° C” would that be global warming?
my problem with fracking is I don’t think it’ll reduce CO2 emissions
That’s an astounding statement, lolwot. Methane H:C ratio 4:1.
Hydrocarbons, such as oil: ~ 2:1
Coal: very little: 1
This isn’t too hard to understand. What’s the problem you see?
I suspect it just makes coal and oil cheaper for other countries to burn more. Ultimately in the longrun I suspect the same amount of coal and oil ends up being burnt, and the fracking merely adds to that.
lolwot
Your logic is flawed.
More fracking for CH4 = more available CH4 = less need to burn coal (plus possibility to convert some transportation from petroleum to CH4)
Jim Cripwell has already shown you the chemical reason why this would result in less CO2 generated (as Professor Muller has suggested for China).
Max
The Cninese National Oil Company owns 30% of Chesapeke Energy, the 2nd largest gas producer in the US.
They don’t need to steal the technology and they don’t need a ‘freeby transfer’.
If they see a company with an interesting technology they just buy it.
“More fracking for CH4 = more available CH4 = less need to burn coal (plus possibility to convert some transportation from petroleum to CH4)”
I tell you what will happen: we won’t burn CH4 instead of coal. We’ll end up burning both.
lolwot
I repeat: your logic is flawed.
Sure, we’ll “end up burning both”.
But we’ll end up burning a higher percentage of CH4 and a lower percentage of coal.
There is no reason to believe that the overall energy consumption will increase as a result of fracking
Therefore there will be less CO2 generated than without fracking.
Pretty simple, actually.
Max
Why would we not, in the long run, burn coal until there is no more coal? I don’t get how that is obvious at all.
“There is no reason to believe that the overall energy consumption will increase as a result of fracking”
Yes there is. It makes coal cheaper.
Muller also suggested converting coal to liquid fuel. The good thing about this is that it is doable now. It is acceptable to conservatives because it does not involve more government controls and taxes. Muller also states that the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is such that changing the quantity of CO2 emissions will lower the concentration. He targets China – the primary problem. If, over the longer term, we develop nuclear, then the need to burn the rest of the coal decreases. Like almost all workable solutions, it isn’t perfect, but it is workable.
lolwot
Your logic is still flawed.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that more fracking will increase the total amount of energy our planet consumes.
Sorry.
Max
manacker look up supply/demand and markets
Actually, if you reduce the price of anything consumption will tend to increase. That is basic economics.
The concern lolwot raises is valid, but I don’t think it is the primary issue with fracking. The primary issue is that fossil fuel burning (either of coal or natural gas) affects the climate in three major ways:
Carbon dioxide is released (coal more than gas)
Methane is released (gas primarily)
Cooling aerosols are released (coal only)
So the question is; allowing that coal causes more warming over the course of a thousand years, which one of these causes more warming over the next century? Or the next fifty years? Or twenty?
It’s a complicated problem and an active area of scientific debate. But long story short; if you are looking at the climate of 2100, it’s not at all certain whether shale gas electricity, joule for joule, gets you less warming than coal (although it is better for people in other ways).
OK, so obviously the only solution lolwot likes is to drive up energy costs until the economy collapses. I think we’ve heard enough of that particular brand of drivel.
I don’t know, Jim, you sound a little . . . what’s the word? . . . alarmist.
Why is the economy going to collapse if we tax carbon as opposed to, say, property? Or payrolls?
Citation needed.
Robert – So you believe a carbon tax in the US will retard global warming? Citation needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
There you go.
Must have flunked economics.
Rare materials with a high utility cost more than abundant materials of little utility. When that useful material becomes more rare, as in crude oil, the energy cost will go up. That cost increase cannot be avoided because free market economics is dependent on exploiting the commons until they disappear.
Robert said:
Absolutely correct. The concept of EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) needs to be addressed. Hydraulic fracturing for oil and tar sands processing uses up lots energy and natural gas. No such thing as a free lunch, especially when we start scraping the bottom of the barrel for second-rate fossil fuel sources.This adds additional carbon as a multiplier.
Fossil fuel depletion analysis is critical for estimating future carbon emissions as well as monitoring its effects on the global economy.
This one is for Lattie => North Sea output drop sends key Brent oil to 3-month high
I predicted the combined drop in depletion spot on
UK North Sea : http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2005/10/uk-north-sea-simulation.html
Norway North Sea: http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2006/01/norway-offshore-depletion.html
Both UK and Norway are seeing their North Sea production falling like rocks as natural depletion sets in. There will certainly be new discoveries but the course is set.
OK, Robert. Nice link. It has nothing to say about carbon taxes. You have just confirmed, once again, that you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
WHT – you are correct that useful materials that are rare demand a higher price. However, that has zero to do with a carbon tax or what I was talking about. Do you have Attention Deficit Disorder?
The fact that you are an insufferable bore has nothing to do with the number of topics that get raised in a thread. I can still bring it up though :)
@lolwot: my problem with fracking is I don’t think it’ll reduce CO2 emissions
Lolwot, US CO2 emissions over the past four months have fallen to 1992 levels? The explanation given is that the recent drop in price of NG to below coal has driven the market from coal to NG. If shifting to NG doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions, then what’s your theory for why US CO2 emissions have fallen so much?
@jim2: That’s an astounding statement, lolwot. Methane H:C ratio 4:1. Hydrocarbons, such as oil: ~ 2:1 Coal: very little: 1 This isn’t too hard to understand. What’s the problem you see?
The problem I see is that these numbers have no obvious relation to whether NG produces fewer moles of CO2 per kJ of energy extracted than either oil or coal, since they don’t mention the respective bond energies. As it turns out NG does produces less CO2, but is the reduction any more than 25%? That much would hold the fort for a few years, but only a few—it doesn’t get us off the CO2 treadmill.
Based on the lower heating values (enthalpies of combustion with water as vapor in the flue gases) burning natural gas releases CO2 about 58% of the release of burning typical hard coal. The qualities of coal vary widely, thus the number is not accurate but typical. Including the heat of condensation the difference gets even larger but few power plants condense the water effectively.
In power generation the ratio is improved to approximately 1:2 due to the higher efficiency of modern combined cycle gas fired plants (or diesel engine driven generators) in comparison with modern coal fired plants.
Andrew Adams, 2 degrees warmer? There is a big difference between the reconstruction posted on skeptical science and that Kobashi reconstruction.
capt,
Figure 2 of Mann et al (2009) has the southern part of Greenland up to 1.4C warmer than the 1961-1990 reference period.
I’m not saying the Koyabashi reconstruction is directly comparable, I haven’t really looked at it, I was just pointing out that the notion that Greenland was warmer than today during the MWP is not particularly controversial and does not contradict the maintream position.
Actually, even though I’m still skeptical that man-made CO2 is a problem, I can get on board with Muller’s solution – transfer fracking technology to China. It would be even better if companies could make a little money in the process, thereby creating jobs. But still, Muller’s idea is a good one and acceptable as a non-governmental solution to CO2 emissions.
“. . . those looking to control how we make energy”
By that logic, traffic laws are made to control our movements, cigarette taxes to control our breathing, and vaccinations to control our immune systems.
Sound public policy “to promote the general welfare” as the Founders put it, is just not that big a deal. You want to be worried about something, worry about the fact that our government can now carry out extrajudicial killings of American citizens via robot. That has some bearing on the questions of freedom, power, and control — switching to lower-carbon energy sources simply doesn’t justify that sort of hyperventilating conspiracy theory nonsense.
Robert
How about proving that your ideas are actually “promoting the general welfare” and not just providing additional revenue for a bloated government!
Right after you meet your burden to show the radical geoengineering of the climate you propose is safe.
While you’re at it, why don’t you demonstrate how the US government, with tax revenues as a % of the GDP at their lowest in sixty years, is “bloated.” I know that that is a religious belief on the right, but I’d like to see some evidence.
There are 3 billion capitalists in the world living in China, India and Brazil who are not listening. All you can do is use ‘sound government policy’ to steal from your neighbor.
Poor Robert
You wish to see a change in other people’s behavior, but can not show that they should make the changes you wish they would. I, on the other hand am not trying to change behavior so I have no need to make a case.
and fyi Robert-
I am not a republican and consider a government bloated when it is spending 40% more than it is generating in revenues. Will taxes need to be raised? Imo, absolutely yes. Will government spending also need to be dramatically cut- obviously yes.
“Poor Robert”
Poor Rob. He can’t make an argument for what he proposes, so his solution is “I’ll hold my breath and you can’t make me!”
Fortunately climate deniers, for all their wacky media-friendly antics, are a small minority of the electorate. One need not overcome their denial to act responsibly in declining to radially geoengineer the climate.
Rob, I don’t need you to change your behavior. You’re very useful in driving people to the opposite of whatever side of the argument you’re on. But whatever the politics, if you want to argue that what you propose is safe, you need to support that argument with evidence. Otherwise you lose. It’s as simple as that.
Why not try? With a fraction of the effort you’ve wasted complaining bitterly about having to meet your burden, you could have already made an argument to the best of your ability.
Saying something is obvious is not an argument. Why cut spending? You could easily close the budget gap — which makes the government indebted, not bloated — by raising more revenue. You could cut spending — but why?
“While you’re at it, why don’t you demonstrate how the US government, with tax revenues as a % of the GDP at their lowest in sixty years, is ‘bloated.’”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/liar-obama-im-not-over-spending-im-running-to-pay-down-our-debt/rising-us-deficit-2/
Now that’s a hockey stick we can believe in.
“There are 3 billion capitalists in the world living in China, India and Brazil who are not listening.”
You’re off by over 500 billion people.
You don’t have a clue how many of them there are, but you know they think just like you — in spite of the surveys that find them to be much more concerned about climate change than Americans.
I understand your temptation — you’re losing the argument in America, so you want to shake your little fist and say “Next time — you won’t be so lucky!”
Unfortunately for you, your neofascist idiocy is even less popular abroad than it is at home. ;)
To look at the raw numbers of tax receipts vs. outlays, including in current dollars, inflation adjusted numbers and as a percentage of GDP, see here.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
It isn’t what progressive Huffington Post/MSNBC/ThinkProgress drones don’t know that makes them look ridiculous – it’s what they think they know that just ain’t so.
Meh, correction, not 500 million, about two hundred million. Still quite a bit for the person who claims to know their every thought and wish!
Love the arguments that end “…so I have no need to make a case.”
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
Robert | August 14, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
“You don’t have a clue how many of them there are, but you know they think just like you — in spite of the surveys that find them to be much more concerned about climate change than Americans.”
So that is why China has built more coal fired plants in the last year then the US has built in the last 30 years? Why Germany has 23 GW of coal fired plants under construction?
Opinions given in surveys ‘cost nothing’.
Yeah, why talk to people to find out what they think?
No country with coal power plants could ever agree to action on climate change . . . LOL.
China is listening to you, Robert. Sure they are. Keep up the good work.
lolwot | August 14, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
Yes there is. It makes coal cheaper.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of costs of production. I.E. A product can never be sold for an extended period of time below the cost of production, production will contract. The price will be ‘temporarily’ cheaper while the production capacity adjusts to the new reality.
Harry –
Just wondering if you might have some comment. (It was you that I discussed “irrational” fear about nuclear energy with over at Keith’s, wasn’t it?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818
We’ve been here before with other claims. It used to seem like every time somebody counted some frogs with too many legs, or seals dying in the North Sea, it was loudly proclaimed as being due to pesticides or radio-isotopes or “chemicals”, etc. Only later did people hear the less alarming explanations that it could be due to regular population dynamics and/or viruses etc.
I’m confident that if they hadn’t had the nuclear problems then these authors would now be publishing something damning about what climate-change was doing to the butterflies.
Perhaps it was due to the weather because that could also coincide with rain-out of radioactivity. They say the butterfly is found in [human affected] environments like gardens and parks….well perhaps economic disruption and the presence of a huge fricking Tsunami affected the human environment a little bit….
and yes, viruses can cause genetic mutations….
Just like how the whale oil producers couldn’t compete with that newfangled Pennsylvania oil out of the ground, huh?
Thx fer kind message fan. Re uncertainty, I’d say it’s what I live by, and love of nature… and music :-)
Re uncertainty and feedbacks in climate, say…
The cherry blossom’s burstin’ inter bud,
The frogs are crickin’ in the creek bottom mud.
Start again, they seem ter say, see what’s comin’ down, convectin’ up,
Eiin, eout,
In the compluh … compluh… compluh… cated
Compluh… cated, climate change debate.
Er fan, concrete predictions are in the nature of science, yes, but predictions still have ter be put to the test, only then may verification or falsification of a theory occur.
gbaikie | August 14, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
“Five months later Charles Abbot, the Director of the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory, published a careful 5-page rebuttal of Wood’s 1.5-page hasty note referring to a similar experiment done 12 years earlier at the observatory, using wooden boxes, not cardboard, that attained a temperature of 118 C.”
The keyword is “rebuttal”. Read 5-pages of careful “handwaving” by Abbot. I’m not sure Vaughn knows the difference between experiment and narrative. In that regard he appears to resemble a great many climate boffins.
Tell us all what you told me via email this year, Vaughn Pratt, about the stuff you promised to report “in due time”. It’s going on three years since you updated that web page. Surely that’s enough due time. What’s up with that? LOL
http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
“Five months later Charles Abbot, the Director of the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory, published a careful 5-page rebuttal of Wood’s 1.5-page hasty note referring to a similar experiment done 12 years earlier at the observatory, using wooden boxes, not cardboard, that attained a temperature of 118 C.”
“The keyword is “rebuttal”. Read 5-pages of careful “handwaving” by Abbot. I’m not sure Vaughn knows the difference between experiment and narrative. In that regard he appears to resemble a great many climate boffins.”
I mainly interested in any surface temperature on Earth that exceed 80 C.
Wasn’t convinced that solar ponds typically exceed 80 C, though 70-80 C
seems quite possible.
Of course I am not talking using magnifying lenses.
Above 80 C seems possible and interested what material and other conditions are involved.
Above 90 C or 118 C seems unlikely, but if done, would like to know if applies for some freakish conditions or whether this can done anywhere assuming one using the correct kind of box.
http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Vaughan Pratt
Professor Emeritus
Stanford University :
“At 2 pm on 12/03/09 the box with the double-glazed Saran wrap window reached 65 C while the box with the two 3/8″ perspex sheets reached 80 C. (We subseqently recorded 82 C with the latter.) ”
Why did gain to 2 C? Why in winter- or this in southern hemisphere?
The highest air temperature recorded on the earth’s surface is 58C. The highest solar pond temperature is under 100C (not by much) but of course that’s at the bottom not the top. The highest surface temperature recorded by an ARGO bouy is 35C. Interestingly very very few ARGO bouys ever see over 30C. There’s a lot of 30C surface temperatures then like a ghost town above that. The highest annual mean surface temperature ever recorded over land is 34.5C over a six year stretch in 1960 in Dullal, Ethoipia, a salt desert at about 8 degrees north latitude and about 100 feet below sea level.
“The highest solar pond temperature is under 100C (not by much) but of course that’s at the bottom not the top. ”
I don’t believe it. Reference.
P.S. Perspex is not considered IR transparent at thickness exceeding 2 mil which is why people use Saran Wrap instead althoug Saran Wrap has its own problems which Vaughn tried to fix with double glazing then ran into problems trying to keep two sheets of saran wrap separated. I bet that was a real bitch. No wonder he decided to go with rock salt. Unfortunately he clammed up about the results with the rock salt. Ask him why. I already know why he isn’t making it public but since I was told in private I’ll let him make the decision about going public. In the meantime there’s nothing but gedankenexperiment to dispute RW Wood. Welcome to the new AGW science, same as the 1909 AGW science, pure unadulterated just-so stories.
It goes without saying — or it should go without saying — that Vaughn Pratt does not merit the vile abuse that certain posters are spewing.
Now is a good time for Climate Etc folks to speak out in appreciation and thanks to Vaughn Pratt, for his many positive contributions to Climate Etc.
To be silent is to acquiesce in abuse, which is plain wrong.
Thank you, Vaughn Pratt.
[crickets]
You’d be wise to first ask Pratt why he doesn’t disclose the results he got with rock salt lenses before deciding what level of respect he deserves here. One might expect a scientist with no agenda would have published the results whatever they were – contrary, supporting, or inconclusive. Go ahead and ask. I double dog dare ya.
@DS: One might expect a scientist with no agenda would have published the results whatever they were – contrary, supporting, or inconclusive.
Scientists with no agenda should be grateful you aren’t Emperor with the power to chop off the head of any scientist who doesn’t adjust his schedule to suit yours. :(
WordPress has this bad habit of moving related posts miles apart as new material gets inserted in between. Your imperious request for my results to date (such as they are) is answered way above by now.
@gbaikie: Above 90 C or 118 C seems unlikely, but if done, would like to know if applies for some freakish conditions or whether this can done anywhere assuming one using the correct kind of box.
The “correct kind,” known since the 18th century, is a very well insulated box with several (circa 3) windows with air gaps between them for insulation. Wood is traditional for the box but other materials with low thermal conductivity and adequate heat resistance should work.
The Wikipedia article on solar cookers cites temperatures way above 118 C, namely around 150 C, though earlier it says “One or more reflectors of shiny metal or foil-lined material may be positioned to bounce extra light into the interior of the oven chamber.”
If this ever became an Olympic event there’d be a dozen categories for different ways of amplifying the sun’s heat, though probably not one for a 50 foot woman holding a 10-foot magnifying glass over the oven, which might well meet some of your criteria for “freakish conditions.”
“The Wikipedia article on solar cookers cites temperatures way above 118 C, namely around 150 C, though earlier it says “One or more reflectors of shiny metal or foil-lined material may be positioned to bounce extra light into the interior of the oven chamber.”
Yes they work by adding the power of sunlight by basically collecting a large area of sunlight and focusing/reflecting into a smaller area.
Using reflecting or magnifying one can get very hot temperatures.
Solar collector, solar tower:
“In June 2008, BrightSource Energy dedicated its Solar Energy Development Center (SEDC) in Israel’s Negev Desert. The site, located in the Rotem Industrial Park, features more than 1,600 heliostats that track the sun and reflect light onto a 60 meter-high tower. The concentrated energy is then used to heat a boiler atop the tower to 550 degrees Celsius, generating steam that is piped into a turbine, where electricity can be produced.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
So using mirrors directed towards a tower one getting over 550 C.
And with Fresnel lens or magnifying lens one could much higher temperatures- you can melt brick:
Excellent. We can now focus on those ovens that don’t collect insolation from a cross section any larger than that of the oven itself.
Physics question for you: state and prove an upper bound on the temperature achievable within a solar oven heated by nothing more than the sunlight falling directly on it, with no assistance from reflectors or magnifying glasses, just infrared trapping by the glass within it.
I bet you won’t even be able to prove an upper bound of 150 C.
Thanks, fan, but if it was appreciation I was looking for I’d be posting at RealClimate.org. I prefer to subject my thought processes to the best arguments against them the skeptics can muster. The arguments that survive here have a better chance of surviving elsewhere.
Abuse goes with the territory, and I don’t mind responding in kind occasionally if they don’t. David Wojick’s politeness is at the other extreme, keeps things on an even keel I guess.
No crickets. Waiting in anticipation. Pratt is the go-to idea guy.
David Springer,
By the way. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps That should be a true SST which is what I want. The direct measurement via engine intakes should lower that the surface skin layer. Most of the sites listing “about” 17C appear to be interpolating to the engine intake measurements which should only be a degree or two less than the skin layer, but looking at the satellite data, I tend to doubt that is very accurate. I am open to suggestions if you have a better estimate of the true average surface temperature.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/elnino/img/gsst.gif
but that looks closer to 21 than 17 to me.
Is that global average SST before or after SHAP (Supertanker Homogeneity Adjustment Procedure) and TOBS (Tanker Observation BiaS)
pencil whippingadjustments?Sorry. Couldn’t hep meself.
LOL there are so many issues with the data that I tend to prefer paleo :)
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/02/why-global-mean-surface-temperature-should-be-relegated/
They have an “about” 25 C average and kinda trash the concept of global average also. I am pretty comfortable with AQUA and a thin 21.1 C layer, (probably less than 10 feet at that temperature).
Actually capt the engine intakes are going to be higher than the surface temperature. There’s something called a cool skin layer on the ocean. It’s about 1mm deep and is about 1.5C cooler than the water below it. It’s caused by evaporation. When it is broken up by white water in a breaking wave it reforms within about 10 seconds. It’s ubiquitous and totally escaped notice for a very long time due to the fact that noboby sampling the ocean surface temperature was doing it with water skimmed off the top 1mm.
So right off the bat subtract 1.5C from whatever average SST you derive from engine intakes.
David,
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp.shtml
Engine intake should be the same or cooler. What temperature the satellite actually “sees” is a good question though. In order to sense the surface temperature is should see through the window portion of the spectrum to avoid water vapor noise. That link compares MODIS to AQUA. According to the link, MODIS is using the sub skin temperature with a slightly narrower band than AQUA, so AQUA may be a little higher than actually or more accurate. In either case, you always have to allow for instrumentation error.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/nothere.png
When I started “guestimating” sensitivity I used the higher end of that range. If you assume AQUA is reasonably accurate, you can calculate the average land temperature and compare. Kinda interesting results using what may be the “real” numbers. Since that information is only a decade old or so, it is not covered in many of the “big” papers. That should be a loud shoe when it falls.
Hi David,
1.5C is quite a bit larger than other estimates I’ve seen of the cool skin effect. Do you have a reference for this number?
Thanks,
John
How about models that don’t fall off observed toward infinity?
An interesting post, and it is connected to a post on my website on how we argue in the global warming debate. And once again, it fascinates me that people think that all the temperature data we have, from1900 or even earlier, are of the same reliability and validity. It would be nice to be able to say that warming since before the Industrial Revolution has been 0.6 degrees C, and many do, as on this thread. But the errors around that estimate are surely so large that they exceed the figure itself. I have a post on measuring temperature, too. (www.donaitkin.com)
“…people think that…”
A conveniently vague assertion serving as the platform for your strawman.
Greenhouse gases delay radiation heat loses, but they don’t cause warming.
Considering the heating of atmosphere is diurnal your statement means atmospheric gases do not change climate. Lets add to it, atmospheric gases combined with gravity determine the pressure gradient of atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure determines heat retention and changes climate.
Let the two Aussies believe what they want. Their views are irrelevant delusions.
You’re just angry at us because Capt’n Kangaroo has been making a goose out of you.
Ahh, now with Cap’n Kangaroo on the ticket, we now have the Aussie climate skeptic trio of Larry, Moe, and Curly. woop, woop, woop.
Aw, c’mon, Webbie.
The opposing team of lolwot, “Fan”, Robert and you is like the “Keystone Cops”.
Good for lots of laughs.
Max
Well, you guys have the clown car filled to the max and overflowing. Max isn’t in the car (yet) because he hasn’t proposed an alternate climate theory, and instead skates a fine line between sticking to the science and spreading FUD.
Yes, we’ve managed to produce quite a fine crop of cranks.
But there is a strong anti-intellectual tradition in Oz.
Oi, oi, oi!
Greenhouse gases delay radiation heat loses, but they don’t cause warming.
Girma, your reasoning applied to Ohm’s Law would say that resistors delay current flow but they don’t affect voltage, which is false. GHGs are to thermal radiation as resistors are to current flow. Just as higher resistance results in a bigger voltage drop across the resistor when the current is constant, so do more GHGs result in a bigger temperature difference between the surface and the Top Of Atmosphere when the heat flow is constant, as it must be in order for the Earth to shed to space the heat it absorbs from the Sun.
re; equating the atmosphere to a resister
If we put a resister across a 12v battery does the resister make the voltage drop across the batter higher?
That’s rhetorical. You should put a sock in it. Seriously. You’re making analogies that are just gibberish, making up emission spectra seen from space that are wrong and only seen inside your head. Stop. Please.
If we put a resister across a 12v battery does the resister make the voltage drop across the batter higher?
No, because a battery is a constant voltage source. . Reread what I wrote and pay attention to “when the current is constant” and “when the heat flow is constant.” (emphasis added).
You should put a sock in it. Seriously. You’re making analogies that are just gibberish,
Certainly it will seem that way if you ignore those crucial phrases. If this distinction is unfamiliar I can recommend the two Wikipedia articles linked to in the preceding paragraph.
If you make that analogy you also have to include the other two resistors in parallel with the one resisting radiative flow. Those are the one passing convective heat flow and the other passing latent (evaporative) heat flow. The latter two resistors will not have changed value, so the flow through them will have increased with the larger drop across them.
317, I agree with all that, except that the logic supporting “will have increased” isn’t that simple. You’re applying Fourier’s law (the thermal conduction counterpart of Ohm’s law) to convection and evapotranspiration, but it doesn’t hold for either.
Convection becomes nonzero when there’s a temperature drop but the dynamics are too complicated to model with resistors, unlike thermal conduction. And evapotranspiration is even more complex, being limited below by the rate of evaporation and transpiration, in the middle by the humidity, and above by the rate of formation of clouds and precipitation.
That said, global warming may well increase each of thermals and evapotranspiration in the famous 1997 Kiehl-Trenberth Figure 7. But there is no reason whatsoever to expect them to follow the sort of linear law followed by the laws of Fourier and Ohm.
Delay or not delay is irrelevant, it is a steady state problem. Cooling rates CAN be reduced and a reduction in colling rate can warm objects or systems. However, I don’t see how the so-called greenhouse gases (radiatively active, like H2O, CO2…) can reduce the Earth’s surface cooling rate.
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
The surface is cooled predominantly by the non-radiative fluxes (evaporation/convection) while the atmosphere is cooled exclusively by radiation. Most of the planetary radiation is from the atmosphere (and clouds), not from the surface. Increased atmospheric emissivity should reduce the total thermal resistance and enhance the planetary cooling rate. This should increase the surface cooling rate too.
@Edim: I don’t see how the so-called greenhouse gases (radiatively active, like H2O, CO2…) can reduce the Earth’s surface cooling rate.
Long term it can’t. When the Earth is in thermal equilibrium the rate of heating by absorption from the Sun exactly equals the rate of cooling by radiation from Earth to space.
The bonus word here is not “cooling rate” but “surface temperature.” If an observer on the Moon estimates the temperature of the Earth on the basis of the heat radiated from the Earth, the observer should see a temperature of 255 K (-18 C) or thereabouts. This is completely consistent with the surface temperature being 300 K (27 C) or more, but also with it being 400 K. It all depends on the resistance to heat loss put up by the atmosphere.
Venus radiates far less infrared energy to space than Earth, giving the appearance of an extremely cold planet. Most of the energy we receive from Venus is reflected sunlight that Venus does not absorb in the first place—Venus has an albedo in the vicinity of 0.9. Yet the surface of Venus is an inferno at 740 K! The 16 KW/m2 of radiation at the surface is essentially all absorbed by the bottom few km of Venus’s 90 km thick atmosphere. An observer in space receives essentially none of that intense radiation.
Earth today is the same, albeit on a vastly reduced scale. An observer in space cannot directly measure the temperature of the surface of the Earth using an IR thermometer because a lot of the radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. If you point an IR thermometer downwards, then at sea level you will register something like 288 K, whereas if an orbiting UFO does the same thing above the atmosphere it will register closer to 255 K. The Earth’s surface radiates much more heat upwards towards the atmosphere than is radiated from the Earth to space.
“It all depends on the resistance to heat loss put up by the atmosphere.”
We agree here and my point is that the evaporative and convective fluxes predominate over radiative exchange at the surface-atmosphere interface. The atmosphere on the other hand can only cool by atmospheric radiation. The nonradiative bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) put up the resistance to heat loss (to space) and are the real surface insulation. This is of course simplified without taking into account the lapse rate and other phenomena.
my point is that the evaporative and convective fluxes predominate over radiative exchange at the surface-atmosphere interface
Fully agree. But you’re talking about the static situation. The dynamic situation is that the radiative flux to space is decreasing, causing the Earth to warm until radiation is back in equilibrium. This warming may also result in increased evaporative and convective fluxes, as Peter317 pointed out above (though not necessarily linearly as I pointed out in response), But the warming is being driven by the change in the radiative flux. Whether the radiative flux is more or less than the other fluxes is immaterial when it’s the change that matters.
“Long term it can’t.”
I said Earth’s surface.
@Edim “Long term it can’t.” I said Earth’s surface.
Sorry, Edim, my bad. In fact increased GHGs should warm the surface and therefore increase the ULR (upwelling longwave radiation) from the surface.
For a proper accounting however one would like to know the net upward flux at the surface, namely ULR – DLR. If global warming raises both the ULR and DLR (“back radiation”) then one must ask which changed more.
In equilibrium, ULR = DLR. So if we started in equilibrium, raised the CO2 a step, and waited for things to settle down, ULR = DLR once again, whence both increased by the same amount.
So ignoring the period between the two equilibrium states, the surface did not cool in the sense that there was no change in net upward flux.
What happens during the transition? That would depend on whether during global warming the warmer surface caused a warmer atmosphere or vice versa. That is, what drives what? Wikipedia and other popular accounts have been claiming the latter. However it seems to me that global warming is such a slow process that no experiment could possibly decide this question. In that case the net upward flux from the surface does not change perceptibly during global warming.
Ok, but at least is there an imperceptible difference between ULR and DLR? Since it is hopeless to try to measure this we can only pose the question as a theoretical one. During the transition between the two equilibrium states, assuming DLR = ULR only at the beginning and end but at no time in the middle, which should dominate?
The answer on reflection is obvious. If ULR exceeded DLR throughout the transition the surface would cool, and would end up colder at the final equilibrium state. Since the opposite happens DLR must exceed ULR, which is to say net upward flux must decrease.
Another way to argue this is to observe that the Earth’s total heat content increased during global warming. This could only happen by pumping heat down through the surface of the Earth.
But as I said, this effect is miniscule and therefore not observable: the daily and even decadal fluctuations in DLR and ULR swamp that tiny trend by many orders of magnitude. It is therefore academic to say that the net upward flux is decreasing, other than when averaged over two decades or more at a time.
Vaughan, ULR – DLR is just one (smaller) part of the heat exchange at the surface-atmosphere interface. Also, only a small part of the surface radiation is directly transfered to space (the window). If the Earth energy budgets (like the NASA one) is sufficiently accurate, the planetary cooling is predominantly via atmospheric radiation, not surface radiation. On the face of it, the cooling bottleneck is atmospheric radiation to space. How does the more CO2 (increased atmospheric emissivity) affect this thermal resistance?
This MODTRAN-based presentation from Wikipedia gives a rather good view of the roles of radiation from the surface and from the atmosphere.
When the intensity corresponds to the blackbody radiative temperature of over 280K we have radiation from surface, when the temperature is around 220K the radiation comes from the altitudes near tropopause, the intermediate cases represent either radiation from lower troposphere (clouds and water vapor) or a mixture of surface and atmospheric radiation.
Pekka, this is the energy budget:
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
Radiated from atmosphere (and clouds): 64% of the incoming solar.
Radiated from the surface: 6% of the incoming solar.
So, the planet is cooled by:
– atmospheric radiation: ~91%
– surface radiation: ~9%
My conclusion from this is that the radiatively active gases cool the planet. Water cycle also cools the planet.
Edim,
You are certainly right in noting that radiatively active gases cool the Earth. What may seem paradoxical, but is not, is that they cool the surface the less the more we have of them.
The explanation is that the more we have of GH gases the further up they do their cooling and the larger is the temperature difference between the altitudes of radiation and the surface of the Earth. When we add that the radiative power must continue to be equal to absorbed solar some major explaining factors are put together.
Edim said, “My conclusion from this is that the radiatively active gases cool the planet. Water cycle also cools the planet.” They do but both at a cost. Water transfers heat from the surface to the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be warmer, reducing radiant and conductive lost from the surface. At some point there is an optimum balance, either maximum heat loss or minimum heat loss depending on your perspective. Then any change from that optimum also has a cost.
CO2 impacts the heat loss/retained in the atmosphere. Water evaporation impacts the surface heat loss/retained. So you have to compare the impact on both layers
The water vapor is a radiant gas, it increase heat loss above a layer while retaining heat below that layer and the water vapor layer is not the same as the CO2 layer. So there are at least three layers that have to be considered, surface, H2O and CO2 radiant layers.
The H2O radiant layer does not have the same geometry as the CO2 radiant layer. At the poles, H2O is lower than at the tropics. CO2 is more uniform, but is higher in the tropics due to rain out and lower near the poles where there is less rain out. So once you get your rough 2 dimensional estimate, 1 to 1.2C for doubling CO2 you would have to look at the three dimensional impacts on that estimate. Now it gets fun.
Since the estimated change due to CO2 doubling is only about 1% of the total energy, assumptions are much more critical.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/envelopes.png
While exaggerated, that is roughly the minimum geometry that has to be considered. Where CO2 and Water Vapor share a radiant altitude you would have the maximum heat retention. Where the CO2 radiant layer is below H2O, CO2 would enhance upper layer convection increasing heat loss. Where CO2 is above H2O, the heat retention would also decrease with separation. There are Sweet Spots and not so Sweet Spots. Since one change impacts another, all things do not remain equal.
If you happen to know the “actual” temperatures and locations of the critical layers, then you are onto something.
Here is the scientific logical consequence of the fact that energy passed through an effective vacuum (outer space) can only occur through radiation.
When lower wavelengths are partially impeded (by GHG, for example), then the temperature of the emitting body has to increase to provide more shorter wavelength photons to make up for the shortage of long wavelength photons. This has to happen to satisfy the law of energy conservation. When the radiative properties of the increasing temperature body (the earth) match that of incoming solar energy, then we have reached steady state and all is square.
Someone could ask why the temperature has to increase. Well that has to do with quantum-based statistical mechanics. Say that the earth could try to make up for the blockage of the GHG-impeded low wavelengths by emitting even lower wavelengths (which are outside the spectral notches in the GHG filter). However, these are less numerous in the QM/SM state-space and also less energetic, which is the wrong direction for maximizing entropy.
Thus the only possible mechanism is for the earth to generate more shorter wavelength radiation, which necessarily increases the body of the emitting radiation source. This is the fundamental basis to explain the 33 C increase of the earth above the naive transparent-atmosphere steady-state Stefan-Boltzmann solution. When we add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the temperature has to increase because it will provide greater filtering — logarithmic asymptotic-limit saturation notwithstanding.
Physics is like this. It consists of all these interlocking pieces which have to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, otherwise the model premise will fall apart. People may not like this because it does not match their intuition, but I say, tough nougies. You don’t get to pick and choose what works and what doesn’t when it comes to physics.
One can certainly get the same result by invoking MODTRAN or doing the slab spectral radiation calculations by hand, but what I described is a standard way that physicists think when they need to operate from first principles or to guide their own learned intuition, gained from years of study.
Most of the fake or poseur skeptics loaded into the clown car have problems with advanced physics. Whether they are just naive or are aggressively agenda-driven, likely from having flunked out of an engineering or science curriculum, it doesn’t matter. This is the state of scientific modeling and to cure oneself of advanced crackpot-ism and whacko-dom, its time to crack the books — it’s shape up or ship out time.
As for alternate mechanisms, someone can suggest that the albedo can gradually change to make up for the increase of GHG concentrations. The general idea is that more of the incoming radiation will get reflected to make up for the heating that would occur without the extra reflection coating.
First of all, the initial albedo estimate is taken into account for the 33C calculation. Beyond that, something has to trigger the change in albedo. It has to either be a heating or a cooling. It can’t be a cooling as there is nothing to provide a cooling forcing function — we have already established that with the GHG physics. If it is a warming, then the GHG will trigger this and the best that an albedo change can do is provide a negative feedback (at best) to the warming trend.
Yet, an albedo change could also go the other way. Melting of ice sheets will cause greater absorptivity of the incoming radiation, and of course higher ocean temperatures will also lead to greater outgassing of H20 and CO2 (not to mention short-term outgassing of methane from both ocean and land). Both of these create a positive feedback situation that will lead to a different steady-state situation (at least) or unpredictable growth ala CAGW (at worst).
Those are my philosophical reflections on climate model projections. The only thing to be resolved is how much the average steady state temperature will rise, and how long it will take to go through the transient phase. Because of the thermal mass properties of the ocean, it will require some patience to observe the warming above statistical noise, but the end result will have to occur. The ocean covers 70% of the surface of the earth and so it will have to adjust temperature to provide the necessary fraction of the emitting source. The other option is for the land mass or atmosphere to increase in temperature, but that also goes against the maximization of entropy. Clouds can do something as well but the entropy of the spatial cloud organization and density has to be modeled to get a handle on that.
The entry for acceptance into the sane scientific world is to get labelled a “warmer”. Then you will deserve your philosopher diploma.
@Edim August 17, 2012 at 8:44 am: So, the planet is cooled by:
– atmospheric radiation: ~91%
– surface radiation: ~9%
My conclusion from this is that the radiatively active gases cool the planet. Water cycle also cools the planet.
Quite right. At the same time, the Sun heats the planet. In thermal equilibrium these two balance.
Global warming is not governed by the ratios you mention, but by departures from thermal equilibrium. The departures are an increase in surface radiation (so you might infer greater cooling on that basis) and a decrease in atmospheric radiation.
Yes, the increase in surface radiation results in greater surface cooling. However the reason for the increase is that the surface got hotter, causing more radiation by S-B. Instead of increased surface radiation driving more cooling, increased surface temperature drives more upwards surface radiation.
And atmospheric radiation decreases because with more CO2 to block it, the photons that do escape from the atmosphere do so from a higher altitude, which being cooler does not radiate as strongly, again by S-B.
The net effect is that the surface gets hotter, even though the net cooling from Earth to space remains the same, namely exactly that needed to balance the heat from the Sun.
The thermal flux will surely increase, and the evapotranspiration flux might also increase (there’s a lot of things I’m not and hydrologist is one of them). However Earth as a whole can only lose heat by radiation. Hence the only way increasing thermal and evapotranspiration fluxes can help cool the whole Earth is by raising the temperature of the atmosphere so that it radiates to space more strongly, offsetting the above-mentioned effect of radiating from a higher and hence cooler altitude. That offset could be quite large, but if it were sufficient for increased CO2 to cool the planet one should be able to use that to build a perpetual motion machine.
That’s pretty far from correct, Pratt. If you actually do look down at the earth from space through a clear sky you’ll see the spectrum in the IR window follow a blackbody curve characteristic of the surface temperature. You’re making things up on the fly and a lot of it is just wrong.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Emission Spectra
Posted on March 10, 2011by Ira Glickstein, PhD
Study the illustrations. Read the article. Learn something. Sheesh.
@David Springer: That’s pretty far from correct, Pratt. If you actually do look down at the earth from space through a clear sky …
I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that. I’ll just have to imagine it.
…you’ll see the spectrum in the IR window follow a blackbody curve characteristic of the surface temperature.
Nope, not seeing it.
You’re making things up on the fly and a lot of it is just wrong. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
Perhaps it would help if you explained to me how the TOA OLR can track the spectrum of black body surface radiation when less than 10% of it is coming from the surface and more than 90% is coming from narrow GHG emission lines from the atmosphere. (Ok, clouds are broadened, so add them to the surface and you’re still a long way from a spectrum that tracks surface black body radiation.)
@DS: Read the article. Learn something. Sheesh.
You left out the middle step: understand the article. It doesn’t say what you think it does.
“Physics question for you: state and prove an upper bound on the temperature achievable within a solar oven heated by nothing more than the sunlight falling directly on it, with no assistance from reflectors or magnifying glasses, just infrared trapping by the glass within it.
I bet you won’t even be able to prove an upper bound of 150 C.”
I think you won’t get an air temperature that reaches 80 C- if at sea level on Earth. For substances I doubt over 85 C.
If you get above these numbers I would suspect there is some kind amplification of sunlight. If one has deep “hotbox” the possibility of such amplification of sunlight from the box itself seems less likely. Another possible “explanation” would the amplification of sunlight could possibly be from the sky itself- due to some kind phenomena. Providing measurable of solar energy per square meter in same general area of hotbox would an interesting aspect to include.
I generally assume one going to get around 1000 watts per square of sunlight in the best conditions.
It should also be kept in mind that buildings or terrain could reflecting sunlight [though may not “look” reflective].
Sea level includes any location less than 1000′ in elevation.
“Providing measurable of solar energy per square meter in same general area of hotbox would an interesting aspect to include.”
I meant: Providing a measurement of solar…..
gbaikie,
How do you explain the well known empirically observed fact that flat plate solar collectors may overheat to temperatures as high as 180C when idle in bright sunshine?
They are collecting diffused as well as direct sunlight. Fashion them so they only collect parallel rays directly from the sun and not diffuse light coming in from the sides and see how hot they can get.
Not much less, I’d say.
“gbaikie,
How do you explain the well known empirically observed fact that flat plate solar collectors may overheat to temperatures as high as 180C when idle in bright sunshine?”
It’s not known to me. I assume if you talking PV panels, they might slightly warmer if they not idle, but are doing work.
If you mean thermal solar panels, I say you must using reflectors.
Though one use reflectors with PV panels, also. A problem with using reflector is PV panels can overheat and they lose efficiency if they do this. Here graph of lost efficiency for PV:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijp/2009/732093/fig1/
And:
” 2.3.1 Thermal losses. It has been shown that the open circuit voltage will decrease proportionally to optical concentration, due to the increase of cell temperature. As a result, increasing temperatures are known to decrease PV cell efficiency, and further, long-term degradation is seen for cells if temperature exceeds a certain limit. Previous work has shown a temperature difference between operating panel temperature and ambient of 40-45C and 50-55C with concentrations of 1.6X and 2.2X respectively with no active cooling, compared with a temperature difference of 28-32C for panels at 1X concentration. Reis et al. demonstrated that as long as a maximum ambient temperature of 40C was not exceeded, it was possible to have 2X concentration without surpassing maximum cell temperatures of 80 C without cooling. Following these system designs, no cooling system was considered here.
http://mtu.academia.edu/JoshuaPearce/Papers/1850930/Model_of_Loss_Mechanisms_for_Low_Optical_Concentratioon_on_Solar_Photovoltaic_Arrays_with_Planar_Reflectors
Has graph shows significant loss for PV at 80 C, and really bad at 90 C.
If not for the heat issue, PV would all use reflectors- reflectors are cheap compared to PV panels
gbaikie,
I’m discussing thermal panels without any reflectors. The consist of an absorbing surface coated by a selective layer that makes them almost black for SW radiation from sun but reduces their emissivity. The panels have also some glazing, possibly double glazing. The effect of selctive coating of the absorbing surface is very closely related to the selective influence of the atmosphere and of glazings of materials and coatings that make them highly transparent for solar SW but not as transparent for LWIR.
The overall effect is very similar to the GHE of the atmosphere. It’s difficult to say how high temperatures it’s possible to reach by such techniques when maximizing the temperature is the goal. My guess is that significantly more than 200C is possible, but what I have seen discussed is the unwanted overheating of solar thermal panels that are constructed to produce efficiently hot water at ambient pressure. I.e. the useful temperature does not exceed 100C but making the devices efficient for that makes them also capable of reaching much higher temperatures when idle and not cooled by some safety mechanism.
“gbaikie,
I’m discussing thermal panels without any reflectors. The consist of an absorbing surface coated by a selective layer that makes them almost black for SW radiation from sun but reduces their emissivity. The panels have also some glazing, possibly double glazing. The effect of selctive coating of the absorbing surface is very closely related to the selective influence of the atmosphere and of glazings of materials and coatings that make them highly transparent for solar SW but not as transparent for LWIR. ”
Ad for thermal panel:
“Green Energy Solutions SunTrac Solar Thermal panel is distinct and the highest performing solar thermal panels on the market because it is a tracking concentrating panel in a flat plate design.”
So it’s using reflectors. [And tracks the sun.]
“The SunTrac Solar Thermal panel is the first to combine low installation cost characteristics of flat plate designs with proven high temperature yields of tracking parabolic concentrating panels. Operating at temperatures up to 250 of degrees, the SunTrac solar thermal panel has a much faster payback than flat plate or evacuated tube panels.”
http://masteringgreen.com/Solar-Thermal
It say has operating temp of 250 degrees- I think it’s F rather than C.
So if F, it’s 121 C. Which I think is fairly impressive. Could be 250 C?
Maybe but seems unlikely. Let’s see what is boiling pressure of water at
250 C:
water: 250 C 3.976 MPa 39.24 atm
So 39.24 atm is 576.8 psi.
House pipe are around say 90 psi.
This pressure of 576.8 psi fine for commercial operation- in fact more pressure can be used. But seems pretty darn dangerous in a residential
application. And need special license to construct such system.
And ad brags about low costs. Not likely.
“The overall effect is very similar to the GHE of the atmosphere. It’s difficult to say how high temperatures it’s possible to reach by such techniques when maximizing the temperature is the goal. My guess is that significantly more than 200C is possible, but what I have seen discussed is the unwanted overheating of solar thermal panels that are constructed to produce efficiently hot water at ambient pressure.”
200 C 1.55 MPa 15.297 atm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/watvap.html
So 15.297 atm is 224.8 psi. Which is bit more reasonable, but standard home pipes would burst at such pressures- and it purpose is provide hot water. Hot water heaters temperature should set:
“Almost every checklist of energy-saving tips includes the recommendation that you turn the temperature of your water heater down from 140°F (60°C) to 120°F(49°C), including on TreeHugger and Planet Green. Yet up in Canada if you look for recommendations, they will tell you not to set your heater below 140F, as it can become a sort of petri dish for Legionnaires Disease….
* 70 to 80 °C (158 to 176 °F): Disinfection range * At 66 °C (151 °F): Legionellae die within 2 minutes * At 60 °C (140 °F): Legionellae die within 32 minutes * At 55 °C (131 °F): Legionellae die within 5 to 6 hours * Above 50 °C (122 °F): They can survive but do not multiply * 35 to 46 °C (95 to 115 °F): Ideal growth range * ”
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/is-it-safe-to-turn-down-your-water-heater-temperature.html
GHGs cause a higher equilibrium temperature if the surface is cooled exclusively by conduction and radiation. That’s true where the surface of the earth is very dry or frozen. Elsewhere, not so much. Evaporation and convection is a less resistive path than radiation and conduction. Latent heat transport dominates at the earth’s surface in most times and most places if not for any other reason because the surface is liquid water in most times and most places.
You can make an analogy with resisters and current flow in this instance. The resister with the lowest value is the one labeled “evaporation and convection”, one with a higher resistance is labeled “radiation”, the highest value resister is “conduction”. The amount of current (analogous to heat) flows in inverse proportion to the resistance of each.
Latent flux doesn’t heat up the air or the surface. Downwelling infrared is translated into latent heat in the first few microns of the ocean surface. In fact the vapor temperature rising off the ocean is about 1.5C cooler than the water. This effect generates what is known as the cool skin layer which is a layer of water about 1mm thick at the ocean surface that is about 1.5C cooler than the water below it. It’s created through latent cooling. Latent cooling is powerful stuff. It’s why we sweat water instead of sand. Because the vapor temperature is not higher than the water temperature this latent cooling causes no rise in temperature of the air at the surface. The heat becomes sensible when the vapor condenses.
This is why the so-called fingerprint for GHG warming is a tropospheric hot spot in the tropics where evaporation and condensation runs like a raped ape. The signature for GHG warming is more warming at altitude than at ground or sea level. If the cause of warming is something else (like fewer clouds) there will be more warming at the surface than at altitude.
There isn’t a whole lot that’s “settled” in the global warming charade but this much can be considered settled. Where it goes off the rails is failure to take into consideration that latent flux dominates at the surface and insensibly removes heat to the cloud deck. The result of GHGs on a water planet is a smaller lapse rate from surface to cloud and a higher lapse rate from cloud to space. All the observations of spatially and temporally heterogenous temperature anomaly distribution (see wonderful global illustrations here http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_06.htm ) make perfect sense in light of this. Until it is understood it won’t make any sense at all.
David, “Latent flux doesn’t heat up the air or the surface.” While that is basically true, you can’t have a latent heat flux without sensible heat transfer. That is one of the issues with the K&T EEB. they attempt to show latent, thermals and radiant, but the latent would have a sensible heat ratio of about 0.59.
@cd: you can’t have a latent heat flux without sensible heat transfer…the latent would have a sensible heat ratio of about 0.59
Come again? Sure you’re not an HVAC designer masquerading as a hydrologist, cd?
Dave’s point is that water vapor rising off the water and condensing in the clouds carries heat from the water to the clouds. This is in K&T’s original Figure 7 and if you calculate that flux solely on the basis of a global precipitation of 105 cm/m2/yr (IIRC), as K&T did, then their figure of 78 W/m2 is spot on. While that process doesn’t carry that heat out to space, it does get it closer, which helps. There is no such thing as SHR in that process.
“Dave’s point is that water vapor rising off the water and condensing in the clouds carries heat from the water to the clouds. This is in K&T’s original Figure 7 and if you calculate that flux solely on the basis of a global precipitation of 105 cm/m2/yr (IIRC), as K&T did, then their figure of 78 W/m2 is spot on. While that process doesn’t carry that heat out to space, it does get it closer, which helps. There is no such thing as SHR in that process.”
Rather the warmer water droplets radiating energy, wouldn’t larger effect to warm surrounding water- little droplet water which has been warmed condensing H2O gas should huge surface area. Plus you get sort of machine which draws up more H2O gas, which warms more air.
grr:
Rather the warmer water droplets radiating energy, wouldn’t larger effect to warm surrounding [AIR]- little droplet water which has been warmed [BY] condensing H2O gas, should [HAVE a] huge surface area.
Though you do get addition radiant energy, the driving force is warming the air- or most of energy is converted into warming the air.
Actually, I am the HVAC guy not the hydrologist. H20 until is still a molecule with a specific heat capacity. It will collide with other molecules and transfer heat. Using K&T’s 78Wm-2 latent and 0.59 SHR the total heat transfer would be 190Wm-2. The sensible portion would be 112Wm-2, that would include thermals as K&T put it and the energy transfer to the moist air.
Now that doesn’t fit with the K&T budget at first glance, but if you consider a nearly radiantless moist air layer or quasi-radiationless moist air boundary layer, basically an HVAC approach, you end up with a multi-layer model that produces close to the same results as K&T (except it doesn’t miss 20Wm-2 :) ) for surface energy transfer to the atmosphere. Of course you would have a radiant boundary layer starting near the dry air portion of the atmosphere which would be the “Effective” radiant surface.
Yes, though I would put it slightly differently: condensation converts all of the latent heat to sensible heat, warming both the air and the droplets forming the cloud. The additional radiation is a consequence of that higher temperature.
(I should have indicated that my previous reply was to gbaikie, cd got in between while I was typing.)
@cd: Actually, I am the HVAC guy not the hydrologist.
Gosh, I guessed right. Explains a lot. :)
H20 until is still a molecule with a specific heat capacity.
Correct me if I’ve misunderstood, but I think you’re making the point that water vapor has translational and vibrational energy and gives up only the former when it condenses, correct?
If so then your analysis is ignoring that the water vapor cools as it rises due to the lapse rate, and the reverse happens when it falls as precipitation (by contact with the warming air), netting out to zero, whence it can be ignored. What K&T’s 78 W/m2 measures is confined to the translational component of water vapor molecules that is converted to sensible heat by condensation. The vibrational component is (AFAIK) not affected by evaporation or condensation except to reflect temperature changes, which unlike the translational component net out to zero in (the K&T understanding of) the hydrological cycle. The math for this should be the same as for heat transport in a heat pipe, which exploits the same principle as the atmospheric hydrological cycle.
But it’s a nice point, and my analysis could well have a hole or two in it.
Vaughan, “Latent converts all..” Yes it does. And like in an HVAC application, the SHR, is basically a fudge factor that includes the radiant “net’ heat transfer.
If there is energy available to evaporate or condense that moisture in a near radiantless environment, you can use that old fashion psychrometric chart to verify your calculations.
It is actually an interesting approach, different, but not without some logic to it. By itself, it is worthless, but with a radiant model you have a simple lower troposphere model layer and a simple upper troposphere/tropopause model that together remove most of the chaotic mid-troposphere issues.
So I can compare a moist air envelope bounded by a fixed temperature and relative humidity, (I use -1.9C, the freezing point of average salt water) and an approximate effective radiant reference temperature envelope, 240K , then I can use the AQUA data for the oceans and get pretty good estimates.
My estimates that are close to K&T are well within the range of Stevens and Schwartz.
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/stevensbjorn/Documents/StevensSchwartz2012.pdf
Vaughan Pratt, “If so then your analysis is ignoring that the water vapor cools as it rises due to the lapse rate, and the reverse happens when it falls as precipitation (by contact with the warming air), netting out to zero, whence it can be ignored.”
Sorry I missed that. Actually my model attempts to consider when and where the reverse happens. I consider the system to be dissipative and reversible. The water vapor mass and energy can end up on a glacier or in the Antarctic. Ice advance and retreat are part of the natural cycle and there should be a normal amount of temporary energy imbalance. So Ein actually should not equal Eout unless you predict the perfect time frame.
Non-equilibrium thermodynamics. My attempt is to model within model to locate things like hemispherical heat capacity imbalances. Less heat capacity or ice mass in the one hemisphere than normal is an imbalance. That is why I mentioned natural fluctuation likely being the cause of your 14.5 year lag.
Looking forward to the conclusions of your analysis.
You mean “greenhouse gases magically delay heat flow from earth to space at night and don’t have any impact of heat flow from sun to space during the day” or some such thing that climate scientists are into?
Show me experimental proof of any of:
a. thermalization of IR by IR absorbing/emitting gases
b. magnitude of time delay of IR passing through IR absorbing/emitting gases compared to IR transparent gases (hours, minutes, seconds, msec, microseonds, nanoseconds)
c. some other physical mechanism by which climate scientists think the greenhouse works
@blouis79: Show me experimental proof of any of:
a. thermalization of IR by IR absorbing/emitting gases
The first experiments that discovered this effect were done by the 19th century physicist John Tyndall, who of course was an early conspirator in this global conspiracy to defraud innocent fossil fuel users, as should be clear from the shifty eyes in his photos in that article.
To hide this conspiracy Tyndall claimed to have invented the ratio spectrophotometer and stated that he’d used it to measure the amount of heating caused by IR for a wide range of gases. By way of corroborative detail to make his story more plausible he made up a list of several dozen gases no one had ever heard of before, along with the extent to which each warmed when subjected to IR. He died of natural causes before the authorities were able to hang him for this massive fraud.
These fraudulent experiments were then repeated to much higher accuracy and compiled as the massive HITRAN Database giving a line-by-line account of the amount of thermal energy absorbed by radiation at 2,713,968 spectral lines by 39 different molecules with a great variety of isotope combinations, so they claimed. As can be seen here for example, vast numbers of scientists have been suckered into believing that this data is real, or are themselves part of this gigantic conspiracy, it’s hard to tell which. The HITRAN tables themselves are a central part of this conspiracy which started long before fossil fuels came into use and has continued now for 160 years.
The surviving conspirators should all be rounded up and hanged by their toes until they cry uncle.
Actually Tyndall had a thermopile at one end of his device measuring the strength of the calorific rays (as infrared was called in those days). He didn’t measure the temperature of the gas inside the test chamber. So once again, Pratt, you’re wrong. Tyndall observed a lower reading at the thermopile with calorific gases.
Now Pratt, think about a non-contact infrared thermometer which is essentially what Tyndal had aimed at the gas in the test chamber. A lower voltage means a lower temperature. If the gas was hotter he should have observed a higher temperature. In fact what was happening was the gas was absorbing a fraction of the infrared illumination coming from the opposite end of the chamber and was emitting about half of what it absorbed back in the direction it came from depriving the thermopile of those photons.
Your mental model of the real world is missing more than it contains. Please stop. We’re in the same profession and you’re embarrassing me.
@DS: Actually Tyndall had a thermopile at one end of his device measuring the strength of the calorific rays (as infrared was called in those days). He didn’t measure the temperature of the gas inside the test chamber. So once again, Pratt, you’re wrong.
David, that’s a bit like saying the Wright brothers did not invent the airplane, they invented the airplane engine. Tyndall’s ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to quantify the amount of absorption by a great many greenhouse gases (including perfume!), has a thermopile as one of its components. It can be seen in this picture (about 40% down the page).
The thermopile is the T-shaped thingy slightly left of center, which is looking more or less directly at a reference IR source on the left and (through the tube containing the gas) at an equal IR source on the far right. It measures the ratio of heat received from each heat source using a galvanometer (lower front, connected to the thermopile via two coiled wires).
If the gas in the tube absorbs nothing (his experience with oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen) then the ratio is 1, which the galvanometer registers by not moving (he zero-indexed it in air). The stronger the absorption, the more the galvanometer moves. Originally Tyndall noted the galvanometer deflection in degrees of angle, which he later converted to amount of absoprtion.
So you are correct that he did not measure the temperature of the gas inside the test chamber directly, but I didn’t say he did, he inferred the heating of the gas from the amount of heat lost when the remaining IR arrived at the thermopile.
In the days when Amazon’s Kindle was monochrome, I didn’t buy one because (a) Amazon’s Kindle didn’t fit in my pocket but my Vaio P did, and (b) Kindle for PC and for smartphones let me read Kindle books in color (of which there were a few even before color Kindles came out). One of the first books I downloaded was the Works of John Tyndall. In II.4 he lists the results of his experiments, giving the absorption of CO2 (aka carbonic acid) relative to air as 972 along with a number of other gases. Anyone who thinks Tyndall did not obtain detailed quantitative results would appear to be unfamiliar with the works of Tyndall.
Your mental model of the real world is missing more than it contains. Please stop. We’re in the same profession and you’re embarrassing me.
David, you’ve deserved the right to be embarrassed. Wish I could claim some of the credit but this time you’ve managed it entirely on your own.
Dave Springer, elementary radiation transport physics considerations, as affirmed by in-depth calculations, establish that Vaughan Pratt’s physics is correct.
How may we further improve your physics understanding, Dave Springer? :?: :?: :?:
Fan –
You get a lot of grief around here, but I just want to say that I think that many of your comments are hilarious.
For me the three greatest philosophers are:
• Fred Rogers … who teaches kindness, and
• Baruch Spinoza … who teaches cheerfulness (Latin: hilaritas), and
• Herschel Shmoikel Krustofski … who teaches funnyness!
Hey! Hey! Hey! … Climate Etc posts should reflect all three virtues, eh? :) 2¢ :grin: 2¢ :lol:
@VaughanPratt, just to clarify the sarcastic comments:
a. As mentioned by @DavidSpringer, Tyndall did not measure thermalization. He demonstrated absorption/emission/scattering and specifically did *not* quantify the emission/scattering part.
b. the Hitran data has been measured within IR reflective chambers and therefore is great for remote sensing and has no relevance to thermodynamics because of the measurement method ie if one measures IR absorption within an IR reflective chamber, one has no idea at all about emission/scattering.
c. there is no consensus on a specific physical mechanism for greenhouse warming amongst warmists and no experimental demonstration of what the mechanism is
I have elsewhere in this blog posted some simple experiments which might demonstrate or refute an effect and only need a real physicist with access to a lab and some research funding to have a go. Warmists haven’t even dared to predict the outcome of the experiments.
In response to blouis79’s a/b/c/d above (I supplied the “d”):
a. Tyndall measured absorption quantitatively. He obtained a figure of 972 for the relative absorptivity of CO2 (taking air to be 1, namely no perceptible absorption). If by “measure thermalization” you mean he did not insert a thermometer into the gas, I didn’t say he did. There is more than one way to measure the heating influence of absorption, and Tyndall used one of them.
b. From the horse’s mouth: “HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere.” (Emphasis added.) I strongly recommend that people actually read and interpret each column of the HITRAN tables before making up their own theories as to what they might or might not contain.
c. That’s one mantra. The other is that science cannot be decided by consensus. From time to time two groups of climate skeptics chanting these contradictory mantras collide in the street and annihilate each other.
d. What experiments? It’s no wonder people don’t bother to predict the outcome of your proposed experiments if you don’t bother saying where they are. My understanding is that the locations of hardly any comments on Climate Etc. are engraved on the memories of its denizens, though perhaps they’ve carved out an exception in your case. Google is no help here.
@VaughanPratt, from the thread http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/#comments
(Yes this blog is really hard to search for things.)
Real laboratory physics experiments can simply settle the basic science behind the greenhouse fantasy, eg:
1. If IR absorbing/emitting gases can thermalise IR radiation outside of an IR reflecting measurement chamber.
2. If *any* known physical property of any material can be used to change equilibrium mean temperature when subject to alternate heating and cooling effects over day-length cycles.
3. If presence of IR absorbing/emitting gases accelerate or retard thermal mixing of gas mixtures of different temperatures.
That thread getting long:
“Vaughan Pratt | August 15, 2012 at 3:46 am |
@gbaikie: If you make any kind greenhouse exceed 80 C [surface or air] then one going prove that radiant trapping properties are significant.
Exactly so. And no, Abbot’s 118 C was not a typo for 118 F, which would have been a very feeble 48 C, well below the 65 C and 55 C temperatures observed by Wood.”
So this was Washington, DC, November 4 with 15 C air temperature.
And tripe panel glass [no vacuum between panes]. 1/2 meter in diameter- so less 20″ diameter and 10 cm deep [4″] . And feathers.
DC is low elevation and 38.8 N latitude. Looks it’s in middle town:
http://siarchives.si.edu/history/exhibits/pictures/smithsonian-astrophysical-observatory
So Nov, DC, sun will not rise as much as 45 degrees above horizon [or will be more 45 degree below zenith. Put some insulated box at 45 degree angle and face towards the sun. Starting before noon.
One use say 3 panes which are 1/16″. And seems an improvement would have it elongated rectangle 20″ by 40″. It’s on an angle so heat should rise, so measure temperature near top to get warmer temperature.
And you would expect the temperature to above boiling point of water?
Joanne Nova has an article about the large cloud negative feedback.
Yet another paper shows that the climate models have flaws, described as “gross” “severe” and “disturbing”. The direct effect of doubling CO2 is theoretically 3.7W per square meter. The feedbacks supposedly are 2 -3 times as strong (according to the IPCC). But some scientists are trying to figure out those feedbacks with models which have flaws in the order of 70W per square meter. (How do we find that signal in noise that’s up to 19 times larger?)
Remember climate science is settled: like gravity and a round earth. (Really?)
Miller et al 2012 [abstract] [PDF] find that some models predict clouds to have a net shortwave radiative effect near zero, but observations show it is 70W per square meter. Presumably, cloud shortwave radiative effect means the sunlight bounced upwards off the surface of the clouds and out into space.
What’s especially interesting about this paper is the level of detail. They test shortwave and longwave radiation, precipitation flux, integrated water vapor, liquid water path, cloud fraction, and they have observations from the top of the atmosphere and the surface. With so much information they can test models against short wave and long wave radiation, to see how well the models are really simulating clouds.
We can also see how four models appear to do well on one parameter, only to invariably fail on another. It is easy to see how a not-so-diligent researcher could “verify” some aspect of each and every model but without testing and comparing all the aspects, these single point “successes” are meaningless.
…
Even though the models are tested below with one year (2006) as the dotted blue line, the blue bands are envelopes of model outputs for 2001-2010, and we would hope that even if the models got the year wrong, the observations would at least fall within the extremes of the decadal predictions, but frequently they didn’t. Indeed the authors note that the decade itself was not that critical saying “virtually the same results are obtained when the GCM solution envelope is stretched to thirty years.”
The four global models tested are: CM2, HADGEM1, CCSM3 & GISS-EH
http://joannenova.com.au/
Jim 2
The study you cite (plus other CERES and ERBE satellite observations by Spencer + Braswell 2007 and Lindzen + Choi 2009/2011, etc.) tell us that one crucial weak spot in the IPCC model simulations is the impact of clouds in reflecting incoming SW radiation.
This is the explanation Kevin Trenberth gave in a recent interview for the “missing heat” and the “unexplained lack of warming”, which he had referred to earlier as “a travesty”.
Here we have IPCC conceding on one hand that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”, yet the model simulations used by IPCC to arrive at a 2xCO2 CS all estimate that the net feedback from clouds with warming is strongly positive.
And we have the more recent physical observations cited above which show a strongly negative net cloud feedback.
How important is this discrepancy?
The 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of CO2 alone (without any feedbacks) as estimated by IPCC (Myhre et al.) is somewhere around 1.0°C.
IPCC estimates that the WV feedback constitutes the strongest positive feedback at 1.80±0.18 W/m^2K, followed by the closely related (negative) lapse rate feedback of -0.84±0.26 W/m^2K. The net sum of the two is 0.96±0.44 W/m^2K.
Surface albedo feedback is estimated to be 0.26±0.08 W/m^2K.
Net cloud feedback is assumed to be 0.69±0.38 W/m^2K.
With a doubling of CO2 this brings the total temperature impact (°C) to:
1.9±0.15°C – 2xCO2 plus all feedbacks, except clouds
1.3±0.55°C – net cloud feedback
3.2±0.70°C – 2xCO2 with all feedbacks
In other words, the net feedback from clouds is assumed by all models to represent 41% of the total 2xCO2 temperature impact on average, but with a fairly wide spread between models.
As IPCC puts it:
But how realistic are the assumptions leading to the “quite strong” positive cloud feedback?
Replacing the impact of a model-based net positive feedback with that of a net negative feedback as more recently observed would reduce the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity to somewhere around 1°C (or around one-third of the IPCC model-based estimate).
Will IPCC make this correction to its earlier model assumptions in its new AR5 report?
If not, this would truly be “a travesty”.
[But don’t hold your breath.]
Max
Max, you write “The 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of CO2 alone (without any feedbacks) as estimated by IPCC (Myhre et al.) is somewhere around 1.0°C.”
You and I agree on almost everything that has to do with CAGW. This is why I cringe whenever I see you write the sort of thing I have quoted. The empirical data very strongly suggests that the total effect of adding CO2 to the atmopshere on surface temperatures is so small that it cannot be measured. So, if the total climate sensitivity of CO2 is negligible, then the IPCC estimations are radically wrong somewhere.
It is possible that the feedbacks are so strongly negative that the 1 C claimed for the no feedback climate sensitivity is completely eliminated. I suspect that this is very unlikely. So the error the IPCC has made must be in the estimate of the no-feedback climate sensitrivity itself. This is why I cringe when I see what you have written.
Therefore, I strongly suspect the estimate of no-feedback climate sensitivity is completely wrong. Where it is wrong, I dont know, but I suspect it goes back to the assumption that the lapse rate does not change in order to arrive at 1C. If the lapse rate changes, as I am sure it will, then I suspect that the 1C is a gross overestimate of the proper value, which I would suggest is, itself, negligible.
Jim Cripwell
You may well be right (that the hypothetical entity called “no-feedback climate sensitivity for 2XCO2” is well below the IPCC estimated value of around 1.
There is no empirical way to measure this hypothetical entity.
I’m simply stating that even if we accept this value to be correct the overall CS including all feedbacks is likely to be no more than 1, since the net negative feedback from clouds, as observed by Spencer er al., will cancel out any net positive feedback from water vapor, lapse rate and surface albedo.
In its AR4 report (using data from 2006) IPCC conceded that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
Spencer and Braswell subsequently cleared up some of this “uncertainty”, finding that the net cloud feedback with warming is strongly negative rather than strongly positive, as had been estimated by all the IPCC model simulations.
I hope IPCC will include this new knowledge in its AR5 report, with a resulting lower estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
But I fear that IPCC will continue to favor the result of model simulations (which show high CS) rather than base its estimates on empirical data derived from actual physical observations (which point to a much lower CS).
Max
How is lapse rate supposed to cause feedback?
But I fear that IPCC will continue to favor the result of model simulations
I suspect that the IPCC will recognise that the Spencer and Braswell paper covered a limited period of observations during which the climate was dominated by changes in ENSO state (whereas the particular models chosen were not so dominated). So it will not trump the many model-based and observation-based assessments of sensitivity.
PE
How is lapse rate supposed to cause feedback?
As I understand it, a lapse rate change means essentially a different warming at the surface as compared with the upper troposphere. For a given amount of forcing, then, if the upper troposphere warms more than the surface then it means that equilibrium would be reached for less surface warming than if the upper troposphere warmed the same as the surface. This is termed the “lapse rate feedback”.
Steve, you write “and observation-based assessments of sensitivity.”
Whar are these observation based assessments of sensitivity? Do you have some references?
PE you write “How is lapse rate supposed to cause feedback?”
Steve has given one way of looking at it. I dont really understand all the physics, but the way I view it is that for the earth to remain in energy balance, it must radiate as much energy away into space, as it receives from the sun. Most of this energy is radiated from what is loosely termed the Top of the Atmopshere (TOA). So the energy must get from the surface of the earth to the TOA, where it is then radiated into space. This energy transfer from the surface to the TOA can happen in two ways. It can be transferred by radiation, and it can be transferred by conduction, convection and the latent heat of water. This latter mechanism is controlled by the lapse rate.
The estimate of 1 C for a doubling of CO2 seems to be based on the assumption that the only mechanism which changes as a result of the CO2 forcing is the radiative component. (I am not certain of this). But if the laspe rate changes, then there is a parallel way in which more energy can be transferred to the TOA, to compensate for the CO2 forcing. In which case, the amount of surface rise would be restricted to a value of less than 1 C for a doubling of CO2, if the lapse rate changes.
Determining if and how much the lapse rate changed will be fun. No feed back climate sensitivity for a doubling should cause 1.5C increase in the tropopause average temperature.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/wheredattropopasue.png
Comparing just Key West, Florida and one station in Greenland, a change of 1.5C looks it would be a little difficult to pick out in that noise. 1.5C would be roughly a 200 meter increase in the average tropopause altitude if nothing else change. But increased convection also increases the Brewer Dobson circulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation
The swiggly lines above 14,000 meters in the Key West Radiosonde seem to indicate that there is a lot more going on in and above the tropopause. The B-D circulation also impacts stratospheric ozone which appears to be a negative feed back or cooling effect.
I really look forward to the explanations of the lack of Tropospheric warming we should be expecting soon.
Jim, Wikipedia and Skeptical Science have lists of literature. You can google for more. Don’t tell me that in multiple years of blog-responding you’ve never asked or received an answer to this question.
Jim Cripwell | August 15, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
“The estimate of 1 C for a doubling of CO2 seems to be based on the assumption that the only mechanism which changes as a result of the CO2 forcing is the radiative component. (I am not certain of this). But if the laspe rate changes, then there is a parallel way in which more energy can be transferred to the TOA, to compensate for the CO2 forcing. In which case, the amount of surface rise would be restricted to a value of less than 1 C for a doubling of CO2, if the lapse rate changes.”
Yes and no. The climate boffins are perfectly well aware of latent transport. They believe the extra water vapor makes for an even bigger greenhouse effect. This is called water vapor amplification and is what turns the 1C theoretical increase per CO2 doubling into 3C. What they fail to adequately account for is clouds. You can’t have more water vapor without having more clouds to rain it out. They have the polarity of the feedback from clouds wrong. This can be easily demonstrated by observing that the highest mean annual temperatures on the planet are not where there is the most water vapor but rather where there is the least water vapor.
While it’s true that some surface must rise in temperature with increased CO2 it is not true that it must be the surface of the ground or ocean if evaporation is free to increase. What happens is the lapse rate is lowered and the average height of the cloud deck rises. It’s not much of a rise, only 100-200 meters per CO2 doubling. So say you measure temperature at surface and 1000 meters in the tropics and find 30C at the surface and 23C at 1000 meters. Double CO2 and you may find 30C at the surface and 24C at 1000 meters because the lapse rate is lowered by additional water vapor. The dewpoint is then 1000 meters higher and so is the average height of the cloud deck because water vapor must rise higher until adiabatic cooling causes it to condense.
This is acknowledged by the so-called GHG fingerprint which is more warming at altitude than at the surface. They know about all the above they just refuse to admit that clouds have a negative feedback. I’m not sure when it’s easy to compare mean annual surface temperature at same latitude and see they’re higher where it’s dryer like an equatorial desert vs. an equatorial jungle.
This not 100% the case as even over the ocean radiation accounts for a significant but minority fraction of the upward heat flux of coures but it’s enough to make catastrophic global warming into beneficial global warming for the foreseeable future.
.
I wrote
“The dewpoint is then 1000 meters higher”
Meant to write is then 100 meters higher.
Isn’t it time to admit the models don’t work?
ABSTRACT
Continuous measurements of the shortwave (SW), longwave (LW), and net cross-atmosphere radiation flux divergence over the West African Sahel were made during the year 2006 using the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mobile Facility (AMF) and the Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget (GERB) satellite. Accompanying AMF measurements enabled calculations of the LW, SW, and net Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) and surface Cloud Radiative Forcing (CRF), which quantifies the radiative effects of cloud cover on the column boundaries. Calculations of the LW, SW, and net Cloud Radiative Effect (CRE), which is the difference between the TOA and surface radiative flux divergences in all-sky and clear-sky conditions, quantify the radiative effects on the column itself. These measurements were compared to predictions in four Global Climate Models (GCMs) used in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change fourth Assessment report (IPCC-AR4). Reproducing the SW column radiative flux divergence was problematic in the GCMs and SW discrepancies translated into the net radiative flux divergence. Computing cloud-related quantities from the measurements produced yearly averages of the SW TOA CRF, surface CRF, and CRE of ~ -19 Wm-2, -83 Wm-2 and 47 Wm-2 respectively, and yearly averages of the LW TOA CRF, surface CRF, and CRE of ~ 39 Wm-2, 37 Wm-2, and 2 Wm-2. These quantities were analyzed in two GCMs and compensating errors in the SW and LW clear-sky, cross-atmosphere radiative flux divergence conspired to produce reasonable predictions of the net clear-sky divergence. Both GCMs underestimated the surface LW and SW CRF and predicted near zero SW CRE when the measured values were substantially larger (70 Wm-2 maximum).
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/models-get-cloud-feedback-wrong-but-only-by-70wm2-thats-19-times-larger-than-the-co2-effect/
Models are so central to climate alarmism that this represents a serious blow to the entire idea that global warming will happen at all.
Models are so central to climate alarmism
So climate skeptics like to claim. We knew in 1896 that increased CO2 would warm the planet, but Arrhenius’s guess of 5 C per CO2 doubling for the climate sensitivity was just that: a guess. Eight years later he proposed 1.5 C per doubling. This basically bracketed the range for the intervening century. This is such a wide range that the climate skeptic argument that “models are so central to alarmism” simply goes out the window — models are not central because we don’t know what the models predict.
What happened since 1970 is that the temperature shot up in full agreement with the rise of CO2 measured since 1958 at Mauna Loa. The models did not cause this, though they did predict it, on the other hand they did not predict the slope of the rise, not knowing the climate sensitivity.
Climate alarmism is based not on models but on increasing temperature. The concern is that the increase observable in every 15-year interval since 1970 will continue unabated. In that scenario things would get hotter, and hotter, and hotter.
A climate skeptic is someone in one of the stages of the Kubler-Ross model, namely denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
1. Denial. In every decade since 1850 the temperature looks flat. The denial stage seeks comfort in that observation. No matter what decade we are in, to deny global warming you only have to point to the current decade and observe that the temperature is flat.
This works for all 16 decades since 1850! The first decade to which climate skeptics considered applying it was 2000-2010, and it worked there. It will work just as well for 2010-2020.
It’s an interesting question whether it will work for 2040-2050. I’d guess not, unfortunately I won’t be around to find out unless I live to a hundred.
2. Anger. We get a lot of that on Climate Etc.
3. Bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Too soon, climate skepticism is still young.
I like anything that raises awareness of philosophical issues in ensemble forecasting.
However, this Pielke Sr. influenced paper is not really a new addition to discussion, and it is not very stimulating. Basically, the argument, once again, is that theory has not adequately constrained model construction.
There are often three major assumptions at play in this line of argument as played by scientists with inadequate philosophical understanding, and philosophers with inadequate scientific understanding, alike: that there is no general theory of the internal variability of the climate system; that this is required for models to be useful/most useful; and that internal variability is the most crucial/dominant source of uncertainty.
So, what about those assumptions?
Hint: Eli is correct.
But let’s not rush it.
Instead, let us briefly consider a logical implication: how would we create a model that is dominated by internal variability and is also coherent with the observational record? By all means, let’s try it. And use falsifiability. I think you’d be looking at falsehood. ;-)
While we’re at it, let’s figure out what fraction of sources of uncertainty is dominated by the issue of internal variability; and measure the uncertainty of skeptic claims.
And be sure to have a decent understanding not only of Popper, but also Hume, and Lakatos.
And lastly, consider how model-building is contributing to theory-development – not the other way around.
Guess what? The most pragmatic and intelligent question is perhaps not really which approach is ‘the right approach’ , given our awareness of all the ways the usual approach can result in errors, and the fact that models do not speak literal truth; but how to compare various methodologies and results to maximize the usefulness of the information provided by models, especially the AR5 runs.
Hint: It’s done through transparency of tuning and preventing monopolies over research. And on that particular point, it is Steven Mosher who is correct.
cheers
Martha. Hint: No one said, in that paper, that models should reproduce day-to-day, month-to-month, or even year-to-year weather or climate. That being said, there are model outputs that can be compared to observations:
“What’s especially interesting about this paper is the level of detail. They test shortwave and longwave radiation, precipitation flux, integrated water vapor, liquid water path, cloud fraction, and they have observations from the top of the atmosphere and the surface. With so much information they can test models against short wave and long wave radiation, to see how well the models are really simulating clouds.”
Note that this is not a comparison of temperatures from day-to-day, etc.
Greenhouse gases delay radiation heat loses, but they don’t cause warming.
Why I say the above is because the earth surface is exposed to solar energy only during the day, and at night this energy is released into space or stored in the oceans.
The situation is similar to filling a bucket with a hole with tap water. If the hole at the bottom of the bucket is very small, the water level in the bucket rises. If the hole is very large the water level drops.
In this analogy, the water from the tap is solar energy, the hole at the bottom of the bucket is CO2 in the atmosphere and the water level is global mean temperature.
If the night is long enough for the solar energy gained during the day to be released released into space, there will not be a chance for accumulation of heat and warming due to CO2.
Is the night long enough for the solar energy gained during the day to escape into space?
Mind you during the night the tap water is turned off.
Is the night long enough for the solar energy gained during the day to escape into space?
Obviously, yes, on average.
However, if you make the hole a little bit smaller (ie. a bit more CO2), then the next night won’t quite be long enough.
Steve
Do climate models take into consideration the night?
You truly are in the dark.
JCH
There is no solar energy reaching any part of the earth for six months every year. Is that not significant?
NASA landed their little car on the right planet. They’re not total imbeciles.
JCH
If that is the case, why did they introduce a hockey stick to instrumental global temperature record: no oscillation in global mean temperature before the 1970s, but a man made global warming after.
Arm of hockey stick before 1970s.
Blade of hockey stick after 1970s.
Global mean temperature is cyclic. The warming after the 1970s is just the warming phase of the cycle.
Girma,
There is no solar energy reaching any part of the earth for six months every year. Is that not significant?
No. At any given time half of the earth is receiving solar radiation and the other half is not. This is taken into account when calculating the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun.
With that 6 month remark, I am beginning to believe that chunks of Girma’s brain are missing.
The synapses are connecting to voids.
WebHubTelescope
With that 6 month remark, I am beginning to believe that chunks of Girma’s brain are missing. The synapses are connecting to voids.
No solar energy reaches the earth = ½ of each day => ½ of each year => 6 months.
Girma said:
Girma probably thinks that a 60Hz power source with a 50% duty cycle spending half of its time at 0 volts and have at max voltage will be useless because over the course of a year that it will produce zero voltage for 6 months.
Where do these people come from? Do they have not an ounce of pragmatism or even a trace of intuition?
Notice that Girma has the wherewithal to actually search for a ½ character instead of just typing in 1/2 like I would. This indicates that he is desperately trying to look halfway intelligent but cannot for the life of him make up for his lack of basic scientific knowledge. This and everything else makes him look like a clownish inept poseur. He will never overcome that stigma, except to the more ignorant readers who actually believe he is saying something significant. That is the tragic aspect to this situation and what makes bad science so effective as a propaganda and FUD tool.
Yes. Curious question. Is it leading somewhere?
Girma, it looks like you are still lost in the K&T cartoon world. That attempt at an energy budget is not what is modeled, hopefully, since it missed 20Wm-2 of mixed phase clouds. Oh wait, that probably is what is modeled :)
CO2 restricts radiative heat loss 24 hours per day. Nothing changes in that regard at night and the planet doesn’t stop radiating during the day. The only thing that changes, particularly over the ocean where there is little diurnal temperature change, is the net energy flux which is positive during the day and negative at night.
Bowling 300!
captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4
Why do you project the solar constant on the whole sphere (4*Pi*r^2)?
Is not it the case that only half of the earth’s spherical surface (2*Pi*r^2) is exposed to the solar constant at any time?
This will reduce the non-feed back climate sensitivity from 1.2 to 0.6 deg C for doubling of CO2.
Girma, that depends on what you are looking for. With the solar pond effect, I use use maximum or 0.7 * 1340 and half day. IMO you need to determine the ocean “solar pond effect” is first before trying to figure out what the atmospheric GHE might be. Then the “actual” surface temperature is what would have to be changed by CO2 doubling. That gives a range of no feed back sensitivities from around 0.6 to 1.4 C
There is no solar pond effect in the ocean. It’s too deep and salinity gradient is too small. Solar pond works by being so shallow that most of the SW energy is absorbed by a solid black bottom which then thermalizes the water from the bottom up. The bottom is brine with a layer of fresh water maintained on top which keeps the hotter water on the bottom heavier than the cooler fresh water layer on top. Temperatures a little over 90C on the bottom have been obtained when little energy is drawn off to be put to practical use.
I think the solar pond effect is a good analogy for the aquatic greenhouse effect. Like you say, the “real” solar pond has to have near perfect conditions to produce optimum temperature. The Greenhouse effect also requires near perfect conditions to produce optimum temperature.
Unlike the real solar pond and real greenhouse, the “effects” are limited because we can’t control all the required conditions, but that doesn’t mean they are not useful analogies.
Girma, this may confuse you more, which some think is impossible, but the purely radiant portion of the Greenhouse effect is fairly small. The oceans absorbs short wave at some depth which stores most of the energy and limits the rate of heat loss to the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect begins to do its job.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/07/plumbers-nightmare.html
Note that the solar arrow is 345Wm-2. The average daily solar energy absorbed at the surface is 174Wm-2 which would be ~348Wm-2 actual half day absorption. So that model is based on actual energy in the oceans which have 1000 times the heat capacity of the air and a much longer time constant as well. It doesn’t consider land and only waves briefly at the atmosphere, so don’t confuse it with the atmospheric data. It does give an approximation of the “effective” surface temperature which would be used for an atmospheric model.
The ocean IS the greenhouse. It’s transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. In fact it’s far more opaque than any greenhouse gas. Water is a greenhouse fluid and a helluva lot more effective one than the wispy fluid that rides above it.
David, “The ocean IS a greenhouse.” The ocean accumulates energy which it releases more slowly until it reaches a conditional equilibrium. So yes it acts like a greenhouse, but the greenhouse analogy tends to suck according to some :) Since liquid and gas are both fluid, that creates a problem. So what we need David is better jargon :)
There’s one major difference between oceans and the atmosphere. Water is not compressible in the same way gases are. Therefore oceans have with few exceptions a positive temperature gradient with increasing altitude, while the properties of troposphere make the typical gradient highly negative.
For this reason the oceans do not have the GHE in the same sense as the atmosphere has.
Also it occurs to me that since the effective radiating skin-layer of the ocean is so thin but the density of H20 is so high, there is not much differential change in spectral properties from a flat infrared radiating spectrum. A huge amount of line broadening occurs so that it may look effectively like a Planck distribution with the usual DOS derived from quantum and statistical mechanics . Otherwise one could imagine that the ocean surface acts as an effective greenhouse gas layer itself, just as Springer says.
So what Pekka is suggesting is that the stratification of the atmosphere is organized to promote the GHE. The layers in which the problematic infared can leave is at such a low-density, that it becomes inconsequential. In that case the preference is for the temperature to increase such as to promote the density of photons that can irradiate to space.
Elsewhere on this thread I have the overall picture:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/12/philosophical-reflections-on-climate-model-projections/#comment-229829
Webster, that surface skin layer is the most important thermodynamic boundary layer to figure out and the most difficult to “average”.
The AQUA data indicates that the average temperature of the ocean skin layer is 21C degrees. The “bulk” surface temperature is estimated at ~17C. That should make a huge difference in your estimate of diffusion into the oceans, in fact all the estimates since it tends to “block” heat uptake when it approaches 30C.
Another thermodynamic boundary layer in the ocean is the 4C layer which really should not be so stable.
That is the reason I am looking at different non-equilibrium models which include “envelopes” to separate approximate boundary layers.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/07/plumbers-nightmare.html
That is a rough diagram for a reversible dissipative system. Because of the difference between the freezing temperatures of fresh and salt water there is approximately 10 Wm-2 (2C degrees) of flexibility in the “steady” state which is pretty close to the temperature range in the tropics between glacial and inter-glacial periods. If we are near the upper range of the swing,
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/whatsnormal.png
We would see the approach to a limit, reduction in variance with increased temperature, shift to neutral in the stratosphere, all the things that appear to be happening.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/joethevolcano.png
Even the sensitivity to volcanic forcing appears to be reducing. Notice that the NH SH temperatures are even equalizing when you use 2002 to 2010 as a reference period.
See, now I can get a better Climate Etc. Clowns write up :)
Captain Dallas, Your problem may be that you speak a completely different lingo that an educated physicist would talk in. Your reference points are obtuse, and you have no concept of creating a linear path of reasoning starting from some well-accepted foundation.
You also seem to have some antiquated notion that the earth has some fundamentally different characteristics from its constituent elements. Well, in fact the earth is just a blob with material composed just as any smaller blob would be. Sure, there are all sorts of dynamics going on, with unpredictable cells in both the atmosphere and ocean, but these surely can be averaged away if all we want to do is follow the mean value properties.
That premise you set up with a 21 C surface layer and 17 C bulk is some sort of artificiality that you require to go off on some fevered word salad gumbo. I could never have an extended discussion with you, and I have never seen anyone have an extended discussion. The basic ideas are pretty basic, yet you never follow that path, and by doing that you will always dead-end.
Webster, “That premise you set up with a 21 C surface layer and 17 C bulk is some sort of artificiality that you require to go off on some fevered word salad gumbo. ”
That is non-sense. The “bulk” SST is also not my word salad, but someone else’s approximation of the ocean mixing layer temperature based on sparse measurements with various methods from varying depths. The satellite data is what disagrees with that hodge podge of futile attempts to reconstruct SST and OHC for the past century.
Climate science is attempting to use a multitude of approximations, assumptions and “reanalysis” of questionable data instead of starting with the more accurate data and working back in a logical manner.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/joethevolcano.png
That is HADSST2, RSS NH and SH using a 2002 baseline with the BEST volcanic forcing. Using the AQUA SST data, the temperature are re-scaled to Wm-2 based on the 21C. That provides an approximation of the Volcanic forcing. I haven’t checked, how close it that to estimates?
With the satellite temperature data and real temperatures, you can even get pretty accurate estimates of energy imbalance, thermosteric sea level variation and CO2 forcing impacts. The satellite data is the best data available. Attempting to determine the rate of thermal diffusion into the oceans with the “Bulk” temperature estimates is mathturbation.
DS’s point about oceans absorbing insolation and trapping IR is excellent. However once the planet has drifted into equilibrium all such points becomes irrelevant.
Global warming is the result of drifting out of equilibrium, due in the present case to a significant increase in the percentage of atmospheric CO2: 35% or so since 1800.
All these other points such as how big a GHG water vapor is, and how effective the ocean is at trapping IR, are irrelevant unless they change too. Perhaps they are changing, but not as the principal driver. The emerging scientific explanation of observed global warming is that CO2 is the “big control knob” here. No other explanation fits the warming data as well.
Thanks captdallas
Clouds and climate models. Hmm Kim’s chorus comes ter mind:
‘I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.’
and..
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/
In the observed period 1977-1998 most of the warming occurred in the warm El Nino when low level marine cloud decreased and SST temperature increased. The satellite data showed that most of the reduction of outgoing radiation in the period was in the SW band from a decrease in reflected incoming radiation and very little in the LW band from a GH effect.
Prior to the warming, we had a long period of cooling coinciding with La Nina events and cloudy skies, like we’re experiencing in chilly Melbourne now.
More philosophical reflections on climate model projections
Science history shows model IS the problem:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
a.) If the AGW (Anthropologic Global Warming Model) were correct
_ 1. There is no 30 yr Climategate timeline of fraud [1]
_ 2. Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC are Noble Prize winners
b.) If the SSM (Standard Solar Model of H-filled stars) were correct
_ 1. H-fusion powers the Sun and sustains our lives
_ 2. The Bilderberg solar model [2] is correct
_ 3. H-fusion reactors supply us with energy [3]
Mankind’s history shows model IS the problem:
Reality, Truth, God vs. Model, False, self
– Dignity of man – . . . . . . . . . Control mankind
U.S. Declaration of vs. Manifesto of the
– -Independence- – . . . . . . . . Communist Party
_ http://tinyurl.com/5yr32 . . . . . . . . . . http://tinyurl.com/48r54
References:
1. Joanne Nova, “ClimateGate: 30 years in the making” (2009)
_ http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/
2. O. Gingerich and C. de Jager, “The Bilderberg solar model” Solar Physics 5 5-25 (1968) http://tinyurl.com/6pnwgos
_ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh….3….5G
3. Peter N. Spotts, “Fusion: Stepping closer to reality” (Dec 2004)
_ http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1209/p15s01-stss.html
I have read this site since day 1 but have stopped reading it more than once a week because the level of discourse is so coarse.
The regurgitations by Robert, WHT and fan (among others) whose comments are almost never free of smears/offensive statements, are tiresome. They do not present a threat, but they are poorly written and make the good contributions very difficult to find. Sometimes one doesn’t have the energy to wade through the sewage…
Is there any practical solution to this? An app which would delete all tiresome phrases and those bloody smilies would be a start. I would urge all not to reply to these types of comments irrespective of which side does the commenting.
Perhaps my perspective is a minority one. (NB: I have no problems with robust arguments). However, I see that quite a few of the best minds are no longer commenting and I miss them.
Coniston
There are some over active commenters from both sides of the debate who can tend to swamp the proceedings.
I find it very tiresome when the debate descends into bullying and a food fight as has happened increasingly frequently recently. Robust debate is fine, abuse is not. Those being abusive must know who they are and that it does not reflect favourably on the message they want to put over.
Tonyb
coniston, I am afraid you are out of luck. I have been participating in these sorts of international bulletin boards, blogs, or whatever you like to call them for over 20 years; ever since I found rctn on Usenet. This is a perennial problem. There are solutions. You can go to a fully moderated blog, where each post is read by a monitor before it appears in public. This requires a large staff of monitors, depending on how much traffic there is. If there is too much traffic for the staff of monitors, then postings get delayed and/or lost, and this creates a different set of problems.
As long as this remains an almost unmoderated blog, the problem you have identified will exist. I dont know, but my guess is that our hostess has absolutley no intention of turning Climate Etc into a moderated blog.
Occasionally several individuals dominate the comments. From the last 1000 comments, here are the current stats:
Robert 107
David Springer 76
captdallas 66
Latimer Alder 43
Joshua 37
A fan of *MORE* discourse 32
WebHubTelescope 32
I have rarely seen an individual go over 70/1000 comments. Traffic is somewhat slow at CE at the moment, often 1000 comments reflects two days activity, but I suspect it is longer than this at the moment.
If anyone knows how to restrict the frequency of an individual commenting on a wordpress.com blog let me know, this is something that I would consider implementing
I’m very surprised by that. I would have thought Dave was leading by a mile. Seeing this, I’m inclined to slow down.
Robert
You tend to post in spurts then go quiet for a while, but they do add up. I would have put fan and Joshua much higher than you
Tonyb
Judith: You”re being diplomatic when you say “occasionally”. Personally I don’t care. I pretty much skip the smug, the arrogant, and the terminally convinced. Also the masters of the vapid, the obvious, and the tautologous like my good friend Josh.
On the other hand, contributors like Latimer, that is those with a sense of humor and style and writing ability, add quite a bit to the blog in my opinion. I appreciate the openness of Climate Etc. and wouldn’t be in favor of limiting participation.
Not that I get a vote :-)
The stupid must be suppressed, as it seems to multiply. Way too many climate skeptic trolls, like Latie etc, for idiot trackers like us to debunk.
PG –
A classic post.
Joshua,
Right you are. My own list of crackpots that comment to Climate Etc with their own whacko global-warming theories is up to 25.
Clowns
This does not include the skeptics that just disagree with the science, without having something akin to an alternate theory, or a rather obvious agenda such as being a sock-puppet commenter. That list would be in the hundreds.
That reminds me. Why are not multiple sockpuppets like Latimer banned here forever like they are on typical blogs?
WHT –
I appreciate Judith’s reluctance to “ban” (or even censor) except under the most extreme situations. It is to her credit, IMO. And I don’t think that my view comes about simply because I would likely be near the top of the list that many here would like to see banned (or censored).
In my view, there are no objective rules that could be applied. Banning someone simply for using sockpuppets seems like a subjective criterion to me: why is using sockpuppets significantly different than posting anonymously? (And despite the attempts by those who don’t post anonymously to do so, I have yet to see a meaningful distinction made to differentiate anonymous and non-anonymous commenters).
I think that the subjective criterion currently in place – the identification of certain terms that some people find offensive – is just fine. The hand-wringing about the level of the debate is quite comical to me because it is always fraught with hypocritical standards of judgement.
What I am continuously impressed with is the confusion I see, so abundantly in blog debates, between subjective and objective criteria. I’m also continuously impressed with the selectivity with which criteria are applied.
It’s like a motivated-reasoning-apalooza.
Have a look at this:
http://wordpress.stackexchange.com/questions/60673/how-can-i-limit-the-number-of-comments-per-registered-user-per-day-in-wordpress
A posting limit would definitely change the thought going in to comments.
Thx, i will have my tech person take a look. Say set limit at 25 comments per day?
I think it would be interesting to see the different dynamic if there is a limit of one or two comments per person per day. (Two permits fixing posting errors.)
I want to retain some function for dialogue and back and forth, but avoid p***ing matches and one or two persons completely dominating a thread. something between 2 and 25 . . .
A small number of comments per day does not prevent dialogue back and forth, it just encourages more thoughtful and reflective dialogue.
Much in the same way when people used to write paper letters or aerogrammes to friends/relatives overseas – writing less often means more content per communication.
JC
Please continue making your blog a special one where the only censorship is on abusive comments.
ClimateEtc does not censorship skeptical comments as is done at realclimate, tamino and deltoid. THANK YOU!
Please no censorship on the number of comments per person per day as well.
Curry JA
I couldn’t find anything off the shelf to do what you want but I’m not done looking.
A kill-file plugin for WordPress would be the way to go then users can make the decision for themselves about what they don’t want to see.
Limiting number of comments can of course be done by IP but at this point I’m inclined to say that too is going to require someone to develop a new WordPress plug-in to do it. And as others have mentioned proxy servers can defeat IP screens. Brandon Schollenberger (sp?) mentions banning common proxy servers but that’s no obstacle for the accomplished net denizen these days. For instance one can tether to their smart phone and use it like a dial-up modem getting a different dynamically assigned IP on-demand. I used to confound IP bans by having an old analog modem on-hand with a land-line connection. I no longer have a land-line but I have a smart phone I can use instead. I’d also mention there are a jillion free anonymous proxy servers but they’re a bit of a hassle. A dial-up modem or smartphone tether is much more convenient and reliable. The problem with free proxies is covered by the old saw “you get what you pay for”
However, a kill-file that individual users can use to block those they do not wish to read even David Springer could not easily defeat.
I can cobble up fairly quickly I think a kill-file add-on for Firefox that’ll work on this blog. The best solution IMO is still a WordPress plugin for killfiles but that’s a lot more effort. If it were MY blog I’d be tempted to put in the effort.
Judith Curry
Avoiding wordy, repetitive p***ing matches is a good goal.
But I would agree with Girma that an arbitrary “limit per thread” or “limit per day” might end up simply being a random censorship, which would demotivate many of your denizens.
You’ve got a good thing going here, despite a few chronic trolls.
Most of all, it gets interesting when you take the time to comment yourself.
My advice: It ain’t “broke” – so don’t “fix” it.
Max
Judith, it seems that any prescriptive solution will easily be avoided by the net savy posters on this blog. I find the scroll wheel on my mouse the best way to skip over abusive or boring posts.
A suggestion: The list of recent posts is about 15 to 20 insertions long but I often use it to follow my favourite contributors, but as I have a life off-line as well, if find that posts from Tomas (say) never stay on the list long enough to be found if one only visits CE once or twice a day.
Can this listing be cumulatively extended to another file that could be searched back by occasional visitors to for the past week or so?
Limits could shut down a thread that is productive or limits could shut down a thread that is worse than useless. We can search for names we respect. one that I search for is curryja and I do search for my own name to see if anyone has posted something that supports or disputes my postings and if it helps me to learn more. There is a lot of junk and there is a lot of good stuff. One person’s junk is often another person’s good stuff.
The problem is, that’s only going to work with registered users. Since you don’t require registration here, that’ll be useless.
I’m pretty sure that this can be done for IP addresses
I won’t tip my hand as to how, but I suspect that most of the people here are tech-savvy enough to get around that if they’re motivated enough. However, if the socks start to multiply, it’s usually pretty obvious who’s who. If Fan gets sent to the corner, and somebody named “Aragorn ” starts commenting with profuse smiley faces about Jim Hansen…
P.E., while it is relatively easy to get around an IP ban/restriction, it’s also relatively easy to ban most common proxy servers people would use to do so. Depending on how much effort Curry wants to put into it, it’s definitely a possibility.
Though if I could make a recommendation, I’d consider changing the criteria. Someone could easily make 25 meaningful comments in a day. It’s especially likely to happen if they know a lot about a subject and respond to multiple people about it. It might be better to use a shorter time period, like an hour. That would let people talk plenty throughout the day, but it would also prevent people from flooding a post quickly.
Just a thought.
Coniston didn’t say what sort of material he was hoping for when he comes here. If it was technical then why not just leave the nontechnical threads open-ended and moderate the technical ones much more heavily for technical content? That way the heaviest posters can have their mutual fun on the nontechnical threads, which coniston should find easy to simply avoid.
If on the other hand coniston is hoping for more policy-oriented discussions then I would leave things as they are on the ground that moderating for policy is an NP-hard problem and he should just get used to disappointment.
To make moderation for technical content easier, grant a trusted subset of the registered users the right to moderate down any substandard contributions to technical threads, and set a threshold at which the comment gets deleted, or perhaps just moved out of the way to the blog counterpart of a cell phone waiting lot at the airport. The trusted subset should consist of those whose decisions tend to be roughly those that Judith would have made had she been doing it all on her own, the point being not to burden her with moderation duties that would reduce her frequency of posting. This is essentially the system used at Slashdot, which goes even further with a hierarchical ranking of comments.
I apologize for getting carried away, but there were several threads that were educational. In particular the average SST sub-thread.
That might make a good quiz question, What is the average global sea surface temperature?
a. 16C
b. 17C
c 4C
d 21C
It felt like 4C when I took my little nephew for a swim in it ,a few years ago and his teeth were chattering….and that was in summer! And I imagine that the North Sea is even colder than that. So I am going for answer c.
Okay gang, The paper referenced, http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp.shtml
was just an explanation of the differences in the satellite measurement and the engine intake/bucket record. The 21C average is from the AMSU site http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
I haven’t audited AMSU but I do use the satellite SST data from time to time and do deal with thermoclines in my line of work. The 21C looks pretty accurate and tends to work with my model I am playing with.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/playingwithaquauptothestratosphere.png That one of the plots I was playing with that provided the 294.25K average SST or 21.1C degrees.
So what number would be best to use if you where estimating heat transfer between the ocean atmosphere boundary? Since K&T had to upwardly adjust their estimated average surface temperature to 288.9K or 396Wm-2, it looks like there would be a pretty hefty margin of error if the wrong one was used.
That graph on UAH page showing 21C global average SST is a pretty huge departure from the ~15C in the monthly reports from NOAA’s ERSST.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.noaa.ersst.html
I’m not sure what to make of the discrepancy at this point but the ERSST is certainly more widely quoted.
The average global sea surface temperature is essentially the average global temperature as the oceans cover 70% of the planet. So if global average is 15 C, ocean is 16 or 17 C. I would guess b [17 C].
gbaikie, you are assuming that the 30% of the earth that is land is a similar temperature to the sea. But I think it is generally warmer on land, due to there being some extremely hot places, such as Saudi Arabia, Libya and the Australian outback. I am looking at my atlas now and there are huge areas of sea that look like they could be below freezing. I already know that the Arctic must be below freezing because it is frozen (and a lot of it actually remains frozen all year long). And the Antarctic is notorious for being cold too.
The warmest region of Earth is the tropics- the region between Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn. Which about 23 degree latitude North and South. This region is 40% surface area of Earth.
“Common sense says that since this covers a span of 47 degrees, and there are 180 total degrees of latitude, this area must be around 1/4 (47/180, or 26%) of the total surface of the Earth. ….
Without going into the math — if you’re interested, please see the attached link — it turns out that because this band encompasses the widest part of the globe, it actually turns out to be just under 2/5, or a whopping 40%, of the surface area of the entire planet!”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_Earth%27s_surface_lies_between_the_Tropic_of_Cancer_and_the_Tropic_of_Capricorn
This also if bump it up few degrees higher, say 30 degree latitude N&S you much closer to 1/2 of earth surface.
Or northern hemisphere in temperate zone about 25% surface of earth [southern temperate zone is the other 25%].
In addition most of land area on earth is in the northern hempishere- the biggest countries: Russia, Canada, US, most if China, all of Europe, is in northern temperate zone.
“The Northern Hemisphere is the half of a planet that is north of its equator—the word hemisphere literally means “half sphere”. It is also that half of the celestial sphere north of the celestial equator. Earth’s northern hemisphere contains most of the planet’s land, and roughly 90% of its human population.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Hemisphere
So about 67% of all land is northern.
How much ocean is in the tropics?
Land and ocean is 40% or about 204 million sq kilometer [entire earth is 510 million square km].
The land in tropics is most of South America, 1/2 mexico, most of Africa, some of Austrailia. For approximation: We just say
all of South American and all Africa.
Land area of S America: 17.8 million square km
Africa: 11.6 million square km
So roughly, 17.8 + 11.6 = 29.4. So say 30 million
Which means roughly 15% of tropics is land and 85% is ocean
[btw, it gives answer here: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/LilyLi.shtml- ocean 17 C]
Ok so here:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/abs/ngeo1008.html
Sort of indicates average tropic ocean temperature is about 27 C.
So say it’s at least 26 C. Now let’s look tropical land area:
The average temperature in Niger is 29.0 °C (84 °F).
http://www.niger.climatemps.com/
Not much difference in tropics bit warmer land, out tropics general average temperature warmer on ocean. But major thing is lot ocean area in tropics, most land is temperate zones- and the Antarctic covers south pole and colder region- but the Antarctic is small region in comparisons entire earth surface- it’s temperature is more significant if just including land areas.
Total planet’s land: 148 million
Antarctica land area: 14 million km [about 1/10 of land area- and 1/36th of entire area]
[btw, it gives answer here: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/LilyLi.shtml – ocean 17 C]
gbaikie, very good 17C is the “bulk surface temperature” but the actual surface temperature is closer to 21C. http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp.shtml
So there is 4 C difference between the true surface and “bulk” surface which is about 23Wm-2 difference if you happen to be “modeling” radiant transfer of energy on Earth. That is my “philosophical” refection on climate model projections :)
captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4 | August 16, 2012 at 7:54 am |
gbaikie, very good 17C is the “bulk surface temperature” but the actual surface temperature is closer to 21C. http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp.shtml
————————————————————————
I couldn’t find anything on that page to support the 21C number. Where are you getting it from?
cd said “closer to 21” but the two graphs at the bottom of the page he referenced seem to cover a range from 18 to 21 as the latitude decreases from 35 to 28. Moreover it’s just for the North Philippine Sea, so I don’t see any basis for extrapolating the information on that page to the globe, unless one takes the 28th parallel as representative of the whole globe.
captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4 | August 16, 2012 at 7:54 am | :
“So there is 4 C difference between the true surface and “bulk” surface which is about 23Wm-2 difference if you happen to be “modeling” radiant transfer of energy on Earth. That is my “philosophical” refection on climate model projections :)”
Hmm, average temperature, bulk temperature, surface temperature, skin temperature, air temperature and according Greenhouse theory earth average temperature is about 15 C. With greenhouse effect adding 33 C.
I don’t know what bulk temperature is. What comes mind, with term bulk ocean temperature is the entire ocean or maybe first 1000 feet or meters of ocean. Though can’t say the average earth temperature is well defined, either. Generally, my impression of average temperature is to take highest temperature and lowest temperature and divide by 2- which seems rather stupid. Though it makes it easier.
But to make it easier in modern world with satellite we should measure
“skin temperature”- whether land or ocean. Particularly if one concerned about radiant dynamics in Earth’s atmosphere. Also it keeps an uniformity with all planets in our system [and planets we find around distant stars]
And since radiant aspects seems [to say it mildly] overblown, if this was regarded as important, then having skin temperature is needed.
So Captdallas seems to talking about average skin temperature and says it’s “is closer to 21C”.
Ok, let’s start from premise that no knows average skin temperature- despite spending decades obsessing on radiant properties, and making models that project a century into the future. This seems par for the course- appearing nuttier than mad hatters.
Now for skin temperature, do we want continue tradition of talking about average temperature and determining it by taking high and low and divide it by 2. That might close to average temperature- taking temperature every second of a 24 hr day and averaging it. The thing about skin temperature is varies more than air temperature. Skin temperature is directly measuring the effect of sunlight of the material of the surface. The angle of the sun, the roughness of the surface, wind, resolution, etc- one has infinite level complexity that has to be simplified.
One thing skin temperature is has a bell curve in temperature during the day in sunlight- it follows solar energy in which the most amount solar power occurs between 9am and 3pm. One has different curve at night. And polar regions with constant sunlight the curve would seem to kinda flat, changing with clouds and wind.
Anyways, assuming high/low divide by 2 the skin temperature should be higher. Perhaps one could called the highest average temperature of earth and could be as Captdallas says, “closer to 21C” for global ocean. It also seems the land would also have a higher average temperature if one measuring skin temperature rather than air temperature.
One also look at as taking normal average air temperature and overlaying the peaked temperatures caused direct sunlight. Or the nighttime temperature on the surface doesn’t get much cooler than air temperature, whereas the skin temperature can get around 20 C warmer than air on land areas [during 9am to 3pm].
“Total planet’s land: 148 million
Antarctica land area: 14 million km”
Southern temperate [mostly Australia]: 8 million
Tropics: 30 million
Northern temperate: 60
Northern arctic : 11 million [Russia Canada Greenland]
Hmm missing 25 million sq kilometers.
Try again wiki say there are 148.3 million km of continential
land:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_by_area
Plus islands bigger than 250,000 km which totals about
5.2 million. And we ignore the smaller islands which could
millions of sq km. But basically it’s worse because it’s
148.3 plus 5.2 being 153.5 million km- missing 30 million
km. Hmm:
“When compared to the 144.68 million km^2 of land surface,
that’s one station every 13,012 km2.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3067.1
If that correct, I am off by 21 million square km. Which more encouraging :)
And paper also happen related to topic of skin temperature. And more interesting anyhow:
“Satellites provide a continuous view of Earth’s surface,
allowing equal observation of the most remote
areas and the most accessible. However, satellites do
not measure the near-surface air temperature; instead
they measure the radiometric surface temperature, or
skin temperature, a different physical parameter.”
and:
“RADIOMETRIC LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE
AND AIR TEMPERATURE.
Around the same time that the Death Valley record
air temperature was measured, an analysis of the
temperature conditions of air and soil was conducted
in the desert near Tucson, Arizona. At 1:00 p.m. LT on
21 June 1915, a maximum soil temperature of 71.5°C
(160.7°F) was measured 0.4 cm below the soil surface.
The corresponding air temperature measured 4 ft
above the ground was 42.5°C (108.5°F). Other studies
that have observed extreme maximum surface temperatures
and air temperatures near the time of the
observed surface temperature have found differences
of even greater magnitude.”
Hmm:
“The Lut Desert was determined to be the
hottest spot on Earth in two of three years previously
evaluated with the Aqua/MODIS satellite LST data
Here we found that the Lut
Desert had the highest surface
temperature on Earth
in 2004 (68.0°C; 154.4°F),
2005 (70.7°C; 159.3°F),
2006 (68.5°C; 155.3°F), 2007
(69.0°C; 156.2°F), and 2009
(68.6°C; 155.5°F)—five of
the seven years analyzed
in this study. The Lut is
the only place on Earth to
have a surface temperature
above 70°C (158°F), and
it regularly has the largest
contiguous area of surface
temperatures above 65°C of
anywhere on Earth”
Well I going have bookmark this reference.
“Total planet’s land: 148 million
Antarctica land area: 14 million km
Southern temperate [mostly Australia]: 8 million
Tropics: 30 million
Northern temperate: 60
Northern arctic : 11 million [Russia Canada Greenland]
Hmm missing 25 million sq kilometers.”
I revised it using:
http://www.freemaptools.com/area-calculator.htm
I did southern temperate zone at:10 million square km
And southern tropical: 21.6 million km
Northern tropical:26.5 million
So 48.1 million for tropics instead of 30 million.
Giving close total of 143.1 million.
Which close enough. And 24% instead of 15% tropics
is land [leaving 76% ocean].
If 60 million somewhat correct, Northern temperate zone has just over half area ocean, Tropical has around 75%, and southern temperature has more than 90% ocean. And polar region have large percent of land.
“The area encompassed by the Arctic Circle is about 6 percent of the Earth’s surface area, according to the US government’s Energy Information Administration”
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/faq.html
6% is 30.6 million. Arctic 11 and Antarctic 14 million square km- so actually, Northern Temperate has slightly higher percentage than either polar region.
Dang – I’m no longer #1?
Must. Work. Harder.
JC at top of thread “Moderation note: This is a technical thread and comment will be moderated for relevance.”
But which commenters are the ones making irrelevant comments? Those flatly asserting that CO2 can intercept IR or those equally flatly asserting it can’t? And how often can bystanders bear to hear these two assertions repeated ad nauseam before becoming nauseous?
Yes, god exists. No he doesn’t.
Yes, evolution happened. No it didn’t.
Yes, CO2 traps IR. No it doesn’t.
Yes, perpetual motion is possible. Look at the above examples.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – NO models are EVER useful or appropriate in predicting climate change. On the contrary, they are only a source of error and misconceptions, even when not afflicted by the sort of intentional and systematic deception. dishonesty and flat-out mendacity that is the essence and substance of the existing AGW models.
To begin with, it is obvious that any and every model ever seen, even if honestly attempted, inevitably fails to consider any number of relevant variables or to accurately measure the true potential for variability of the variables that have been identified. It is simply impossible to exhaustively identify, quantify and assess the role of every possible determinant of climate change.
It is also mathematically impossible to produce meaningful results with the degrees of uncertainty attendant upon every variable. (I challenge anyone to try to produce meaningful figures from hundreds of partial derivtaives with huge sigmas attached toi themm – that is, if you could even come up with all the pertinent partial derivatives. Even the most powerful computer couldn’t do that because it could never be adequately programmed to do it.) Not only this, but for the models being used to justify CAGW, it is even more obvious that the “data” they are based on is false and the computational routines in them have been engineered to produce a result that supports the foregone political conclusion these so-called “researchers” are seeking.
The historical record is sufficient to predict in macro terns the changes in the Earth’s climate over time. The predictions obtained this way are necessarily uncertain as to the intensity or duration of climate cycles, but they are a hell of a lot closer to reality than the political garbage being spewed by the AGW tyrannists.
Otherwise, I stand by what I’ve previously said concerning simple observation and simple arithmetic: these prove irrefutably that human activity is an infinitesimal fraction of CO2 activity on Earth, and CO2 is an infinitesimal fraction of the determinants of climate change – in fact, human activity s an infinitesimal fraction of even the VARIABILITY of CO2 activity, and CO2 is an infinitesmal fraction of even the VARIABILITY of other climate-change determinants, let alone thair absolute values. AGW simply does not compute.
Climate change models are nothing but a distraction from what we should be doing concerning forecasting climate change, Frankly, we need to stop attempting them. Far from being a necessary aspect of inquiry into climate change, they are only destructive of both legitinate effort and scientific integrity. Climate change models BEGONE!!
Many thanks to Oliver Manuel, David Springer, Wagathon and other voices of sanity on this blog, for putting your fingers so cogently on all the fallacies – and the threats to liberty – associated with AGW.
Garth Paltridge in The Climate Caper explains how the GCMs are seriously inbred by the sharing of the knowledge and code by the limited number of people building them.
The only single thing that makes not much sense to me is why *nobody* on either side of the debate is interested in any real physics experiments which could easily demonstrate or refute the multiple unverified postulated greenhouse mechanisms.
I agree about experiments – I think it would be possible to test the postulated greenhouse mechanisms and for much less money than it’s been spent on the GCM. The convinced don’t want to even try – that would be a ‘crackpot’ thing to do.
As a non scientist, who is just trying to get up to speed on these things, I am staggered that there is not an international project on the same scale as the Cern Particle Accelerator (or whatever it is called) studying the properties of real atmospheres with varying amounts of CO2. I am sure that you can’t tell anything relevant by just filling up a big jar of concentrated CO2 and putting a thermometer in it and leaving it in the sun, or under heat lamps.
This endless search for more climate data (to confirm things that are already known) and the creation of ever more sophisticated climate models (which just seem to create a sense of self importance in the designer) just seem to create a mood of self righteousness and over confidence in things that we can’t possibly be certain about.
And why the secrecy about raw data. Beside ice core data, it is very hard to find historical data on the web. The IPCC must have had access to it, so why aren’t there links to it on the report?
The only place that I have been able to find decent data is on the British Met Office Site: Here there are several stations with complete data going back to 1931. Ignoring the urban ones which had significant warming in the 20th century and Stornaway Airport (because it had airport in the title), I was able to plot 5 nice graphs on a spreadsheet which all showed very similar trends. Only one had complete data going back to 1866 and that was Armagh Observatory. There were no missed readings. And as a back up to thermometers, a thermograph was used in the early years. The observatory is away from large urban areas, and being in Northern Island gets the gulf stream, meaning that there are less extremes of temperature (less noise may be an appropriate phrase). Also, very little snow, hence less albedo. Other readings, such as rainfall, had been taken there regularly for several years before the temperature record started, so this again inspired confidence in the staff’s reliability.
I was able to plot a graph of the temperature against time for the entire period.
I would really appreciate it if anyone on here knows of any other similar examples of raw data going back about 150 years anywhere else in the world on the web.
Thanks in advance,
Mark
Chad,
The historical record is sufficient to predict in macro terns the changes in the Earth’s climate over time. The predictions obtained this way are necessarily uncertain as to the intensity or duration of climate cycles, but they are a hell of a lot closer to reality than the political garbage being spewed by the AGW tyrannists.
So uncertain “macro” predictions that are “necessarily” going to be wrong (not that you can point to any) are better than, say, James Hansen predicting ongoing warming in 1988 and getting it “in macro terns (sic)” absolutely bang on the nail?
I guess if we try hard we can find lots of now-testable predictions of imminent global cooling by climate cycle written a few years back.
Eg: David Archibald March 2008: The world has been cooling at 0.06 degrees per annum since then [1998]. My prediction is that this rate of cooling will accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum sometime in 2009.
I think your prorably right that there may not be many empiricial tests for cooling predictions but personally find it less concerning as one finds a corresponding lack of intrusive policy prescriptions associated with such cooling predictions.
dmc,
I can assure you that sound evidence for a cooling planet would result in an equal number of policy prescriptions at which point the same bunch of folk now arguing for cooling will suddenly realise that CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas and will demand that we emit more of it to prevent the cooling.
The country Chad said:
OMG WTF, it’s Orwell/Alice in Wonderland time.
Wharrgarbl styles of cognition are fascinating. ;) ;) ;)
ebHubTelescope | August 16, 2012 at 2:17 am |
The country Chad said:
“Many thanks to Oliver Manuel, David Springer, Wagathon and other voices of sanity on this blog,”
OMG WTF, it’s Orwell/Alice in Wonderland time.
Now that’s funny. This from someone living in an entirely imagined, world – of the people who really have stepped through the looking glass with Al and spend their time vying with each other as to who can think up the most impossible fake fisics before breakfast. Though most often simply regurgitate,
Let’s see, arguments as above about how much shortwave from the Sun bouncing off clouds is contributing to Trenberth’s “missing heat” – gosh, you think visible light heats matter, you don’t even understand why it’s in the SCIENCE DISCIPLINE OF OPTICS and not THERMODYNAMICS.
You’ve taken out from your imagined world’s atmosphere the real, direct heat from the Sun which is thermal infrared which is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move transfered by radiation travelling in straight lines capable of actually heating matter and given its property to shortwave, claiming it is shortwave heating the Earth’s land and oceans and driving the vast dynamic heat and pressure differentials weather we really see around us.
How? Prove shortwave heats land and oceans. Because unless you can you have no weather in your world.
Your carbon dioxide is a SuperMolecule with extraordinary powers, it defies gravity to stay well-mixed in your atmosphere for hundreds of years accumulating into a thick blanket, and not the trace gas it is in the real world. You don’t even have a consistent explanation how it does this.
Take your pick – sometimes you say by Brownian motion, which is nanoscale movements of particles in a voluminous fluid medium in real physics, but mostly you say by ideal gas diffusion which is molecules without properties of volume, weight and attraction not subject to gravity speeding by their own molecular momentum through empty space, and not a fluid medium, and thoroughly mixing by bouncing off each other in elastic collisions – does it matter to you that these describe completely different atmospheres?
Of course not, if someone objects to this nonsense you give another version, well-mixed by atmospheric turbulence of the winds which in the real world don’t cross hemispheres and it’s not always windy.. Not that you know what winds are, or you’d have convection.
And in the real world of real and not ideal gases where real gases have attraction, carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle and shares the 8-10 days residence time of water in the atmosphere; it’s not accumulating, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid. The rain takes all the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
And when it isn’t part of the Water Cycle it’s a real gas with weight not an ideal gas without, so it sinks to ground displacing the gas Air because it is heavier than Air: it can’t accumulate in the atmosphere except in your imagined impossible world. Real carbon dioxide separates out.
You’ve taken out the Carbon Life Cycle.
You call it a poison, a toxic.
Does it matter to you that you don’t have the real Earth’s main heat transfer of convection? Of course not, your arguments are all about radiation so you can pretend that there is no direct heat which is thermal infrared from the Sun but only your imagined diffused waste heat upwelling from the Earth being bounced back by the atmosphere in backradiation.
So you can pretend that all the measurements taken of thermal infrared in the atmosphere are the longwave in your fake fisics meme “shortwave in longwave out”.
Your ideal gas empty space atmosphere is a joke. You have no sound in your world. You probably don’t understand that, maybe some of you on the Orwellian side do and can hear me..
But the best imagined is what this is built on – by taking out the Water Cycle which in the real world brings down temps from 67°C to 15°C, think deserts.
You’ve replaced the real world heavy voluminous ocean of fluid gas, gases and liquids are fluids, which is our real Greenhouse around the Earth in warming and cooling by convective heat transfer, with an imagined greenhouse which only warms, and have taken out the bulk heat transfer of real Greenhouse Gases which are nitrogen and oxygen where in the real world Greenhouse hot air rises and cold air sinks.
And cherry picking only some of these gases you say they warm the Earth 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them.
But you never show and tell.
How can you? It’s a sleight of hand created by taking out the Water Cycle and changing the meaning of Greenhouse and greenhouse gases – there is no Greenhouse Effect as premised to promote AGW.
The AGWScience Fiction Greenhouse Effect only exists in your imagined impossible world created by some who understand real physics very well indeed to be be able to tweak it as has been done here, taking out properties and processes, giving the properties of one thing to another, taking laws out of context and so on, and add to that all the deceit manipulating temperature records and cover-ups and villifying any trying to bring you back to reality..
If you believe this AGW imagined world is real, the joke’s on you.
You’ve taken out the Carbon Life Cycle.
You call it a poison, a toxic.
It is the greatest delusion in the history of science.
Myrrh, thanks for the post Myrrh.
Ah, I see I’ve messed up the flow again.. so I’ll put my first reply here too, where it should have been.
Thank you Girma, now it’s complete.
You’ve taken out the Carbon Life Cycle.
You call it a poison, a toxic.
It is the greatest delusion in the history of science.
===
I first learned about this while in the middle of being taught that carbon dioxide was an ideal gas. His response when I raised objections to this description is what shocked me the most, and I didn’t think I could get more shocked then when I realised through him that this strange fisics about gases and the atmosphere was embedded in the education system. He lauded by the others as the educated expert who knew what he was talking about.
It was a little after that when an advertisement appeared on British tv of a father reading a bedtime story to his little girl, frightening her with the idea of guilt for creating carbon dioxide and endangering the world – it was removed after objections. The 10/10 video another aspect of this prong of AGWSF teaching. There was also quite a campaign going at the time to get countries to put carbon dioxide on their toxic lists, Canada did.
The real toxic here is the AGWScienceFiction fisics, polluting minds and hearts. The antidote is as always, science truth, reality.
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html
Here are a few observations on carbon dioxide (CO2) sinking in air:
“Carbon dioxide is an inert gas that can cause oxygen depletion inducing asphyxiation and death. The risk of asphyxiation is exacerbated by the fact that carbon dioxide is heavier than air which allows it to flow downwards and collect in low lying areas far from its origin.”
“Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas.”
“Being heavier than air, carbon dioxide will flow like water across the terrain and collect in low spots, forming ‘ponds’ that are invisible and odorless, but lethal.“
http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/785.html
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxidequotes.htm
Thank you Oliver. I’ve told the story here before how I learned the AGW teaching at university level on carbon dioxide showed complete ignorance of the properties of gases and of the voluminous atmosphere subject to gravity around us. http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/03/post-normal-science-deadlines/#comment-228455
I was appalled to discover this, a whole generation dumbed down to the extent that a PhD in physics was teaching that the atmosphere was empty space and the gases actually ideal, which is an imaginary construct sans everything that makes a gas real, (in the history of Science pre van der Waals), and now only useful as a starting point in calculations before adding back in all the properties and processes.
But they’ve done this with electromagnetism too, stripped it back to where it’s become gibberish – the meme “all electromagnetism is the same and when absorbed creates heat”. I’ve had someone tell me that a gamma ray is the same as infrared and UV is often given as ‘proof’ that shortwave heats matter..
There’s no sense of scale when everything is reduced to physical nonsense, and difficult to argue against when those who think these real physical properties because they’ve been told that’s what happening when shown an ‘experiment’ which is actually showing no such thing. The bottle of scent opened in a classroom and ink poured into water show convection currents not ideal gas diffusion into empty space..
They don’t know what they’re missing by having volume excised from their world.
Thank you Girma, now it’s complete.
You’ve taken out the Carbon Life Cycle.
You call it a poison, a toxic.
It is the greatest delusion in the history of science.
Philosophical reflections on climate model projections
Posted on August 12, 2012
by Judith Curry
Should probabilistic qualities be assigned to climate model projections?
Are the approaches used by the IPCC for assessing climate model projection quality – confidence building, subjective Bayesian, and likelihood – appropriate for climate models?
What are some other approaches that could be used?
“The basic theory of a climate model can be formulated using equations for the time derivatives of the model’s state vector variables, xi, i = 1, …, n, as is schematically represented by … Eqt. (1) . In Eqt. (1), t denotes time, the functions Gi represent external forcing factors and how these function together to change the state vector quantities, and the Fi represent the many physical, chemical and biological factors in the climate system and how these function together to change the state vector quantities.”
Moderation note: This is a technical thread and comment will be moderated for relevance.
Reading the terms and claims in this thread beginning it confused me in my understanding of philosophy, techniques, and software modeling of thermal physical processes in geometric structures.
Physical processes are described in equations using well defined elements and their dimensions. Equations showing the respect to the science of philosophy in that it is recognized that nothing can be true and untrue at the same time.
In the case of thermal physics this means that the physical process is described as a heat current floating from warm to cold, and is generated by a heat source in Watt. At each location in the circuit the temperature can be calculated depending from the impedances and thermal resistors and the moving fluids in the geometry as function of time, if there are changing elements as well changing heat powers over time.
In the case of modeling the heat current from a source to the Earth and further into the cold space this means that the model must be constructed from the real elements and the real geometry.
It is an old good tradition in physics to accept values of elements which are not known accurate, but it is not allowed to bias a model with belief functions of a magician or an authority. It’s not science.
It may be a genius work to describe the thermal physics of global heat in one equation, but this is not necessary, because other mathematical models using iteration steps and a comparison of the global temperatures over the past with the calculated temperatures over the past from the model. In such a model the model parameters have to change as long as the global temperatures over the past fit with the used model parameter to a minimum.
It is clear that in such a model with a lot of temperature frequencies there must be defined appropriate oscillators, which build the known reconstructed temperature spectra from the literature.
This was also done to make precise predictions of the tides:
“The IUGG (international union for geodesy and geophysics) called an international working group in the year 1965 from mathematicians to assistance, who had come however after 10 years work to no solution contently placing. Their mathematical models provided for example for the North pacific ebbs-tide ahead although floods were observed and turned around. In the year 1972 U.S. of satellite and/or rocket designs required a forecast of the Tide height on 10 cm exactly. After 6 years modeling time appeared the North pacific in the spring 1978 then in tidal situation true to nature. For this model moon and sun became mathematical because of their elliptical and inclined orbits by a row of fictitious moons and suns replaced. For an accuracy of 10 cm to reach, they needed 6 moons and 5 suns with 4 halve a day’s, 4 complete days and three longer periods (14 days, month, and halve a year). After further 6 years the model was then extended of the North pacific.”
It is out of question that the oscillation frequencies of the global temperature spectra have physical causes. But as long as the source of these oscillators are unknown a model can be build which make use of it. Dynamic impedance in the heat current as an effect of known volcano events van be added to the model as a function of time. The first step can be reached to simulate the global temperature precise as reconstructed from the proxies.
There are powerful FEM software tools, which can solve thermal processes and fluid processes in multitasking. An example I can show is the temperature in Kelvin of 3D geometry in that a heat is loaded in a volume and the heat is streaming in a colder floating fluid to the right:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/heat_flow.jpg
I think it is not out of the question that in a second step the nature of the used and needed oscillators and its strengths to simulate the reconstructed global temperatures can be found.
In general I think it is a method of science to find relations of physical processes, based on geometries and energies, and it is not an appropriate method in science to start with a mathematical equation of vectors and ‘factors’ without any physical dimensions, because it has no basis in physics and not in the very real thermal nature of the Earth temperature spectra with frequencies of decades of kiloyears^-1 to month^-1.
V.
“It is out of question that the oscillation frequencies of the global temperature spectra have physical causes. But as long as the source of these oscillators are unknown a model can be build which make use of it.”
“When you believe in things that you don’t understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain’t the way”
http://www.metrolyrics.com/superstition-lyrics-stevie-wonder.html
Edim | August 17, 2012 at 8:41 am |
Pekka, this is the energy budget:
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
Radiated from atmosphere (and clouds): 64% of the incoming solar.
Radiated from the surface: 6% of the incoming solar.
So, the planet is cooled by:
– atmospheric radiation: ~91%
– surface radiation: ~9%”
Such model suggest since surface radiates 9% that indicates it only absorbs 9%.
I am not impressed with model, BUT it reasonable that surface only absorbs about 9% of sun energy. And this 9% is about the amount energy related to or involves long wave IR. As the remaining 91% it’s reflected, refracted, and/or diffused
gbaikie,
Now I cannot follow you at all. The budget that you refer to tells that the surface absobs 51% of all solar radiation that hits the Earth, which also means that it absorbs about 90% of SW radiation that gets to the surface.
Pekka:
64/70 = 91%
6/70 = 9%
———–
100%
=======
Without GHG the 51% absorbed by the surface would warm the atmosphere; join with the 3% and the 16%, and all of it, 100% of the 70% that reaches the earth system, would be radiated to outer space, and the earth would be in ice ball. Right?
JCH,
To tell what would happen in counterfactual situation would require a very detailed description of the situation. Therefore it’s not possible to tell precisely what we would have without GHG’s (Would we have water that’s otherwise like the real water, but not a GHG, or no water?, What would be the albedo? …)
Without GHG’s the average temperature of the surface would be much lower, but perhaps not by the strength of the present GHE, because the albedo might be much lower – or higher – depending what we assume about water and ice.
An atmosphere of N2 and O2 only would be very different of the present one because it would lack all efficient ways of cooling. Thus it would be much warmer at higher altitudes but the warm atmosphere would lack also ways of warming significantly the colder parts of Earth surface. There would be a permanent strong inversion layer at high latitudes. All this appears certain to me, but many other details would vary depending on the further counterfactual assumptions.
By necessity, I have to simplify.
For those who collect energy balance cartoons, there is a new one in stephen Schwartz’s new paper on EEB
Pekka, N2 and O2 insulate the surface – they cannot radiate to space.
JCH that link is broken,
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/stevensbjorn/Documents/StevensSchwartz2012.pdf
Definitively should be required reading though.
Edim,
N2 and O2 radiate very, very little, but what do you mean by your sentence: “N2 and O2 insulate the surface”.
As the only way the Earth interacts with the rest of space is radiation and as the N2 and O2 neither absorb nor emit then how do they insulate?
In reality they let the surface radiate freely to space and cool by that. They provide no significant insulation at all.
Pekka, the Earth’s surface absorbs a lot (51% of the incoming solar) and transfers most of this energy (30% of the incoming solar) to the atmosphere by the non-radiative transfer (evap/conv). The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) cannot lose this energy by directly radiating to space, only via the radiatively active gases, which can. So, N2 and O2 are the real GHGs.
Edim,
Your numbers and the statement that energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere refer to the present Earth. With N2 and O2 only the surface would radiate directly to the space. The atmosphere would have reached it’s stationary temperature and could not take any more energy from the surface – and it would not insulate the surface. The surface would radiate to the space as strongly as it would without any atmosphere and it would be as cold.
There would be a little heat transfer by convection and conduction but that would have very little effect because there are no efficient transfer mechanisms from air to surface. Temperature inversion would prevent convection and conduction is a really weak mechanism.
Pekka, ” Temperature inversion would prevent convection and conduction is a really weak mechanism.” Weak is relative. If N2 and O2 radiant is weaker than conduction, conduction matters with long enough time scales.
Capt.Dallas,
After the initial phase of settling to the stationary state is over all energy flows between the surface and the atmosphere are so weak that they have virtually no effect on the balance of the surface. The surface gets warmed and cooled almost as it would without the atmosphere and the atmosphere reaches it’s own balance.
Through some weak diurnal and seasonal variations the atmosphere influences weakly also the surface but even these effects are weak and average to nearly negligible over the year.
Pekka, yes I am talking about the present Earth and its energy budget. As far as I have seen, all the other estimates of the budget are similar. No significant difference. So, N2 and O2 (the bulk) insulate the surface. The radiatively active gases reduce the thermal resistance of the atmosphere by radiating the gained energy to space.
This is of course very simplified, there are clouds (which also radiate to space), there are very strong lattitudinal gradients and differences, also land/ocean etc.
Like I said, on the face of it, more CO2 will reduce atmospheric thermal resistance, not that I believe that it’s significant at all. So adding more CO2 will reduce this resistance. However I am not convinced that it’s possible to change atmospheric CO2 without changing climatic factors.
Edim,
Stronger absorptivity/emissivity will increase “thermal resistance” not reduce it because it makes the mean free path of radiation smaller.
It’s useless to argue with Edim. She either takes the contrarian position (for example GHG’s act more like thermal conductors, excess CO2 is not anthropogenic, etc) intentionally, or is scientifically weak. The latter types are the people that science and engineering firms won’t hire, so they come here to retaliate.
Pekka, the given problem is to be solved, not the one you like.
Pekka Pirilä | August 17, 2012 at 10:36 am | Reply JCH,
To tell what would happen in counterfactual situation would require a very detailed description of the situation. Therefore it’s not possible to tell precisely what we would have without GHG’s (Would we have water that’s otherwise like the real water, but not a GHG, or no water?, What would be the albedo? …)
Without GHG’s the average temperature of the surface would be much lower, but perhaps not by the strength of the present GHE, because the albedo might be much lower – or higher – depending what we assume about water and ice.
=====
It seems this is another scenario where pro AGW don’t have internal consistency.. Water is a “greenhouse gas” for the majority of those I’ve read (because the absorption of thermal infrared), and standard AGW fisics.
Typical explanation here, wiki:
So, taking out “greenhouse gases which absorb and radiate thermal infrared” leaving the bulk atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen means taking out water because it takes water evaporation to get water vapour – without water the Earth would be 67°C . Think Deserts. Your main “AGW greenhouse gas” cools the atmosphere by 52°C to bring the temp down to 15°C.
And, what is it with y’all? HOT AIR RISES COLD AIR SINKS. That is heat transfer from the surface of the Earth. As hot air rises becoming lighter less dense, colder air which is heavier more dense sinks and comes in to flow beneath it, which is pressure differentials – that is how we get our winds. This is Heat Transfer by Convection. Have you no idea how we get winds? This is elementary real world physics. http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/class/Gsc101/Pressure.html
A convection current in the FLUID GAS, real gas, atmosphere is called wind, in the ocean a convection current is called current.
The principle is the same. In a FLUID, gases and liquids are fluids, convection is the way heat gets transfered. VOLUMES of fluid on the move. Our atmosphere is a heavy ocean of the fluid gas Air, volumes of this on the move are called winds. The flow of winds are from the Equator to the poles, not crossing hemispheres. As hot air RISES at the Equator and flows towards the Poles the cold air from the poles SINKS, flowing beneath back to the equator. Add to that the Earth’s spin and we get the Coriolis effect affecting direction.
The Heat from the Sun directly, beam, concentrated in straight lines, heats the surface of the Earth, the Earth’s oceans and land to give us our huge weather systems. Shortwave can’t do this.
And until you can prove it can your world has no weather.
You, generic AGWs, really have to come back to the reality of the Earth’s systems if you want to claim you are scientists in ‘climate’..
Edim,
I try to comment on issues being discussed, not on everything else that may be important.
Sometimes the same thread may alternate between two or more issues and sometimes I may have misunderstood the point some commenter had in mind, but I have noticed all too often that people don’t stop when their earlier comments have been shown to be in error but switch in their next message to something else apparently trying to hide that they ever made the error (perhaps they try to hide that even from themselves).
“So, taking out “greenhouse gases which absorb and radiate thermal infrared” leaving the bulk atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen means taking out water because it takes water evaporation to get water vapour – without water the Earth would be 67°C . Think Deserts. Your main “AGW greenhouse gas” cools the atmosphere by 52°C to bring the temp down to 15°C.”
Way I look at it, CO2 doesn’t have much effect upon temperature.
It *seems* to me that the warmers tend believe CO2 has considerably more warming than I think it does, and I don’t see anywhere in science papers that much warming is assigned to CO2. Instead some stuff which one could call scientific papers, seems to argue that relative small forcing has one kind other of an accumulative effect. That global climate/temperature is somewhat balanced system requiring little force cause it to tip. And the little force *is* [and can only be] CO2. Which find somewhat amusing.
But anyhow, the point science doesn’t say CO2 causes much warming.
Another issue H20 is avoided, and for example that humans directly add H2O to atmosphere [widespread and blatant farming irrigation] is quickly dismissed. I find the speed of dismissal more interesting what possible effect adding rivers water to crops could have upon climate.
But warmers seem suggest they imagine the CO2 does have some kind of large effect [Earth somehow become similar to Venus].
But it seems Myrrh thinks greenhouse gases have large effect in terms of cooling. I think possible that CO2 may cause small amount cooling, but it seems if CO2 caused much warming or much cooling they the finger prints of this effect. Myrrh large effect seems to be from greenhouse gases rather than just CO2.
But going to start with just CO2.
If remove all earth atmosphere except the amount CO2 in current atmosphere. Then earth’s atmosphere would like Mars, except far less atmosphere. I don’t see such small amount atmosphere having much effect- it wouldn’t be much effect different than the Moon’s lack of any atmosphere.
Mars has ~2.5 x 10^16 kg or 2.5 x 10^3 tonnes or 25 trillions tonnes
Earth has couple trillion tonnes and spread over much bigger planet.
If Earth had more CO2 like Mars does- I still don’t see it having much effect as compared to a Moon vacuum. And don’t expect it significantly colder then compared a vacuum or a planet with same quality N2 as the CO2.
Now add water to earth. Adding oceans of water will make some noticeable affect. What I think the effect from water in terms temperature is transporting more energy than what can transported by air.
Well, the way you look at something doesn’t have any effect on the actual situation.
For instance, when I look at something you wrote, I would think the effect would cause you to find another line of work. But no, it just means that you will write more spew.
But to get to your misconception, CO2 actually has a significant effect on temperature. If it wasn’t for the non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, the earth would be frozen over, with a high reflecting albedo as the ice accumulates. Once CO2 is available to heat through the GHE then the condensing H20 will kick in by outgassing and contribute to raising the average temperature by around 33C. An increase of 33C will raise the concentration of water vapor by almost 10x, which means that there is that much stronger a greenhouse effect to sustain that temperature.
Read this intro:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/gavin-schmidt-takes-the-measure-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html
and this attribution paper by Schmidt
http://emgill.com/CVEN4333/Scmidt_greenhouse.pdf
WebHubTelescope | August 19, 2012 at 10:24 am |
“Way I look at it, CO2 doesn’t have much effect upon temperature.”
Well, the way you look at something doesn’t have any effect on the actual situation.
…..
“But to get to your misconception, CO2 actually has a significant effect on temperature. If it wasn’t for the non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, the earth would be frozen over, with a high reflecting albedo as the ice accumulates. Once CO2 is available to heat through the GHE then the condensing H20 will kick in by outgassing and contribute to raising the average temperature by around 33C.”
Webbie gives example illustrating:
“It *seems* to me that the warmers tend believe CO2 has considerably more warming than I think it does, and I don’t see anywhere in science papers that much warming is assigned to CO2.”
To rephrase, webbie seems to think the CO2 is necessary to cause water to melt on earth.
Our tropics are about 26 C average temperature- currently.
But a block of ice on the Moon or Mars, and it will evaporate- which saying nothing because ice will evaporate at -150 C. So on Moon the block of ice evaporate fairly rapidly until this evaporation cool the block ice down to -150 C. Of course in sunlight it isn’t going to cool to -150 C. Kinda explains why the Moon is so dry. Mars is also kinda dry- and though it’s thin atmosphere allow liquid water to be somewhat stable just above it’s freezing point- the block of ice or bucket of cold water will evaporate, as long as it’s above -150 C.
The point one should getting is earth as long as it’s high temperature, or average temperature is above -150 C, and has plenty of water, it will have water vapor in it’s atmosphere. Maybe not a lot water vapor, at least some.
Now, Mars is pretty cold place, but has surface temperature in daylight reaching as around 80 F. If one had solar pond or greenhouse on Mars one could close to having liquid water from passive heating. If just liquid water during daytime [and froze at nite] that require pretty simple greenhouse or solar pond- all you mainly need to do prevent heat loss from evaporation. No has found nor is likely the find small lake of water on Mars- this because Mars is so dry. A natural lake over even short period [decades] will evaporate. Though if had enough water on Mars you would have bodies of waters, which would at least melt on the surface in some daylight conditions.
Now if had Mars at earth distance, the surface will warm much hotter than 80 F- probably around 212 F. And of course it’s average temperature will much higher than it’s current average temperature of
“Average temperature: ~210 K (-63 C)”
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Of course Mars has massive amount CO2 in it’s atmosphere as compared how much CO2 Earth has in it atmosphere. But addition, if Mars average temperature were to increase, CO2 would no longer freeze out it’s poles. So, as wild guess you double it’s current the amount CO2 in it’s atmosphere. But another major element which would occur is Mars dry frozen soil would evaporate more water into the atmosphere- so might add 10 or 100 times more water vapor than Mars currently has.
So Mars at Earth’s orbit could have about 50 times more CO2 than Earth and could have around 1/2 amount water vapor which is Earth’s atmosphere. Though put water on Mars it could has much water vapor as Earth has.
Let’s look at webbie’s reference:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/gavin-schmidt-takes-the-measure-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html
“If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 ”
So he counting the water vapor and clouds to get the 20 W/m2- otherwise it’s 4 W/m2- a small amount.
Hey gbaikie, You are so incomprehensible as to not even warrant a listing on the Climate Clown report. And to Edim, knee-jerk contrarianism is not a theory. Maybe if I put you two together, I could get an equivalent clown.
“Hey gbaikie, You are so incomprehensible as to not even warrant a listing on the Climate Clown report. ”
Well, make brief.
Various sources have claimed the doubling CO2 causes 1.0 to 1.6 C
In global average temperature.
And from this warming 1- 1.6 C there is feedback resulting involving water vapor and clouds increases the temperature further.
But it doesn’t require CO2 to do the forcing- any other cause increase in global average temperature would also they this same “feedback effect”.
There is less agreement on the amount of this “feedback effect”. Or there is 1.0 to 1.6 C for CO2. And feedback for each degree “of forcing”
is no feedback to perhaps high as 5 C of added warming. Your Schmidt reference:
“If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 ”
Has feedback of 4 times the forcing: 4 W/m2 from CO2 and 16 W/m2
for feedback.
So if sun were get bigger and add 4 W/m2 to global average temperature, then that 4 W/m2 forcing would add additional 16 W/m2
for feedback- according to Schmidt.
JCH and Pekka
In your “counterfactual” no GHG situation, Earth still has H2O, as solid ice, liquid, vapor, and water droplets plus ice crystals in clouds. And the net impact of clouds would still be one of cooling by reflecting incoming SW radiation.
But how would this change in your world without all other GHGs?
Would it change at all and why?
The biggest change is that there would be no life on the planet anymore, since all life as we know it is dependent on CO2.
But that’s another question.
Max
Better than the no GHG earth is the faint sun paradox earth. It doesn’t appear solvable with greenhouse gas concentration changes, a strong hint, but looks solvable with geothermal and “solar pond” effect. That results in a no CO2 earth with a surface temperature of about 277K, 273.1 frozen plus approximately 4C to keep it liquid, in the tropics.
“Now I cannot follow you at all. The budget that you refer to tells that the surface absobs 51% of all solar radiation that hits the Earth, which also means that it absorbs about 90% of SW radiation that gets to the surface.”
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
This model of what where total energy goes- it’s averaged. On average:
6% is reflect by atmosphere.
20% by clouds
4% by surface
16% is adsorbed by atmosphere
and 3% by clouds. Which totals:
49%
And indicates remaining 51% is adsorbed by surface.
But we know the surface can not absorb 90% or 100% sunlight that hits the surface. Just as we know the earth’s color isn’t mostly black. The earth would have to appear mostly black to begin to consider this.
So, really to make any sense at all, what must be what is meant is that 51% of the sunlight reaches and intersects the surface.
Absorbs would mean the same converting sunlight into heat, something like the fictional blackbody converts 100% of sunlight energy into heat and depending upon this black body’s temperature it radiates a Planck curve of this temperature.
Earth’s greenhouse or blackbodies are models- fiction that is suppose function similar to reality. We don’t have any blackbody, but with blackbody model, the cooler it’s surface the more energy it could absorb.
A cubic meter of blackbody absorbs more energy than blackbody which is square meter which 1 cm thick. Or square pillar meter sq by 1 km long buried in the ground absorbs more energy than cubic meter of blackblack buried in ground [top surface same level as surrounding terrain]. The 1 km tall [long] pillar would generally have cooler surface temperature than 1 cubic meter blackbody. So in sunlight the 1 square meter by 1 cm thick “sheet” heats up rapidly in less than 1 minute, the cube takes longer to heat up, maybe hour, and pillar requires days/weeks [thousand times longer [1 meter cube vs 1 km pillar]. Now the simple part of this is the pillar radiates less energy compared to 1 square by 1 cm sheet of Blackbody, which rapidly get highest temperature thereby radiating it’s maximum amount energy- loosely it balances it in coming sunlight energy with out going IR energy. And so since pillar radiate less, the net result is absorbs more.
One could these three forms of blackbody as machines the make IR [assuming one had use of it]. The panel rapidly gets to “optimal” operating range of emitting it’s highest temperature which say, it “beams somewhere” for some use. Perhaps the cube functions as modest battery. The pillar could be used the heat the ground [assuming one wanted the ground warm]. If you ever saw such machines, one should realize one looking very advance technology- they may be useless things, but they would artifacts of high technology. The pillar would be extremely efficient at heating the ground- per square meter sunlight it receives. And if the were very cheap to make- maybe useful [if one wanted a warmer ground]. Of course I am also saying natural terrain is lousy at doing this- sunlight heating down to 1 km in depth. Now, a primitive version of the blackbody pillar, could be iron pillars- silver would be better, but iron is cheaper. Or whatever was the cheapest at conducting heat [usually a metal]. Another version of such a “machine” could be to bring the sunlight beyond the surface [use something like fiber optics- though to make more efficient one would probably intensify the sunlight [magnify it]. Point being I am talking systems that might closer the absorbing higher percent of sunlight.
It’s all really just word salad, but the clueless one is apparently trying to describe how a heat sink operates.
Grade: F-
Try taking some classes, or just give up the ghost and do something that you are more suited to.
“It’s all really just word salad, but the clueless one is apparently trying to describe how a heat sink operates.”
Yes, the heat capacity or heat sink ability is major part of what saying- regarding absorbing energy.
No heat sink- no absorption of energy.
No absorption energy nothing to radiate energy when suns goes down- no greenhouse effect is possible.
No. Actually we know that the Earth surface does absorb about 90% of the radiation that reaches the surface. The remaining roughly 10% is enough to make the Earth as bright as it is.
“No. Actually we know that the Earth surface does absorb about 90% of the radiation that reaches the surface. The remaining roughly 10% is enough to make the Earth as bright as it is.”
So you saying that ocean and land on average absorb 90% of the sunlight. Meaning they convert 90% of the total energy into heat.
If you looking smaller areas like say lawn, sidewalk or asphalt is much differences between them. Does asphalt absorb say 93% and grass some amount which lower than 90%. Or is some kind uniformity of 90% for almost everything?
According to this budget the average is ~93% (51/55).
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
The albedo varies quite a lot from material to material. What’s most important for the low average albedo of the Earth surface is that the albedo of oceans is low for most of incident angles, only for a sun rather near the horizon the albedo of the water grows strongly but only a small fraction of the solar radiation hits the surface at a very low angle that leads to high reflectivity.
Desert sands may be the largest factor in increasing the albedo.
The Wikipedia page on albedo contains some numbers and a picture which tells hoe the clear sky albedo varies by location. (Here we have discussed the clear sky albedo, not the albedo with clouds.) Sahara and polar regions have a relatively high albedo, the oceans a very low one.
“What’s most important for the low average albedo of the Earth surface is that the albedo of oceans is low for most of incident angles”
Ocean is transparent . Ocean is like glass- glass isn’t regarded as having albedo.
Wiki:
“Being a dimensionless fraction, it may also be expressed as a percentage, and is measured on a scale from zero for no reflecting power of a perfectly black surface, to 1 for perfect reflection of a white surface. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
not sure what “dimensionless fraction” is, but know the scale is 0 [the mythical blackbody] and pure white- new snow or clouds. But like I said don’t know where put glass, atmosphere, or water on 0 to 1 scale.
I do know they like to use bond albedo. Somehow it’s regarded an improvement:
“The Bond albedo, named after the American astronomer George Phillips Bond (1825–1865), who originally proposed it, is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space. It takes into account all wavelengths at all phase angles.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
So it seems plain old albedo is about visible light, the bond albedo is suppose to be about about all the electromagnetic spectrum.
Of course the ocean would have a Bond albedo- it’s warm, so it radiates because of it’s warmth. But if cook water on stove it will have this Bond albedo.
Hmm, link from wiki Bond albedo article
“In more technical treatments of albedo, such as that of de Pater and Lissauer, a distinction is made between “bond albedo” and “geometric albedo”, the numbers quoted above being geometric albedos. The geometric albedo is defined as the amount of radiation relative to that from a flat Lambertian surface which is an ideal reflector at all wavelengths. The bond albedo is the total radiation reflected from an object compared to the total incident radiation from the Sun. The bond albedo for the Earth is given as 0.29 by de Pater and Lissauer, compared to their value of 0.37 for the geometrical albedo. ”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html
“The Wikipedia page on albedo contains some numbers ” wiki :
“Albedos of typical materials in visible light range from up to 0.9 for fresh snow, to about 0.04 for charcoal, one of the darkest substances. Deeply shadowed cavities can achieve an effective albedo approaching the zero of a black body. When seen from a distance, the ocean surface has a low albedo, as do most forests, while desert areas have some of the highest albedos among landforms. Most land areas are in an albedo range of 0.1 to 0.4. The average albedo of the Earth is about 0.3. This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds. ”
With at least eyeballs, you put something light next something dark and light looks lighter and dark looks darker. I wonder about the way one is looking at earth from distance. E.g. Is it looking at it with a high resolution telescope?
Also are they correctly allowing for expected loss from going back thru the atmosphere?
But anyways. Oh, just remembered plants in near infrared are suppose to like quite white, so these dark forest in large fraction of SW would look on white side :
Wood affect:
“In infrared photography, the film or image sensor used is sensitive to infrared light. The part of the spectrum used is referred to as near-infrared to distinguish it from far-infrared, which is the domain of thermal imaging. Wavelengths used for photography range from about 700 nm to about 900 nm….
When these filters are used together with infrared-sensitive film or sensors, very interesting “in-camera effects” can be obtained; false-color or black-and-white images with a dreamlike or sometimes lurid appearance known as the “Wood Effect,” an effect mainly caused by foliage (such as tree leaves and grass) strongly reflecting in the same way visible light is reflected from snow”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography
The oceans do have an albedo. A layer of transparent media is a different thing but in this connection oceans mean everything from the surface down including the bottom. When light hits the ocean surface it either gets absorbed somewhere inside the ocean or the bottom or it returns back to the atmosphere either by a reflection from the surface or by scattering from below surface material including again the bottom. All light that returns to atmosphere by either of these mechanisms forms the albedo and the value of this albedo can be measured.
And concerning the wavelengths taken into account. All wavelengths of the solar radiation are taken into account. In practice that means UV, visible and near IR up to 4um because longer wavelengths have a negligible share in the radiative energy of sun.
“The oceans do have an albedo. A layer of transparent media is a different thing but in this connection oceans mean everything from the surface down including the bottom. When light hits the ocean surface it either gets absorbed somewhere inside the ocean or the bottom or it returns back to the atmosphere either by a reflection from the surface or by scattering from below surface material including again the bottom. ”
I think understanding the ocean as it’s affected by sunlight is very important aspect in regards to subject of Earth climate. But I seen much about it in the literature.
I think that since ocean is transparent, it doesn’t fit very well with concept of albedo- as that is more applied to surfaces. Though skin of the ocean which certain wavelength which don’t penetrate, could given some albedo value or Bond Albedo value- though I don’t know what number that would be.
But the rest sunlight which can penetrate hundreds of meter, has to treated more like an atmosphere. Or if something determined regarding how sunlight is diffused and/or absorbed in an ocean perhaps that also can apply it to atmospheres as both seem somewhat similar.
But with ocean it have some extremely small fraction of the light which reaches the bottom most of the ocean- beyond 1000 meter in depth it appear completely dark. And most of ocean is far deeper than 1000 meters.
“All light that returns to atmosphere by either of these mechanisms forms the albedo and the value of this albedo can be measured.”
Perhaps. Maybe their paper out there which give some information regarding this.
It seems the blue light is scattered and reflected the most, perhaps if something only detecting blue light could measure any blue light reflected from the ocean.
“This model of what where total energy goes- it’s averaged. On average:
6% is reflect by atmosphere.
20% by clouds
4% by surface
16% is adsorbed by atmosphere
and 3% by clouds. Which totals:
49%
And indicates remaining 51% is adsorbed by surface.”
I talked about adsorbing by surface. Now will look at the 49% part not reaching surface. Or do we actually get 51% of sunlight that intersect earth disk at top of atmosphere. Or “The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
So 174 times .51 = 88.74 petawatts reaches surface.
So first if earth had a vacuum the 174 petawatts reaches the surface.
But with such a world with a vacuum the sunlight if one points at the sun, then you get the 1360 watts per square meter, but with level ground one has sun hitting at various angles depending where on the hemisphere it is. If sun is at say an angle of say 45 degree or higher above horizon- or if put stick vertical to level surface and the angle shadow of 45 degree or steeper. Then one has close to 1360 watts of sunlight hitting a 1 square meter section of the ground. Or the sunlight hemisphere has total arc of 180 degree, half of this arc 90 degrees [45 degrees both ways from the zenith middle point]. Each earth hour the earth rotates 15 degrees- 9am to 3pm is 90 degrees of the 180 degree arc of one daytime day. So say when sun is at 30 degrees it creates longer shadows, which indicate sunlight is “smeared” over more area [there much less energy energy per square meter].
So on vacuum earth all the sunlight reaches surface but energy per square meter on the planet’s surface in not uniform. But is uniform if one point something at angle so directed at the sun. So vacuum world pointing at sun one gets the total 174 petawatts. And on earth with it’s atmosphere, and if earth had no clouds and you point at the sun you do not get 174 petawatts- you much less. How much less is what I will discuss.
So on earth clear skies pointing at sun in best location one gets about 1000 watts. About 350 watts per square meter is “lost” from top of atmosphere thru clear skies to the surface. And is best condition and in a limited area of the sun lighted hemisphere. And in the model this is the “6% is reflect by atmosphere” and “16% is adsorbed by atmosphere”
1360 * .06 and 1360 * .16
Which is 81.6 and 217.6
Though it could done this way 1360 * .06 is 1278.4 and then 1278.4 times .16 equal 204.5. But anyhow, take higher number:
298.6 watts per square meter “lost” before reaches surface.
And 298.6 watts is less than 350 watts.
So what this saying is on average, if point at the sun and anywhere on earth at any time during daylight if there is no clouds blocking the sunlight one would receive 1360 minus 298.6 watts or 1061.4 watts per square meter.
Or if you had a clear day one could expect 1061.4 watts times 12 hours.
Everyone knows this dead wrong. A solar map for solar power users will show you this is really way off. If this were true, using solar panels would be at least twice as profitable.
During the summer and best location getting 12 Kilowatt per square meter is at best unique.
Fortunately there solar may which indicate amount energy from sun one could expect per day if one point at the sun:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/
Select the month or annual and select “Two Axis Tracking Flat Plate”.
If select annual average you map showing US, and one has one region which gets 8-10 kilowatts on per day. This best area for getting most solar energy. Most of US much less than this.
But if pick a summer month instead year, you get much higher values.
Say June. Select maximum which should high chance having a June over last 30 years with least clouds:
In that select one gets 10 to 14 kilowatts dominating the US- even good chuck of Alaska [though day much longer than 12 hours] .
Also for kicks compare average- will tend to show effect of cloudy days. And on average in June one still has large area with good amount [10 to 14 kilowatts per day]. Now let’s go spring or fall:
The sunniest October show southern regions of US getting 8-10 kilowatts per day. Nov has smaller region with 8-10. And Dec has two tiny islands still [for best month- sunniest month]
Unfortunately I know only US which gives so many options of how to view the solar energy available at surface, but of course there lots solar maps for other region. Australia could one best regions:
http://aussiervproducts.com.au/webcontent4.htm
But shows fixed and tilted best angle rather than tracking sun.
Best region get average of 6 kw/h per day:
“The design insulation is the average value of the total sugar energy received each day on an optimally tilted surface during the month with the lowest solar radiation received on that surface. The unit of measurement is kilowatt-hrs/m²/day. The solar constant at the earth’s surface is approximately 1 kw/m² so these units are often referred to as equivalent (peak) sun hours. ”
my summary. that atmosphere only blocks 298.6 watts maybe somewhat close if talking about 1/2 world which is in tropics or near tropics and peak hours of the day [9am to 3 pm] but isn’t close when taking rest of world and mornings and late afternoon.
Now in sense I can see some “use” to ignoring the other 1/2 of the world and ignoring non solar peak hours. But you can’t ignore it if using the 174 petawatts number. Basically a small portion of the 174 petawatts number applies tropics and non peak solar hours. Or the 174 petawatts number refers to disk size of Earth. E.g. Earth radius square times pi: about 127.7 million square kilometers.
Whereas 9am to 3pm has disk size of about 5000 km radius or 78. 5 million square km. Or about 65% of the sun’s energy.
So as only very rough approximation. Keep your 300 watts for
peak hours disk, but rest world might closer to 500 watts [or more]
So, say 174 times .65 is 113 petawatts and 75% gets thru if clear day:
84.8 petawatts
And for remaining 61 petawatts 63% gets thru in clear skies. So
38.43 petawatts And total of 123.23 petawatts .
So they apply .06 and .16 . And each percent of the total 174 petawatts it’s more. So: 10.44 and 27.84: total 38.28, giving
total of 135.72 petawatts .
Small difference. But I would say that amount “absorbed” isn’t altered much by angle or quantity atmosphere sunlight pass thru rather it’s the amount reflected or diffused which much larger part of this. Or the 6 percentage is much higher number, maybe double as much.
Now to clouds
“20% by clouds”
This seems low.
Clouds are doing two main things reflecting huge amount sunlight and absorbing energy. Illustration clouds absorbing energy is sunlight “burning away” morning clouds. And clouds are droplets of water and there no reason the “surface” of cloud can’t be as heated up much as skin of ocean- other than it’s colder air at the higher elevation of cloud- they evaporate faster because lower atmospheric pressure. But there this churning action with clouds in which evaporated can re-condense [and heat] cloud interior water droplets. No doubt very complicated. But anyhow, mainly want to focus on clouds reflecting the energy of the sunlight.
The cloudy ocean tropics isn’t a good place for solar panels- a tropic desert like Sahara is good place. Difference: clouds.
And place or disk which receives as talking above which receives 85% of sun’s energy- the 5000 km radius disk, the 9am to 3pm areas is mostly in the tropics and mostly ocean tropics.
So you almost ignore everywhere else- it’s the cloud here which going affect how of the sun energy reaches the surface.
And seems much more than 20%. But perhaps another time I look at it.
gbaikie, Before you get too wound up on the cartoon, which is still just a cartoon, check out this http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/stevensbjorn/Documents/StevensSchwartz2012.pdf
Stevens and Schwartz do a good job discussing a variety of issues with attempting to balance the energy budget. They do an exceptionally good job with Trenberth’s confirmation bias, tactfully I might add.
“gbaikie, Before you get too wound up on the cartoon, which is still just a cartoon, check out this http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/stevensbjorn/Documents/StevensSchwartz2012.pdf
Stevens and Schwartz do a good job discussing a variety of issues with attempting to balance the energy budget. They do an exceptionally good job with Trenberth’s confirmation bias, tactfully I might add.”
Is this what’s mainly relevant as reference?
“Measurements from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) (Ramanathan, 1987) and now those from the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) mission (Wielicki et al, 1996) have
convincingly shown that Earth reflects less shortwave radiation and emits more longwave radiation than previously thought (cf., Table 1) and have contributed to closure of the top-of-atmosphere energy budget to within a few watts per square meter.”
Source:
H-1954 L-1957 R-1987 K-1997 Z-2005 T-2009 S-2012 This Study
Reflected SW:
115 122 106 107 106 102 98 100
[no doubt, my copy/paste of their table will screw up somehow]
Yeah, but note the atmospheric window value is about 20Wm-2 less than the K&T budgets. That is a huge question mark which not very well covered by anyone. When you look at the individual values don’t forget that all that uncertainty may be partially natural variability.
“Yeah, but note the atmospheric window value is about 20Wm-2 less than the K&T budgets. ”
I don’t follow these budgets. Is the T K&T , Trenberth?
I seen number earth energy budgets over the years, but couldn’t
tell who belong in which one.
I have problem basic premise- the idea can one divide it by four.
The ref you linked has: This Study:
Incident SW: 340
Reflected SW: 100
Outgoing LW: 239
But 340 is a quarter of the true value of 1360.
And disk area times four is surface area sphere.
But 4 times 340 watt per square meter doesn’t equal 1360 watt per square meter. Nor is sunlight equally shining over all area of the
world.
Yes there is fair amount uniformity as the heat in regards to planet earth,
and radiates about the same.
So anyhow on to more perhaps a relevant question [to me]. If SW light at top of atmosphere is actual 1360 watts per square and not 340.
And 340 is reflecting 100, what is 1360 reflecting?
100, 200 or 400?
And while we at it. How much is it LW outgoing:
239, 478, or 956
And it seems there some concern about balancing the budget- I think we can assume it does balance- at least eventually [roughly- or you not going to be able to accurately measure difference].
It seems there must some good reason why it’s helpful divide by 4- but I do not know it.
Gbaikie, no look at the picture again. The surface radiates 21% (15 + 6) of the incoming solar. However the surface absorbes only 51% of the incoming solar. The other part of the surface cooling (30% of the incoming solar) is by non-radiative fluxes (evap + conv = 7% + 23% of the incoming solar).
“Gbaikie, no look at the picture again. The surface radiates 21% (15 + 6) of the incoming solar.”
9% or 21%. It possible surface absorbs somewhere around 21%. I don’t have number, just saying 9% seems like somewhere near the ballpark. My point is if radiating amount then that how it absorbed.
“However the surface absorbes only 51% of the incoming solar. The other part of the surface cooling (30% of the incoming solar) is by non-radiative fluxes (evap + conv = 7% + 23% of the incoming solar).”
I would say only about 51% reaches the surface. But obviously not all which reaches surface is absorbed.
So obvious on clear day, and sun somewhere near noon and at latitude in which sun more 45 degree above horizon, one get a lot more than 51% of sunlight. It’s 1360 at top of atmosphere and about 1000 at surface, that’s 70-75% of sunlight. But such conditions can only be a fairly small portion of sunlight side of hemisphere. If you at US/Canada border and it’s winter, one get at most around 600 watt- or less than 51%.
Or anywhere in morning, at less than 51%.
Now as for 30%: evap + conv = 7% + 23%. Say you are noon, low latitude, clear sky and getting 1000 watts per square meter. Can you get 23% loss from convection. 230 watts per square meter.
Say you have blackish like body or dark sand. And temperature is 70 C
or 342 K- if all sunlight energy absorbed it be 775 watts per square meter
leaving 225 watts. So I suppose it’s possible convect this much. I don’t know if is, but it’s possible, I suppose. It’s not allowing light humans can see- radiating wavelength no visible and convecting energy [which also isn’t visible] so standing middle of football field of it, and looking down is like looking into a blackhole. It’s not comparable darker- it’s not visible.
“Say you have blackish like body or dark sand. And temperature is 70 C
or 342 K- if all sunlight energy absorbed it be 775 watts per square meter.”
No that’s wrong. The convection energy is from heat absorb. I don’t know what thinking about. So with hot sand the question is if how hot can you make sand if you stop convection. That was direction I going, but I haven’t had enough coffee :)
So in such conditions where get 70 C- it has to be dry- very little or no evaporation. And back to question how hot can you make a hotbox.
And I say at most 85 C. So 15 C of the energy is being convected, I figure
it be 145 watts per square meter convected. And 145 is less than 230 watts. And such situation of having hot sand would have more convection
than cooler sand. But to have 70 C one needs still air, and maybe conversion inhibiting convection. So with normal condition, a breeze or wind, one could expect more energy being removed. But seems on high side. But evaporation could be much higher than 7%.
“and maybe conversion inhibiting convection.”
Meant inversion.
coffee.
gbaikie,
The linked budget tells more than 1000 words. All the percentages are shares of the incoming solar (100%). I am not saying the budget is accurate, I just assume it is for the sake of argument
Total planetary cooling power is 70% (64 + 6) of the incoming solar, 30% in total is reflected. This is all radiation. The shares of this cooling power are 91% (atmospheric, 64/70) and 9% (surface, 6/70).
On the surface, 51% of the incoming solar is absorbed, but only 21% is re-radiated – the rest is transferred by evap/conv (23/7 % of the incoming solar).
Mark B (number 2) | August 17, 2012 at 8:57 am
Volker Doormann: “It is out of question that the oscillation frequencies of the global temperature spectra have physical causes. But as long as the source of these oscillators are unknown a model can be build which make use of it.”
“When you believe in things that you don’t understand Then you suffer Superstition ain’t the way”
“This is a technical thread and comment will be moderated for relevance.”
Your quoted saying is not even an argument. What is the scientific nature of Superstition? If you cannot give a prove of it, it’s you who have leaved the way of science, because you argue with non-scientific terms in this technical thread.
I don’t belief in anything but in the science of philosophy.
As I have argued with the example of simulating the tides of the Earth, it is a valid scientific method to take some 4+ oscillators to simulate the ecliptic nature of the motion of the Moon and Earth in respect to the Sun.
A main global oscillation frequency can be detected in the Colorado sea level data:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/05/sea-level-rise-discussion-thread/#comment-229623
The oscillation frequency correlates strong with solar tide functions, but the mechanism is unknown. The relevant philosophic point is that the unknown mechanism makes the correlation not untrue.
There is a difference in science between geometric structures and physical mechanism. You can solve the geometric structure of tides without knowing the true nature of tidal forces acting – how? – on the Earth. That means that it is possible to predict tides, and the nature of ‘gravitational force’ is unknown.
No words to the topic.
V.
“It is out of question that the oscillation frequencies of the global temperature spectra have physical causes.”
So the above contains a typo error? (Perhaps you meant to say “known physical causes”).
If so then my previous comment is no longer relevant.
But I am interested in what you are saying and I will read your most recent post in detail a bit later and click on the link to the Judith Curry article.
I’ve clicked on the link and read your comments. I can’t help thinking that you have been selective in your choice of which planets have an effect on the varying sea level on earth. I personally don’t believe that any of the planets that you have mentioned have any detectable physical affect on anything on earth (besides being visible to people on this planet).
You mentioned Mercury, Jupiter and Neptune as having a detectable influence on the sea level, but you have omitted both Venus and Mars (which pass closer to earth) from your calculations. Neptune is actually a lot further from the earth than the sun is (and can’t be seen without a telescope).
You say that you only believe in “the philosophy of science”, but I have no idea what you mean by that. I have been criticized for using the “s” word on a moderated thread (although I was quoting a Stevie Wonder song) and I wouldn’t insult anyone’s intelligence by using the “a” word, but I can’t see why there is a need to rationalize things that we don’t fully understand by attributing them to the movements of the planets.
Don’t get me wrong, what you have said on this thread (and the other) was an interesting read, and I like considering concepts which are new to me, I just don’t agree with you about the planets.
Mark B (number 2) | August 17, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
I’ve clicked on the link and read your comments. I personally don’t believe that any of the planets that you have mentioned have any detectable physical affect on anything on earth (besides being visible to people on this planet).
I am not interested in personal beliefs; I am interested in valid scientific counter arguments.
You mentioned Mercury, Jupiter and Neptune as having a detectable influence on the sea level, but you have omitted both Venus and Mars (which pass closer to earth) from your calculations. Neptune is actually a lot further from the earth than the sun is (and can’t be seen without a telescope).
It is only relevant whether there is a correlation between the measured sea level oscillation function and the solar tide function of synodic pattern of Mercury and Earth and Jupiter, or not.
The rules of sciences are saying that a claim must be refute with valid arguments, but you have not any valid argument, only a personal nonbelief.
I have written to the subject of this thread using arguments regarding the way of modelling the heat current through the Earth. It seems that here is no interest in that idea.
You say that you only believe in “the philosophy of science”, but I have no idea what you mean by that.
It is out of the topic here to give a lecture on the philosophy of science, but I think it is a necessary presupposition to know the philosophy of science to be able to speak arguments in this blog.
I’m off.
V.
The tidal effect is inversely proportional to the third power of distance. Therefore the tidal influence of Neptune is about 1/1600 of the tidal influence of the Earth or 1/3500 of the effect of Jupiter or Venus which are the two planets of strongest tidal effect on the sun. That’s a really negligible effect.
The effect of Saturn is already only 5% of that of Jupiter. Thus none of the planets beyond Jupiter can have any significant effect on the sun.
This started out being dubbed a “philosophical” thread.
Looks like it’s living up to its name.
Maz
I must apologize to Mr Doormann, firstly for incorrectly identifying Neptune as one of the planets that he says appear to be influencing the earth’s tides. After rereading the original post, I see that it was “a planetary couple beyond Neptune”.
Secondly, I should not have commented on this issue without finding out what philosophical science is. I have now read up on the subject.
Philosophy of Science
Two pages from NASA now following AGWScienceFiction fisics and not presenting accuracy and reliability about our surrounding world.
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/
In the first there is no mention of rain being carbonic acid, and, it no longer shows the information it used to give that without water the Earth would be 67°C. The Wayback machine no longer shows archived changes.
The second also lacks any real world accuracy, no mention of rain or carbonic acid or precipitation at all in the Carbon Cycle.
[All pure clean rain is carbonic acid, as such carbon dioxide has the same residence time in the atmosphere as water, 8-10 days.]
NASA has also changed its teaching on thermal infrared which I’ve noted elsewhere, but can fetch if any are interested.
NASA is now teaching AGWSF fisics which has no part in science or the philosophy of science – it properly belongs in the category Confidence Tricks, and I’ve been trying to show some of the sleights of hand used. Wiki has failed to update its page to include the AGW scam..
However, it also belongs in the category Religion, faith not science.
John Brignell has written a good piece on this, Global Warming as Religion and not Science:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
=============
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science
Science as Natural Philosophy
Philosophy means love of wisdom – if one can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction then one has neither Philosophy nor Science.
Myrrh | August 18, 2012 at 6:55 am |
John Brignell has written a good piece on this, Global Warming as Religion and not Science:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Thank You Myrrh for this link to an excellent work. The way of science is always a lonely way in this world of power people terror laymen and stubborn free souls. “ I was unable to devote myself to the learning of this algebra and the continued concentration upon it, because of obstacles in the vagaries of time which hindered me; for we have been deprived of all the people of knowledge save for a group, small in number, with many troubles, whose concern in life is to snatch the opportunity, when time is asleep, to devote themselves meanwhile to the investigation and perfection of a science; for the majority of people who imitate philosophers confuse the true with the false, and they do nothing but deceive and pretend knowledge, and they do not use what they know of the sciences except for base and material purposes; and if they see a certain person seeking for the right and preferring the truth, doing his best to refute the false and untrue and leaving aside hypocrisy and deceit, they make a fool of him and mock him. “
Omar Khayyám (1048-1131)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayy%C3%A1m
Philosophy means love of wisdom – if one can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction then one has neither Philosophy nor Science.
Yes, a good statement. There is only the problem that words cannot transfer truth or wisdom to other souls in general; it must ever be recognised in the own self as true – or alternatively as false.
V.
Pekka Pirilä | August 17, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
The tidal effect is inversely proportional to the third power of distance. … Thus none of the planets beyond Jupiter can have any significant effect on the sun.
The subject of this thread is the philosophy of climate model projections. I have written my thoughts to that theme, and it can be recognised that the Sun plays an important role in my model. More precise synodic couples in the solar showing in their tidal function frequencies which correlate in total of 11 couples well with the well known reconstructed temperatures from the literature. And as the following graphs show, the astronomic model is able to make precise projections of the global temperature in the future with the restriction that it cannot simulate the (short time) temperature drops from volcano ash.
Because the tide like solar functions do not follow the formula of Sir Newton, it becomes clear that his equation is not relevant for the relation between the tide functions and the terrestrial temperature and there are other unknown mechanism possible. Distant objects in the solar system as Sedna which is 501 times the Sun/Earth distance away, do not follow the law of Sir Newton, but the distance independent (!) law of Kepler. It is nonsense if you say that ‘none of the planets beyond Jupiter can have any significant effect on the sun’; each planet is oscillating independent form the distance to the Sun with the moving Sun around the Barycenter of the solar system.
Another effect, Sir Newton has not added in his equation is the variation of the gravity if the Moon eclipses the Sun. The effect is greatest before the Moon is starting to eclipse the Sun and after the eclipse. From this fact you cannot exclude that other mechanism can exist beside the known tide forces.
graph
My model is able to simulate the global temperatures (except the volcano effects) in daily resolution from 3000 BCE to 3000 CE.
I give links to some comparison graphs which show the quality of the output of the model and I hope they all will be shown here:
graph 0 graph 1 graph 2 graph 3 graph 4 graph 5 graph 6 graph 7 graph 8 graph 9 graph 10 graph 11 graph 12 graph 13 graph 14 .
My impression was that the idea thinking on other projection models as usual comes from the recognition, that the present work of climate modeling for projections is not successful, but expensive in total. My model needs the ephemeris from the NASA, an Excel sheet and some knowledge in fitting the strengths of the tide functions from the density of the objects.
Maybe I was wrong in my thinking.
V.
Volker,
To verify a model empirically it must first be formulated accurately enough for allowing unique predictions. Then these predictions must be compared with data that has not been used directly or indirectly in fixing the model.
One way the model may be fixed is based on the use of existing theories. Such theories are always based on earlier empirical data of the type that supports the theory. The data need not be related to the question being studied as many physical models can be applied to a wide variety of problems. Very many different laboratory experiments have contributed to the formulation and verification of the theories of physics that we can read about in textbooks.
Models that cannot be justified by existing theories cannot be tested directly because it’s necessary to first have some valid arguments for deciding what is the exact model that we wish to test. Proposing that outer planets have an effect could be used applying Newtonian physics but that tells that the effect is certainly negligible. Without an alternative verified theory the only possibility is to do the two-step process: Use one set of data ot fix the model and two use another completely independent set of data to test it and to find the results statistically significant. As long as you have not done it, we have no reason to take your model seriously. To get valid results it’s not allowed that a large number of possible models is considered and the best fitting chosen, because even among totally random models some fit better than others by pure accident.
It’s well known that the temperature time series are not long enough for allowing efficient testing of models with long term oscillations. To make such tests properly high quality time series should extend over several full cycles. Over a period of a cycle or two accidental agreement is so common that finding such agreement is not a strong test.
Pikka Pirilä | August 18, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Volker,
To verify a model empirically it must first be formulated accurately enough for allowing unique predictions. Then these predictions must be compared with data that has not been used directly or indirectly in fixing the model.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif
It’s well known that the temperature time series are not long enough for allowing efficient testing of models with long term oscillations.
Wrong.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif
You miss again the point. The point is to look for possible alternative models to improve the climate projection. The point is not to ignore significant geometric relations and not to argue with ‘well known’ nothings to suppress climate research from by an authority in physics.
Science is to find relations in nature. To reject all, what is unknown is not science, it is ignorance.
I can simulate the global temperatures out of real astronomical functions of the planets for the past and the future as shown in 14 graphs.
I have no interest to discuss your personal dogmas.
V.
Volker,
I have just read your blog. I see how hard things were for you, being born in Germany during the war and losing your father in that same war. When I first commented on one of your statements, which I thought was nonsensical, I did not realize that Engish was not your first language. ( The statement may have appeared straightforward to you, but to the Engish way of thinking, it could have been interpreted in different ways.)
I am also interested in the science of music. It is hard to know whether the relationships of notes in musical scales have a fundamental connection to each other, which consequently makes them pleasing to the human ear, or are simply a human invention.
If they are the former, then aliens living on another planet would be able to appreciate our music.
This belief in fundamental harmonics and patterns in the music has led you to seek and find such patterns everywhere. This seems a very old fashioned idea, which is very unpopular nowadays amongst scientists and the establishment. In the distant past, no one found it strange that scientists should mix science with astrology, astronomy, alchemy, philosophy and religion.
I wont pretend that I agree with most of what you are saying, and I know that you will struggle to convince many people… But your blog was an interesting read and I wish you well in the future.
Mark
Mark B (number 2) | August 18, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
Volker,
I have just read your blog. I am also interested in the science of music. It is hard to know whether the relationships of notes in musical scales have a fundamental connection to each other, which consequently makes them pleasing to the human ear, or are simply a human invention.
Mark,
its always difficult as guest of a host to find correct and relevant arguments in a thread like this with the subject “Philosophical reflections on climate model projections”. The term ‘philosophical’ suggest that the scientific basis of that, what is called ‘climate science’, can be discussed in deep, but it is clear, that such a discussion in this blog cannot be successful, because of the different individual backgrounds of the regulars and the host here. It is still my impression that there is no interest to discuss my first posting regarding the subject, and reading the blog rules ‘By being ignored, commenters who are not deemed interesting by others will give up and go elsewhere.’ I give up here and will go to my seat in Denmark for some weeks and will sing old songs for the gulls and the Sun. Thankyou for your kind words.
Mitakuye Oyasin
Volker
The science is about learning about the real world. It’s important that it’s open to new ideas. We have, however, the dilemma that there’s an infinity of possible new ideas and by far most of them are false. To progress some approach is needed to select from the new ideas those worth further study. That’s done all the time and it’s actually important that the way that’s done varies. If everybody would apply same criteria, many important discoveries would be lost. Even so some screening is unavoidable and necessary.
One natural form of screening is that those ideas are given more emphasis that appear possible based on existing theories and without new form of interactions totally unknown for the existing physics. A distant planet is deemed extremely unlikely to have any noticeable effect on Earth climate or any other significant phenomenon on the Earth as long as no accepted theory contains a mechanism that could make the effect significant.
In the spirit of Bayesian reasoning the evidence needed in support of an extremely unlikely effect must be very strong before this effect is taken seriously. Based on some observed correlation at a level of questionable statistical significance is totally insufficient. That alone does not raise the proposed explanation as one to be considered seriously.
I have looked at your first graph. I copied it into paint and enlarged it so that I could see how far ahead of the observed eclipse that gravity is. I noted the ” point of the shoulder” before the flat part started and the point of the shoulder when the flat part of the graph ended. Start was 493 minutes, end was 600 minutes. (There is a nice symmetrical look to the graph here.) The centre point of this flat area of the graph is therefore at 546.5 minutes.
The actual observed time of totality was at 553.5 minutes.
So the actual observed total eclipse “happened” about 7 minutes after the average of the gravitational maximum.
As the light from the sun takes about 8 minutes to reach the earth and (moon), this time delay can now easily be explained.
It is possible that you did not take this into account, due to your belief in Philosophical Science which meant that you took the observed data at face value and did not consider the effect of the speed of light.
It gives me no pleasure in attacking anyone’s belief system and I am still going to look at the other graphs that you have up on here. But Sir Isaac Newton was the greatest genius that this county has ever produced and his reputation deserves to be defended.
I must apologize again to you, Mr Doorman: I am wrong in my conclusion, which I posted above. If the sun if considered to be in a fixed place, relative to the earth and moon, emitting a constant stream of light, only the movements of the earth and moon are relevant. This is because the stream of light from the sun was the same 8 minutes ago and will be the same in 8 minutes time. The Philosophical Scientist would not have made this mistake.
Please disregard my previous post and accept my humblest apologies.
Mark.
Mark B (number 2) | August 18, 2012 at 11:13 am |
I must apologize again to you, Mr Doorman: I am wrong in my conclusion, which I posted above. .. Please disregard my previous post and accept my humblest apologies.
Mark.
Mark,
no problem. I think it is great to analyse facts and make conclusions out of it. But we are also connected to a thread and its subject. I have given this OT graph to Pekka, because it shows variations in the gravity while eclipses, which cannot explained with the equation of Sir Newton. If we talk about the philosophy of science, one can know that a claim like ‘ … none of the planets beyond Jupiter can have any significant effect on the sun’ is a fallacy, because there are one or more alternative mechanism possible to the idea of Sir Newton about his gravity force.
V.
Myrrh on Global Warming as Religion replacing Science +1 (
Quote from Steve McIntyre recently in London.
“You’d be negligent not to take the IPCC as the basis of policy, even if you thought the quality of the work required tremendous improvement. I hope people do a better job.”
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/17/mcintyre_in_london/
His views are quite moderate. I would put him more in a category like Muller where he disputes only very specific things from WG1 like Mann’s use of tree rings. He clearly thinks models can be better validated but has not discounted IPCC as seen from the above quote (except for activism in WG2).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates
Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said: “An example of this is the rapid changes in the kinds of measurements we see in the digital archives around the Second World War. Some sea surface temperature observations were taken from buckets hauled on board ships and others were made in the engine rooms.
“Research has shown readings from buckets were generally cooler so when the database changes from one source to another you see artificial jumps in the raw data. We’ve quantified these effects and corrected for them providing a clearer view of the evolution of global temperatures.”
Hardly inspires confidence, does it?. It looks to me as if, in the past, they used the “bucket of sea water method” along with the “thermometer in the engine room method” alongside each other. But now they have “quantified these effects and corrected for them”.
In my opinion, the whole thing (IPCC report and data sets) is beyond repair. We should scrap the whole thing, accept that it is lost money and do things properly in the future. If we don’t have complete data for sea temperature in the last 150 years, we should be philosophical about it and just accept that we don’t know. It is better to accept that we don’t know something than to pretend that we do know and end up being wrong.
Perhaps Judith should run an online gambling site for climate futures. Define the arbiter of climate measurement and get punters to bet in advance of the official announcements. See who does better – climate modellers or some other method….
Prove shortwave from the Sun directly heats land and oceans. Because unless you can you have no weather in your world.
Demonstration, yes. Comment from EM Smith, The Chiefio, on WUWT thread, ‘The reason for polarization of the global warming issue:’
‘The truth just is .Due to that, no amount of ‘preconception’ nor any component of ‘peer belief’ does squat all. A proposition is either correct and demonstrational, or not,’
Steve Milesworthy –
I did not say that predictions of climate change based on the historical record would be wrong – only that they cannot be made totally accurate. At best, you can give a reasonable guess as to when and how much climate may change, with the knowledge that you will probably not get very close to getting it exactly right. Even so, despite the inaccuracies, the historical record will enable a much more truthful overall assessment of climate trends than fictitious (not to say thoroughly dishonest and corrupt and politically motivated) a priori climate models.
I repeat my point that even an honestly attempted model can’t possibly get it right, let alone the deceptive garbage in-garbage out productions of the AGW scaremongers and grant farmers. It’s simply not mathematically possible, and the AGW liars get their fabrications to look realistic to the uninformed by oversimplifying their models’ computational processes and using data that is self-evidently falsified.
And even openly and unabashedly acknowledged by the AGW crowd to be falsified.
Chad Wozniak | August 22, 2012 at 12:10 am |
I did not say that predictions of climate change based on the historical record would be wrong – only that they cannot be made totally accurate.
At best, you can give a reasonable guess as to when and how much climate may change, with the knowledge that you will probably not get very close to getting it exactly right.
I did not say that predictions of solar eclipses based on the historical records would be wrong – only that they cannot be made totally accurate.
At best, you can give a reasonable guess as to when and where the eclipses occur, with the knowledge that you will probably not get very close in time and space to getting the time and space exactly right.
There was a statement from Werner Heisenberg in 1927:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Can you give a prove of your saying of ‚totally accurate’ ?
Science is to show what IS. Science is not, what is NOT.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif
Neither accuracy nor precision is needed in predicting global climate; it needs knowledge about the relevant geometric functions.
It seems the problem with computer modelling of atmospheric temperature and GHG IR absorption is more than 15 years old. Heinz Hug’s experiments suggested the models are out by a factor of 80.
Paper:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Comments:
http://www.john-daly.com/zipfiles/hugdebat.zip
The emails show arguments for and against Dr Hug’s results. All of them are based on some degree of hand waving and theoretical arguments. But no sign of further experiments.
Jarl Ahlbeck 13-Aug-1998: “it may be a good idea to perform more laboratory experiments using modern spectroscopic equipment and realistic temperatures for the “black body” source and the temperature, pressure and chemical composition of the absorbing/emitting gas. We have seen too much of computer simulations, probably using garbage input….”
Surely this is a scientific travesty. The basic science can be properly settled in the experimental laboratory.
Mr, Doormann –
I would assume that it is a lot easier to get very precise predictions for solar eclipses than it could ever be to predict the weather (isn’t that ultimately what climate is – the weather?) generations from now – the math is relatively easy and there are many years of experience with precise and successful predictions of eclipses.
But for climate, I don’t think we could ever get beyond saying something like, “based on past experience we expect a cooling trend to begin about X years from now and last about Y years, with a possible dip in average temperatures of up to Z degrees.” While that is hugely better than the
@#$%&*!! being put out by the leftist-reactionary AGW false advertisers, I don’t see how we can get any more precise than that – and at least it’s honest and is better science to accept the possible sigmas in this sort of prediction than it is to buy into the faux certainties of AGW fabrications.
There is something telling about the fact that weather forecasters are frequently off the mark by many degrees and many inches of precipitation, with only a day or two of a forecasting horizon. Do we really expect anyone to accurately forecast the weather on, say, August 22, 2331 or for that matter, on August 22, 2013? Ain’t happenin’, bro.
I like Prof. Hug’s estimate that climate models err by a factor of 80, except that it seems to me that if anything the magnitude of the errors is greater than that. But it certainly helps to have someone pointing out the futility and uselessness of climate modeling
Chad Wozniak | August 23, 2012 at 1:44 am |
Mr, Doormann – I would assume that it is a lot easier to get very precise predictions for solar eclipses than it could ever be to predict the weather (isn’t that ultimately what climate is – the weather?) generations from now – the math is relatively easy and there are many years of experience with precise and successful predictions of eclipses.
You miss mostly all relevant points and arguments.
Science is not what you personally assume; what you personally assume is your private religion. If you do not know the geometries of terrestrial global climate frequencies, you cannot say anything about it, using scientific methods (-> l. Wittgenstein). Please say anything relevant arguments about your claim ‘totally accuracy’. Do you know the difference between accuracy and precision?
But for climate, I don’t think we could ever get beyond saying something like, “based on past experience we expect a cooling trend to begin about X years from now and last about Y years, with a possible dip in average temperatures of up to Z degrees.”
That is not the point. The point is that it is not out of the question that the terrestrial climate spectrum can be general described in the same way as eclipses, because it is simple nature and not fiction. I think laymen are interested in things of knowledge of natural functions and processes, and what can be verified.
I don’t see how we can get any more precise than that …
Thats not a problem of science; it a personal problem.
Do we really expect anyone to accurately forecast the weather on, say, August 22, 2331 or for that matter, on August 22, 2013?
Questions do not show knowledge. The relevant point is whether one believes in a nature of possible contradictions or not. If one thinks that all natural processes, structures and elements in the universe exist without contradictions, then it is a logical conclusion that a temperature on a location and its time has natural causes.
I like Prof. Hug’s estimate that climate models err by a factor of 80, except that it seems to me that if anything the magnitude of the errors is greater than that.
It is senseless to speak on a factor as number without saying what the dimension is.
As people have learned that there is a temperature cycle that correlates with the Earth rotation time of 86400 seconds, people can learn that there is a cycle of 913.5 years of a solar tide function of real celestial objects that correlates with reconstructed temperature spectra from samples of the history the solar activity.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif
Adding some faster solar tide functions it comes near in the accuracy of the measured global temperatures.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_gl_july_2012.gif
The tragedy is that millions of sceptic authorities write their personal unbelief to the natural order to the climate blogs, but ignore each hint of significant relations in nature because of their conditioned unbelief on the natural order.
V.