Here in the U.S. we have been distracted all week by Hurricane Sandy and Presidential election. Its your turn to introduce some new topics for discussion.
I’m hunkered down all weekend working on a proposal. I will get a new post up Sunday nite.
The other event this past week was Halloween. Last Wed, I received a Skype call from Lenny Smith, who is Director of the Center for Analysis of Time Series (CATS) at the London School of Economics. Part of the Skype call included this visual Halloween ‘card’, of which I attach a photo below:
This is the CATS rendition of the ‘uncertainty monster,’ which is apparently quite popular at CATS. Needless to say, that made my day :)
Thanks, Professor Curry.
My countdown to election 2012 is in progress:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1688
Today we must individually decide if we will pass along
a.) Truth revealed by unbiased experimental observations, or
b.) Consensus stories fabricated by cherry picking data.
Regretfully, many of us failed to study George Orwell’s warnings on the consequences of joining the consensus crowd:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://omanuel.wordpress.com
Today’s (4 Nov 2012) countdown to the 2012 election,
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1702
Explains the long-term advantages of path a.), although path b.) has more immediate benefits.
Jason with the hockey mask is an over achiever :)
A while back there was a discussion on model tuning. Lucia has found a new paper that discusses tuning, which all models would required, but if I remember correctly, using tuned models to determine attribution over a period where the models were tuned is called circular file logic.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tuning-climate-models-a-group-discusses-how-its-done/
The tuning does make this more of a curve fit than a Model. Curve fits do interpolate very well but they do not extrapolate well.
I think it was Yogi Berra that said “It is difficult to make predictions , especially about the future.” So if you are trying to “fit” a model by tuning and you hope to use that model to make predictions, you should leave gaps in the data to test the “skill” of the model.
Annan and Hargreaves tried to use their model to reconstruct the past using paleo, not a very good fit. So the paleo data sucks, the model sucks or some combination. Being modelers, A&H would suspect the paleo. But A along with Schmidt and someone else, used the model to rebut Schwartz who had used a simple decay curve model to estimate sensitivity.
So a model of unknown skill is used to rebut a simpler model based on solid physics. That is odd, but seems to be acceptable in climate science.
So now think about the basic assumptions of the unknown skill model. GHG effect adds 33C to surface temperature. The 33C comes from 240Wm-2 being supplied to some surface to be named later, which if that surface radiated 240Wm-2 it would have a “surface” temperature of 255K or -18C degrees. That assumes that the “surface” is in equilibrium. Well, if that “surface” was capable of being in equilibrium with a uniformly distributed 240Wm-2, it would be a heat source emitting 240Wm-2 at the poles and 240Wm-2 at the equator. The Earth is not that kind of heat source.
Since the Earth is heated at the equator, if it had an average surface energy of 240Wm-2, it would likely have an energy of 399 Wm-2 at the equator decreasing to zero at the poles. With any net positive energy uptake at some surface of the Earth, the average energy of the Earth would be between 240Wm-2 and 399Wm-2 with the final value depending on the heat capacity of the absorbing surface and the internal energy transfer through that surface towards the poles. So 33C is wrong if the “surface” has any significant thermal capacity.
Things that make you go Hmm?
Capt’nDallas
Because my squirrelly math skills are limited I lost you on the calculation:
” With any net positive energy uptake at some surface of the Earth, the average energy of the Earth would be between 240Wm-2 and 399Wm-2 with the final value depending on the heat capacity of the absorbing surface and the internal energy transfer through that surface towards the poles.”
Or is this the part which makes you go: Hmmm?
RiH008, If you have 390Wm-2 applied to a surface that is not impervious, or 100% insulated, it will absorb some energy. If you are applying that energy in a cycle, if all of the absorbed energy does not escape before the next cycle, the surface will absorb more energy until the rate of absorption equals the rate of emission. The Sun is applying 1361Wm-2 to a sphere. So the equator of that sphere would receive the full 1361 Wm-2 with each latitude/longitude further from the noon equator receiving less until there is zero at the poles and the horizons. So the “normal” is warm equator cold poles not 240 Wm-2 evenly distributed.
Since energy is likely absorbed, each layer that energy is absorbed in will diffuse energy in all directions with convection assisting the upward migration. Conduction/diffusion and convection are slower than radiant, so if the internal transfer of energy is slower than the radiant “charging” input, the subsurface will continue to accumulate energy.
It is like trickle charging a battery.
Actually, using the RMS value of 399Wm-2, the oceans would be about 4 to 5 C degrees. Odd coincidence that.
Capt’nDallas
Go it. Thanx
got not go
Actually, it was Niels Bohr that provided this quote –
“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.”
With respect to climate change, Yogi said it best – “I wish I had an answer to that, because I’m tired of answering that question.”
Cap’n
Which A&H paper do you have in mind?
Which paper? http://www.clim-past.net/8/1141/2012/cp-8-1141-2012.html
Though the abstract and their blog post was all I really needed to start looking more closely at the southern hemisphere.
Cap’n, you have me puzzled:
A&H:
BBD, since they can get a pretty fair hemisphere but not regional, southern hemisphere SST and BWT would provide more reliable information than regional reconstructions especially alpine regionals. Remember I am looking into longer term oscillation clues and the southern hemisphere has the majority of the thermal mass.
Radiant isn’t necessarilly slower. Evaporation can, and in some cases does, vastly exceed it. Overall more surface cooling occurs through evaporation than radiation. If radiation where the path of least resistance it couldn’t possibly be the case that evaporation exceeds it in removing heat from the surface.
“Conduction/diffusion and convection are slower than radiant”
Typo in my comment. I meant to say radiant isn’t necessarily faster.
In fact evaporation and convection is faster overall and removes more heat from the surface than radiation does. Unless of course you don’t believe the standard textbook heat budgets.
David, I didn’t include evaporation because ice would severely limit evaporation :)
Call this the blue ocean effect instead of the greenhouse effect.
In fact David, since solar is absorbed to over 100 meters, each layer of the ocean would be a “surface” or onion layer. Until you get to the ocean atmosphere interface, radiate heat lost is close to zero. Since the polar regions would be ice covered, that would severely reduce the area of latent heat loss and restrict radiant loss as well setting a 310 to 316 Wm-2 limit as the threshold for latent heat loss.
“Curve fits do interpolate very well but they do not extrapolate well” is the problem postmodern fields of science (economics and climatology) inherited from other self-centered geocentric studies, e.g., fortunetelling.
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1659
Tomorrow’s post will include Lucia’s post and this article
Jo Nova has this
‘Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth’s surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm–2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.’ see
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earths-energy-balance-measured-models-are-wrong/#more-24658
and the Hockey Schtick has this
‘Abstract: A contextual flaw underlying the interpretation of a back-radiative greenhouse effect is identified. Real-time empirical data from a climate measurement station is used to observe the influence of the “greenhouse effect” on the temperature profiles. The conservation of heat energy ordinary differential equation with the inclusion of the “greenhouse effect” is developed, which informs us of the temperature profile we expect to see when a “greenhouse effect” is present. No “greenhouse effect” is observed in the measured data. The latent heats of H2O are identified as the only real heat-trapping phenomenon and are modelled. A discussion on the existence of universal principles is used to explain why simplistic arguments cannot be used as justification for the greenhouse effect.’
see http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/astrophysicist-explains-why.html
Dolphinlegs: This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
I expect a chorus of such comments growing over the next 2 years.
UK based readers might like to know of an informal get together on Thursday 8 November from 6:30 at The Prince of Wales, Iffley, near Oxford.
http://www.wadworth.co.uk/iffley/prince_of_wales
There is no agenda – just a pub evening of lively discussion – at least starting with climate-related ideas – and conviviality. The Big Oil Denier Conspiracy Fry The Planet Corporation didn’t even acknowledge our request for funding (yet again – tight bastards!) so it is strictly PAYG.
Everybody welcome – just turn up.
An IPCC lead author commented favourably after a similar gathering in the summer that ‘if there had been more such occasions ten years ago, much of the Climate Wars would have been unnecessary’ (my paraphrase).
Churchill put it another way
‘Jaw Jaw is better than War War’
Hope to see you there.
I’ll come if:
1. You can send Concorde to pick me up and drop me back after the event, and
2. Those rich Greens and wind farm owners will pay all my expenses.
Sorry for the insulting spelling mistake. That should have been “Concord/e” (to avoid a war).
@peter lang
Best I can manage is this one – parked a couple of miles away.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2122040_video_concorde_model_lands_at_brooklands
Quite a strange sight when you first see it because it is definitely a Concorde, but still seems small even for that smallish aircraft.
There’s another real one parked up by the BA Technical Base at Heathrow which hasn’t moved for yonks, but I doubt it’s airworthy…….
Latimer Alder,
Thank you for that. They used to fly past our window at Addison Grove, Turnham Green as they were on their final approach to Heathrow. What a beautiful plane it was.
I am surprised to see it is now spelt with an “e” on the end for both the English and French varieties. I thought they’d compromised to spell it with an “e” on the left side of the plane and without an “e” on the right. I guess, somewhere along the way, the English decided to let the French win that battle.
Now that you have a plane ready to come and get me, do you have agreement from Greenies and rich wind farmers to pay the expenses?
But no way, will I agree to fly if its running on biofuels.
Energy balance changes due to changes in a trace greenhouse gases are small. Scientists on both sides have shown calculations that a doubling of CO2 can cause about one degree C increase. According to Arctic and Antarctic ice core data, we have had a well bounded temperature for ten thousand years. In order to bound the temperature of earth to stay within plus or minus two degrees all the time and within plus or minus one degree most of the time, including the most recent instrumented period, a massive system is needed that has a set point above which it can always provide massive cooling and below which it turns the cooling off and allows the sun to warm the earth.
The massive system is not a trace gas. I am an engineer and I know you do not design a massive cooling system that is driven by a trace of something. Water, in all of its states is abundant enough and has the proper characteristics to control the temperature of Earth. The set point is the temperature that Arctic Ocean Sea Ice Melts and Freezes. When the oceans are cold and the Arctic is Frozen, the source for moisture is turned off and it rains and snows less and there are less clouds and the sun melts more ice in summer than gets replaced in winter and the earth warms. When the oceans are warm and the Arctic Sea Ice is melted, the source for moisture is turned on and it snows more than enough to replace the ice that melts in summer.
This system does obey the laws of physics and it does pass the smell test of common sense.
This was taught by Ewing and Donn. Dr Curry has spoken favorably of Ewing and Donn. This is currently taught by Tom Wysmuller. This is currently taught by Pope’s Climate Theory. More and more people are coming to accept this theory.
This is supported by data. Multiple Ski Resorts opened in October this year for the first time in their History. Look at the ice core data. It snows more when the oceans are warm and it snows less when the oceans are cold. Look at modern data, it snows more when the Arctic is open and it snows less when the Arctic is closed. If CO2 causes warming, and I believe it does cause a trace of warming, it is lost in the noise of the system in control that is made up of water in all of its states.
If you put this in a climate model, the model could run for ten thousand years without getting out of bounds, even while you hit it with CO2, volcanoes, solar changes, orbit and tilt changes and everything else. You could have a climate model that does respond much like the real earth climate model.
All makes good sense.
Max
Yes. But is it a mechanism or the mechanism that keep global temperature within a certain range?
Can we say it’s having open ocean water in cold region?
And this causes substantial cooling.
If the poles were covered land area- does this cause warming. Because generally I would think this how one causes cooling. It’s how you get polar ice caps. Oceans with 3000+ feet of water aren’t going to have ice caps.
Or because we have land masses at the poles does a lot to explain why we have been in very long [10+ million year] cold period.
The Arctic is more or less a donut hole, surrounded by land masses.
Is that how one designs a planet so it’s the coldest- have something like arctic at the South Pole arctic?
Does the northern arctic region explain why southern arctic has growing polar ice?
It seems that if open arctic waters causes cooling, it means the moisture from arctic has to travel a fair distance- not just effect sub-arctic region but affect the Temperate Zones. Otherwise it seems this may only explain the northern polar regions more than effecting global temperature.
Another part of it, is you have to make the arctic ocean pretty warm in order not to have mostly frozen over once the Sun disappears. I imagine at moment polar sea has advance quite a bit, since our present summertime “record” ice free areas. Getting a lot snow starting about now or later in year is what is needed.
On my website, I try to answer some of these questions and address some of these issues. The arrangement of land masses and the ocean and air currents all a part of this well bounded process that controls the temperature of earth. The Arctic snow caused by the open Arctic ocean does cause the jet stream to be routed differently and further south and does influence weather patterns well outside the Arctic. Last year it snowed as far south as Rome.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/
Sounds too good to be true. Are there data rich expositions, quantifications, and so forth?
+
How one man kept global warming off Hurricane Sandy page
Perhaps comeone could be inspired to take the major hurricane-global warming/climate change issues and links at ClimateEtc & WUWT and create a wikipedia page listing the arguments pro/con.
Where is William Michael Connolley when CAGW alarmism needs him most of all?
And here I always thought this was the Uncertainty Monster: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/Gorshinriddler.JPG/220px-Gorshinriddler.JPG
Have a fruitful writing session.
Naw.
That’s lolwot putting on his mittens like a good boy, before going out to play in the snow.
Max
With this election, we’ve seen the notion that wealthy/connected businessman are responsible for growing inequality, from BOTH sides of American politics. The narratives differ:
-the Left believes that millionaires and billionaires are focused on buying elections to keep their income tax several percentage points lower.
– the Right points out that economies increasingly run from Washington favor those with connections/donations over real-world results.
AGW really puts this notion in a nutshell, the example of Gore increasing his net worth by 5000% since he’s left office through Green Energy loans (or was it the bush tax cuts, i forget). Add in the phantom “oil-funding” for skeptics claims, while WWF, Greenpeace, etc continue to roll in hundreds of millions of dollars.
People are going to start wising up to the offer: “If you want X (eg a planet where humans can live in the future) just give us more money, and forget about it – we’re taking care of it already.”
Who do you know of the left that doesn’t share that belief?
If you’re going to create arguments based on broad generalizations, can’t you at least attempt to make the generalizations remotely accurate?
greed/self interest should be a given. The question is what how do institutions transform imperfect motives into public good.
Joshua;
“favor” is the crucial term.
Lefties prefer “…economies increasingly run from Washington…” This their default/null/SOP; hence no ‘favor.’
Professor Hans Schellnhuber Says IPCC Needs Overhaul… “Boundaries Between Science And Politics Completely Blurred”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/02/professor-hans-schellnhuber-ipcc-needs-overhaul-boundaries-between-science-and-politics-completely-blurred/
good article, thx for the link
Not blurred. Ignored.
Schellnhuber’s Legitimization Of A Soft Dictatorship: “Above-The-Law State Of Emergency”
http://notrickszone.com/2011/06/08/schellnhubers-legitimization-of-dictatorship-above-the-law-state-of-emergency/
The latest rapier thrust from Mark Steyn into the belly of what used to be the reputation of Penn State, defender extraordinaire of Michael Mann (and coincidentally Jerry Sandusky):
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332396/nobel-warming-mark-steyn
“Graham Spanier (the Penn State president whose ‘investigation’ exonerated Dr Mann in part on the grounds of his Nobel Prize) still thinks his colleague is a Nobel Prize winner. So there’s that. True, he’s just been indicted for perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and child endangerment, but that’s no reason not to cite him in Dr Mann’s amended Statement of Claim.”
The link in Steyn’s post to the NRO comment about those charges leads to this comment posted by Rich Lowry, NRO’s editor, here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332197/penn-state-faculty-news-mark-steyn
Can someone tell us again how Penn State’s risibly inept (or apparently now criminally corrupt) investigation of Sandusky’s behavior to save the university’s reputation is irrelevant to whether, when the same people investigated Mann, they may have been, shall we say, less than thorough in their efforts?
I just saw an interview with Jeff Sachs on Bloomberg Business News and he seemed perversely giddy that Sandy had “proven” AGW and that we are to expect the same in the future. That was followed by an interview with a developer in NYC who was concerned about future sea level rise around NYC since, as he said, the rise is 6 inches per decade. Oh well why bother with facts.
Fuel shortages have very high impacts:
New York fuel “panic” grows even as ports open, reserves tapped
On the macro scale see the major new study:
Oil and the World Economy: Some Possible Futures Michael Kumhof and Dirk Muir
WP/12/256 IMF Working Paper Research Department October 2012
Contrast:
Climate Change Poll Finds Most Americans Unwilling To Pay Higher Energy Costs
Curry observes
Obama appears oblivious to the issues and his actions of stopping Keystone XL pipeline and reducing drilling on federal lands have exacerbated the problems. Romney appears to understand part of this sharp contrast and his energy policy provides for strong action to reduce the major impacts of fuel shortages and high prices.
Vote for strong action to help protect our economy from the severe problems of impending fuel shortages.
Tempterrain @ Dr.Curry
Are you now saying that you got it wrong when you wrote that?
Dr. Curry:
Uh, where in that text does it say anything about the cause of the sea surface temperature? Sea surface temperatures increased during the period 1970-2005. So did the % of cat 4, 5 tropical cyclones. Both of those finding stand. What is at issue is attribution, i.e. what caused the SST increase, and the hurricane intensity increase
Attribution to the CO2 increase has no convincing evidence, while the attribution to the solar input could be traced via changes in the advance Arctic atmospheric pressure and the advance Arctic geological observations, as it is shown here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ANASTACE.htm
The sun drives the climate from equator to pole (not pole to equator). There’s no 15 year “delay” (semantic issue). Rather there’s integration by cumulative pressure-gradient-driven flow (i.e. 1/4 cycle phase offset). This is easily confirmed using records from all around the world (not just the North Atlantic). Vukcevic, I’m growing concerned that you’re having fun encouraging innocents to interpret data exactly backwards. Many of the correlations you show are real, but your insistence that something magnetic is doing the driving is inconsistent with the data. The data indicate that solar-driven climate is destabilizing magnetic field orientation via redistribution of hydrospheric pressure. But please do keep your graphs streaming. Even if you’re misinterpreting them, they’re opening minds to Earth’s multidecadal natural beauty. Your appreciation of nature’s beauty is noted and appreciated.
Hi Paul
Hmmm, yes and no, or may be; simple analogy could be: Arctic is the ignition circuit, the equatorial ocean is the engine, while the fuel (energy) for both comes from the sun.
Geo-Solar Oscillations are initiated in the Arctic, with immediate response by the Arctic atmospheric pressure; the oscillations slowly propagate to the equatorial belt via liquid core, where the oceans respond by releasing some of the stored heat energy, which is detected approximately 15 years later as the AMO (N.A. SST) oscillation. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-AMO-GSO.htm
Records of the geological observations also confirm the above too
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
The AMO and the N.H. temperature oscillations are not necessarily result of a variable TSI but of the oscillating ocean.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Or maybe not, but then there are hundred or more top university and the research institutions with thousands of scientists chasing the rainbow .
For the role of ‘something magnetic’ another time.
Vukcevic,
I loudly applaud the stimulating observations you bring to the discussion, but I find your interpretations grossly ignorant of basics. You often cite Jean Dickey (NASA JPL), but so far you appear to be completely ignoring her work on thermal wind. This is a fatally serious error.
I recall a recent exchange between you & Bob Tisdale where Bob made the impressive diagnosis that you were misunderstanding the term “teleconnection”. I’m going to suggest here that your glaring ignorance of the elementary concept “thermal wind” may be rooted in a comparable misunderstanding.
My intentions in volunteering these comments are friendly but serious.
Best Regards.
Hi Paul
As they say ‘ignorance is bliss’, and in my case implemented with a purpose.
Thermal wind, cloudiness, precipitations, teleconnections, snowfall albedo, polar ice extent, oceanic absorptions and emissions of CO2 etc., etc… they are all important elements of the climate system, they change with the climate change and at the same time possible internal causes of the climate change.
Trying to explain climate change with the climate change appears to me to be a bit of a circular argument; there are far too many people riding that ‘magic roundabout’ one more or less hardly makes any difference.
However, all of the above internal components are in one or another way reflected in the N. Hemisphere’s temperature data, and that is the good point of reference, as I only take account of the external ‘non-calamite’ elements as the possible fundamental factors.
Universal aggregate constraints:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
“Apart from all other reasons, the parameters of the geoid depend on the distribution of water over the planetary surface.” — Nikolay Sidorenkov
The global warming Armageddon scenario of runaway global waming, rivers running red, mass extinctions of species, a 20′ rise of seawater, dead coral, deep and disastrous climate disruption, more and more violent storms, has been a house of cards–a big fail–and, the winds of truth have shown it all to be nothing but deception and lies. But, what does it say about those who want to be deceived?
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have no fear of the Judeo/Christian religion whose God gives such rights to all of humanity. America’s only enemies are those who fear a free man and it is this fear that has become the new church of religious monsters.
The real fear is not that polar bears that are dying. They’d have died five times over by now in previous global warmings that were hotter than current temperatures. The real fear is that it is the West that is dying and that the new religion of self-defeatism–of which global warming alarmism is just a symptom–is the reason the West is dying. It’s the only reason.
“I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.” ~Dr. Bill Gray
Wagathon
In The Book that Made Your World, Vishal Mangalwadi explores why the West is dying.
Part of that is elevating nature as is above the Creator.
there is no creator, its more complicated than that.
lolwot
You might start by actually reading Vishal’s book.
Have you considered applying logic before posting?
i.e., Without comprehensive knowledge, including before “time” began, you have no basis to make that statement.
Judith
FEMA is another major organization that needs your increased warning time:
FEMA Out of Water, No Delivery Until Monday
I wish I knew how the heck to contact FEMA.
I assume you want to contact the people who work with forecasts. Just call and ask for them. It usually takes just three or four referral jumps to get to the right person in a large agency. It is a small world topology.
What do you want to know? How they handle forecasts and whose they use? Or are you a potential forecast vendor? This info may be publically available.
Fuggie, you’re doin’ a heck of a job…
David
You sure that FEMA “lean forward” strategy isn’t a “bend over” strategy?
Déjà vu all over again?
Max
Try to contain your excitement that some folks might be out of drinking water, Max.
Stay classy.
…and here you are using the suffering of others to ridicule Max.
Very classy move eliciting guilt in your passive aggression.
It’s a perfect example of how you let your lazy type two thinking dominate your type one reactions.
I hope FEMA has blankets and tents on order for a week after the blizzard hits. And body bags.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/noreaster-new-york-new-jersey_n_2068916.html
Sunshinehours1
Can I recommend this British based organisation who also operate in America. They provide food and tents in a handy box
http://www.shelterboxusa.org/
They operate from premises not far from us and part of their rationale was that a box containing food and shelter would have a more immediate impact than money and have the useful by product of being unappealimg to the presidents of many third world countries who divert the money intended for disasters to their own bank accounts
Tonyb
My proposal.
We have to sone how persuade the IPCC to start again. This time at the beginning of the 20th century, not 1960. We then jointly and interactively start building a narrative of climate. At each step, we make sure that the assumptions fit the data. It is essential that we can explain the dramatic turn-around of temperature in 1940 and the subsequent fall in temperature for 30 years until 1970. We have to jointly recognise that there is a new permanent source of heat for the whole world, spawned by the 1940 event and that is being transported by the oceans in their depths. From 1970 to 2000 this process continues until we have a new planetary equilibrium temoerature in about 2000. Throughout this process we have to understand the so-called vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule, because it is these properties that make it such a powerful heat sink and a major determinate of climate – properties not possessed by nitrogen or oxygen. This means we have to think in terms of quantum thermodynamics as well as classical. See my website above.
This process, if followed, will result in a new concept of world climate – a concept where the Al Gore style scares will have no foundation.
Easy explanation.
The recovery from the LIA was raising temperatures up until the depression.
“In the early 20th century the
steady growth of emissions was slowed by a global depression
and the second world war followed by the post war economic
expansion, resulting in an unprecedented absolute rate
of emissions growth averaging 3400 Gg/decade from 1950
to 1970. Global emissions peaked in the 1970s, and have declined
overall since 1990, with an increase between 2002 and
2005, largely due to strong growth of emissions in China.”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1101/2011/acp-11-1101-2011.pdf
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/are-we-cooling-the-planet-with-so2/
Alexander Biggs said:
“We have to jointly recognise that there is a new permanent source of heat for the whole world, spawned by the 1940 event.”
____
A “new permanent source of heat”? Really? Wow, our energy problems are solved!
Here’s the scientific truth: The sun is the only semi-permanent source of energy in this part of the galaxy. It runs on fusion. We have other semi-permanent sources in the radioactive fissionable materials found in the geosphere of the planet, but the vast majority of energy in the oceans, on the surface and in atmosphere and biosphere of this planet came from the fusion reactions going on inside the sun. Greenhouse gases regulate the rate of flow of that energy out of the Earth system to become waste heat in the space and contribute to the every increasing entropy of this particular universe. Sorry, no permanent sources of energy in this universe.
Thank you, R.Gates, for your comment
Unfortunately you have been mislead by a sentence taken out of context. I was merely making the point that the global warming before 1940 due to CO2 was a permanent addition to the heat in the atmosphere and later, the oceans. This was a necessary point to make because the IPCC ignored it – indeed described the 1940 temperature as normal, despite that it had increased by nearly 0.5C since 1910. If you had read my paper ‘An Alternative theory of climate change’ on my website above, you would have appreciated my point.
Judith
Some thoughts from the peanut galley:
FEMA Organizational Structure
Grant Programs Directorate
Logistics Management Directorate
It would appear your improved forecasting would come under “modernize and “upgrade”.
The following authors might have some contacts.
A fully automated and integrated multi-scale forecasting scheme for emergency preparedness Muhammad Akbar, Shahrouz Aliabadi, Reena Patel, Marvin Watts
Environmental Modelling & Software Available online 21 March 2012
a Northrop Grumman Center for High Performance Computing of Ship Systems Engineering, Jackson State University, MS e-Center, Box 1400, 1230 Raymond Road, Jackson, MS 39204, USA
b Information Technology Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA
Otherwise, for official FEMA Contacts
Phone: 1 (800) 621-FEMA (3362)
Technical Assistance: Phone: 1 (800) 745-0243
Federal Emergency Management Agency
P.O. Box 10055, Hyattsville, MD 20782-8055
Doing Business with FEMA
FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program may also be interested.
Somewhere in there should be some funds to provide better and earlier forecasting that would be more effective than the more than $2 billion in waste and fraud during Katrina.
Happy Hunting
These sort of studies seem hopelessly compromised by a limited length of climate records. There is simply not nearly enough data to characterise the limits of variability. Nonetheless, it takes a global perspective on shifting patterns of rainfall. I think there may be an element of reversion to the mean – the dry gets wetter and the wet gets drier – rather than one of ever more extreme events after another.
http://www.climatescience.org.au/content/179-aerosols-affect-rainfall-variability-more-greenhouse-gases
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053369.shtml
RETHINKING CLIMATE CHANGE
(Symposium)
http://video.mit.edu/watch/rethinking-climate-change-the-past-150-years-and-the-next-100-years-9701/
A fascinating symposium that admits uncertainty in man made global warming. So most have moved away from saying AGW is settled science.
Thanks to climategate, the climate war has been won by the skeptics. Man made global warming has been exaggerated by a factor of about 3.
There has not been any change in the pattern of the climate data since record begun in 1850 as shown => http://bit.ly/wurhqT
Comparison of GISS, HADCRUT3 & HADCRUT4 => http://bit.ly/SIMFJY
I propose to discuss the basic climate energy balance. My extensive research, and please correct me if am wrong, that the potential energy of the atmosphere is not accounted for in the climate models. There can be no correct model without incorporating this energy term in the equation. Presently, the upper atmosphere is cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade/decade. Where does this loss of energy go? Simultaneously, the potential energy of the upper atmosphere decreases as a result of this cooling. Where does this potential energy of compression go?
Nabil Swedan
blockquote>The projected surface water temperature and sea level rise between 2008 and 2100 are 1.6 ºC to 2.0 ºC (2.9 ºF to 3.6 ºF) and 84 centimeters (33 inches) respectively
My projection is below your lower estimate for a warming of 1.3 deg C as shown => http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmstPrediction.png
And my estimate for sea level rise is about 0.34 m (13 inches), which is less than half your estimate.
Once you recognise the ~1,000 year natural climate cycle, and the superimposed 60 year cycle which caused alarm during the 30 years it was also rising (until 1998) fully explain all climate variation, then that is just about all you need for accurate predictions. I would say that the world can expect 30 years of slight cooling from 1998 to 2028, then 30 years of warming, by which time we could be close to, or have passed, the maximum for the ~1000 year cycle – last evident in the MWP which has recently been well confirmed to have been world wide and have had similar temperatures to the present. So expect 500 years of cooling to start within the next 100 years or so, if it hasn’t already. (See the Appendix of my paper.)
Doug
I think our conclusions are identical!
We will find out for sure in the next five to ten years.
Girma,
Future projection is just an estimate and can vary with carbon dioxide emission scenarios, which is hard to predict. As you will find, my projection of surface temperature and sea level rise since 2007 has been reasonable.
Nabil Swedan
My projection is below your lower estimate for a warming of 1.3 deg C as shown => http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmstPrediction.png
And my estimate for sea level rise is about 0.34 m (13 inches), which is less than half your estimate.
While you are at it, you might wish to investigate the energy content of ocean currents. The mass involved means that even small variations in the speed of these currents involves very large amounts of energy.
is a current different than a wave…?
Very different. The Gulf stream for example. Great rivers in the sea. There are large vertical currents as well, upwellings and down. The oceans are as dynamic as the atmosphere but far more massive. Then there are the tides as well. The moon lifts the ocean twice a day. Something like one third of the ocean mixing energy is tidal. It is a busy place energwise and poorly modeled.
All true, still… the OP wonders where the energy went. Aren’t currents, waves and tides much like copper wires meerly carrying energy? As for where it went, we need to model the independent variable that nominally is responsible for both global warming and cooling–the sun.
It might be considered that the potential energy remains constant over the whole globe, because the mass of the atmosphere does so.
The biggest error in the models is the assumption (implication anyway) that all the backradiation transfers heat to the warmer surface. They then also assume that all the radiation coming from the surface is transferring heat also. Neither is the case.
Virtually all the backradiation is immediately re-emitted without transferring heat to the surface. Hence it can have no effect on the rate of surface cooling due to non-radiative processes – sensible heat transfer. These processes will accelerate to compensate for any slowing of the radiative rate of cooling. There will be no overall effect, and thus no greenhouse effect.
My paper and Joseph Postma’s new October 2012 paper elaborate on this.
which is nonsense. If there was no greenhouse effect the earth would be frozen.
“Re-emitting backradiation immediately” is physically impossible.
Doug Cotton,
For the earth, your equation (10) is missing the potential energy of the earth (or atmosphere). The correct energy balance equation is:
m cp dT/dt+Ma g dZ/dt=F-σ Ao To4
Where M g Z is the potential energy of the atmosphere. This term is not negligible.
Doug Cotton,
No with all due respect. The potential energy must vary based on the basic laws of gases. When the temperature of the upper atmosphere decreases steadily with the ongoing climate change, its volume decreases. The potential energy must decrease steadily as a result. We observe seasonal atmospheric waves every year. There must be atmospheric potential energy variations with these waves. The annual average is constant. But for the present climate change, it is not and cannot be constant based on our observations.
The monsters that came to my house were not uncertain – they knew exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately, there weren’t enough of them, so I’m stuck with a bag of candy i really don’t need.
Nabil Swedan, missing data in models …more unknowns?
O/t say, yer name seems strangely evocative.)
Does this mean you support my proposal?
Nabil Swedan, yer cheques in the mail.
Please…DON’T! I am not doing it for the money!
Ah ..an honest climate scientist ..
thar’s how the light gets in!
Good luck ter yer, Nas er Nabil Swedan.
‘
Thank you.
As this is an open thread for the weekend, so here goes:
A thread ago or so I said that I found liars get under my skin as I was discussing certain climate scientists who did so when confronted with inconvenient science. Now I find that some of the rants regarding Environmentalism and a grab for global administrative control that I have routinely dismissed as over the top; now I find that some have legitimacy.
From the BBC this weekend:
“A group of Swiss environmentalists has collected enough signatures to force a national referendum on immigration.
The Ecopop group says natural resources are under increasing pressure from overpopulation.
It wants annual population growth through immigration capped at 0.2% and a tenth of foreign aid to be used for birth control measures abroad.”
These new immigrants are from… the European Union A 8; those nations newly admitted: South Central Europe and Baltic Nations. A 150 years ago, these were the same people mentioned and embossed on Madam Liberty’s base: “give us your tired, poor and huddled masses, yearning to be free.”
As I have tripped over the threshold into policy and politics, it seems that Environmentalism is a catch basin phrase with which Ecopop groups ask: “are you for preserving the environment or are you going to trash us all to hell?” If you are not with us, you are against us.
I am hearing the same bunching, labeling, and slandering from Eco Warmist Climatologists and their groupie hangers’ on, saying the same thing about skeptics; obligation to the developing world, a global carbon justice system, taxing the former polluters to pave the way; even immigration.
As there is an election on Tuesday, maybe some people interested in immigration, having their own well-being in mind, should take notice. I certainly feel vulnerable to being deported for my skeptical views. If so deported, I don’t even know anybody in the town in the current Czech Republic from whence my very distant forefathers came. It would be hard for me to start all over again even knowing a few get-around-town phrases of Czech.
Environmentalism has morphed into “Coppers” and a host of other anti-immigration groups from a by-gone era.
BBC’s Global temperature predictions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/12/global-temperature-predictions.shtml
RiHo08 November 3 @ 10’40 pm:
Guess i’m one of those who see a political drive
underpinning CAGW, RiHo08, and some of the
Climategate emails suggest as such. I was influenced,
concerning the long battle between parliamentary
democracy and state control by reading Popper’s
historical data and arguments in the ‘Open Society
and It’s Enemies,’ especially as I found, when I was
at university, quite a stong anti capitalist consensus
with reading weighted to left wing political and
historical starred texts in the Social Sciences.
It seems to me that denizens of the closed society acting
through institutions like the UN and IPCC want more and
more top down control over peoples’ lives, and messages
of environmental catastrophe brought on by us is a
convenient tactic.
If you look at Hal Rosings TED Talks on global census stats
and declining birth figures for all religious groups in all parts
of the world, population is stabilizing and trended to decrease.
We know we are at least in a cooling ‘pause’ re warming and
we have the technology and innovative skills to adapt and
solve our problems .On this site, many innovative approaches
to improving soil, air quality, crop yields, energy, have been
presented, eg see videos on Week in Review, 14/10/12
No tiil soil conservation, and Commons at the Kitafugi.
Also inspiring, Elinor Linstrom on bottom up problem solving.
…. Sorry this is soooo long.
Beth;
Popper’s two-volume ‘Open Society’ occupied me for two months, in early 2007. His contribution remains critical to understanding our global crisis.
Thanks for the reminder.
Recent Central American survey: growing dissatisfaction with democracy; please write jrtmenviroatyahoodotcom.
If the consensus beginning tomorrow is that man is not warming the globe afterall, all of the climatologists of Western academia will find something else to scare each other crapless, right?
wrong, you are falling for your own strawman. The reason climatologists are warning about GHG emissions is because it’s dangerous. They aren’t just looking for something to call dangerous and coming up with it at a whim.
So, you’re still worried for the polar bears?
Although barely a secret the real homegrown conspiracy is that Climatists could care less about polar bears. All of global warming alarmism about their looming demise was peddled like climate porn by Leftists for one purpose only and that is to take advantage of the ignorant. It is no secret that practitioners of flimflam prey on innocent minds by tugging at peoples’ feelings and fears—that is what all deceivers do just as that is what AGW doomsday prognosticators of Thermageddon do.
“Why does so much ‘research’ claim a warmer planet ‘may’ lead to more diarrhea, acne and childhood insomnia, more juvenile delinquency, war, violent crime and prostitution, death of the Loch Ness Monster – and even more Mongolian cows dying from cold weather?”
~Driessen P, Soon W, Legates DR. Cause for alarm? (May 23, 2010)
Wagathon, that’s about it (
Beth
But what will all the denizens find to occupy themselves. Suggestions welcome, must be just about believable
Tonyb
Tonyb,
That’s a great question. Humans capacity to imagine catastrophes is unlimited. So it is impossible to predict what the next scare campaign that will grab humanity’s imagination and fear will be. It might be useful to list the ones we’ve had so far, working backwards:
Climate change
global warming
8 m high wall of water overnight
pandemic
Bird flue virus
Y2K
Imminent ice age
nuclear Armageddon
nuclear holocaust
world floods > requires an ark (loaded with Greenies, two by two)
… continue back in time for 200,000 years or so
It’s funny how Terrorism isn’t on your list and neither is New York being hit by a Hurricane. Or World War for that matter.
I guess if Bird Flu was to suddenly mutate and wipe out millions of people you would remove that from the list too?
lolwot,
I just dotted down the ones that came to my mind. You can add any you can think of that could be used to scare the pants off the world population now that the climate scare is on the wane. I don’t really think your examples are examples of the sort of thing you and your ilk could use to scare the world so you can attempt to impose your other agendas, do you?
You jotted down scares that either didn’t or haven’t yet happened. The pattern is clear. You didn’t include terrorism, or the scare of financial collapse. You’ve omitted anything that actually happened just so you can pretend your list is evidence that scares have a 100% failure rate.
I believe Bird Flu was a genuine threat of a virus crossing species and causing a global pandemic, and that threat is still around.
You believe Bird Flu was some false scare pushed by some shadowy group for an agenda. Supposedly they control all the labs that report it and made scientists claim it could cross species and a global pandemic was possible. Maybe they even killed a bunch of birds with poison and Bird Flu never even existed?
You are one step away from believing 9/11 was orchestrated by the same shadowy group.
lolwot,
You are projecting and making stuff up – again!
Add to the list the sorts of things you believe will be the next big scare campaign. A couple of other that come to mind are:
– limits of growth – we’ll run out of resources
– desertification
– run out of oil – this reminds me that I learnt at school in the 1960’s that we had only 15 years of oil left. We have much more oil left now and almost an infinite supply of nuclear fuel. So that fundamental input to everything humanity has – energy – is not going to run out.
Have a go, lolwot. Put your mind to thinking up what you believe could be the basis for the next scare campaign to implement the socialists objectives of world government and all the attached agendas.
Great book about all the scare stories that we’ve endured in the UK in the last thirty-odd years..BSE, Salmonella, Bird Flu, Listeria, AGW, GM foods etc etc
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scared-Death-Global-Warming-Costing/dp/0826476201
Unsurprisingly they all have similar causes, similar trajectories and a similar cast of characters.
It seems that even from primitive times some people have an innate need to believe in an imminent Doomsday. All that changes as technology advances is the imagined mechanism that will bring it about.
But the underlying urge to do really stupid and pointless things to ward of the supposed consequences is just the same.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Looks like a good book. Scare and rule.
Latimer, Thank you. That looks like a interesting/fun read. I’ll get it.
“Have a go, lolwot. Put your mind to thinking up what you believe could be the basis for the next scare campaign to implement the socialists objectives of world government and all the attached agendas.”
Why would I help you develop your conspiracy theory when I don’t buy it?
Your conspiracy theory is less credible than the moon landing one. At least that one has a practical means and motive. Your conspiracy theory has neither.
Lets look at motive. How does promoting a scare over Bird Flu help socialists to achieve World Government? How does promoting a scare over Y2K help socialists to obtain World Government?
Now lets look at means. How do socialists get the scientists and computer experts to acknowledge a scare about Bird Flu and Y2K respectively if there’s no justification for a scare?
The items on your list are simply there by virtue that they are either scares that fortunately didn’t materialize, or scares that haven’t materialized yet. If in 10 years Bird Flu mutates and causes a million deaths I bet you’ll quietly remove that one off your list. Care to dispute that?
It’s also rather revealing that one item not on your list is the scare over Iraq WMD. I guess even you balked at the idea of fitting that into your “all scares are caused by socialists trying to get World Government” conspiracy.
In the UK at the moment there is a “scare” about Ash Trees being decimated by disease. No doubt this is a plot by socialists to control everyone’s trees and usher in World Government. You might want to add that to your list too.
That is why some people call them ‘think tanks’…
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/11/military-think-tank-recommends-big-benefit-cuts-110112w/
they don’t feel the draft.
Abroad, I subject myself to the whining, complaining, carping malingers and malcontents temporarily resident in hostels. I manage, typically, about a week before escaping. This Discipline helps me stay up-to-date with the Universe of the Unhappy. Bankers, Illuminati, colloidal silver, bad US and other traditional targets remain popular; few refugees from the USA want to talk about weather/climate.
Anybody know of a site tracking new iterations of doom-and-gloom prophecies?
Peter
Catastrophic and far reaching Cyber hacking and another carrington event must be added. However as these are wholly believable and the first highly likely perhaps that makes them ‘unbelievable’
Tonyb
Peter Lang
Add: SARS (I lived in Hong Kong at the time)
Max
Tonyb and Manacker,
Those are good additions.
Tonyb, yes to yours. That’s a real threat. Banking could go down. Electricity could go down. With either, most city dwellers would be dead within a week.
Peter Lang
More past disasters:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4363127205_830cac55e8_b.jpg
Max
Manacker,
Thank you for the link. It gets the message out clearly.
Dr Loo on the value of consensus for propaganda purposes.
Scientific consensus shifts public opinion
People are more likely to believe that humans cause global warming if they are told that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that it does, a new study has found.
snip
The results showed that people who had faith in scientific or medical research in general were more likely to accept expert opinion on climate change.
“So some people just accept science as an endeavour and it doesn’t matter whether is the science is about climate or something else,” said Prof Lewandowsky.
snip
The study showed it was important for scientific communicators and journalists to tell their audience that the vast majority of climate change experts believe that human activity is causing global warming.
“It is reaching even those people who would normally tune out when you tell them the evidence,” Prof Lewandowsky said, adding that journalists should not give denialists and climate change experts equal air time.
“The media is being irresponsible if they are pretending there is a scientific debate in light of this consensus.”
Will J Grant from the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University said it was an interesting and useful study.
“We can say people are convinced by the consensus but the big caveat is sceptics and climate change sceptics in particular are never going to be convinced by this,” he said. “They will say science doesn’t work by vote, it’s about facts.”
“Realistically, though, most of those sceptics are of an older generation. We are never going to convince them but they will be disappearing from the political discourse soon.”
http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TheExchange/2012/10/29/scientific_consensus_shifts_public.html
This might be true if there were a consensus but it is 97% of 50 activist scientists, which is not surprising. Getting the facts right is a necessary condition that this study ignores.
Nevertheless, it indicates the why the warmers focus on “consensus” which they believe is an effective propaganda tool to sway the unwashed masses. They don’t tell their subjects that it is a cherry-picked small group of so called experts, and their subjects generally would not know this.
The propagandists/activists are interested in effective conversion techniques, not facts.
all the best
brent
BBC has been mentioned in two earlier posts on this thread but this is perhaps more interesting: BBC Radio 4, Climategate Revisited. (In general I have had more than enough of Climategate, but this is not as narrow in scope as most discussion.
New Comprehensive Paper
Well I’d say Joe Postma’s new (October 2012) paper warrants a mention. I doubt that you’ll find a more comprehensive coverage of climate issues.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Note my own summary therein on pp 47-48.
Doug Cotton
Thanks for link. Postma has a convincing argument, and I’d like to see someone like Pekka Pirillä attempt to rebut it scientifically.
A very compelling explanation why humans do and must change our environment by definition is in Postma’s section “A Note on the Human Mind” toward the end of his paper.
Max
Max,
I did rebut his previous paper as did several others. On the latest one it was enough for me to notice that some of the same serious errors persist and that he starts his abstract by grandiose statements that have no change of being true. The fundamentals of physics will not be overturned by Postma or any other contributor of that site.
I see nothing grandiose in the abstract, just a straightforward description of the steps in his argument. If he is wrong the question is where does he go wrong? There must be a specific assumption or step that is wrong. This requires careful analysis. One cannot simply say that his conclusion is wrong so he must make some mistake somewhere.
Pekka
Thanks for responding, but what I was looking for was a specific rebuttal of the specific points made by Postma (see comment by David Wojick).
As I understand Postma’s argument it is simply that one does not have to assume that the GHE from trace GHGs is the driving force in order to explain our planet’s climate, but I would like to have heard a counterargument from someone who believes trace GHGs are the “climate control knob” as to exactly where and why Postma’s arguments are invalid.
Max
“However, without greenhouse gases, the albedo would not be 0.3, which thus leads to the 255K value. The albedo would actually be 0.04.”
That is a grandiose statement David. Right there at the start so he lost his audience. Once you get into the meat of the paper there are some things worth considering, but no one is going to get past that obviously inaccurate statement.
I had a fast second look at the paper. I may have overinterpreted some of the sentences of the abstract.
The main impression on the paper is that it contains a lot of text that’s totally irrelevant. Another major issue is that it presents extensively strawman arguments, i.e. it misrepresents main stream science and rebuts its own misrepresentations. Much of that is related to criticism of simplified models based on the fact that they are simplified models. No climate scientist denies that simplified models constructed for educational purposes are not suitable for real analysis. Criticizing them as Postma does is totally unjustified.
One of these issues is the common choice of using averages over time and locality rather than more realistic dynamics. This is of course an extreme simplification but then it’s used only to explain phenomena that can be explained by this extreme simplification. That the explanation is qualitative correct can be verified by more complete analysis that takes into account the existence of the equator as well as poles and the alternation of day and night as well as other similar factors.
On page 42 he finally presents something of substance and starts that by a crucial error. He writes:
That is simply false. There’s absolutely nothing contradictory to laws of thermodynamics in 3 and 4. When this is understood, and when what I wrote above is taken into account, nothing is left of his argument.
On his 11 summary statements.
1 ) Strawman.
2 ) Nothing of substance.
3 ) Strawman.
4 ) Nothing of substance.
5 ) BS
6 ) False
7 ) BS
8 ) False (net energy flow is essentially zero)
9 ) BS
10 ) Absolute BS
11 ) Odd mixture of falsehoods, BS, and empty rhetoric.
Pekka, Yep, he has an ax to grind and never gets to the few valid points he does have, averaging.
If solar energy penetrates to some depth where that absorbed energy is not transferred to space before the next Earth “Day”, that energy will accumulate until equilibrium is restored.
So that is what I meant by “envelopes” or layers. Each layer has to be considered independently. If any layer has a net positive energy uptake, it is just like a battery charging. Since the oceans have less radiant loss below a few meters, sunlight penetrates to at least 100 meters, even a small milliwatt imbalance will eventually be significant.
But he starts at the same point, that vague “surface” instead of defining surfaces.
Max,
Here is the situation concerning alternate climate theories. Some 40+ crackpots hang out here, each with their own variation of how to do climate science correctly.
The argument over which ones are more correct than others is like arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Pointless.
AFAIAC, Myrrhh, Stefan, to the rest are all indistinguishably bad.
This is not even very interesting except to someone like myself, who has some curiosity into Why People Believe Weird Things.
Here is another way to think about the situation. Imagine what happens to the 50% of engineering and science students that flunk out of their elected discipline during their sophomore or junior years of college. Do they sit around and compare notes as to who flunked out the least badly? That’s about the level of discourse we have here — isolating Cotton, Postma and comparing them to the rest of the 40 “theorist” clowns who comment here is like picking winners out of the dregs of the 50% failure pool. Again, pointless.
Sure, some of these can be considered agent provocateurs, who are only doing it to get a rise out of gullible fools (perhaps Myrrrhh?), but enough of the rest do such a good job of showing serious and solemn concern (Joe?) that one can write a book on the depths of delusional thinking.
For those with an interest in this topic, browse through the RationalWiki
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
Quite the contrary Pekka. The IPCC et al attempt to convince the public that there are exceptions to the fundamental laws of physics. In particular, when radiation from a cooler atmosphere strikes a warmer surface then the EM energy in that radiation can never be converted to thermal energy in the target, as the IPCC & KT energy diagrams clearly imply happens. If it did happen then the thermal energy could escape by means other than radiation and there would be a clear cut violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You cannot prove that such occurs. That is where the energy diagrams and the multi-million dollar models break down. Read pp 47 to 49 of Postma’s new paper.
“As Alan Siddon’s has explained [41], it isn’t actually clear, and there seems to be a plain logical contradiction, when we consider the role of non-GHG’s under the atmospheric GHE paradigm. If non-GHG’s such as nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate, then, aren’t they the ones trapping the thermal energy which they sensibly pick up from the sunlightheated surface and from GHG’s? If on the other hand they do radiate, then aren’t they also GHG’s? If a GHG radiates, and the others gasses don’t, then doesn’t that mean that GHG’s cause cooling because they provide a means for the atmosphere to shed thermal energy? If the GHE is caused by trapping heat, then aren’t all non-GHG’s contributing to the effect since they can’t radiatively shed the thermal energy they pick up? Isn’t how we think of the GHE therefore completely backwards?”
This is my take too, on the face of the Earth’s energy budget.
“If non-GHG’s such as nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate, then, aren’t they the ones trapping the thermal energy which they sensibly pick up from the sunlightheated surface and from GHG’s?”
The whole paragraph is basically word mangling. Just because non-GHGs inability to radiate can be loosely described as “trapped heat” doesn’t mean it’s the same meaning as the GHE version of “trapped heat” and so the GHE is caused by non-GHGs.
On the contrary how the heat gets into and out of the nonGHG atmosphere is a major issue. The nonGHG atmosphere is almost the entire atmosphere. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation.
“trapped heat” is a bad term period. It is heat, it is always moving, it is how that motion is limited that determines average temperature or energy content. GHGs regulate the movement of the heat which impacts the heat distribution.
If there were no ghgs, heat would be conducted to the atmosphere, convection would distribute the heat and the atmosphere would expand until some equilibrium was established or the atmosphere was lost to space.
That would take a long time, but what is time to a planet?
Like David said, it’s a major issue.
We should just use the term energy if the term heat is controversial. Heat is a form of energy. Energy is conserved.
It may be a major issue to you. But they are claiming there’s a contradiction. There isn’t. They are wrong. That’s all.
Edim chooses to ignore the fact that there is a wavelength dependence in the radiative properties of the various gases.
He chooses to believe this because he is both a contrarian wishing to spread FUD, and a climate vigilante who will persist on holding these views no matter what the science says.
David,
If you “have yet to see a satisfactory explanation” then you don’t know much physics. Every physics graduate should know that as should also non-graduates who have made some serious effort to learn physics. Without physics knowledge at that level you should not make any comments on climate science.
(I know that not every graduate knows what they should know but that’s another issue.)
tony,
WE are denizens of the Open Society, lol.
As you investigated yer chronicles of weather in human history,
allowing differing perspectives and evidence ter be presented,
so we will, while we live and are able to engage, ) do battle with unsubstantiated con – sen -sus dogma, whatever form it takes !!
Possibly Judith will keep her open forum open, she is a saint,
as as some one here once said. ( U know u are, Judith and
very succesful in tracking storms.)
tony, we may acquire a Latin motto. Could we purloin the motto
of the Royal Society do u think, since they seem ter have no
further use fer it? And Max could write us a stirring song fer
singing as we ride along. What with back ter golden age
living conditions imposed from top down for whatever reason,
we could be on horseback.
* Hope yr new boiler is working.
Beth
Seein’s how yew is kinda like 1 of them smart fi-lo-so-fer tipes, Ah wunder’d whut yew thot of the Postma paper [Doug Cotton, November 4, 2012 at 4:57 am] speshully the fi-lo-so-fi-kul part ’bout th’ “hoomin mind” at the end (Ah liked it).
Max
Beth and Tony B
A “Latin”? motto
Some thoughts:
To the IPCC “consensus” process:
“consensus incusus futilis est” (a forged consensus is meaningless)
To climate model “hindcasting”:
“praedictum ex post facto nequissimum est” (an after-the-fact prediction is worthless)
To the thousands of pages in IPCC reports:
”mendacium verbosum – veritas brevis” (lies are wordy – truth is brief)
Short + sweet:
”cave climatologum!” (beware of climatologist!)
Or there’s the old classic:
“Illegitemi non carborundum” (don’t let the bastards grind you down)
Max
Judith Curry
Expect you’ve already read the Postma paper cited by Doug Cotton above, but this might be a topic for discussion on a separate thread.
If it makes any sense at all (which it appears to do) it provides a less convoluted explanation for “what drives our climate” than the “CO2 control knob” theory.
Any comment?
Worth a separate thread?
Max
Max, I haven’t read the latest Postma paper, although we did a previous Postma thread
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
It seems that there is no end to people’s interest in discussing the greenhouse effect. Does anyone want to do a guest post on this?
Judith
Thanks for response.
Will go back to earlier thread.
If latest Postma paper is simply a rehash and his hypothesis has already been refuted scientifically there, agree there is no point in repeating.
If not, will sound off.
Max
Rather in contrast to your earlier statements that you don’t listen to anyone who questions the GHE, that no one in the room doubts the GHE, that “skeptics” don’t question the GHE, etc., Judith.
The GHE is dominated by H20. CO2 has risen for 15 years and yet global temperatures have not risen even with the new and improved cherry picking HADCRUT4.
So the challenge is to convince people that CO2 causes warming despite the AGW cults obsession with CO2 and its attempts to ignore every other climate factor like sunshine and aerosols et al.
Let’s ask Feynman.
Max, I don’t think it is quite ready for that. At the beginning he states that for 33C the non ghg Earth would have an albedo of 0.04. That will get tossed out early since the “albedo” is assumed to be the total average of the Earth which is going to be much higher than 0.04 with or without clouds.
So he probably needs a new start like, “between latitude 20N and 20S, the incident solar energy is on the order of 1300 Wm-2 peak. While the albedo of that region is indeterminate, if any surface or layer of surfaces in that region absorb energy in excess of what would be released to space from those surfaces during a 24 hour diurnal period, that excess energy would transfer internally and accumulate. As long as there is a net positive energy imbalance in ANY surface, the energy capacity of the internal system would increase until balance was restored.”
That way he would have the battery analogy, would not have to be concerned with initial “global” albedo or “global” energy balance, until the oceans or “soil” reached an equilibrium temperature. Then he would have his 4 to 5 C “surface” without reinventing the wheel.
Kinda funny though that you have to resolve a BS paradox before you can move forward.
You are changing the argument. Proposing a different argument is not a valid criticism. If 0.04 is wrong what is the correct figure and how do we know?
We don’t, that is why “global” abledo is indeterminate. We do know the properties of water and “mushy” snow. If the equatorial surface is liquid water, done deal. If the equatorial water is “mushy snow” it is still doable, but requires a more rigorous proof. But, if there is any net positive energy uptake, the energy will accumulate like a battery on a trickle charge until relative equilibrium is restored.
I am not changing the argument BTW, just pointing out where it will be picked apart.
Peter, yer analytical skills and breadth of economic knowledge
could be of great value to our future battle with con – sen – us
dogma. Join us … It’s going ter be in technicolour.
What is Productiveness?
Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live—that productive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values—that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others—that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human—that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind’s full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay—that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live—that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road—that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up—that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.
Source: FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL
Page 130
Ayn Rand
The programing of society to think exclusively in one direction…which would be it’s downfall to what it does not see coming due to the focus into benign minor data that ONLY covers a specific short period of planetary time.
Thanks for posting this Ayn Rand piece Girma. This part is especially interesting where she wrote:
“…that productive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values…”
_____
Now this is exactly the key value of geoengineering the planet to suit human needs…to consciously remake the Earth in the image of human values…to consciously create the Anthropocene (as opposed to the random way we’ve been doing it for so many decades).
Just to note that the 30 and 90 day SOI numbers are both positive.
Judith,
We have been programed to have an idea, create the product and observe the out come EXCLUSIVELY to the product and records it’s workings.
It does not matter how it actually works or what outside contributers are in play.
‘Observed science’ and the ‘scientific method’ are strictly for what is being observed to the neglect of EVERYTHING else.
And our scientific “LAWS” were generated around this premise.
This also means that a nuclear blast on the planet surface NEVER considered atmospheric pressure and the air movement it generates.
Judith,
I watched a very stupid movie yesterday “2012 Ice Age”…
Some of our society WILL actually believe in that crap of glaciers moving from the Arctic down…
Considering at the 48 degree latitude, water changes directions and flows north. So, how could a glacier possibly do this when it is made of water, ice and snow that MUST accumulate.
This is where we have been conditioned by “our scientists” that our water comes exclusively from glacial melt!
Here is the latest NWS forecast discussion for my area. It is all about uncertainty.
THE SECOND AREA OF SHORTWAVE ENERGY DIVES THROUGH THE GREAT LAKES
TUESDAY INTO WEDNESDAY. THESE TWO SYSTEMS ARE STILL EXPECTED TO
PHASE TOGETHER…CAUSING COASTAL LOW PRESSURE TO DEVELOP OFF THE
MID-ATLANTIC COAST. THE EXACT TRACK OF THE LOW REMAINS UNCERTAIN AT
THIS TIME. LONG RANGE GUIDANCE CONTINUES TO DIVERGE ON SOLUTIONS.
SOME GUIDANCE INDICATES THAT THESE SYSTEMS WILL NOT PHASE TOGETHER
IN TIME FOR LOW PRESSURE TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
MID-ATLANTIC WHILE OTHER GUIDANCE DOES SHOW THESE SYSTEMS PHASING
TOGETHER IN TIME FOR LOW PRESSURE TO TRACK CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE
COAST…HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OUR AREA.
HAVE KEPT THINKING FROM PREVIOUS FORECAST DUE TO THE HIGH DEGREE OF
UNCERTAINTY. DID TWEAK THE TIMING TO FAVOR WEDNESDAY/WEDNESDAY NIGHT
FOR THE BEST CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION. THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR
SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL AND GUSTY WINDS SHOULD THIS STORM TRACK CLOSE
ENOUGH TO THE COAST. THERE WILL BE ENOUGH COLD AIR FOR RAIN TO
POSSIBLY MIX WITH OR EVEN CHANGE TO SNOW AS FAR EAST AS THE CITIES
OF WASHINGTON/BALTIMORE. THE BEST CHANCE FOR ACCUMULATING SNOW WOULD
BE ACROSS THE FAR NORTHERN AND WESTERN SUBURBS AND ALSO THE HIGHER
ELEVATIONS.
HIGH PRESSURE WILL RETURN FOR FRIDAY INTO NEXT WEEKEND.
&&
.AVIATION /08Z SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY/…
NO RESTRICTIONS TO CIGS/VSBYS EXPECTED TODAY. ANY CIGS WILL REMAIN
WELL ABOVE 3 KFT. NW WINDS 5 TO 10 KT WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE
OVERNIGHT HOURS.
HIGH PRESSURE WILL BRING VFR CONDITIONS THROUGH TUESDAY NIGHT.
COASTAL LOW PRESSURE MAY IMPACT THE TERMINALS WITH RAIN AND POSSIBLE
SNOW WEDNESDAY INTO THURSDAY. GUSTY WINDS ARE ALSO POSSIBLE DURING
THIS TIME.
&&
.MARINE…
WILL CANCEL THE SCA EARLY THIS MORNING. WINDS ACROSS THE WATERS HAVE
REMAINED BELOW CRITICAL THRESHOLDS FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF HOURS. NW
WINDS 15 KT OR LESS EXPECTED THROUGH TONIGHT ACROSS THE LOWER TIDAL
“It seems that there is no end to people’s interest in discussing the greenhouse effect. ”
Joshua replies: “Rather in contrast to your earlier statements that you don’t listen to anyone who questions the GHE, that no one in the room doubts the GHE, that “skeptics” don’t question the GHE, etc., Judith.”
This is just so typically nasty in its nit picking unfairness. That Judith no longer listens to people…which is to say she doesn’t take them seriously… who don’t accept there is a GHE from Co2, bears not at all on her quoted assertion. Statement no’s 2 and 3 are simply made up by you, and equally pointless. Nasty, Joshua. Just nasty.
As for statement #2 – I may be wrong in that I don’t remember whether she said that no one in the room doubts the GHE or that no one in the room doubts that the Earth is warming. But in either regard, her statement was inaccurate. Folks who fit both descriptions are clearly in the room. Statement #3 was not “just made up” by me, PG. Watts has stated it explicitly and Judith if not stating it explicitly has largely endorsed that broad characterization of the beliefs of “skeptics.”
My point is that Judith and some other “skeptics” invalidly try to marginalize “sky dragons” or others who doubt the basic science of the GHE using inconsistent criteria. They speak in broad terms about what “skeptics” are, or aren’t, in an inconsistent manner. In fact, the very definition of “skeptic” is incoherent and gets used by various combatants, including Judith, to advance tribalistic goals.
And PG – I’m sorry that you think I’m just being “nasty.” My take on that is that nothing “nasty” is intended – I’m calling Judith out on what appear to me to be problematic aspects of her advocacy. It has nothing to do with nastiness. Judith is the only one, IMO, who can make that determination – but I believe quite strongly that she isn’t bothered in the least by any of my comments. But irrespective of whether it is “nasty” or not, I am quite sure that Judith is very capable of taking care of herself. My supposed “nastiness” is no more or less impactful than the long slew of clearly insulting comments directed my way, or traded back and forth ubiquitously in the blogosphere. IMO, some people take this stuff waaaaaaaaay too seriously. If you take this stuff as “nasty” then I’d suggest you not participate.
Put your hankies away, PG. They really aren’t needed.
I think the statement was that no one who is regarded as serious doubted the essential radiative physics of greenhouse gases. That does not suggest that Joshua is anything but trivial – even as a true believer.
The problem with the skydragons is that they substitute a confused narrative for a nuanced understanding. They are not alone. The problem is that even this relatively simple aspect of climate is abstruse. We soon run into areas where the complexities are not susceptible to simple narratives. Day and night, ocean transport, clouds, latent heat, nonequilibrium systems, nonlinear systems. The bottom line for the skydragons seems to be that the decrease in the rate of cooling – entropy production in the climate system – is exactly balanced by increases in losses. This is merely a restatement of the principle that systems tend to respond to restore energy equilibrium – although in a nonequilibrium system such as climate this is by no means guaranteed in the short term.
“The fundamentals of physics will not be overturned..”
Some of this posted earlier in what’s the best climate question to debate:
My argument here is about the fake fisics in the claim “shortwave in longwave out”, the standard AGW model which says no Thermal Infrared direct from the Sun has any part in heating land and ocean and which has instead substituted shortwave from the Sun claiming shortwave does this heating when it is absorbed, mainly visible as I’ve given examples – I’m asking you, all, to prove this claim.
I am asking you to prove that visible light from the Sun acually, physically, heats land and water at the equator. Show how visible light from the Sun actually physically moves the molecules of land and water into vibration which is kinetic energy which is heat. Unless you can prove this you have no wind and no weather systems in your world.
Unless you can prove this you have no heat at all from the Sun in your world, because you have taken out the direct thermal energy of the Sun in transfer, thermal infrared, and your shortwaves are not thermal energies and can’t heat matter.
..
This AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect is an extraordinary science fraud, of far greater impact on science than the Piltdown Man which only set back one field 40 years, this is the dumbing down of hard won science basics for the general population – it is not taught in traditional physics because it is nonsense.
In traditional applied science we have windows designed to save on air conditioning costs, designed to optimise admission of intense visible light from the Sun and block intense beam thermal infrared from the Sun; in your world you wouldn’t know how to design these because you have no direct beam thermal energy from the Sun, and the only way you could block your fake “visible light creating heat” would be to use a blind..
You’ve been turned into gibbering regurgitators of impossible science fiction fisics in stepping through the looking glass with Al and spend your time thinking up more impossible things before breakfast for fantasy horror stories to frighten children.
Earlier today I was thinking about the scale of this hoax, it’s as if a whole generation was educated into believing the Earth flat or the movement of the planets around us geocentric.
What great science minds have brought into our lives in the last few centuries has been thoroughly trashed by you and made unavailable to the general population.
The bottom line is this, seriously think about my science challenge if you expect to be taken seriously as scientists, because:
Unless you can prove that visible light from the Sun actually physically heats land and water at the equator intensely which is what it takes to give us our great equator to poles winds and dramatic weather systems – you have no heat at all from the Sun in your world,
because, you have taken out the direct beam thermal energy of the Sun in transfer, thermal infrared, and your shortwaves are not thermal energies and can’t heat matter.
No. Climate never has varied as a result of carbon dioxide emissions, and never will. Valid physics, when correctly understood, demonstrates why, as in the various papers in the Publications menu at PSI where over 120 members would support what I am saying.,
Doug Cotton,
There is not a single paper that is correct enough to prove your claim. Show me one!
My own and that of Joseph Postma, October 2012 for starters. It is you who have not provided a single word or link to prove your statement. I listen to facts and science – have in fact studied physics for over 50 years. What about you? Many think they know physics, but their understanding is way off, especially when it comes to subjects like radiated heat transfer, the topic of my peer-reviewed publication on the PSI site. Maybe you should look up the credentials of some of the 120 members in this ever growing organisation comprising scientists who are very determined to exposed the hoax that carbon dioxide causes any warming at all. It can’t, and you can’t prove it does.
Your own book, for example, hinges around this statement …
“If for one reason or another the temperature of the outer atmosphere reduces, the heat radiated to outer space reduces as well and the surface of the earth accumulates the difference. The heat difference raises surface temperature and sea level.”
The above is one of the most simplistic arguments I have ever read in many thousands of hours of studying climate writings. You have omitted just so many factors in the complex nature of atmospheric physics that I wonder why anyone but those completely uneducated in physics would read further. Not even the IPCC would endorse such a statement these days. Long ago they realised there was no “trapping” of energy in the atmosphere, so they invented a concept of backradiation supposedly transferring energy back to the surface. That’s the issue which Prof Claes Johnson, Joe Postma, myself and many others at PSI are addressing. Your book doesn’t even get off Square One. You don’t even use the word “heat” correctly.
Energy is radiated at all levels in the atmosphere, and directly from the surface, some through the atmospheric window to space. However, of all the energy leaving the surface, less than 15% does so by radiation. Water vapour can slow this small portion of radiative cooling. Carbon dioxide can too, but by less than 1% the extent of water vapour. But all the other processes of non-radiative cooling will then accelerate and compensate, leaving no net effect. You can’t prove me wrong on any of this using correct physics.
Correction: However, of all the energy leaving the surface, less than 15% does so by radiation that is absobed by the atmosphere.
All electro-magnetic radiation (UV, light, IR etc) has the potential to warm a target that is cooler than its source. For example, UV light causes sunburn. If visible light strikes a black object not much is reflected, so where does the energy go? It is converted to thermal energy, so there is a heat transfer. Likewise when sunlight penetrates deep into the dark oceans, what happened to its energy? Once again, it warmed the oceans – all of it playing a part to some extent – the UV, the visible and the IR.
The only energy in any radiation is electro-magnetic energy. It is not thermal energy, let alone “heat” which is the transfer of thermal energy. Thermal energy is converted to EM energy in the source. It is then transported as EM energy with frequencies and intensities determined by its Planck distribution. The peak frequency in that distribution is proportional to the absolute temperature of the source by Wien’s Displacement Law. The radiation is completely “pseudo scattered” when it strikes a warmer target, but, when it strikes a cooler target, some of it will be converted to thermal energy. Thus thermal energy only appears to have been transported, but in reality it just “pops up” in a cooler target.
Doug Cotton,
During the last 12 years of reading about the climate issue I have not seen a single paper that is correct enough to link climate change to other than carbon dioxide. Antarctic Ice core samples show the link between climate change and carbon dioxide clearly. In fact the present climate change can be scaled-down from the last warming cycle. This is an undisputed proof. To see the calculations, just click on my name and go to Appendix A-3 page 78 of the book. You ma also read other mathematical proof if you are interested.
Nabil, You write “To see the calculations,”
I had a look t your work, but could not find the answer the question that I always ask. Have you checked your calcuations against the empirical data, and if so, where are the results recorded?
It seems you didn’t get as far as Appendix 1 in my paper.
Jim,
Refer to Article-2, Conservation of the earth’s exchanged energy. Take a look at the calculated sea level and surface temperature rise in Table 5, page 37, and compare them with the observed by Church and White and NASA GISS, Figures 9 and 10 on pages 46 and 47.
All climate change can be proven to correlate with natural cycles, notably ~1000 year and 60 year being the most predominant. You only have to look at the period since 1998 (when the 60 year cycle started to decline) to realise that temperatures can decline when CO2 levels are rising. There is no valid physics supporting a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide can have any effect. Read my new posts above which you probably hadn’t read when writing yours.
Doug Cotton erroneously said:
“All climate change can be proven to correlate with natural cycles.”
_____
Have you decided to become a fiction writer now?
But, on second thought, the way your statement could be true is if you consider the rise of an intelligent species capable of releasing stored carbon by the burning of fossil fuels to be a “natural cycle”, the your statement is 100% correct.
“Climate never has varied as a result of carbon dioxide emissions, and never will.”
A strong statement, which I think could be true, but I lack enough evidence
to agree with it and I think CO2 may some effects [and cooling could be even be possible].
I think it is without question that CO2 does *not* have strong influence- Hansen’s idea that earth could be Venus-like is simply wrong.
And Hansen and other climate scientists are basing their science on a model which does a number of impossible things.
The model that Earth is warmed on average basis is wrong.
Or as I said:
“In the above figure it is much simpler to observe that this standard model GHE treats the solar insolation as coming in to all sides of the Earth, and it justifies this boundary condition by using what is said to be the “average value” of the solar power.” pg 4
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/copernicus_meets_the_greenhouse_effect-1.pdf
It’s silly to treat the energy from the sun as a “average value” it’s simply not based on reality. The Sun only warms one side of the Earth’s hemisphere and the intensity of sunlight is critical [starting out by dividing by 4, is driving over a cliff].
I agree with:
“All electro-magnetic radiation (UV, light, IR etc) has the potential to warm a target that is cooler than its source. ”
But this only applies what one call a primary source of the electro-magnetic radiation. A cooler object [such as mirror] can obviously reflect electro-magnetic radiation which heat up something hotter than the temperature of the mirror.
And considering that much earth’s climate has to do with the gases of the atmosphere, it’s a common confuse that it’s temperature as gas as being connected to this “rule”. The temperature of the gas has little or nothing to do with it’s radiant properties.
“Or as I said:
“In the above figure it is much simpler…. ”
I meant: Or as is said here:
“In the above figure it is much simpler….
[Though I have said similar stuff before:) ]
Doug Cotton,
“Energy is radiated at all levels in the atmosphere, and directly from the surface, some through the atmospheric window to space.”
This is an incorrect statements and violates the basics and fundamentals of heat transfer. When two masses of the atmosphere are in an intimate contact with each other, they can only exchange heat by conduction and convection, and never by radiations. Only the outer atmosphere at the menopause elevation can radiate heat with the the space. The atmosphere being in an intimate contact with the surface of the earth cannot exchange radiations with the surface. The surface can exchange radiation with clouds, which are droplets of water, and particles entrained in the atmosphere because they are not in an intimate contact with the surface.
Have you never even heard of the Stefan-Boltman Law and blackbody radiation? If you were right, where does all the backradiation that strikes the surface come from – the upper atmosphere, whatever you mean exactly by that?
Anyway, carbon dioxide is rather good at radiating, so it helps to cool the atmosphere, all the thermal energy it collects by sensible heat transfer from oxygen and nitrogen. It also traps some incoming Solar radiation in the 2 micron range (which has five times the energy per photon of that 10 micron radiation from the surface) and it backradiates some of this 2 micron radiation back to space, thus preventing it warming the Earth.
What if there were no water vapour or anything like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? No clouds to shade us? How hot would it get? Actually, those who really understand physics will know that it would be neither warmer nor cooler, for all the incident Solar radiation will, on average, be radiated back to space no matter what. It is only when natural cycles (probably governed by planetary orbits) influence the amount of Solar radiation reaching the surface (by processes perhaps not fully understood) – only then, and only for that reason, do we see climate change.
Doug Cotton,
“If you were right, where does all the backradiation that strikes the surface come from”
There are no back radiations. Have they existed, there would be no infrared astronomy. This astronomy is based on detecting minute infrared radiations from the universe and they would be undetectable in the presence of 333 w/m2 of backradiations. Either backradiaitons are false or infrared astronomy is falls.
You see you are now contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say the greenhouse gas effect does not exist, and now you are supporting the idea of back radiations, which is the greenhouse gas effect itself. You should make up your mind.
“Anyway, carbon dioxide is rather good at radiating, so it helps to cool the atmosphere, all the thermal energy it collects by sensible heat transfer from oxygen and nitrogen.”
This is an incorrect statement and violates the basics of physics and chemistry. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is part of an air mixture and acts as such. When carbon dioxide absorbs radiations, it is the atmosphere as a homogenous mixture that absorbs the radiations. They do not behave as a heterogeneous and independent entities.
“What if there were no water vapour or anything like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? No clouds to shade us? How hot would it get? Actually, those who really understand physics will know that it would be neither warmer nor cooler, for all the incident Solar radiation will, on average, be radiated back to space no matter what.”
Hmm.
Without any water vapor. It seems the tropics would be hotter.
But problem is, earth is water planet. Let’s just make it easier and give the Moon a 24 hour day and atmosphere, but with no dust in atmosphere.
So same atmosphere as Earth [same effect]- minus the H20 and CO2. Which means one doesn’t get as much solar energy as the Moon gets at it’s surface, but more than what earth gets with a clear sky.
Roughly, around +1100 watts instead of 1000 watts noon.
So daytime skin temperature may reach around 90 C. And night time
temperature largely depends the amount of heat adsorbed [or the heat capacity of the surface, though we have already added an atmosphere which has a heat capacity].
The Moon surface has very low heat capacity- it’s mostly regolith in a vacuum. But the addition of atmosphere changes the thermal properties of the regolith- it be more like earth sand in a desert, which might in range of doubling it’s heat capacity. But even if lunar regolith has more than doubled it’s heat capacity, the atmosphere would be the dominate heat capacity. So we will focus on the atmosphere as primary heat capacity.
So I will think of it as dividing into cells and inhibit air flow on planetary scale- greenhouses without a ceiling [because the walls are higher than the atmosphere]. So I have inhibited wind [which probably decreasing average global temperature]. So just going to look at one 100 by 100 km cell at the moon’s equator. And will look at 1 meter square of the this 100 by 100 km “greenhouse”. It has about 10 cubic meters liquid air worth of air. Now, if actually started with liquid air- filled entire 100 by 100 Km with it, some of it would immediately turn into gas, and continue to do so until there was some atmospheric pressure. Or the liquid air under 14.7 psi pressure would be warmer than air after it’s dumped into this place, but the sunlight would rapidly warm it up. But before sunlight warmed it, it would be very cold air and with some liquid air in pools.
Skipping the boring math. One is going to get air like a desert on Earth- a very dark sandy desert on Earth. And have more solar energy hitting it. Surface skin 90 C and air maybe 40 C. And why would drop more than 50 C at nite? leaving 40 C to -10 C. So 30 C average temperature.
So yeah, similar. But without math, it could be 50 and 0 C at nite.
Hard to see how it could be lower than 30 and -10 C at nite.
“Surface skin 90 C and air maybe 40 C. And why would drop more than 50 C at nite? leaving 40 C to -10 C. So 30 C average temperature.
So yeah, similar. But without math, it could be 50 and 0 C at nite.
Hard to see how it could be lower than 30 and -10 C at nite.”
That’s obviously wrong. 40 C = 313 K And -10 C is 263, so 288 K is about 14 C.
So it’s actually significantly cooler than earth tropics- high end about same, and low end fairly cold- 4 C to 24 C.
I think water as net warming. Or fill cell with water and it will under 30 C average- warming to 30 C or more and not cooling by more than 1 degree of two at surface at nite.
More nonsense from Doug Cotton:
“What if there were no water vapour or anything like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? No clouds to shade us? How hot would it get? Actually, those who really understand physics will know that it would be neither warmer nor cooler…”
_____
Don’t think it would be warmer AND cooler without our wonderful greenhouse atmosphere and amazing solar-energy storage mechanism called the ocean? Do go stand on the moon’s equator in full sunlight, or try standing on the same spot in full darkness. You come to appreciate the special warming effect that both the atmosphere and oceans have on our planet. Without the greenhouse gases, the top several tens of meters of the ocean would freeze solid and there would be no heat leaving the ocean to the atmosphere. We came close to this condition a few times in Earth’s past when the planet faced being a snowball world. As the atmosphere cooled, much of the condensing greenhouse gas- water vapor was quickly squeezed out of the atmosphere, and much of the planet was very much like the middle of Antarctica. This came at a time when CO2 and methane were also at very low levels. That’s the wonderful thing about CO2 being a non-condensing greenhouse gas– unlike water vapor which quickly condenses when temperatures cool in the atmosphere– CO2 remains constant.
But in short, your notion that it would be neither warmer nor cooler is so absurdly wrong that I’m begging you to please stay away from our young people with your nonsensical notions– though perhaps Heartland might like to hire you to teach a few courses…
“The radiation is completely “pseudo scattered” when it strikes a warmer target, but, when it strikes a cooler target, some of it will be converted to thermal energy.”
Analogy could photons coming to elevator. The door opens and the elevator is full. Some think, that people in the elevator are somehow required to leave the elevator- that there is rule that people in the elevator must leave the elevator. But all or none the people in the elevator have any requirement to leave so others can enter elevator.
Nor is there a rule that people in the elevator *have to* make it easier for others to enter the elevator. Though though on other side of this people can cram into the elevator- but despite whatever need, there is a limit to how many people can actually fit in the elevator.
You and other readers should read what Prof Claes Johnson has written. My paper and much of Joe Postma’s paper build on that, and we are in frequent communication with Claes and many of the ever growing number of scientists swelling the ranks of Principia Scientific International. If you wish to argue with any of our 120 members, just contact the organisation, submit a paper for review if you wish, or join in the email discussion.
Been there, done that, we had about a half dozen threads with almost 10,000 comments, harshly critical of Johnson and Postma’s papers (we had Ph.D. molecular physicists etc joining in the discussion). I took the threads down when John O’Sullivan threatened to sue me.
Doug Cotton said:
“If you wish to argue with any of our 120 members…”
And to quote Mr. Twain:
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance”
― Mark Twain
The elevator is capable of holding many more or many less people as required. The limits are zero heat or millions of degrees.
when one talking about heat there are many photons involved- anyone is emitting billions of them. So if one thinks elevator can only hold a dozen people- think of one that holds a trillion people.
So, the idea that earth warmed by an averaged sunlight is wrong.
The idea that Earth vaguely similar to blackbody or greybody is
wrong.
The idea that Earth in terms radiant properties of it’s atmosphere blocks,
or slows, or traps a *significant* or major portion of energy or heat is wrong.
The suggestion that Earth could be made hotter than Sun under some fantasy conditions is wrong and serves Zero value as a thought experiment.
The suggestion that the Sun could heat any object at Earth distance to same temperature of Sun’s surface temperature is wrong, as distance reduces the max possible temperature achievable- due to the diffused nature of the sunlight at a distance. Though if one were to focus the sun’s diffused energy at Earth distance, achieving the temperature of the sun is possible. What the max temperature achievable by concentrating sunlight, is not something I have clear idea about.
Instead of some fantasy that if one drops the “laws of the universe” that Earth could become hotter than the Sun, a useful concept is the idea that at Earth distance, and sun has maximum temperature which is available from the diffused sun’s energy at this distance- and the sun lit lunar surface approaches this max temperature.
A photon is literally a ‘packet of energy’ – the energy is dependent on the frequency.
E = hf – the original quantum idea.
All bodies above absolute zero emit radiation. The net transfer of energy between bodies – is dependent on the net transfer of energy. A conceptual accounting – the number and frequency of photons moving in one direction less the number and frequency moving in the other. The oceans lose heat to the atmosphere as a net loss of IR frequency photons. With a warmer atmosphere the net loss from the oceans in the IR decreases. All things being equal the oceans warm but the warming continues only until conditional equilibrium is restored – i.e. losses again equal gains at the higher temperature.
Within the Earth system there are complex pathways through which energy moves. Quantification of all these pathways is far from feasible at this stage – but one of the ways is as radiative flux in the infrared. CO2 interacts with photons in the 15 micron band. Interactions cause both changes in the motion in the molecules as well as changes in electron orbits – and the atmosphere as a whole moves to a higher energy state where there is a greater concentration of CO2. The atmosphere warms – it is just a simple accounting. This is the first step from which other changes must emerge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YYBCNQnYNM
In CO2 about 5% – although I have not counted them myself – of the interactions involve changes in electron orbits.
Like many others, you only think in terms of radiation and ignore sensible heat transfer processes. You write “The oceans lose heat to the atmosphere as a net loss of IR frequency photons” when, for a start, they gain heat by absorbing Solar radiation of all frequencies (including UV and visible light) and less than 15% of this energy is then transferred back to the atmosphere by way of radiation. They do not gain any energy from radiation from cooler parts of the atmosphere.
No Doug I do not. In no sense did I say that energy loss by radiation in the IR was the only mode in which the oceans lose energy. Although in each case energy is lost from the oceans to the atmosphere – or directly to space in the case of some IR radiant flux.
And it is of course a truism that the oceans must gain heat before it loses it to the atmophere.
It is of course also a truism that more CO2 in the atmosphere will interact with more photons and therefore move to a higher energy state. The atmosphere will surely be warmer. The net loss in the IR from the oceans will decrease and the oceans warm – before there can be changes in evaporation and convection. Will a conditional equilibrium to the higher energy state be reached? Surely as day follows night.
But you somehow reach a conculsion that more interactions with IR photons in the atmosphere as a result of more CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause the atmosphere to move to a higher energy state. This is the true starting point and not your obsession with ‘back radiation’. The rest – including the simple conceptual energy accounting of net radiative flux – follows as day follows night.
You still show no indication of having understood my point that the non-radiative rate of cooling increases to compensate for any slowing of radiative cooling. And the latter is less than 15% of all energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. Now please read the italic paragraphs I wrote in this paper, starting at the foot of page 47.
Even if the atmosphere got warmer, there is nearly always a step down in temperature from the surface to the adjoining air – usually about 1 to 3 degrees in calm conditions. Thus there is no way that energy in the atmosphere can get back to the surface. If water falls over a small waterfall and runs down a creek into a valley, the top of the waterfall won’t rise just because there’s a small dam down in the valley.
If you look at NASA satellite data you will see that the upper atmosphere is not in fact getting any warmer. Nor has the surface been getting any warmer since 1998, despite ever increasing levels of carbon dioxide. That is because the 60 year natural cycle caused alarm for 30 years when it was rising prior to 1998, but it is now falling for 30 years. However, the ~1,000 year cycle is still rising, but, as I show in the Appendix of my March 2012 paper, the rate of increase is declining, and this also indicates a long term maximum in the next 100 years or 200 at the most before about 500 years of cooling. Mankind has no control over any of this natural climate change.
This will give others (if not yourself) an idea of how simplistic is the thinking of the IPCC et al.
If you say more carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere somehow (even though that can’t warm the surface) then you might as well say more water vapor would do the same. But you would be overlooking the fact that more water vapor may cause more clouds to form and thus more shade cooling the surface.
Likewise, more carbon dioxide might send more of the Solar radiation in the 2 micron band back to space, and also radiate away more of the thermal energy acquired by molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. These air molecules are certainly warmed by collisions with the surface, and they will certainly warm some carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere by such diffusion, and these carbon dioxide molecules will then radiate the energy away, indirectly cooling the oxygen and nitrogen.
The whole of atmospheric physics is, as you can surely see, far, far more complex than the simple flat Earth models that are propagated. You need to look at the physics involved, wherein you will realise that carbon dioxide can have absolutely no net effect.
Doug Cotton erroneously said:
” Thus there is no way that energy in the atmosphere can get back to the surface.”
_____
Then tell me Doug, when we measure downwelling LW radiation at night, both with clouds and without, and we pick up energy coming from directly overhead using one of these:
http://www.arm.gov/instruments/skyrad
What exactly are we measuring? We can measure energy coming from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, somehow, against what you are stating, energy in the atmosphere is making it back to the ground.
Again, please keep your “science” away from our young people.
“But you somehow reach a conclusion that more interactions with IR photons in the atmosphere as a result of more CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause the atmosphere to move to a higher energy state. ”
What do you mean by moving into higher energy state?
Atmosphere temperature is all about about the movement of gas molecules. It is not about what molecules are radiating or absorbing.
The gas of the atmosphere is primarily warmed by surface temperature and primarily cooled by surface temperatures.
Whatever the temperature of say, oh say the stratosphere may have some effect but is not a primary effect, whereas surface temperatures are controlling air temperature. Said differently, if there is increase the surface temperature by 10 C [in terms average or most of the time temperature] this has huge effect, 10 C increase in stratosphere temperature, may fascinating [in terms of why the hell is it doing that], but would not have significant effect upon creatures crawling along the surface.
CO2 molecules are same temperature as all other gas molecules in the atmosphere, the only thing about a CO2 molecule is it absorbs and emits part of the spectrum of IR spectrum. The H2O molecule in atmosphere is far more abundant and absorbs and broader spectrum of IR and overlaps the spectrum of CO2.
In terms of air temperature the H2O droplets in clouds have far more noticeable affects upon air temperature. Though the humidity has huge effect upon humans in terms of how warm or cold they feel.
So such things as humidity or cloud cover have a real and very noticeable effect upon air conditions effecting humans.
‘If water falls over a small waterfall and runs down a creek into a valley, the top of the waterfall won’t rise just because there’s a small dam down in the valley.’
I generally have problems with analogies. At the top of the waterfall the water has more potential and less kinetic energy – and vice versa. So what? But even relatively cold air will emit photons in all directions some of them hitting the surface and helping to establish the net IR flux – and therefore influence warming or cooling of the surface. All the rest – while the quite obvious physical processes mentioned are merely a distraction from the simple idea of the atmosphere warming, the losses in the IR from the surface diminishing and the surface warming to a point where a conditional equilibrium is re-established. You are saying that the Earth regains a conditional (conditional on the unlikely event of all other things being equal) equilibrium? So what – that is the first and simplest idea of physics.
There are all sorts of complex energy pathways in the non-equilibrium system Earth system. But this process is more CO2 – warmer atmosphere – a decrease in cooling of the surface to the atmosphere. simple aye? There are obviously responses to to a warmer atmosphere and climate instability may be one of them. But as I indicated first of all we run into problems of complexity – in the dictionary sense – and the lack of comprehensive data. Without data – it is all just narrative beyond the simple radiative physics. I refuse to do induction without empirically derived data.
The cycles are not cycles. Even if the periodicities are influenced by the rotation of the barycentre of the solar system around the centre of the Sun – as I suspect it might be – then it is still a multi-body problem and still chaotic to the core. The chaotic controls with abrupt shifts in intensity and polarity then feed into the complex dynamical Earth climate system – with it’s own multiple positive and negative, nonlinear feedbacks.
Mind you I expect the world to be relatively cooler for a decade or three more (because we are in cool mode) – but climate shifts beyond that are intrinsically impossible to forecast. If you are expecting cycles – you will be sorely disapointed.
“Then tell me Doug, when we measure downwelling LW radiation at night, both with clouds and without, and we pick up energy coming from directly overhead using one of these:
http://www.arm.gov/instruments/skyrad
What exactly are we measuring? We can measure energy coming from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, somehow, against what you are stating, energy in the atmosphere is making it back to the ground. ”
Probably similar to infrared thermometer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_thermometer
And it changes the temperature into watts per square meter.
But if I am in a room which is 10 meter cube so 6 times 100 or 600 Sq meter. And using such instrument it tells you the wall’s temperature and it says equal to 300 watts per square. Do one assume anything in the room is receiving 600 times 300 watts of energy?
Chief said:
“If you are expecting cycles – you will be sorely disappointed.”
______
The climate system does exhibit some cyclical behavior, though it is not always predictable. These cycles are both very long-term (Milankovitch) and short-term (ENSO). There can also be other external forcing on the climate that might cause shorter or longer-term variations such as from a large volcanic eruption or a change in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Gatesy,
There is a difference between cycles and chaotic bifurcation.
Even orbital eccentricity is by no strictly cyclic and ENSO certainly isn’t.
Cheers
November surprise: EPA planning major post-election anti-coal regulation
Is There Still a Case for Coal? Manhattan Institute
I have explained all this in greater detail in the quoted paragraphs starting toward the end of p.47 of this paper</a?.
Max
Yr Latin mottos are +1. Which one shall we choose?
As non con-sensus-ites, take a vote and accept the one
least favoured, may-be?
Re Postma , I’m jest a minnow, Max, and won’t comment
except on the ” hooman mind” ( now that we’ve settled the
questions of the”republican mind” and “apocalyptic mind.”
Seems, as Postma says, to try to be less than we are and
more confirming to non-human animal species is to try to
deny our human attributes for critical thinking, tool making
and our other creative capacities, that is, seek to be
non-human, which is unnatural, an -act- against- nature.
Another human creation, Greek tragedy, shows the kinds of
consequences we suffer when we do that, and often when
we don’t as well! masks… :-) :-(
If Obama wins, the EPA may be used to destroy our way of life.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/04/epas-insanely-ambitious-agenda-if-obama-is-reelected/2/
R. Gates and Chief Hydrologist display no evidence of understanding either my paper, Johnson’s paper or Postma’s paper, nor my summary in Joe’s paper starting p.47. Regarding 1000 year and 60 year cycles, refer to the linked documents in the Appendix of my paper.
If you wisjh to write or ask more questions of me, please refer to the content thereof.
And, yes, R. Gates, there is indeed a lot of radiation from the atmosphere to the surface. Did I ever say the wasn’t? I just don’t agree with the naive deductions that are made by climatologists as to what happens to that radiation. Prof Nasif Nahle measured it and published a paper on itl. You can read all our papers in the Publications Menu at PSI and you are welcome to write to any of 120 or more members in this rapidly growing organisation dedicated to exposing the hoax that carbon dioxide affects climate.
.
I did follow the link to: http://principia-scientific.org/ and did find this text:
Water in all of its forms is the main agent through which those forces operate. It provides vapor in the atmosphere, heat transport by evaporation and condensation, and the enormous, circulating mass of the ocean whose heat capacity dominates. And finally it provides the cloud, snow, and ice cover that control the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free space.
This is correct. There is enough water, in all its forms, to control the temperature of earth. There is a trace of CO2 and it does likely have a trace effect.
Doug Cotton | November 4, 2012 at 6:36 pm | said:
“Thus there is no way that energy in the atmosphere can get back to the surface.”
___
Yes, you seem to have said it Doug. Do you even remember what you say?
CH said: “But this process is more CO2 – warmer atmosphere – a decrease in cooling of the surface to the atmosphere. simple aye?”
Not at all. It doesn’t happen. Only radiative cooling is affected. The dominant non-radiative cooling cannot be affected – by the laws of pphysics. It will accelerate and compensate – ie wipe out any effect on overall cooling.
How many times do I have to say it?
‘There are all sorts of complex energy pathways in the non-equilibrium system Earth system. But this process is more CO2 – warmer atmosphere – a decrease in cooling of the surface to the atmosphere. simple aye? There are obviously responses to to a warmer atmosphere and climate instability may be one of them. But as I indicated first of all we run into problems of complexity – in the dictionary sense – and the lack of comprehensive data. Without data – it is all just narrative beyond the simple radiative physics. I refuse to do induction without empirically derived data.’
That’s the trouble – you are all talk Doug. The atmosphere influences the surface through downward radiation. From then on all we have to show for it is your pseudo-intellectualism. When all you really have to say is that the surface warms and then increased convection and evaporation kick in. So what? The atmospheric warming is caused by CO2 (and of course water vapour) interactions with photons of specific frequencies. The warmer atmosphere causes a warmer surface with a change in the net IR up. The atmosphere and the oceans reach a new and higher energy state with a re-established equilibrium.How many times do I have to say it? Your ‘new physics’ is is a non-sequitor. It is not logical. It is not neccessary. It is a weird and wacky delusion.
More CO2 doesn’t result in a warmer atmosphere? Yeah right.
…to include the whole quote…
The increase of CO2, a trace gas, does change the energy balance of earth, a trace amount, lost in the noise.
“That’s the trouble – you are all talk Doug. The atmosphere influences the surface through downward radiation. From then on all we have to show for it is your pseudo-intellectualism. When all you really have to say is that the surface warms and then increased convection and evaporation kick in.”
Chief, you seems to be somewhat critical Doug.
And it seems you are of opinion that CO2 does do a bit of warming.
But I am wondering if you explain or provide what seems the best explanation given, for dividing the solar flux by 4- so in sense pretending the sunlight is shining all over the world, instead of it shining one just one hemisphere at any given point in time?
I suspect there must some rational given which could be reasonable.
Chief is not the only one critical of Doug, since he, Postma and his crew use “magic” to dispute the divided by 4 average.
The spherical average, (albedo adjusted solar)/4 is based on equilibrium, Ein=Eout. You can’t disputed that at some point in time Ein=Eout=(solar adjusted)/4 What can be disputed is the time required to establish equilibrium and the time constants for each layer and cross sectional area of the Earth.
GHG theory does not allow for internal energy transfer of time periods longer than 60 years for example. If that is the case, the Ein could be greater than Eout for 30 years then Eout could be greater than Ein for 30 years but over the entire 60 year period, the total Ein would have to equal the total Eout. If Earth can charge,( Ein>Eout) for 1000 years, then Tau or the minimum time constant would be 1000 years for determining (adjusted solar)/4.
Doug does not even come close to conserving energy which would be rule number one.
“Chief is not the only one critical of Doug, since he, Postma and his crew use “magic” to dispute the divided by 4 average. ”
This magic seems fairly straight forward.
“The spherical average, (albedo adjusted solar)/4 is based on equilibrium, Ein=Eout. You can’t disputed that at some point in time Ein=Eout=(solar adjusted)/4 ”
Why not?
200 watts plus 200 watts plus 200 watts plus 200 watts does not equal 800 watts.
A 200 watt Sun does not heat water ice to become a liquid, but 800 watt sun does.
Or 8 hours of 200 watt sun doesn’t melt Ice, but 2 hours of 800 watt sun does.
“Why not?” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
By defining a “surface” there is an isolated system. 200W plus 200W plus 200W plus 200W would equal 800W that passed through the isolated system. What is retained by the system never has to equal 800W, but the energy that passed through going in would have to eventually equal the energy that comes out.
“Why not?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
From it:
“The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time.”
From link to isolated system:
“In the natural sciences an isolated system is a physical system without any external exchange – neither matter nor energy can enter or exit, but can only move around inside. Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature, other than possibly the universe itself, and they are thus hypothetical concepts only.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
So earth is no more a “isolated system” than Earth is a blackbody- Earth is neither.
Another curious reference:
“Entropy is a thermodynamic property that is the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Perhaps the most familiar manifestation of entropy is that, following the laws of thermodynamics, entropy of a closed system always increases and in heat transfer situations, heat energy is transferred from higher temperature components to lower temperature components. In thermally isolated systems, entropy runs in one direction only (it is not a reversible process).”
So by dividing 800 watt by 4, you creating entropy in your mind.
And the reality does not care if you create entropy in your mind.
By defining an isolated system without defining the time frame of conservation of energy or “equilibrium” you get into the “what is the definition of entropy of the system.” Doug is not dealing with the possible shortcomings of the definition, he is going off on a tangent.
For the defined system, TSI(surface)/4 is Ein which has to equal Eout. So what you would do is subdivide the “system” to show that during the assumed time frame, that there is either entropy or work involved that is not included in the “defined” system and time frame. If Doug blew off the “back radiation” red herring, he could attempt to show that the oceans dissipate energy that is significant over x number of decades. That is a property a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system where Ein=Eout +/- S or W depending on how “he” defined his “system”. That doesn’t change the fact that Ein will eventually equal Eout, but it does indicate what the time frame for Ein=Eout actually would be.
It is really more of an accounting problem than a physics problem. A warmist says that the imbalance in the energy books is 1 Wm-2. The coolists says, “No, 0.8Wm-2 of that assumed imbalance is recovery from a period where there was a net loss of 1 Wm-2 for x number of years, due to this or that event.” then shows how that is the more likely case. Then when you find the best time period, Ein=Eout, entropy or work is accounted for, everything is hunky dory.
Another way is to say, “No the boundary of your system includes stored energy that you have not considered.” The would be like the climate guy blew the ice mass balance, underestimated “normal” ocean heat capacity or did not consider internal energy distribution impacts on atmospheric temperatures.
You can’t just say back radiation is bull$hit the average is this, Pttt! you guys are idiots.
I should add, whether they are idiots or not, despite how much you really want to :)
The sheer contradiction of someone like Little Chiefie is astonishing. Here, he rather correctly states:
Yet, a few hours earlier, with unwavering confidence, he says:
This is nothing more than second-rate contrarianism. Unable to do any kind of math or logical reasoning, but for the fact that he likes to argue, he simply spews out whatever words and phrases are stored in his cranium. That is the naive interpretation. The other interpretation is that he knows exactly what he is saying and the weak contrarianism is there to feed the FUD. The casual reader passing through thinks this is actual debate, instead of bull-rushed word salad intended to muddy the waters.
The only way for Chiefie to reconcile his two views is to state that the warming due to CO2 is on a long-term rising trend, superimposed with the natural variability that he relentlessly advocates. It’s a mix, but that is exactly what he studiously avoids admitting to.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-23.html
The naive and the openly agressive space cadets substitute free interpretation for understanding the nuances. Webnutcolonscope is especially intellectually limited – perhaps challenged is a better word.
The quantum for ERBS shows 0.7 W/m2 cooling in the IR, 2.1 W/m2 warming in the SW.
This is the paper the numbers come from – http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
Again – it may have warmed between 1976 and 1998 – but the attribution of most of it to CO2 seems unlikely. But because you are a space cadet – I suppose the evidence will continue to go in one ear and put the other.
This is unwavering confidence? Seems unlikely. The guy is a moron.
How did all those Science Academies that endorsed the findings of the IPCC AR4, miss that 2035 date for two full years, without making it public, was it collusion or incompetence?
I was told on a popular blog, that: ‘’during the northern summer; the planet is WARMER BY 3,5C than during the southern summer’’ WOW, what a science!…
I believe that: their data shows even bigger difference; but they are not heroic enough, to admit -> ‘smoothening follows’’
The truth: not enough EXTRA WARMTH is in the atmosphere during the northern summer than during southern, to boil one chicken egg!!! BUT, it shows that ‘’their modeling’’ is complete crap! It shows warmer, for two unscientific reasons::
#1: because 75% of the monitoring places are on the N/H, 25% only on the southern. Example: if 75 workers get pay increase by 10% for 6 months and 25 workers get pay decrease by 10% === overall together they will be getting more money; than for the next 6months – when 75 workers get salary decreased by 10% and the other 25 workers get increased their salary by that much. What a con science is used; by not having monitoring places spaced equally!!!… Reason everybody is scared and are trying to silence my proofs / science!!!
Reason #2: on the S/H is much more water, than on the northern hemisphere. Where is ‘’more water’’ DAYS ARE COOLER / NIGHTS WARMER!!! It proves that: monitoring only for the ‘’HOTTEST MINUTE’’ in 24h, and ignoring the other 1439 minutes – is the mother of all con and misleading science!!! BY BOTH CAMPS!!! Warmth in every minute in 24h has SAME value; but doesn’t go up / down as the hottest minute!!! You Fellas, you have being duped and brainwashed by those IPCC guys and by their trumpets!!!
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
The BBC is running a series of programmes about the Anthropocene. Being of a sceptical nature I had a little browse to find out about the names and came across Alex Wolfe (Google the wolfe lab). His signal for the Anthropocene was fixed nitrogen, the result of the Haber process, with so much nitrogen being turned into fertiliser that the results will show up in the rocks for millennia.
Does anyone know what is the result of nitrogen fertilisers on soil ecology, specifically on the bacterial/fungal species and the types of CO2 fixation they use? Does a fertilised soil fix C in a C3, C4 or C4 like manner and does the balance between the components alter from the natural state?
If it does then the C pulldown may be depleted in different isotopes under the different regimes. Artificial fertilisers may show up in the atmosphere as a C isotope signal. Has this been looked at?
JF
MAURICE NEWMAN: LOSING THEIR RELIGION AS EVIDENCE COOLS OFF
Date: 05/11/12Maurice Newman, The Australian
Regrettably for the global warming religion, its predictions have started to appear shaky, and the converts, many of whom have lost their jobs and much of their wealth, are losing faith. Worse, heretic scientists have been giving the lie to many of the prophecies described in the IPCC bible. They could not be silenced.
Once upon a time when Christendom was at its peak, missionaries would be dispatched to the four corners of the globe in search of converts. They believed their mission would expand the influence of Rome and save heathens from eternal damnation.
It was a compelling message. Convert and enjoy everlasting life in the hereafter. The advantage the missionaries had was that the religion they taught had no hypotheses that could be tested. Death – “the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns” – meant that the afterlife could be neither proved nor disproved. Faith was the only thing needed.
Climate science is a bit like that – push the rewards and the catastrophes far enough into the future, and have faith that the prophecies will come true. However, unlike heaven, which we may reach at any time, climate prophecies need to be distant enough to make them hard to challenge yet sufficiently close to generate urgent action.
So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000, he could not immediately be proven wrong. After all, this was a cooling period.
Unfortunately for him, England is still inhabited and his predictions are still remembered. Ehrlich is now a warmist. Like a good stock analyst, when the company doesn’t perform as you thought, better to change the recommendation from a sell to a buy, than admit you were wrong.
When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists. Selfish humans in rich, polluting countries were blamed for the warming and had to pay for past trespasses by providing material compensation to poor nations as penance. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions became the new holy grail. With a warm wind at their backs, these fundamentalists collected hundreds of billions of dollars from naive governments that adopted their faith on behalf of billions of people. No crusader was ever so effective.
The message was stark. If the non-believers didn’t convert immediately, our children and grandchildren would face a hell on earth. The priesthood excommunicated and humiliated sceptics and deniers. Alternative views were not tolerated and, where possible, were suppressed. Did someone mention the dark ages?
Because the new arrangements would distort capital allocations, disciples wrote economic texts showing how inefficient, productivity-sapping and costly green industries would actually boost economic activity and employment.
Unfortunately, the cost of saving the planet would fall disproportionately on the poor. This wealth transfer to the rich was unavoidable and, if the poor or the infirm died of cold or heat because they could not afford airconditioning, they would simply be martyrs to the cause. In any case, who could they appeal to? All political parties had signed up to the new religion.
But, self-deluded by the warming period and their confirmatory bias, the priesthood was overtaken by hubris and made increasingly extravagant claims. We were advised that Armageddon was now even closer at hand.
Regrettably for the global warming religion, its predictions have started to appear shaky, and the converts, many of whom have lost their jobs and much of their wealth, are losing faith. Worse, heretic scientists have been giving the lie to many of the prophecies described in the IPCC bible. They could not be silenced.
Of course, the IPCC texts can be interpreted in different ways and sceptics have obviously chosen the wrong interpretation.
When atmospheric temperatures on which we had relied failed to comply with the prophecies, the waverers were instructed to look at ocean temperatures and rising sea levels.
So far, so good. However, the British arm of the climate establishment silently released an encyclical that revealed no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures from the beginning of 1997 until August this year.
This communique was unearthed by the heretic newspaper, the Daily Mail, which pointed out that this period was of about the same duration as when temperatures rose between 1980 to 1996.
Of course, the religious high priests were quick to play down the significance of this pause. Phil Jones of the Climategate denomination claimed it was to be expected and, he insisted, 15 or 16 years is not a significant period.
Yet in 2009 he said that a “no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried”. But that was then and this is now and he is not about to lose his religion simply because the evidence doesn’t support the text.
And, of course, there are always extenuating circumstances. El Nino and La Nina are there when you need them, to be forgotten when temperatures are warming or remembered if they are cooling. And, we’ve had a record Arctic melt. But better not mention the storm that NASA concedes broke the ice up and drove it south, or the record Antarctic ice gain.
Rather we must listen to Australia’s Climate Change Commission novitiates who, against the evidence, have delivered a parable linking Superstorm Sandy to global warming.
At least the media disciples are keeping the faith by emphasising what supports the gospel and, where possible, omitting that which doesn’t. New, corroborative revelations enjoy widespread publicity. If the same findings are later retracted for lack of scientific rigour, they are simply allowed to disappear without comment.
Yet despite all, believers in man-made global warming are declining. It will require an extraordinary crusade presaging even direr climate consequences for defying the warmist faith, before defectors even contemplate rejoining the religion. If that fails it may be time to burn sceptics at the stake. But then that would increase CO2 emissions. A dilemma, to be sure.
Maurice L. Newman is a former chairman of the ABC.
The Australian, 5 November 2012
http://www.thegwpf.org/maurice-newman-losing-religion-evidence-cools/
What a beautiful writing?
Thank you Maurice.
For those who think CO2 raises surface temperature by 33 degrees, see Appendix Q.2 in my March 2012 paper.
Those who think you can work with flat Earth models need to learn basic mathematics which, except for unity(1), tells us that the fourth root of the mean is not the mean of the fourth roots. It seems that to use a bit of calculus on a sphere was beyond those who like to work with those flat Earth models.
Because there are observed ~1,000 year natural cycles and the fact that very recent research confirms that the MWP was indeed world-wide (of course it was – ocean currents see to that) and comparable with current temperatures, then conservation of energy might appear to indicate that over 1000 years energy in is approximately equal to energy out.
Because the MWP was in fact about the same temperature as the current warming period, it should be pretty obvious that, in 1,000 years, carbon dioxide has achieved nothing in the way of net warming.
Several comments above refer to backradiation “affecting the surface.” Yes I nearly said that. What I did say was that backradiation can only slow the radiative component of surface cooling. It seems that some don’t understand that it can be shown from IPCC energy diagrams that, of all the energy transferring from the surface to the atmosphere, this radiative cooling is less than 15%. The other components of non-radiative cooling adapt their rate such that the overall effect (for 100%) is nil (0) and so the surface will be the same mean temperature, regardless of carbon dioxide. And surface temperatures (actually those about 1.5 to 2m above the surface) are what we measure as climate. Whilever the atmosphere is cooler than the surface there can be no heat transfer to the surface. I did not say no net heat transfer. I said no heat transfer in that direction whatsoever. That what Clausius showed the world in 1850 and he has not been shown to be wrong with any empirical data.
“For those who think CO2 raises surface temperature by 33 degrees, see Appendix Q.2 in my March 2012 paper.”
Only CAGWers who are not think as much believing, could have the thought that CO2 raises temperatures by 33 C. Or some number close to 33 C.
The AGWer generally think the all of Earth’s greenhouse gases are suppose to raise the temperature by 33 C. And usually they will admit that they think H2O [as a greenhouse gas] is responsible most of this 33 C of warming.
And personally, I don’t think that all of Earth greenhouse gases cause 33 C increase in global temperatures.
I do not think that earth would -18 C without greenhouse gases.
Nor do I think earth would be 5.3 C without greenhouse gases and without clouds. Which what wiki says:
“If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 °C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
I am not sure that an ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth distance would be 5.3 C. I would willing to accept it might around 5 C.
But this only loose guess, as we can not make an “ideal thermally conductive blackbody” such guess can’t be checked.
I find the .3 part more annoying than the 5, as it tells you someone came up this the number- and there no way to know this with such precision. And so it appears someone plugging in numbers into a calculator and imagining is it accurate.
Expecting to knowing the precision measurement of the temperature an ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth distance which would allow you say it is 5.3 C is similar to guessing the color of the dung of an unicorn.
And probably this estimate was done decades ago and preserved in some dusky tome.
And considering how much was discovered since, it probably only could be a matter of luck if it was correct particularly within a decimal point.
So decades ago someone made an approximation regarding some magical material which we can not make now, nor are likely to make within the next few decades.
We can’t currently accurately measure Earth, the Moon, nor the Sun within one tenth C, yet somehow we can imagine we do this with non-existent ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
Amazing.
What is as amazing is the idea one measure global temperature within a tenth of C using trees. And also we had as equally precise “measurements” global CO2 levels for hundreds of thousands of years.
But let’s be wild and accept the idea that if we had an ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth distance and it was around 5 C. What should imagine the effect of clouds would be on such a blackbody’s temperature?
It’s hard to know.
But why not instead of plain old clouds we imagine rifts in space-time [why feel inhibited] what precisely is the difference between rifts in space-time [blackhole type thingys] and clouds- there doesn’t appear to be *much* difference in term of affecting earth’s temperature. But both would apparently block all energy from the Sun.
But what is more interesting, if we could completely block all sunlight of 30% of the area of “an ideal thermally conductive blackbody” [or Earth]
would this affect the blackbody temperature [average global temperature] by
this difference 18 + 5, or reduce temperature by 23 C?
Some people would be quick to say, it obviously would do this.
And we are assuming unlike clouds that we are completely blocking all energy from the Sun- ’cause, remember, we using rifts in space-time.
The plot in the Appendix of my March paper shows that the rate of increase in long-term moving average figures (30 years) has been declining since about the year 1900, and no doubt earlier. The green line on that plot – also on my second website, is about the trend you would see in a 60 year moving average that would remove the superimposed 60 year cycle. The declining rate of increase is what you would expect at this time in the 1000 year cycle as it approaches its maximum. For this plot I suspect the maximum may be even as much as 200 years away, but it should not be more than about 0.8 degree above the present level.
Moderator; Pls delete above. Corrected post below. Sorry
The plot in the Appendix of my March paper shows that the rate of increase in long-term moving average temperatures (calculated over 30 years) has been declining since about the year 1900, and no doubt earlier.
The green line on that plot – also on my second website, is about the trend you would see in a 60 year moving average that would remove the superimposed 60 year cycle. The declining rate of increase is what you would expect at this time in the 1000 year cycle as it approached its maximum. From this plot I suspect the maximum may be even as much as 200 years away, but it should not be more than about 0.8 degree above the present level.
Doug Cotton | November 5, 2012 at 9:30 pm said: ”The plot in the Appendix of my March paper shows that the rate of increase in long-term moving average temperatures (calculated over 30 years) has been declining since about the year 1900, and no doubt earlier.”
Douglas, for a moment I thought that you are prepared to stand up for the truth. What a disappointment.. you are drowning in more crap than any Warmist. FACT: Nobody knows what was the GLOBAL temp last year; but you know what was the temp 112y ago, and before… GLOBAL temp…? Being in the same septic tank with Tony Brown and any other Pagan believes Crapologist -> their stench is clouding your reasoning
The plot relates to recorded temperature data as I said “since about the year 1900” – why don’t you take a look at it before making irrelevant comments such as you have?
Doug Cotton | November 6, 2012 at 4:09 am said: ”The plot relates to recorded temperature data as I said “since about the year 1900″ – why don’t you take a look at it before making irrelevant comments such as you have?”
Dough… Dough… i have look at it; long before i know that you existed and I did it again; you are just parroting the hardcore Pagan beliefs. b] you are confusing localized warmings / climatic changes as GLOBAL b] you believe that: the more lies you repeat = the smarter you look in the eyes of the nutters, and that is paramount for you
2] monitored on few places, with unreliable thermometers in 1901; you know THE GLOBAL temp/!?! GROW UP!!!
IMHO, you go too far overboard not to drown in your extremism. And you are unlikely to gain a hearing from anyone. To rule out, for example, NASA sea surface data in the last few decades of accurate satellite measurement is an attempt to place yourself above them with assumed superior knowledge. Yes there will be errors, but long term trends will be in the right ball park.
Doug Cotton | November 6, 2012 at 4:17 am said: ” And you are unlikely to gain a hearing from anyone =====Not from the complete brainwashed; but others take notice. b] 8 out of 10 on the street take on board what i have
2]” To rule out, for example, NASA sea surface data in the last few decades of accurate satellite measurement is an attempt to place yourself above them with assumed superior knowledge”
A: Dough, for NASA, the biggest contribution is monitoring the sea temp – not orbiting around Saturn and Neptune.. depends on which part/ on which ocean is warmer / colder – to predict the rainfall – on which depends the food production, plus floods / droughts / bushfires. But what NASA does, has nothing top do with any phony GLOBAL warming. it’s their / Hansen’s politicking not science – They know that: if is normal ahead -> NASA’s budget goes down by half —– if is BIG catastrophe ahead -> NASA’s budged quadruples instead – they are not stupid, like the Fake Skeptics. (if NASA tarts making ice-cream/ doesn’t mean is GLOBAL ice age)
3] my knowledge is the correct one – when that small section of NASA tells lies – I stand up for the truth. NASA is not allowed to guillotine oeople – the Pope was, but Galileo stud up for the truth. Dough, you by using ”NASA” you are only proving that: you are suffering from ”inferior complex”
Dough, the truth is not popular in a company of trash; but the truth allays wins – don’t forget it for one minute
And, by the way, your terminology in your website is not in accord with standard physics. What you mean by “wasting heat” who knows? Are you destroying energy? You seem to think “heat” is stored energy. That is not what it is at all. Look it up in good old Wiki …
“Heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interaction.[1][2] In contrast to work, heat is always accompanied by a transfer of entropy”
The biggest mistake made by climatologists is to assume radiation causes heat transfers wherever it radiates. They, like you, talk about “heat content” as if heat were static energy. They also talk about thermal radiation, as if not all radiation can cause a heat transfer. Utter garbage – send them back to complete a physics degree, rather than just try to remember what they learnt in First Year and now misapply.
Doug Cotton | November 6, 2012 at 4:33 am said: ” . What you mean by “wasting heat” who knows?”
All the heat created by the sunlight; is ”WASTED” in those 24h. Plus the geothermal heat released, plus the heat produced by burning fossil fuel – ALL WASTED. Where is wasted, heat cannot be accumulated – to prevent tomorrow’s cooling; because tomorrow the planet will be million miles away
Q;how is heat wasted?
A: by the horizontal wind; O&N collect heat from the ground (windier = better cooling of the soil and your body) = PLEASE NOTE:: ” those O&N atoms that collect the heat – they are NOT CONDUCTING IT!!! They are bad heat conductors – on that one, Warmist, Fakes AND you, are all WRONG, NO conduction!!! They personally are taking that heat from the ground to the edge of the troposphere and jump couple of feet into the stratosphere. Same as when you release a tennis-ball on the bottom of the swimming -pool -> jumps into the air.
b] if is H2O or CO2 (dirty clouds) = upper atmosphere warmer / on the ground cooler DURING THE DAY – in that case; the tennis-ball – goes slower as in freshwater swimming-pool = but in clear sky -goes faster up, as in saltwater swimming-pool. CO2 dirty cloud doesn’t stop anything ; but slows. (Hot air baloon, after 20 minutes in the air is 200000ppm of CO2, but still keep pushing up
There, on the bottom edge of the stratosphere those warmed atoms; in the very thin air are ”WASTING, yes wasting” the heat -> become colder than any O+N below -> drop down with extra coldness and push the hot ones up. Dough, use ”terminology” that people on the street can understand. Don’t you see: even on a bit that you are correct; that CO2 in the air, is not as glass sealing – nutters are attaching you / they are looking for anything that can be turned to sound wrong – not to admit that they have being duped by NASA’S Hansen; you should know their pain
to shorten the story: Dough, why are you avoiding my formulas?!?!
Stefan
Please stop being so insulting to me and other people.
Why don’t you write a lucid paper to enable us to see what point you are trying to put across? Then we might be able to judge if what you say has any merit or not. At the moment your thoughts are obscured by insults and confusion.
Thank you
tonyb
Tony,
To be fair – both Stefan and Doug are classic Australian ‘ratbags’. And we say that with a fair amount of amusement and affection.
Robert
climatereason | November 6, 2012 at 5:09 am said: ”Stefan, Please stop being so insulting to me and other people”
Tony, i don’t insult you, I’m advertising you; not as you are on a sneaky way trying to silencing my real proofs.
2} ”Then we might be able to judge if what you say has any merit or not”
A person who pretends / lies that he knows what was the temp in Oceania 200-300y, before James Cook discovered it, has problem in judging any real proofs.
Tony, you Join in partnership with Dough Cotton on a street corner; with your tarot cards and crystal balls – you should lie about ”daily temp” for the last 1000 -2000 year =====Dough would do the ”predictions” the daily temp for next few thousand years. Compete with each other; who knows better, in hundredth and thousandth of a degree…. wasting your lives on pagan crap is still fashionable
Chief Hydrologist | November 6, 2012 at 9:20 pm said: ”Tony,To be fair – both Stefan and Doug are classic Australian ‘ratbags’”
WRONG again; Chief, Tony is your brave. Dough also. their ”science comes from tarot cards and crystal balls. They use same woo-doo science / lies as you
The only difference is: you can’t make Dough to keep digging on the farms, to sequestrate CO2 – he obviously doesn’t believe in that crap that you have being fed and fattened on
Stefan
I have told you countless times that I do NOT believe in the validity of an exact GLOBAL temperature. I cited you an article I wrote on it.Why don’t you listen?
I have told you countless times that our knowledge of historic temperatures is highly flawed. Of course we can’t know exact temperatures 200 years ago to fractions of a degree in places where there were not any precise records kept. We can get some idea of the generalities of temperatures from isolated thermometer readings plus very good knowledge about the melting of glaciers or wine harvest dates or corn yields.
I get a stream of insults from you that are the only lucid things in your long posts.
I can not silence your ‘real proofs’ because I have no idea what they are.
It is best that I ignore you until you can provide a lucid paper of your beliefs and ‘real proofs’ because I am afraid I do not understand what you are saying. Goodbye
tonyb
climatereason | November 7, 2012 at 5:06 am said: ”Stefan I have told you countless times that our knowledge of historic temperatures is highly flawed”
Tony my friend; I wasn’t talking to you, or at you – I was pointing to somebody, comparing his unreliable theory with yours; so please don’t flatter yourself. You saying that ”are flawed” but constantly comparing temp from 1773 to other years, ant to today’s temp == one wouldn’t use anything that is flawed; but you are constantly misleading that one year is warmer than another – which is the precursor of all evil. My job is to point the lies, yours or anybody’s. Therefore, I don’t try to silence you; as your statement: ”write something and we will see if you are correct” === AS IF YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT MY 11 POSTS…? Point the finger, I’m a soft target; but you know that I’m correct
P.s. using the ”amount of bushels of grain”; to mislead in fluctuation of ALL GLOBAL temp, is for guillotining the truth. (one year Canada’s crop is better – other year Australian – another year Russian grain – they are not on your globe… 1] rain doesn’t come on time 2] too much rain = waterlogged crops 3] there was no pesticide, locust damages the crops 4] rain comes few weeks to light, when is harvest. 5] sparrows and other birds damaged part of the crop. 6]neighbor’s sheep and chickens damaged part of the crop = because the neighbor had one too many in the tavern in Yorkshire and didn’t take care of his goats = he changed the GLOBAL temperature…? WOW! His extra bottle of vino in Yorkshire increased the temp in Oceania, Argentina, Indian ocean, Antarctic…
Why are you ashamed off your ”science” but persist looking for nutters to brainwash???
Tony, you have being above critique in the past – that tricked you to produce too many lies – those lies are effecting millions of people, and children are brainwashed in school, that global temp goes up and down as a yo-yo… I’m corecting you, as a friend, you are against yourself – hoping that the truth will disapear – your lies will do damages forever…?
I have written real proofs… and proud of the truth – not silencing anybody; but will point any lies. The truth is paramount
The UAH and RSS data for October’s global temperature are out. Still no sign of any CO2 signal whatsoever. How long do we have to wait before we conclude that there is never going to be a CO2 signal?
The October figures are not surprising, with or without that curve which Roy has now removed. You can still see evidence of the 60 year cycle in all data since records began. It caused alarm in the 30 years leading up to its maximum around 1998. Now it’s declining, but the long-term trend (about ~1,000 year periodicity) is still climbing but at a reduced rate. A century ago it was rising at about 0.06 C deg/decade, but now that rate is less, namely about 0.05 C deg/decade. You can see this in the yellow line in the plot at the foot of my Home page. The long term trend should reach a maximum in about 50 to 200 years from now, after which the world can expect about 500 years of long-term cooling, even though the superimposed 60 year cycle will of course continue to worry people each time it rises for 30 years.
So, how does physics confirm why carbon dioxide is obviously having no effect? It is easy to understand intuitively that conduction processes always ensure that heat flow is from hot to cold. But it is not so obvious how and why this also happens for radiation. Those who are interested in learning about the recent breakthrough in physics which at last explains why may read my paper published back in March, together with the linked papers and other documentation.
Doug Cotton | November 6, 2012 at 3:02 pm said: ”The long term trend should reach a maximum in about 50 to 200 years from now, after which the world can expect about 500 years of long-term cooling, even though the superimposed 60 year cycle will of course continue to worry people each time it rises for 30 years”
Dough, do you do fortune telling also? .The con predictions above are from the bottom of the Pagan septic tank… you are referring to yourself as having ”NEW” theories…? Honest Meteorologist cannot predict the climate past next Monday – you know for decades and millennias ahead…Dough, put the brown paper bag over your head again!
You cannot even comprehend that: doesn’t need any stupid GLOBAL warmings for climate to keep changing. What Springer would have said: wash your crystal ball, after you pull it out of your arr/e – so is not too cloudy – can read it much better / clearly
I ignore comments that ignore the information and data to which I refer. Maybe you’d like to argue with Nicola Scafetta in the same way – don’t read what he writes – just waffle like your comment above. After all, the work he has done is irrelevant to you – only your own words are fact.
Doug Cotton | November 7, 2012 at 3:43 am said: ”I ignore comments that ignore the information and data to which I refer”
Dough, that’s not fair… I did read what you refereed. .That’s why I’m saying that: ”you have one gold nugget and are smothering it with Pagan crap b] the pagan crap is so predictable; you are just repeating their misleadings by those ”cycles”
On the other hand; if you read what i refereed – you would have armed yourself with real proofs, to support your nugget; here is a small example:
They have ignored that: oxygen and nitrogen are greenhouse gases, not CO2! Normal greenhouse has transparent glass roof . Same as O+N are transparent to the sunlight – they let the sunlight down to the ground. Sunlight warms up the ground – then O+N as perfect insulators are slowing cooling, same as the affect of a transparent glass roof on a normal greenhouse.
Factor 2. Another factor they have ignored is: in normal greenhouse, when the air gets warmer – air expands = big percentage out the door. I.e. volume of the Greenhouse stays the same – quantity of air decreases. In the Kyoto Cult’s greenhouse (in nature) when air warms up – volume of the troposphere increases, quantity stays the same. (CO2 actually ads to the volume and quantity of the atmosphere)
b] if you sprinkle some sooth on the roof of a NORMAL greenhouse -> inside would get cooler (CO2 during the day goes up, same as fog, yes, intercepts some of the sunlight; but ”the sunlight comes from the other side of the dirty cloud, much more of it, than what comes from secondary reflection from the sea and deserts)
Dough, I have being trying to spread the truth for few years; including your nugget. Telling me to learn about it; is same as: ”you teaching your father how to make children” If you use the reliable proofs, that can be proven, and discard the pagan cycles – they will not like you; but will know that you have the truth == using 99% pagan beliefs, to please them – they will turn and ask you: how can you prove about imaginary past GLOBAL warmings / cycles?
p.s. on the moon is colder, because is no O&N, as perfect insulators. The unlimited coldness on the moon is touching the ground – on the earth is 25km of thick insulator of O&N, but they are transparent for the sunlight b] on the earth 2/3 is covered by water – as shock absorber = slow warming / cooling = they are not comparing apples with oranges, but apples with a watermelon! Don’t fall for their pagan confusion; just to please some brainwashed nutters… up to you – but don’t say that i didn’t read it. I was originally exited, that here is a person with common sense, prepared to stand up for the truth. BUT: climate is constantly changing; some cycles, most not – on the other hand: GLOBAL warmings have being concocted from ignorance == because they / you never taken in the account that: as soon as O&N get warmer -> troposphere enlarges, INSTANTLY. B] vertical winds speed up!!! THEY ARE THE REAL PROOFS, THAT CAN BE PROVEN NOW!!!
You still indicate by your statements that you don’t understand my poinst in my paper. You don’t have to believe them if you so choose, but until you understand them there can be no constructive discussion. I have read the sort of comments you make over and over again, years ago.
I invited you to argue with Scafetta about cycles. I find his statistical analysis quite compelling and in harmony with my own analysis. I don’t know whether you’ve done any analysis at all yourself, or whether you are just taking a dogmatic stand because you don’t believe planets could affect anything. This is not astrology my friend. It’s science.
Your discussion of the Moon is way off. For a start, it also gets much hotter. Its days are about 4 weeks, so it’s not a good comparison for a start. Oxygen and Nitrogen don’t absorb or radiate much at atmospheric temperatures, so if there were an atmosphere made up only of such, the main effect would be through the adiabatic lapse rate, and, that being a function of gravity, would be very different on the Moon.
In that it is implied by “greenhouse” that there is a feedback mechanism sending energy back into the warmer surface, then no gas can cause any greenhouse effect whatsoever.
I explained why in my paper written back in March. But you don’t appear to understand my explanation, or the writings of Prof Claes Johnson. Why not submit your own paper for peer-review at PSI?. At least most of the 120 members there present a unified approach – and support what Claes and I have said on the subject of radiative heat transfer. If you become a member you can join in on the internal email discussion, where I believe you’d learn quite a lot – if you’re open to such learning, that is.
You say “O+N as perfect insulators are slowing cooling.” But they also slow warming by the direct Sunlight. Otherwise we would get to about 100 deg C as happens on the Moon.
By what process do you say they are slowing cooling?”
Because you give no explanation of what you think the physics is, I don’t feel you understand. Suppose, as is usual, there is a step down of say 2 degrees between the surface and the adjoining air – oxygen and nitrogen only if you like.
Q.1 How does this cooler air slow the cooling of the surface?
Q.2 Is the radiative cooling slowed and/or the non-radiative cooling?
The latter is a very critical question that I have answered, but I don’t feel you even understand why it has to be answered – and answered correctly.
re the Maurice Newman article:
In 1969 Erlich claimed that due to global cooling England
might not survive until the year 2000. Then in the warming
eighties, Erlich converted to the church of AGW… Now
with the plateau in global temperatures and cooling oceans,
must be about time for another climate sea change by Erlich,
wouldn’t yer say?
Beth Cooper | November 6, 2012 at 6:47 pm said: ”In 1969 Erlich claimed that due to global cooling England might not survive until the year 2000”
Small correction: in 60’s -70’s: .wasn’t any GLOBAL cooling – but they were massaging the numbers, to appear as global cooling; to fit their theory.
Their original theory was: because of dimming effect from extra CO2 -> we will have Nuclear Winter effect for year 2000. Because day for the countdown.for year 2000 nuclear winter was getting closer = they turned 180 degrees in the 80’s for GLOBAL warming, with bigger noise.
They learned this time from Nostradamus: ‘don’t predict anything for when you will be still alive” Otherwise, the global warming is same as their nuclear winter for year 2000.
Building in East Anglia uni; where the ”climatologist are, is called: ”Hubert Lamb Building” prof Hubert Lamb was promoting / scaring people with Nuclear Winter for year 2000. (now is HIS name on the ENGLISH BUILDING OF SHAME)
Looks like Obama’s going to win!
RIP USA
The US will somehow manage- but I can’t say the same for rest of the world.
If so …More of the same, economy down the drain,
Plato on the hill … :(
Are you watching Michael Mann in court?
Don’t miss this PSI update!
Doug Cotton | November 8, 2012 at 4:43 am said: ”You say “O+N as perfect insulators are slowing cooling.” But they also slow warming by the direct Sunlight. Otherwise we would get to about 100 deg C as happens on the Moon. By what process do you say they are slowing cooling?”
Douglas, my friend; here are the perfect answers on your questions: O&N are perfect insulators, they are not a heat conductors; reason they are used in fridge walls / doors. Only 2 inches, prevent cooling the kitchen from the freezer. Between the ground and the stratosphere – there is 25km of it / the troposphere, O&N are PERFECT INSULATORS!!!
2] ”direct sunlight” doesn’t bother them; because O&N are TRANSPARENT to the sunlight!!!
3] listen and try to understand: when in Australia, for any reason, gets warmer than normal -> usually is on the first 100m above the ground -> O&N expand by 30%, that means: there is 30m extra volume of that air = those 30m don’t go to New Zealand or above the oceans, because is already air there!!! Instead, warmed air, as inside hot air balloon, goes up – the volume of the troposphere enlarges by 30m into the stratosphere.
Up there is minus -90C == same as if somebody takes you from your backyard of +30C , temp and puts you in a deep freezer of -90C = you will get stif frozen in minutes, not after 100years> ( inside your deep freezer is only minus -17C, up there where warmed O&N expand, is 5 times colder / 500% colder than in your deep freezer – cools in a jiffy – instantly cooled -> shrinks more than any other O&N below -> gravity makes it to fall down and bring EXTRA coldness and pushes the hot ones up!!! the ”convayer-belt” speeds up
Douglas, try to aprouch it with understanding; you would have known that O&N are transparent. You, as most of the commenters here have learned all as a song, memorized – if one word is changed; even if it has same meaning, you are lost. Your friend who said: ”cooling has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics” = he said it: because he realizes by ”UNDERSTANDING” how it functions. People like him are valuable asset. My English is very limited, to explain it technically – but, if you ask him to proofread this post – he will know how to do it, and the Warmist will start spiting the dummy. For your 120 friends will be like turning the lights on; because we have same attitude; only, my knowledge comes from the eastern side of the Iron Curtain: – if we combine our capability – success guarantied.
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/
this post is on the bottom of my homepage (after reading it – if he reads the other 3 above it – he will know what needs to be done. I have ALL the proofs – he has capacity to understand / not to compare it with the Pagan shonky theories, to see if it fits with the Warmist & Fake’s fairy-tales – they are radical new / real proofs; that can be all proven now and replicated in controlled environment. .Douglas, be a good sport
Oxygen and nitrogen, even without any water vapour or carbon dioxide in the troposphere, would still have an adiabatic lapse rate very similar to the real world lapse rate. This temperature gradient would still be there, even if no energy entered or left the atmosphere and all radiation took place from the surface. The surface would get hotter by day and be cooler by night, but there is no reason to believe its mean temperature would be any different.
Adiabatic lapse rates are just that – adiabatic: they do not require any addition of energy. They exist because of pressure differences. They fully explain the temperatures observed on Earth, as well as on other planets. Venus is a good example, because hardly any Solar radiation gets through its atmosphere to the surface. There is thus only very little surface raditaion. So how could its temperature possibly be explained by any radiative greenhouse effect, resulting from even less backradiation?
Now, for a more detailed explanation, bringing together the research of several members of the fast growing Principia Scientific International organisation, please read the new article published today on our website.
Doug Cotton | November 20, 2012 at 2:53 am | said: ”Oxygen and nitrogen, even without any water vapour or carbon dioxide in the troposphere, would still have an adiabatic lapse rate very similar to the real world lapse rate”
Listen son: minus CO2 & H2O in the troposphere == would be much hotter days on the ground and MUCH colder nights == OVERALL, would be the same temperature!!! 2] opposite: plenty CO2 &H2O in the atmosphere = days cooler, but nights warmer than normal. 3] in the first example, the ”extremes” cancel each other!!! (Sahara and Brazil on same latitude – Sahara has much hotter days than Brazil == but if you take temp for every minute, on both place in 24h == overall will be the same). Reason monitoring only for the ”HOTTEST” minute in 24h, but ignoring all the other 1439 minutes, is completely, completely meaningless!!! reason I’m correct and both camps are 101% wrong
please don’t confuse Venus with the earth. there are other reasons why Venus is warmer – I will explain you those real reasons, after you read what’s on my homepage.
Doug Cotton | November 20, 2012 at 2:53 am said: ”new article published today on our website”.
Doug, can you pas to your mates this: I’ve read a bit of that article; up to where you guys from BOTH camps make same mistake in ”thermodynamics” that: ”heat from colder body doesn’t pas onto warmer one” BUT, all of you are ignoring the reality in nature, that: ”heat from warmer goes to colder, yes, BUT, when the ”colder body warms up a bit more than normal == the hotter body slows cooling!!!!!!!
that’s the reason: when is plenty of CO2&H2O in the troposphere; night’s cooling SLOWS = milder climate. It slows, because CO2 &H2O make upper atmosphere warmer / cooler on the ground during the daytime = ”proportion in difference between the colder and the warmer places is LESS!!! = better climate! Can you dig it?!
Stefan
There is no such thing as “coldness” in physics. You ignore the effect of backradiation which will slow the rate of surface cooling. You ignore the fact that oxygen and nitrogen do acquire thermal energy by physical contact (molecular collisions) with the surface. You don’t appear to understand the mechanism of the adiabatic lapse rate. There can be natural world-wide warming and cooling periods, because the mean Solar irradiance can vary naturally – and does do so because of various solar and planetary influences. I am no warmist, but you clearly don’t have a proper understanding of physics which I have studied for over 50 years. Now read the article published here today (of which I am co-author) and the other papers (including my peer-reviewed March 2012 paper) and try to understand such, even though English is not your native language.
Doug Cotton | November 20, 2012 at 3:10 am said: ”Stefan, There is no such thing as “coldness” in physics”
Doug, I’ve repeated a 1000 times; ones again,specially for you: people to avoid real proofs – they find Kalvin as big deal. 2] engineers that produce white goods, have product to package, and sell for use – they :use the correct /practical physics. === astrophysicist. climatologist; that produce crap get stuck into absolute zero.
3] I hope that: people that leave into reality (90% of the population); will help me to spread the truth. 4] i feel sorry for the ”absolute zero common sense people” . for not being able to understand the weather girl on the TV box, when telling them about tomorrow’s temp — for not understanding when asked: to ”cool” couple of beers..
Doug, what you are promoting, is the most primitive pagan believes. if anybody uses common physics and common sense, would have known that: O&N expand instantly, when warmed – where troposphere expands upwards into space of minus -90C = RELEASES EXTRA HEAT!!! 2] That space cannot accumulate extra warmth, to slow down cooling tomorrow – because by tomorrow, the planet will be million miles away from that spot.
Reason I asked you to read those few posts on my homepage, is because will inform you about reality; what’s really happening. You are wasting your own time and other’s, in outdated paganism. Doug, why are you scared to face reality?!
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/
Doug, what you know, I know it too, but what I know, you don’t know; therefore: I have unfair advantage on you. Be fair to yourself, learn some solid evidences, proofs!!! 5=6y olds know why and how wind cools the surface – stop getting bogged into knowledge of 5-6 year old kids! You are questioning the Warmist theories; but blindly promoting crap accumulated for the last 150y, when was no scrutiny. b] what you know, Hansen, Mann did know, when they concocted the phony GLOBAL warming; you are not going to shock them with your outdated paganism. Be fair to yourself, read those couple of posts, then you will know to think for yourself; not to blindly promote; the foundation on which the Warmist fortress was built on
Gaia likes her vegetables.
Doug Cotton | November 20, 2012 at 3:10 am | Reply
“You ignore the effect of backradiation which will slow the rate of surface cooling.”
Actually it doesn’t. If it’s a solid surface it causes the temperture to rise which speeds up the rate of energy loss. If it’s a liquid water surface it causes evaporation which speeds up the rate of energy loss. Either way it doesn’t slow the rate of surface cooling.
David Springer | November 24, 2012 at 8:42 pm said: ”Either way it doesn’t slow the rate of surface cooling”
YES, it does!!; BUT ONLY AT NIGHT! David, you have brains; but you memorize things, as a song; not by UNDERSTANDING!
1} when upper atmosphere warms up, because of extra CO2 &H2O ==== at night, cooling on the ground slows. b] minus those molecules in the air =on the ground days warmer / nights fast cooling = colder = extreme temp. (as I said to you before: those extremes cancel each other in Sahara= OVERALL temp is same in all 24h as in Brazil or around Kyoto. (REASON MONITORING FOR THE HOTTEST MINUTE in 24h, ONLY – IS MOTHER OF ALL STUPIDITY!!!
2] when ”extra” humidity in the air -> evaporation / cooling slows (reason you feel warmer in humid air than coldblooded crocodile, or the thermometer. David, you are not a ”flat-earther” make difference between day / night
Посмотрите на досуге http://ardiss.ru/o-nas/novosti/vnimanie-my-pereexali возможно вы захотите себе его купить. А также: домокомплекты из бруса в уфе, построить дом из бруса в белгороде цены, коттеджи из клееного бруса отзывы.