Stratospheric uncertainty

by Judith Curry

The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. - Thompson et al.

The mystery of recent stratospheric temperature trends

David  Thompson, Dian Seidel, William Randel, Cheng Zhi Zhou, Amy Butler, Carl Mears, Albert Osso, Craig Long

Abstract.  A new data set of middle- and upper-stratospheric temperatures based on reprocessing of satellite radiances provides a view of stratospheric climate change during the period 1979–2005 that is strikingly different from that provided by earlier data sets. The new data call into question our understanding of observed stratospheric temperature trends and our ability to test simulations of the stratospheric response to emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances. Here we highlight the important issues raised by the new data and suggest how the climate science community can resolve them.

Citation:  Nature 491, 692–697 (29 November 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11579. [link]    Link to full manuscript.

Excerpts:

The radiative effects of human emissions of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases have driven marked atmospheric cooling at stratospheric altitudes. Ozone depletion is believed to have caused the preponderance of the cooling in the lower stratosphere (around 15–25km altitude); both ozone depletion and increases in greenhouse gases are believed to have driven the cooling in the middle and upper stratosphere (around 25–50km altitude). Stratospheric temperature trends play an important part in allowing us to distinguish between the climate responses to natural and anthropogenic climate forcings. Although less widely discussed in either scientific or policy circles, stratospheric cooling is as fundamental as surface warming as evidence of the influence of anthropogenic emissions on the climate system.

Continuous time series of temperatures in the middle and upper stratosphere back to 1979 are based exclusively on SSU data (the AMSUdata also sample the middle and upper stratosphere but are available only since 1998). The SSU data require correction for several unique issues before they can be used for climate studies.

The SSU data were originally processed for climate analysis by scientists at the UK Met Office in the 1980s. The data were further revised in 2008 to account for variations in the satellite weighting functions over time due to changes in atmospheric composition. However, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing remain unknown. For this reason, the NOAA STAR recently reprocessed the SSU temperatures and published the full processing methodology and the resulting data in the peer-reviewed literature. The new NOAA SSU data provide an invaluable independent resource for assessing the reproducibility of the original Met Office SSU data. But the new data raise more questions than they answer, because they provide a strikingly different view of recent stratospheric temperature trends.

The long-term variability and trends in global-mean temperatures for the uppermost SSU channel (SSU channel 3) are relatively similar in both the Met Office and NOAA data sets. But the same cannot be said for the SSU channels that sample the middle stratosphere (SSU channels 1 and 2). The global-mean cooling in channels 1 and 2 (around 25–45 km) is nearly twice as large in the NOAA data set as it is in the Met Office data set. The differences between the NOAA and Met Office global-mean time series are so large they call into question our fundamental understanding of observed temperature trends in the middle and upper stratosphere.

The story is further muddled when the observations are compared with attempts to simulate the past few decades of stratospheric climate change using climate models. Between 40 and 50km (channel 3), global-mean temperature trends from both SSU products show more cooling than is simulated by the CCMs (atmospheric coupled chemistry models). Between about 35 and 45km (channel 2), the Met Office version of the SSU data suggests that the models overestimat the observed stratospheric cooling, whereas the NOAA SSU data suggest that the models underestimate it. The most striking discrepancies are between about 25 and 35km (channel 1). The Met Office SSU data are in reasonable agreement with the current generation of coupled CCMs at these altitudes. But, the cooling in the new NOAA SSU channel 1 data is nearly twice as large as the cooling simulated by most of the CCMs.

Are the models missing a key aspect of stratospheric climate change? Or is there an error in the newly processed NOAA data? Which SSU data set is correct? Or are both in error?  If the NOAA SSU data are correct, then both the CCMVal2 and CMIP5 models are presumably missing key changes in stratospheric composition.

What might give rise to the discrepancies between observed and simulated global-mean stratospheric temperatures highlighted here? The pronounced discrepancies between simulated and observed global-mean stratospheric temperature trends are most probably due to one of the following two possibilities.

  1. The observations may be in error.
  2. The simulated ozone trends may be in error. Uncertainties in ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere may help to account for the discrepancies between modeled and observed trends in temperatures there.

Uncertainties in the evolution of stratospheric ozone and implications for recent temperature changes in the tropical lower stratosphere

Susan Solomon, Paul Young, Birgit Hassler

Abstract. Observations from satellites and balloons suggest that ozone abundances have decreased in the tropical lower stratosphere since the late 1970s, but this long-term change is occurring in a region of large interannual variability. Three different ozone databases provide regression fits to the ozone observations, and are available for use in model studies of the influence of ozone changes on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures. Differences between these ozone databases suggest that the estimated decreases of tropical lower stratospheric ozone in recent decades are uncertain by about a factor of two to three. The uncertainties in ozone decreases lead to similar uncertainties in cooling of the tropical lower stratosphere, a key area of focus in climate change studies.

Citation: Solomon, S., P. J. Young, and B. Hassler (2012), Uncertainties in the evolution of stratospheric ozone and implications for recent temperature changes in the tropical lower stratosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L17706, doi:10.1029/2012GL052723 [link; article behind paywall].

Excerpts:

Understanding the factors that can influence temperatures near the tropical lower stratosphere is important for interpreting past climate change and projecting future changes. One driver of temperatures in this region is the abundance and variability of ozone, but water vapor, volcanic aerosols, and dynamical changes such as the Quasi- Biennial Oscillation (QBO) are also significant; anthropogenic increases in other greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide play a lesser but significant role in the lower stratosphere. Due to the important role of ozone in driving temperature changes in the stratosphere as well as radiative forcing of surface climate, several different groups have provided databases characterizing the time-varying concentrations of this key gas that can be used to force global climate change simulations (particularly for those models that do not calculate ozone from photochemical principles). 

Our purpose is to examine the range of the estimated ozone changes obtained from available databases for the tropical lower stratosphere and to explore implications for changes in temperature [as simulated in climate models].

While the three ozone databases all show a reduction in ozone in the lower tropical stratosphere, the magnitude of this change differs substantially between them and occurs against a backdrop of much larger interannual variability. The SPARC database that was used for many global model runs for the Climate Modelling Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) displays the least interannual variability and the most conservative trends in ozone of the available databases. Uncertainties in the regression models and fits used to distinguish between periodic variations and trends in the different databases appear to be a significant source of uncertainty in the estimates of longterm trends. The three different ozone databases yield changes in tropical lower stratospheric temperatures that differ by more than a factor of two at 70 mbar, although all have qualitatively similar seasonal cycles. Therefore, the uncertainties in ozone changes in the tropical lower stratosphere and their characterization in different databases using regression fits constitute a major barrier to understanding temperature trends and radiative forcing. According to the present model, the changes in lower stratospheric ozone may also influence temperatures in the tropopause region and thereby perhaps water vapor, although we emphasize that further testing with additional models is required.

Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperatures

Benjamin Santer et al.

Abstract.  We perform a multimodel detection and attribution study with climate model simulation output and satellite-based measurements of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature change. We use simulation output from 20 climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This multimodel archive provides estimates of the signal pattern in response to combined anthropogenic and natural external forcing (the fingerprint) and the noise of internally generated variability. Using these estimates, we calculate signal-to-noise (S/N) ratios to quantify the strength of the fingerprint in the observations relative to fingerprint strength in natural climate noise. For changes in lower stratospheric temperature between 1979 and 2011, S/N ratios vary from 26 to 36, depending on the choice of observational dataset. In the lower troposphere, the fingerprint strength in observations is smaller, but S/N ratios are still significant at the 1% level or better, and range from three to eight. We find no evidence that these ratios are spuriously inflated by model variability errors. After removing all global mean signals, model fingerprints remain identifiable in 70% of the tests involving tropospheric temperature changes. Despite such agreement in the large-scale features of model and observed geographical patterns of atmospheric temperature change, most models do not replicate the size of the observed changes. On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear, model biases in lower stratospheric temperature trends are likely to be reduced by more realistic treatment of stratospheric ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol forcing.

Published online before printNovember 29, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1210514109
PNAS November 29, 2012201210514 [link to full text].

JC comments:

Each of these papers makes an important contribution by grappling with the uncertainty in forcing and evaluation data sets.  These issues were essentially ignored in the IPCC AR4 report in the context of attribution studies.  Santer et al. draw an important conclusion:

These results point to the need for a more systematic exploration of the impact of forcing uncertainties on simulations of historical climate change.

I also made this argument in the Uncertainty Monster paper.

I note that Santer et al. did not use the new SSU dataset described above in the paper by Thompson et al.

Thompson et al. point out the importance of documenting the data sets (apparently the UKMO SSU analysis was not documented in the published literature).  Thompson et al. also argue for a 3rd analysis of the SSU data to try to better understand and resolve the discrepancies between the two data sets.

So, how will more realistic assessment of data set uncertainty influence the IPCC AR5 conclusions and confidence levels regarding the attribution of warming since the mid 20th century?

Moderation note:  This is a technical thread, comments will be moderated for relevance.

495 responses to “Stratospheric uncertainty

  1. “how will more realistic assessment of data set uncertainty influence the IPCC AR5 conclusions and confidence levels regarding the attribution of warming since the mid 20th century?”

    Well, it seems to me that the real scientists were hijacked by those seeking fame and fortune, and ultimately, they took over the debate. Therefore, I don’t see much impact, since we’re talking about something other than pure science.

    • Geek49203 replying to your later questions ““What would the climate/temp/weather be like outside if no humans were here?” And of course, its sister question, “What would the climate/temp/weather be like if suddenly we ceased CO2 output ”

      Your first question. It is hard to say. Certainly there would be no agriculture, so the world would be covered by forests. But I don’t think it would be a repeat of the carboniforous era. Different species of plant eating animals may have stripped the earth of plants. Lightening would have caused vast bushfires which no one would control.

      Your second question: the climate would drop fairly rapidly by 0.45C but the remaining 0.45C fall would take about 30 years as the oceans would be slow to give up their heat as they were to acquire it. Agriculture would slow a bit. We would need to have a nuclear/hydrogen economy, which is possible. The cities around the N. Atlantic would still create urban heat islands so the ice would still melt.

  2. Would this be one of those “wicked” problems? The 1995 shift in stratospheric temperatures was like a elephant in the room, at least to me. The SSTs, with the exception of the 1998 El Nino appeared to be on a decay curve in step with the stratosphere temperatures. 20 years is a mighty long time for Pinatubo aerosols to be lingering. Seems to have take a while for the anomalous behavior to be noticed.

  3. I will repeat my take on the Santer study (tropospheric warming part). The models overestimated warming from 1979-2011, but if you look at GISTEMP for example you can see that the East Pacific is cooler in 2011 than it was in 1979 and the models did not capture that as they have no PDO in the correct phase and are not expected to because PDOs are transient changes. I think this PDO cycle is a large part of the warm bias. This is a problem with taking trends over short periods compared to ocean variability modes.

  4. There is also news on abrupt changes in the van Allen Radiation belt:

    One of the spacecrafts’ findings is that conditions in the radiation belts change on a dime, with the particles there varying more in energy, in time and in spatial distribution than previously thought.”

    “What we’re seeing is a much more dynamic, much more rapidly changing outer radiation belt than we expected to see,” said Daniel Baker, principal investigator of the Van Allen Probes Relativistic Electron Proton Telescope instrument.

    “We’re seeing both spatial and temporal structure that we simply didn’t know existed.”

    http://www.space.com/18756-van-allen-radiation-belt-probes-findings.html

  5. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution}

    Judith,

    The problem is wide ranged.
    You cannot reproduce an accurate model without including vastly more areas than what is recorded in data sets.
    Many areas do not include pressure differences, motion and velocity differences that the atmosphere is NOT attached to the planet.
    Along with planetary tilting and the angles of the suns rays through a distorted atmosphere that is in constant change.

    Ever look at Pi(3.14159)?
    It was NEVER designed for motion.
    It was designed open ended for changing the different sizes of circles for simple calculations. But with motion of 365 days, that open ended equation is vastly distorted over time.
    Many examples of errors are NOT being corrected or investigated!

    • Pi. Miles Mathis ?

    • Joe's World {Progressive Evolution}

      Nope.
      My own research on motion, velocity and a whole crap load of other areas ignored.

    • Got a web site I can go look at ?

      I’m always interested to read more along those lines. After all, it’s clear that there are many areas where our current understanding on maths and science don’t measure up to reality, planetary orbits being one, gravity seems to have anomalies, and so on.

      Real scientific ground breaking advance is unlikely to come from within conventional science which becomes ever more closeted with it’s suffocating professional associations and ever increasing political correctness.

      The military ought to sponsor the some of the more promising mathematicians and theorists.

    • Joe's World {Progressive Evolution}

      I have been given quite the run around by our current scientists who do not see the value of a different perspective.
      http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations.pdf
      http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations-2.pdf

      Simple errors run rampant from theories held as gospel even though they have missed to include simple things in calculations…like even the inclusion of the sun in orbit velocity. So the side of the sun is the current calculation of our orbit velocity and NOT the actual rotational axis.

    • blueice2hotsea

      ?

  6. So, radiative forcing is assesed at the tropopause.

    One probably unanswered question is – how much energy is exchanged across the tropopause through air mass exchange?
    While for most of the earth, static stability limits convection, the mass exchange is not zero, so likely the energy exchange is not zero either. And if the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools, the rate of exchange would increase.

    Judith, what do you make of the the evaluation of non radiative energy transport across the tropopause?

    • Climate Weenie

      Upon review ( from Thompson et. al. ):

      “Most coupled CCMs suggest that increasing greenhouse gases accelerate the stratospheric mass circulation19–24″

      GHGs impose an energy surplus upon the troposphere and an energy deficit upon the stratosphere ( or more appropriately all the atmosphere above the tropopause ).

      If exchange across the tropopause increases as a result of increased stratospheric circulation, it suggests a negative feedback to radiative forcing.

  7. Santer et al. draw an important conclusion: These results point to the need for a more systematic exploration of the impact of forcing uncertainties on simulations of historical climate change.

    Or, we could find ourselves lost.

    • Yep. Santer. ~forcing uncertainties~

      Including the discomforting possibility that forcing might be quite close to zero.

      Are we beginning to see the slow quiet formulation of an exit strategy for all these authors of failed climate models ?

      Because one things for sure, if temperatures drive downwards for ten or twenty years then they will certainly need an to find an exit strategy.

    • What they suggesting is more government research dollars for those areas we know little about and as they now admit they know very little about what they thought they knew a lot about so… more money needed.

    • What is ur exit strategy if tempd go up by .4c in 20 years

      while the sun cools

    • Mosh

      I have been studying glacier information during the last few thousand years of advances and retreats and trying to relate it to sea level changes.

      Personally I would welcome an increase of .4 degrees as we are much too close to the conditions that prevailed at times during the lia for comfort.
      Tonyb

    • The Skeptical Warmist

      Tony said:

      “I have been studying glacier information during the last few thousand years of advances and retreats…”

      ____
      Wow, I had no idea you were that old. Well done my friend!

    • R gates

      As soon as I posted that I thought that some smart Alec would comment on it. :)

      Tonyb

    • moshe, since we don’t know the mechanism, we don’t know the lag. Your exercise would be instructive in many ways, though.
      ===========

    • i nevet see skepticd who eill say:

      if it doesmt cool i will admit my evaluation of the sun was wrong.

      argg phone posting

    • Since I don’t have an evaluation of the Sun, how can I be wrong? Wandering in wonder here, ol’ pal.
      ===========

    • kim

      since we don’t know the mechanism, we don’t know the lag. Your exercise would be instructive in many ways, though.

      OHC 0 – 700m trends strongly upward while TSI falls… ? How can this be a lag, exactly? Isn’t DSW supposed to warm the upper ocean layer?

      The energy isn’t re-emerging from the depths, either. If that were the case, the OHC of deeper water would fall. But it is increasing too.

    • Or BBD, you could ask moshe what he means by the sun ‘cooling’.
      =========

    • kim

      Don’t nit-pick. TSI. See the bottom curve in the pretty picture I linked just above.

    • How many times do I have to tell you, it ain’t the TSI. She don’t vary enuff.
      ===================================

    • Mosh

      You ask

      What is ur exit strategy if tempd go up by .4c in 20 years

      while the sun cools

      Answer: get a new thermometer and toss the old one away.

      (If the sun really “cools”, you can bet your buns that Earth will “cool” as well – it’s the real “control knob”.)

      Max

    • kim

      Welcome back.

      We missed your wit and insight.

      Max

    • kim

      How many times do I have to tell you, it ain’t the TSI. She don’t vary enuff.

      Ah. The Mystery Forcing raises its invisible head again. Shake not thy strangely translucent locks at me!

      What about the increased radiative forcing from GHGs? Unless we change the laws of physics, this is very much on the table.

      So, a mystery forcing vs a quantified forcing.

      Tricky.

    • Don’t be silly BBD. The well established and strong GHG forcing must be ignored and the tenuously small solar forcing fully believed.

    • lolwot

      Don’t you believe in magic?

    • The reduction in radiative forcing (avoided) by ODS is around .8-1.6 wm^2 as of 2010,the increased forcing of GHG such co2 etc is around 2wm^2 over the last 30yrs or so which equates to an additional forcing of 0.8 wm^2.

      The Montreal protocol if the literature and assumptions are correct,have negated a substantial part of the additional forcing.

      If the understanding of the dynamical aspects of he ODS forced stratosphere are also correct in theory,expectations are the circulation changes in the SH will revert to their pre 1976 Behavior,

      The impacts on the subtropical and mid latitudes hydrological patterns.an increase in sea ice,and increased carbon capture in the southern ocean will in addition provide feedback on the radiative potentials .

  8. “On average, the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Although the precise causes of such differences are unclear, ”

    The elephant over there in front of the sofa is the built-in CO2 forcing. Purge it and try again.

    • The CO2 forcing is kind of hard to ignore given it actually exists.

    • lolwot

      Yeah. CO2 forcing exists.

      But it looks like it is a lot smaller than the models estimate.

      So maybe it’s just a “mouse” – not an “elephant”.

      Max

    • The only CO2 forcing seems to be the AGW confirmation forcing. Other than that, zero.

    • We are all fortunate that it is not zero.
      If the Co2 forcing were zero, then guys like Edim the Contrarian would never have existed.
      The issue with this site is that a vast majority of the commenters refuse to consider the validity of the generally accepted theory.
      What’s up with the wacky Aussies?

    • In reality, a mighty mouse moves a scaredy elephant.

    • Webby, if the generally accepted theory doesn’t agree with observations, it’s falsified. The AGW ‘theory’ was laughable, dogmatic and pseudo-scientific from the very beginning to me. Aussies?

    • By the way, being called a contrarian I consider a compliment, especially when it comes to ‘climate science’.

    • You are a rank contrarian which means that you automatically take the opposite viewpoint to any proposition. The most common rank contrarians are the 3-year-olds that do exactly the opposite of what their mother tells them.

      People are really getting fed up with the pranking and hoaxes being perpetrated on this site and elsewhere in the world.

      “Aussies?”

      In case you haven’t noticed, Australian pranksterism is all over the news and this site is rife with it. If your rank contrarianism is due to you falling for these hoaxes, I feel very sorry for you and urge you to purchase some anti-gullibility pills.

    • lolwot, given that global warming has “paused” for 16 years then that must mean that CO2 increases also paused for 16 years. Right?

    • MrE | December 11, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
      lolwot, given that global warming has “paused” for 16 years then that must mean that CO2 increases also paused for 16 years. Right?

      No – depends how much of a control-knobhead one is. The less crackpot ones acknowledge that there are also other factors at work.

    • “You are a rank contrarian … ”

      So sayeth Webman, the rank sheep.

    • The word rank can also imply that it stinks to high heaven.

      I think you are the gullible sheeple being taken in by the pranksters from down under.

    • cO2 forcing exists?

      Well, that explains why Australia, “the canary in the coal mine for climate-driven desertification”(1), is “officially declared drought free”(2).

      Good news for Oz. Good news for our planet.

      (1). [ http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article6789-australia-faces-collapse-as-climate-change-kicks-in.aspx ]
      (2). [ http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/its-official-australia-no-longer-in-drought-20120427-1xpsp.html ]

      Seems the canary is fine.

    • Everyone has an argument why their own country is the poster child or canary for environmental calamity. The statistics however point out that way too many of the hoaxes and misinformation are being perpetrated by Australian commenters.

      The problem with scientific hoaxes is that they have a shelf-life of about 2 seconds, unless of course they are propagandized through repetition to appeal to the slow learners out there.

      That’s why all you see in the comments are the same old repetitive copy-and-paste arguments by Australians such as Captain Kangaroo, Myrrhh, Girma, Peter Lang, Robert I. Ellison, Doug Cotton, Chief Hydrologist, Alexander Biggs, Stefan “TheDenier”, and others.

      We all know about repetition as a form of propaganda because half of our media is controlled by the Australian newsman Rupert Murdoch, who has had great success with appealing to the basest instincts of the frightened class. Murdoch’s Faux News network is exactly like the Australians who comment here — endless repetitive propaganda mixed in with a dose of anger. They know that this rallies the base, and provides enough entertainment for the smart people that tune in just for the gawk factor.

    • WebTheCrackpot | December 11, 2012 at 11:59 pm said: ”Australians such as Captain Kangaroo, Myrrhh, Girma, Peter Lang, Robert I. Ellison, Doug Cotton, Chief Hydrologist, Alexander Biggs, Stefan “TheDenier”, and others”.

      Listen Web: Switzerland is neutral for over 720y – you are declaring war on Australia… the only weapon: misfortune of a lady’s death. She must have had other problems also; before she got that call; using misfortune for artillery… it only shows that you don’t have any class / dignity.

      Manaker, as the second biggest crapper on this blog is I believe, Swize. He is: ”no, yes, maybe” expert in carbon. ”Carbon is not increasing temp, carbon minimization; and all that gizmo, expert .. same as Springer

      3] in Switzerland all the whales, bears, dolphins are extinct, to the last one. how can you defend that? Plenty of those in OZ!!! you as the biggest humanity hater, just because you don’t have shares in oil. Scared of getting one degree warmer in the Alps… Australia is 7-8C warmer, and we enjoy it. the best climate… actually: Australians are sick of good weather; we prefer to get some rain occasionally; BUT, looks like in the real heaven never rains…

      Ask Maneker: if tomorrow CO2 will be bad, or not? That man sounds to me as a drunk lady, trying to please everybody…

    • Indeed, Max Manacker is the best that the skeptical side can offer, no doubt about that .

      The best I can do against him is to catch him on occasional slip-ups. He is borderline only in the sense that half the time I can’t figure out which way Max is arguing and why he is arguing. I don’t have any real skin in climate science either, and so can see how this can happen if you just allow the scientific evidence to point the way.

    • Max Anacker (note the spelling of Max’s surname) seems to be targetted from both sides of the debate, simply because IMO he is one of the few commenters who agrees that global warming is real but is not convinced that it is mainly caused by human activity. Max to my mind is one who is always trying to find common ground rather than focusing on our differences.

    • Silly mistakes don’t matter.

    • BBD, they meaning A&H. “Their” paper is out there for all to review. If “they” felt the results were BS, “they” would not have put it online for review. That is one of the things I really like about the CotP format. The discussion paper is effectively published, the final version, if it makes it through review, will get top billing. It is cool, like blog science with fewer idiots :)

    • Cap’n

      Then let’s see how it plays out. A&H are being properly cautious. You should emulate their example ;-)

    • BBD, “Then let’s see how it plays out. A&H are being properly cautious. ”

      More like respectfully cautious, they have careers to consider, I don’t :) Note the minor change in my handle.

    • Frigidy quicker,
      The mouse ran out the clock and roared.
      Squeaks from the Cold Wheel.
      ================

    • Cap’n

      Okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that LGM climate sensitivity was ~1.7C. Yet a spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TSI is enough to trigger deglaciation. This could not happen unless the initial orbital forcing entrains strong positive feedbacks.

      The net strength of positive feedbacks determines climate sensitivity. Strong = higher CS; weak = lower CS. Uncontroversial, yes?

      So how do we reconcile a low CS with known climate behaviour?

    • BBD, How do I reconcile a low sensitivity some times and a higher at others?

      http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-tale-of-two-greenhouses.html

      In order to have a bi-stable system there has to be competing regimes. You can pick any number of periods in paleo and arrive a “sensitivity” range of zero to around 11, but the oceans vary less. What drives ocean sensitivity is the sun and poleward transport of energy. What drives the atmospheric sensitivity is the oceans and ice free area, more than just albedo, area. Reduction in ice free area, a positive feedback to the atmosphere increases poleward ocean heat transport, a negative feedback for the oceans. Two regimes, two set points, competing forcing functions, two greenhouse effects.

    • BBD, Here is a real funny. Selvam is into the Golden Ratio, a pop art curiosity plus some parlor games use it. The golden ratio (GR) is (1+5^.5)/2 = 1.618… the ratio is neat because GR-1 = 1/GR. It is one of the few, if not the only ratio that is truly stable, as in non-repeating.

      Just for kicks, 240Wm-2 the approximate TOA energy time the GR is 388Wm-2, that silly ratio that Selvam is addicted to may actually be the reason that Earth has a stable climate, it is about the perfect gain for a control system.

      http://amselvam.webs.com/earlsel/socpp.PDF

      I have linked to that before, but I doubt many have tried to actually use it. You might want to take another peak. Then the info is coming from a crackpot :)

    • Cap’n

      BBD, How do I reconcile a low sensitivity some times and a higher at others?

      NO.

      That is not the question I asked you. Once again, you dodge. I repeat:

      “Okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that LGM climate sensitivity was ~1.7C. Yet a spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TSI is enough to trigger deglaciation. This could not happen unless the initial orbital forcing entrains strong positive feedbacks.

      The net strength of positive feedbacks determines climate sensitivity. Strong = higher CS; weak = lower CS. Uncontroversial, yes?

      So how do we reconcile a low CS with known climate behaviour?

      Please read this through carefully before responding. And please, answer the question asked, not something entirely different.

    • Web

      Naw.

      It’s not “zero”.

      But it looks like it’s a lot lower than IPCC told us in AR4.

      Maybe half?

      Or one-third?

      Who knows?

      The latest estimate by Schlesinger, based on (egad!) actual observations (oh horror!), looks like 1.5 to 2.0C per doubling.

      Did the “C” just get knocked out of IPCC’s “CAGW” premise?

      Max

    • The fact that it is non-zero and has an effect on climate makes it a valid area of research. The fact that liquid fossil fuels are becoming more scarce and therefore more expensive makes alternative energy studies a valid area of research. Put the two together and you have even more factual basis for investigating how to deal with the climate or to take advantage of what the earth’s climate can offer as an energy source.

      The dogmatic contrarianism on this site is very tiresome. Some of us won’t let this place turn into a WUWT.

    • Schlesinger’s model is too simple to yield valuable results. Bother to check. Try to learn.

    • BBD said, “Schlesinger’s model is too simple to yield valuable results. Bother to check. Try to learn.”

      “Mathematical models for simulation and prediction of atmospheric flows are nonlinear and do not possess analytical solutions. Finite precision computer realizations of nonlinear models give unrealistic solutions because of deterministic chaos, a direct consequence of round-off error growth in iterative numerical computations.”

      http://amselvam.webs.com/earlsel/socpp.PDFj

      Sometimes simpler is betterer.

    • Capt’nDallas

      It seems that your link is broken.

    • cap’n

      S12 is another flawed sensitivity study like Schmittner et al. (2011). Nothing to get excited about unless you are a denier.

    • BBD

      Sometimes it’s the “simple” approach that’s the best (Occam’s Razor and all).

      Schlesinger’s conclusions check pretty well with the physical observations since 1850, as well as with the IPCC claim of “most of the warming since 1950″.

      IPCC may not quite get there yet for AR5, but it seems pretty clear to me that the trend for “climate sensitivity” is down.

      The “paradigm” of a highly sensitive climate is beginning to shift.

      If the current “lack of warming” continues for a while, this will very likely accelerate this shift.

      So we’ll just have to wait and see.

      Max

    • No Max, there is no ‘paradigm shift’ about CS except in the minds of deniers. The odd duff paper doesn’t overturn thirty years of work.

    • Web

      The fact that it [climate sensitivity] is non-zero and has an effect on climate makes it a valid area of research. The fact that liquid fossil fuels are becoming more scarce and therefore more expensive makes alternative energy studies a valid area of research. Put the two together and you have even more factual basis for investigating how to deal with the climate or to take advantage of what the earth’s climate can offer as an energy source.

      Absolutely!

      But let’s make sure the research is not simply “agenda driven”, i.e. to support a political agenda, such as the implementation of a direct or indirect “carbon tax”, but real scientific studies to clear up the many uncertainties regarding the relative importance of natural and anthropogenic attribution of past climate change, for example. As far as research into non fossil fuel sources of energy is concerned, new and improved nuclear technology should not be excluded, even including such things as nuclear fusion.

      Web, I’m convinced that this real research work will be done and that the energy world 100 years from now will be totally different from that of today, in ways that you and I cannot even imagine.

      That’s why it’s so absurd to try to make any kind of projections into to the distant future, especially of something as unpredictable as our climate.

      Max

    • BBD, “S12 is another flawed sensitivity study like Schmittner et al. (2011). Nothing to get excited about unless you are a denier.”

      There are plenty of flawed papers, so I don’t generally get excited.

    • Max, want a laugh?

      “A further issue raised by our analysis is the quality of the uncertainty estimates associated with the proxy data. The data which are indicated as having low reliability actually agree rather too well with the model simulations, whereas the reconstruction cannot closely match the data which are considered precise.”

      http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/5029/2012/cpd-8-5029-2012.pdf

    • blueice2hotsea

      Hey Max -

      Did you read the paper linked by CaptDallas?

      Annan and Hargreaves suggest a median estimate for the equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 1.7 C, with a 95 % range of 1.2–2.4 C.

      They do not claim the 1.7 C is robust, afterall it is derived from LGM proxy data. However, they threw it out here with their name on it. Not cowards, those two.

      Thanks Captain

    • Sounds like A&H have got problems with their methodology. As Schmittner had, although different problems this time around. Bear in mind that A&H are strong proponents of a most probable value for Holocene ECS of around 3C.

    • BBD, “Bear in mind that A&H are strong proponents of a most probable value for Holocene ECS of around 3C.”

      Yes they were quite confident that 4C and greater could be rejected. This makes their further downward move to the lower end of the “range of comfort” all the more interesting.

    • I don’t think they really accept the results they got, do you?

    • BBD, “I don’t think they really accept the results they got, do you?”

      I think they are rather puzzled by the results they got. They accepted their results enough to publish them.

    • You do appreciate that what you have here isn’t yet peer-reviewed? So it’s not yet ‘published’ in the formal sense. This is a Climate of the Past Discussion paper (CPD).

    • This might be the place to bring up the difference between Pekka and myself. I dont want to put words in Pekka’s mouth, so if I have misinterpreted him, I hope he will correct me. Pekka believes that there is enough empirical data and hypothetical estimations to show that CAGW is real. I point out that the vital piece of empirical data is missing. This vital piece is a modern measurement of how much global temperatures rise as a result of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Pekk’s answer is that “serious” scientists do not believe that this is a valid criticism. My answer to that is that if that is the case, I am proud not to be considered as a “serious” scientist.

      That is the nub of the difference that I can see between the wamists and the skeptics of Climate Etc. The warmists believe enough science has been presented to show that CAGW is real. The skeptics believe that insufficient empirical data is available. All that is happening with this sort of discussion is that each side is presenting the same old same old that we have seen for months. I hope our hostess will have a thread on this specific issue.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Mr “serious” scientist:

      Once you have resolved the pressing issue of your personal identity-politics, perhaps you should find the time to do some “serious” research on climate sensitivity?

      Idso (1998)
      Andronova and Schlesinger (2001)
      Forest, et al. (2002)
      Gregory, et al. (2002)
      Shaviv (2005)
      Frame, et al. (2005)
      Annan and Hargreaves (2006)
      Forster and Gregory (2006)
      Royer, et al. (2007

      Actual serious scientists have looked into this – and empirical estimates are not difficult to find in the literature.

      Seriously.

    • If you pretend to know ALL the factors influencing global climate, then you can call those ‘estimates’ empirical. Still, it’s just pretending. I wonder what those scientists will say after 30 years of no warming (by ~2020).

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Edim:

      That`s a new one for me:
      Those studies are just `pretending` to be empirical.

      - – - I wonder what those scientists will say after 30 years of no warming (by ~2020.) – - -

      And you have a crystal ball for seeing into the future. Cool.

    • Reverend, you write “Actual serious scientists have looked into this – and empirical estimates are not difficult to find in the literature.”

      I am not looking for “empirical estimates”, I am looking for empirical MEASUREMENTS. These are not the same thing.

    • Rev

      Ain’t nobody got one o’ dem “crystal balls”

      Not me.

      Not Edim.

      Not you. (Even bein’ a “man o’ the cloth”)

      Not IPCC. (Even if they act like they have one.)

      All we know for sure is that it hasn’t warmed (according to the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” record of HadCRUT) since the end of 1997. That’s 15 years now.

      And over that time period humans have emitted over 30% of ALL the CO2 emissions they EVER emitted, and the atmospheric concentration has reached all-time record levels.

      But not one teeny weeny bit of warming.

      Looks like your prayers are paying off, Rev.

      Rejoice, for we are saved!

      Max

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      I am not looking for “empirical estimates”, I am looking for empirical MEASUREMENTS. These are not the same thing.

      I feel slightly obliged to point out that estimates and measurements are, as a matter of fact, exactly the same thing. Other than the spelling.

      All measurements are estimates of a physical parameter based on a model. Even a simple thermometer must be calibrated against a presumed standard. But you already knew that, didn’t you?

      Or – perhaps, in your blog-research, you only use magic ‘perfect’ thermometers that read correctly to 137 decimal places with no margin of error? (Available at ‘Skeptics’-R-Us, two for a dollar.)

      Anyhow – That you happen to like some science and happen to not-like other science is really cute, but not very illuminating.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Max:

      Ain’t nobody got one o’ dem “crystal balls”

      Agreed. It’s true.

      But some folks have the laws of physics on their “team”.
      Sorta like a crystal ball – but without the gypsy-lady and the fiction.

    • Rev, “Or – perhaps, in your blog-research, you only use magic ‘perfect’ thermometers that read correctly to 137 decimal places with no margin of error? (Available at ‘Skeptics’-R-Us, two for a dollar.)”

      Trenberth has the Wattmeter version, pretty impressive.

    • Rev

      “Physics” are great (as we both agree).

      We all love “physics”.

      When it comes to “climate”, IPCC doesn’t have the exclusive user rights to “physics”, of course.

      And they seem to only use those “physics” that support their political “agenda”.

      So this could be called “agenda driven physics”.

      Models are a superb way to use this type of “physics”, because they will tell you anything you really want them to.

      You can even use this kind of “physics” to read the future – like the crystal ball we just talked about.

      IPCC even uses this kind of “physics” to tell us what the average global temperature will be in 2100, believe-it-or-not!

      But I prefer the other kind.

      The “Feynman” kind, that’s based on empirical evidence from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation.

      That kind of “physics” doesn’t follow an “agenda” – it just follows the physical laws.

      But IPCC prefers the other kind of “physics”.

      How ’bout you?

      Max

    • Rev

      A PS on “physics”:

      The “Feynman” type of “physics” is telling us that it hasn’t warmed in 15 years, despite unabated human GHG emissions, suggesting that maybe those GHGs really aren’t the “climate control knob” that the models using the “agenda driven physics” were predicting.

      And, as Edim has suggested, if the real life “physics” tells us that this “lack of warming” continues for another 15 years despite unabated human GHG emissions, we may have to toss those model predictions, and the “agenda driven physics” that created them, into the trash.

      But I guess we’ll all have to wait and see,

      Being a man o’ the cloth, I’m sure you are not taking any wagers on this.

      Nor am I.

      Max

    • Reverend, you write “I feel slightly obliged to point out that estimates and measurements are, as a matter of fact, exactly the same thing. ”

      I am sure engineers will disagree with you. When I built my cottage, I needed 2x4s that were exactly 8 ft long, within a tenth of an inch.. I did not estimate how long they were, I took a measuring tape and actually measured them. Once any instrument has been calibrated, then you use it to measure things. Not estimate them.

      There are hypothetical estimates of climate sensitivity; so far as I am aware no-one has measured a value for climate sensitivity.

    • Reverend,

      Guess how many times I have argued on this point with Jim. No argument has any effect on him as Steve Mosher noted a couple of days ago.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Jim Cripwell:
      “:
      There are hypothetical estimates of climate sensitivity; so far as I am aware no-one has measured a value for climate sensitivity.

      It appears that Pekka and Mosher are correct.
      You may continue to be proudly wrong – Fear of being educated will keep your path unobstructed by scientific evidence.

      Max:
      Thanks for the handy taxonomy of the different kinds of physics in your world.

      But – Let’s leave the poor bongo-playing ghost of Feynman alone, OK?
      I realize that ‘skeptics’ are experts on counter-factuals and all – but dead people are all too perfect for hero-worship – they don’t laugh out loud from the grave.

    • Rev

      I know that those espousing the IPCC view of CAGW would like to “leave Feynman buried in the ground”, but I’d say we should not bury his stated principles.

      The “proof of the pudding” in science is validation by empirical evidence, as Feynman stressed. Empirical evidence is provided by actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation..

      NOT by model simulations based on theoretical deliberations, Reverend.

      CAGW has not been validated by empirical scientific evidence, as Jim Cripwell keeps reiterating – and, until it is, it remains an uncorroborated hypothesis or premise.

      Pekka responds with arguments from authority (i.e. “the scientific community has agreed…”) or cites physical theory, but has not cited any empirical evidence so far.

      You have not done so, either.

      Nor have any of the many supporters of the IPCC CAGW premise who post here.

      The reason for this is simple to me.

      That empirical scientific evidence does not yet exist.

      Pretty simple actually, your Grace.

      Max

    • Knock forster 2006 off your list.
      results are not reproducable. sorry.

    • Jim Cripwell

      “I am sure engineers will disagree with you. When I built my cottage, I needed 2x4s that were exactly 8 ft long, within a tenth of an inch.. I did not estimate how long they were, I took a measuring tape and actually measured them. Once any instrument has been calibrated, then you use it to measure things. Not estimate them.

      There are hypothetical estimates of climate sensitivity; so far as I am aware no-one has measured a value for climate sensitivity.”

      #############
      sorry as an engineer ( Northrop and other companies ) I would have to agree that there is no difference between an “estimate” and a measurement. Once an instrument has been calibrated your estimates are “better’ given the theory that it doesnt change in between calibration.
      All measurement involves theory, at the base the theory that our measurement tools do not change the thing we are measuring or change themselves during measuring. Even the notion of a standard relies on theoretical assumptions.

      Lets take a couple of example. have we measured the distance to the moon or estimated it? Well you know that we dont pull out a ruler and “measure” it. we measure or estimate it by taking observations and applying theory. For example, we might direct a radar pulse at the moon and observe the transit time. Then we apply a theory about the speed of the radar pulse, the reflection off the moon ect and come of with our Measurement.. which like all measurement is an estimate. That is, a number with uncertainty. Do we measure the radius of the earth with a tape measure? no. but we know what it is. The bottom line is that there is no epistemological difference between an estimate and a measurement because all measurement is an estimate. That is to say there is no perfect measurement system and no measurement that is theory free.

      We have measurements of sensitivity. we can measure forcing and we can measure the response to forcing. That is all you need to calculate the ratio. The current state of measurements is such that these quantities have large uncertainties. Imagine trying to measure the speed of sound without having an accurate clock. You can STILL measure it, but your measure has large uncertainty. We can also, for example, measure the temperture of the surface of the earth from space…. But that measurement has uncertainty. Again, all measurement is an estimate, and the difference between accurate estimates ( you measuring a 2*4) and less accurate estimates ( me measuring sensitivity ) is not a difference in KIND, it is a difference in degree.

    • CAGW has not been validated by empirical scientific evidence

      This does seem to be the crux of the whole problem.
      What is perhaps an idea is to formulate exactly what sort of empirical evidence is needed to decide (one way or the other).

    • Mosher, Taking on board that there are no absolute, theory-free, certain measurements, what are the measurements for (A) forcing and (B) the temperature response to it, that you mention ?

    • Monk,

      Most of the IPCC WG1 reports are on work relevant for that. In them you can find thousands references to empirical work. I know that skeptics dismiss IPCC but it’s a simple irrefutable fact that all the referred papers do exist and that very many of them present empirical data and study what can be inferred from that.

      Statements that start from the premise that there’s no empirical evidence for main stream views are patently wrong. That’s what we can read from Jim Cripwell and often also from Max (manacker). Starting the argumentation by denial of irrefutable facts makes it totally pointless. (This kind of stupid messages make me sometimes angry enough to react more to the person than I prefer in most occasions.)

      There are always problems with data and there are legitimate questions on what can be inferred from that but discussing those issues requires some competence and a lot of effort to make it meaningful. Therefore many skeptics prefer outright denial of facts (existence of empirical data). There are also skeptics who have bitten the bullet and done their homework. There are plentiful of points for them to question. Even then no-one should be stubborn but to accept valid arguments and proceed to next open question. Doing all that leaves some people more skeptic than others.

      We have rather skeptic serious scientists, some of them come to the public like Lindzen or Spencer, others choose to stay out of public. All these scientists agree on the most fundamental premises but their views start deviate from the main stream at some point. Similarly we hove other scientists whose views start to deviate from the main stream to the alarmist direction at some point. Here again some are vocal in public while others are not. (For those most vocal in public on both sides the reasons for choosing to be vocal are mostly outside those of science.)

    • Webmaster : can we PLEASE have 3+ more levels of nesting ?
      ——-
      Pekka Pirilä,

      Thanks, I do appreciate that there are numerous relevant measurements and facts, some of which I suspect even the likes of Max acknowledge.

      That’s all in the WG1 reports you say. OK, but perhaps for the benefit of lay bloggers like myself, you could supply a summary (or a reference to one) listing the most important ones and their inferences and levels of confidence ? The caveat for the reader of course being the danger of oversimplification. After all, you (IPCC) do do an even simpler version for policy-makers.

    • Pekka said, “Statements that start from the premise that there’s no empirical evidence for main stream views are patently wrong.”

      That is not technically true. The semantics get in the way of a good conversation. The range of CO2 impact by the IPCC is 1.5 to 4.5 and the only empirical evidence is 2XCO2 will increase the resistance to “surface” cooling by ~3.7Wm-2 which can cause a 1-1.5C increase in temperature at a surface to be named later. So there is no empirical evidence that a doubling of CO2 will cause more than 1-1.5C warming at the physical surface of the Earth, which people live on. Now you have to define “mainstream” views.

      The range 1.5 to 4.5 is a compromise of Manabe and Hansen estimates that produced a “mainstream” estimate of 3C per doubling by default. Providing a “target” is known to produce confirmation bias. Which Stephens mentions as a “range of comfort” in sensitivity estimates. The title of this post is stratospheric uncertainty and the knob used to tune to that “range of comfort” was aerosols which is the main reason for the stratospheric uncertainty and the “pause that refocuses”.

      3C per doubling is in no way derived from empirical evidence.

    • Jim

      Watch out for the fancy rhetoric, which attempts to blur the distinction between empirical evidence based on physical data from actual measurements or reproducible experimentation and theoretical deliberations, no matter how well-reasoned.

      Sure, there is some theory in how me measure the distance to the moon, but the measurement is a measurement, ergo it constitutes empirical evidence.

      Measure it tomorrow, using the same methodology, and you end up with the same answer. Check it using a new measurement technique, and you still get the same answer.

      The same is true for a simple mercury thermometer versus a bi-metal coil thermometer.

      The IPCC model predictions of climate sensitivity are not actual measurements. Nor can they be replicated with actual physical experimentation.

      And it is precisely these model predictions upon which the entire IPCC “CAGW” premise rests.

      As we are seeing, the estimates for climate sensitivity are coming down from their IPCC AR4 range of 3.2°C±0.7°C [AR4 WG1 Ch.8 p. 633] to 1.75°C±0.25°C [Schlesinger].

      Using the actually observed CO2 temperature record since 1850 plus estimates from IPCC and elsewhere on solar forcing and forcing from other anthropogenic sources, we arrive at a slightly lower range, even if we add in the CO2-caused portion of IPCC’s estimated 0.6°C currently waiting “in the pipeline”.

      Same is true if we use the IPCC “most of warming since 1950″ claim, depending how one defines “most”.

      But these are all based on theory, rather than hard empirical evidence.

      And therein lies the basic problem for the CAGW hypothesis of IPCC, whether Pekka likes to hear this or not.

      AGW itself (i.e. the greenhouse mechanism of CO2) is a different story; this has been measured in the lab, even though this gives no real answer regarding its real impact in our climate system.

      But back to IPCC’s CGW hypothesis. It is not that CAGW is not an elegant hypothesis, backed in principle by sound physical theory, it is simply that it has not been validated by empirical scientific evidence as yet.

      All the arm-waving in the world will not change this.

      The only thing that could change it is citing hard empirical evidence which supports it.

      And, so far, no one here has done this.

      Max

      .

    • PS Inasmuch as climatologists have been modeling around on this for twenty years, and still no one has provided the empirical evidence to support the CAGW claim of IPCC, I can only assume that it does not exist.

    • Max, You and I know what the situation is. It is fun discussing it on Climate Etc. and I have learned a lot from my discussions with Pekka, Steven, and all the other warmists. Nothing they can say will ever change my mind. I know the difference in meaning between the words “measure” and “estimate”. Maybe sometime I will waste my time, and yours, on my first experience in Cavendish practical physics labs with a legendary gentleman by the name of Searle, and his “Order of Near Enough”.

      As I have remarked many times before, none of this makes any difference. The world is going to go on using as much in the way of fossil fuels as it can, into the indefinite future. We are going to go on adding CO2 to the atmosphere. So, in the end, we will know whether the likes of you and I are correct, or the likes of Pekka and Steven.

      The one thing I still need to go on doing, is trying to persuade Canadian politicians not to waste any more money on “going green”, and wasting taxpayer money building the current type of “renewable” enery generators.

    • Monk,

      It it would be practical to give a short list of conclusive empirical data we would not have IPCC and its voluminous WG1 reports. The agreement on the changes in climate would be clear enough without such a body and it would have been dismantled if ever set up at all.

      It’s possible to argue that simplistic analysis based on just the observed temperatures provides very strong evidence and tells also reasonably well the strength of the effect. The fit of Vaughan Pratt tells about the content of that type of interpretation. Professor Richard Muller presented that kind of conclusion after the publication of the second round of results by the BEST group. Most scientists do, however, not consider such simplistic conclusions fully justified while they do very often think that the interpretation is likely to be roughly correct. They want to have better and more systematically analyzed evidence and they want to combine knowledge from various empirical sources and from general understanding of the atmosphere.

      The problem is that no single piece of empirical data is very strong alone and that the various peaces are disperse. They cannot be put together without some kind of models, not necessarily large GCM type models but models in any case. This remains a complex task and it’s not possible to summarize concisely what’s most important in that. There are nice review articles but even the best give a severely one sided glimpse on the whole. To get a proper evaluation something on the scale of the WG1 reports is needed.

      What we have learned about forthcoming AR5 so far seems to tell that the situation has not got any better. More understanding has revealed some additional weaknesses in the earlier conclusions leading to the outcome that the error bars are as wide as they were before.

    • Pekka
      You say : if it is was easy to specify measurements to test real-world AGW, it would already have been done. Logical enough.

      But why is the following too simple?
      A. Measure the radiation budget
      B. Measure CO2 ppm
      C. See to what extent they move together.

    • Monk,

      Measuring accurately the radiation budget from satellites would answer many questions. That may in future be the way of resolving a large number of essential issues. Unfortunately measuring accurately enough the radiation balance has not been possible and will not be possible in near future. What would be needed involves better equipment and more satellites.

      The concentration of CO2 is known well enough but some other factors including other CHG’s must also be known in putting all pieces together.

    • “But why is the following too simple?
      A. Measure the radiation budget
      B. Measure CO2 ppm
      C. See to what extent they move together.”

      They may not move together because of thermal latency effects.

      In addition the measurement is non-trivial, because as Mosh has tirelessly pointed out, the act of spectroscopically measuring thermal radiation is dependent on a model of the radiative properties of the atmosphere. Get the model wrong and your measurements don’t mean anything.

      The best way around this is to take relative measurements while keeping the calibration parameters stable. The only issue with this is that you need to build up a history of measurements to establish a trend away from the baseline.

      In any case, getting a true absolute measure of the radiation budget and its constituents is likely impossible. Go with the anomalies and keep track of that. And that’s what they are doing.

    • Ok, so we aren’t quite there with measuring the radiation budget; for now, just look at relative rather than absolute measurement. Other man-made GHGs need to be considered. And we must allow for a possible time lag.

      But still, my simple A, B, C has not been ridiculed to kingdom come. (Not, I hope, through excessive politeness…..)

      So maybe what we need to do, is redirect resources into getting the radiation budget sorted. Scrap/curtail the $billions going into seemingly useless models, and put it into more satellites and research into better radiation measuring instruments ?

    • Monk, Even if you succeed in measuring the radiation “budget”, there is still the problem of how you go from a change in radiative forcing to a change in global temperature. I have looked at the physics that claims that this can be done, and I am as certain as I can be that there is no proper physics that allows us to even estimate, let alone measure, how much global temperature changes as a result of a change in radiative forcing.

    • Jim, Ok but you agree the priority now should be measuring the radiation budget? Then, and only then, will we be in a position to put a number to 2xCO2.
      But you seriously believe there are big problems going from delta X Watts to delta Y degrees? Why?

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Jim Cripwell:

      Even if you succeed in measuring the radiation “budget”, there is still the problem of how you go from a change in radiative forcing to a change in global temperature.

      You really have no clue, do you?

      ΔT = λ * ΔF


      I have looked at the physics that claims that this can be done, and I am as certain as I can be that there is no proper physics that allows us to even estimate, let alone measure, how much global temperature changes as a result of a change in radiative forcing.

      You’ve “looked” at the physics?

      Your personal beliefs are not evidence of anything – except your lack of comprehension.

      There is no “proper” physics!
      Why is it that denialists always assume that they are uniquely qualified to determine what is “proper”?

      Jim Cripwell reminds me of a petulant grade-school kid who knows how to read, but in an bizarre attempt to spite the teacher, refuses to.

    • Reverend, You write “ΔT = λ * ΔF”

      Show me the proper physics as to how λ is measured, or estimated, or whatever.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      Show me the proper physics as to how λ is measured, or estimated, or whatever.

      Dickinson, 1982
      Ramanathan et al., 1985
      WMO, 1986
      Cess et al., 1993

      Feel free to rationalize these studies away as not being “proper” physics.
      Whatever.

    • The latest argumentation is largely beside the point. When the TOA radiation budget is known the warming of the Earth system is known in terms of energy. The questions concerning feedbacks are largely solved by that as they affect the radiation budget rather than the relationship between the radiation budget and temperatures.

      There remain questions concerning the division of the extra heat in the Earth system but that’s an issue of the questions of the next level.

    • Reverend, I should have known better. With any aspect of CAGW, the warmists always have a reference which “proves” that they are correct. The question then becomes as to whether these references have any basis in physics. I have looked at just about every way that λ is derived, and I am satisfied that the physics is not correct. However, this is impossible to discuss on a blog. Monk will have to decide for himself which of us is right. If he has not read the threads that Judith had on climate sensitivity when this blog first started, I suggest he starts there. There was plenty of discussion as to why this approach to estimating climate sensitivity made no scientific sense

    • Pekka – “When the TOA radiation budget is known the warming of the Earth system is known in terms of energy. The questions concerning feedbacks are largely solved by that as they affect the radiation budget rather than the relationship between the radiation budget and temperatures.”

      Pretty crucial then. So how is it progressing ?

    • Reverend

      I can understand that, as a man o’ the cloth, you like to ponder and discuss heavenly matters, but it appears to me that Jim Cripwell has fallen into your trap of discussing the elusive λ, a heavenly concept.

      Being a simple lay person of the “doubting Thomas” persuasion, I do not really care about λ, or how it has been estimated, I am just interested in empirical scientific evidence to back up the CAGW claims of IPCC.

      So far this has not been forthcoming from you or from any of the other faithful, from which I conclude that we are discussing “dogma” here (if you’ll pardon the expression) rather than “science”.

      You’ll excuse me for again evoking the words and thoughts of Feynman (though his bones are resting in peace, as you have pointed out, and I’m sure his soul is in your heaven).

      Max

    • Max,

      It there’s one irrelevant detail that makes me angry reading your comments it’s perverting what we know about the thoughts of Feynman.

    • Mosher, Taking on board that there are no absolute, theory-free, certain measurements, what are the measurements for (A) forcing and (B) the temperature response to it, that you mention ?
      ##########################

      Monk, I would start with Hansen’s papers on LGM.

      Here is what you will find. Since we cannot do controlled experiments, climate science is an OBSERVATIONAL science we can’t put the climate in a beaker, we can only look at past temperatures and past forcings to CONSTRAIN our estimate of sensitivity.

      more later, BBD and Pekka should be able to give you exact citations.

    • Max,

      λ to the slaughter

      Being a simple lay person of the “doubting Thomas” persuasion, I do not really care about λ, or how it has been estimated, I am just interested in empirical scientific evidence to back up the CAGW claims of IPCC.

      The measuring of which particular quantities do you have in mind?

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Cripwell:

      Monk will have to decide for himself which of us is right.

      Being right is not a matter of choosing your spokesperson – unless you are a post-modernist.

      It’s a matter of evidence.

      It is funny that the same people who repeatedly argue that there is an absence of scientific evidence to support climate science – are willing to base that argument on the fact that they have not been convinced to their “proper” satisfaction by fellow blog-commenters.

      If you are not willing to actually read the primary literature, work the math, and understand the scientific evidence, all your ‘skepticism’ is just so much vacuous complaining.

      Simply denying that evidence exists does not make it magically disappear.

      If any of you cranks had a clue, you would publish and become famous for causing a scientific revolution.

      But here you are on blog, complaining about things you don’t even bother to understand.

      Complete waste of time, really.

    • “I have looked at just about every way that λ is derived, and I am satisfied that the physics is not correct.”

      Jim Cripwell, I did the same and the physics is incorrect. There is no greenhouse gas effect or climate sensitivity in the real world, only in the computer models. But this does not mean that the CAGW is not real. If you feel it is not real, then prove your point as a scientist. Certainly we need an alternative to the concept of greenhouse gas effect and its associated climate sensitivity. As long as you do not come with an acceptable alternative, the incorrect science will stick around.

    • Wow, Mosher. You’re really going to try to argue that there’s no difference between an “estimate” and a “measurement”? Yes, we all understand, there is always a finite limitation on the precision of a measurement, which results in uncertainty, and this may be increased by finite limitations on the accuracy of the measurement. But I think we also all understand that this is different in kind from the uncertainty in an estimate.

      If I were going to operationalize the distinction, it would be as an absence of the ability to quantify the uncertainty. And because those sources of uncertainty and error cannot be quantified, they are necessarily excluded from any calculation of uncertainty bars. Which results in these estimates being reported with far more certainty than they deserve.

      Which is why we’re having this argument.

    • Pekka

      You seem concerned (?) that the words of Feynman are being perverted (?) – by me!

      No, Pekka, there’s no perversion here.

      I am just reiterating the concept so brilliantly defined by Feyman that a hypothesis, no matter how elegant the theoretical derivation and no matter from whom it came, isn’t really worth very much unless it can be validated by empirical evidence, such as actual physical observation or reproducible experimentation.

      As a rational skeptic of the CAGW premise (or hypothesis) of IPCC (which I outlined above, citing the IPCC AR4 sections for the various parts), I conclude that this hypothesis has not been validated by empirical evidence (only by model simulations, which are, of course, no empirical evidence).

      You have been unable to cite the empirical evidence for this hypothesis (or premise), so let’s leave it there. This evidence apparently does not exist.

      It remains an uncorroborated hypothesis.

      This is not a good basis for taking any drastic actions like shutting down the world economy.

      Let’s get the science right first.

      Max

    • Reverend

      You’ll pardon me for contradicting you, but you erroneously ASS-U-ME* that the “skeptics” of the CAGW premise of IPCC are simply “shooting from the hip” without having looked at the literature.

      I can assure your Holiness that this is not the case, having spent many hours poring over the voluminous IPCC reports and the backup studies cited there.

      There are a multitude of model simulations, a bit of subjective interpretation of dicey paleo proxy data from carefully selected periods of our planet’s past, and many, many words ad nauseam – but no empirical evidence to support the key parts of the CAGW premise, in particular the model-predicted (2xCO2) climate sensitivity.

      I am aware that “miracles” are something that fits into your thinking (as a man o’ the cloth) but (as a doubting layman) I do not believe in them.

      Show me the evidence, Reverend, and I, too will become a “believer”.

      Your abject and respectful servant,

      Max

      * written this way, because when you do so, you make an “ass” out of “you” and “me”

    • What, me wonder?
      =============

    • So Manacker and Jim Cripwell deny the greenhouse effect exists?

    • The CO2 forcing is kind of hard to ignore given it actually exists.

      In our best theory, yes. But we don’t actually have any actual, direct measuring instruments for it, we can only infer.

    • Memphis, that is not true. One of the few things we actually halfway know is the CO2 forcing on the atmosphere. We have no clue what the combination of feedbacks to that forcing will be or how much impact it will have or how long it will take to realize an impact on the oceans. Other than that, the models are perfect :)

    • One of the few things we actually halfway know is the CO2 forcing on the atmosphere.

      But by inference as opposed to a CO2forcingmometer ?

    • Take a 200W, 10.6 micron laser and point it at a robust target across the room so the beam travels in parallel with the floor (make sure your eye protection is very robust). To emulate the atmosphere as much as possible, make sure the room is very big and the beam path length is as long as possible. Open all the windows. Put a thermometer on the floor. Turn the beam on. According to academic climatologists, the temperature at the floor will go up via omnidirectional “back radiating” atmospheric molecules. According to the me, the temperature will go down as heated atmospheric molecules convect upward and denser, cooler air molecules convect downward. You might try to find a 14 micron laser (which would be hard, but not impossible) to enhance interaction with atmospheric CO2 molecules. That might make a difference to the magnitude of the temperature change, but not to the direction.

    • Ah, but Ken, you can’t open the windows :) That would allow convection to increase which is a negative feedback doncha know.

      Memphis, No you can measure the CO2 spectrum and model it pretty accurately, you get into trouble when you try to measure or model all the interactions that may or may not be due to increased CO2. Natural ocean oscillations would change the surface energy available and the response to increased available energy is close to the same as increase CO2. Land use impacts would be amplified by CO2 so you would have trouble separating that out of the effect. If water vapor increased as expected, that would make the impact easier to measure, but it is not. Since land use also impacts water use, that is also hard to separate out from CO2 impact. Then the stratosphere is not playing along either, so back to the drawing board.

    • lolwot | December 13, 2012 at 5:05 pm said: ”’So Manacker and Jim Cripwell deny the greenhouse effect exists?”

      Manacker denies greenhouse existence, only every second day; plus, depends to whom he is talking too. Like a drunken lady – he is in everybody’s tent.

      lolwot, have a doze of the real truth, it will help you a bit against your suffering from the Warmist CON: oxygen &nitrogen are the ”greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere, not CO2!!!,

      percentage of CO2, makes less than a postage stamp on the roof of the phony greenhouse – if 98% of the roof of a greenhouse is not there – that wouldn’t be a greenhouse!!!

      O&N are transparent, same as the roof of a normal greenhouse – they let the sunlight trough. Then, as perfect insulators, they slow down cooling (the unlimited coldness is not touching the ground, as it is the case on the moon) Confusing yourself and others with crappy theory, will not change the truth. See what has happened to Manacker and similar; they are the: ”yes / no / maybe” vermin in the blogosphere

    • BBD

      For a scientist, you make an odd statement:

      The odd duff paper doesn’t overturn thirty years of work.

      How about Alfred Wegener’s “continental drift” theory (which eventually “overturned” more than “thirty years of work”?

      That’s the way science works, BBD.

      Will Hernik Svensmark be the Alfred Wegener of climatology?

      Who knows?

      Max

  9. Stratosphere doesn’t play any part in the self-adjusting global temperature, Troposphere is only used as smokescreen; to confuse the already confused!!!

    gases as aerosols, helium; just spin there, and don’t come to the ground, to shuttle heat up; like the real heat shuttles ”OXYGEN &NITROGEN” (there isn’t any methane in the stratosphere)

    2] the Stratosphere cannot accumulate any heat; to slow down cooling of the planet tomorrow – because: by tomorrow, the planet will be million miles away from that spot, spinning around the sun. Official GLOBAL temp::
    http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/

    • Yes this alleged ‘Stefan’ cannot be real. Tangled tripe of this calibre can only be some consensus troll (or perhaps even just some software program).

    • Most of these hoaxsters and pranksters are coming out of Australia. It seems to be a significant part of their culture to mock authority and otherwise cause people anguish. I kind of doubt they will apologize over making these sites into archives of FUD.
      Most of them seem to not hide the fact that they come from Australia and I kind of wonder how many of the other trolls and sockpuppets come from there.

      The owner of this site can easily check the logs to see where frequent hoax commenters are posting from. I would say that half of the 50 crackpot theorists that run rampant here are hoaxsters and pranksters.
      It is just to easy to copy and paste the kind of spew that Captain Kangaroo and his merry band of pranksters partake in, for them to suddenly stop.

      There are ways of dealing with this situation. Like the unfortunate hospital incident revealed, it is all in the hands of the switchboard operator.

    • Steady Eddie | December 11, 2012 at 11:01 am said: ”Yes this alleged ‘Stefan’ cannot be real”

      Yap, I’m real; people that are scared from reality; wish that I wasn’t for real, BUT, reality will catch up with you all. Not one of my proofs has being proven wrong! 2] most of you are trumpeting other’s lies; without understanding that they are all WRONG! Person with understanding capacity, can see that: my proofs can be proven / replicated in controlled environment. I don’t use outdated pagan fairy-tales as factual, I’m not a ”carbon molester” like most of you. also: water is life! I never badmouthed CO2 &H2O, and never will. Because they don’t understand that:80% of every lunatic D/H body is made from Carbon &water!!!.

    • Perhaps his English is limited? That would explain some of the crazy ……

    • I think Stefan is hilarious, serious or not.

      “the Stratosphere cannot accumulate any heat; to slow down cooling of the planet tomorrow – because: by tomorrow, the planet will be million miles away from that spot, spinning around the sun.”

    • There is very little difference between someone like Edim and someone like Stefan.

      Stefan argues from the perspective of someone with a theory and a dogged perspective to prove everyone else wrong.

      In contrast, Edim argues from the perspective of a knee-jerk contrarian who believes that the current scientific understanding is wrong, showing a dogged persistence in that belief, and allowing nothing to get in the way.

      As a practical matter, which one of these two clowns would you hire in a technical position?

    • Wrong Webby! I argue from the perspective of the ignorance of experts. Furthermore, I know enough of the physics (thermodynamics, heat transfer..) to recognize the false certainty in A(GHG)GW and the radiative GHG effect as postulated by the consensus. The knowledge of philosophy and history of science helps too.

      By the way, I am hired in a technical position and my employer is very satisfied with me.

    • Yes I suspect Webby struggles with the distinction between on the one hand sceptics, and on the other hand deniers and credulites (like himself).

    • Webby is a climate change denier, just like all warmists have to be to some extent – in order to believe in AGW you have to deny some or all (natural) climate change. Warmists project their climate change denial very nicely and obviously on skeptics, by calling them climate change (or global warming) deniers.

    • Edim,

      That’s one of the most stupid (and persistent) straw man arguments repeated by some skeptics giving no notice to the fact that all “warmists” agree that natural variability is true and has a significant strength.

    • WHT

      As a practical matter, which one of these two clowns would you hire in a technical position?

      The third man.

    • WebTheCrackpot said: ”There are ways of dealing with this situation. Like the unfortunate hospital incident revealed, it is all in the hands of the switchboard operator”

      Camarad Crackpot, you are still obsessed with the deceased lady…

      Can’t you get it into your thick scull that: exposing some Pome princes having morning sickness; big deal; is not as exposing some military secrets, to make England vulnerable. Cannot be considered as some treason. Not a real reason for suicide; therefore, she must have had other problems in her life. Millions of ladies that day had morning sickness, that the media don’t care about.

      Some clever Australians tricked her; made a fool of her, so what? Jim Hansen makes a fool of you every day, BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, you are still not committing suicide – prove me wrong!

    • Pekka, when I see warmists stop using the Orwellian ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ phrases, then I will believe it. I admit that the situation is changing fast with the transparency from climategates and the cooling. The consensus is much different now than a few years ago, the nut is cracked.

    • Contrarian Luddites like Edim will continue to disbelieve in science while researchers will continue to find practical applications of CO2 radiative properties.
      http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=LS-2012-LTh2I.2

      If you understand how this thermally pumped laser using mini cavity spheres works, then you can appreciate how slight the effect of Planck’s Law redistribution needs to be for us to feel the effects.

      Check out AESiegman’s classic text Lasers where he describes how thermal pumped lasers would theoretically work. The fact that the theory came first and then the experiments came later points to the triumph of scientific research.

    • Webby, you’re wrong again. I believe in science and I believe in the ignorance of experts. It is the love of science (and its method) that motivates me.

      The radiative properties of CO2 are not controversial. The solution of the Earth’s surface (and TOA) heat transfer problem is, IMO. The ‘climate science’ is a textbook example of Cargo Cult Science (practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method).

    • Edim,

      There’s no significant change in the understanding of climate change or global warming which continue to be valid expressions (while CAGW is just a concept invented by skeptics to use as they like and in a way that does not reflect main stream views).

      The concept of “ignorance of experts” is far too simplistic to be useful as such. I’m sure that you have trust in many experts and use their services even when you have some doubts. You choose to really apply the concept only when that fits your prejudices or hopes. You turn suddenly to the mode that you consider yourself the real expert who has the knowledge to dismiss a large scientific community. That’s hypocritical.

      Feynman was a physicist in search of new fundamental theories. That’s a very special quest and that’s a very different quest from using the existing science to get the estimate that best describes scientific understanding. I have worked as theoretical scientist myself and I have read papers written by Feynman. Having some understanding of that world I understand why Feynman expressed himself like that, but I see also how terribly his words have been misused by those who oppose science and promote anti-science attitudes while they claim to speak for more correct science.

      There are always false experts and even the best experts may err or be overconfident. Therefore it’s right to not have blind trust in people stated to be experts. That far you are likely to go also in more practical cases. Ignoring the experts is another thing and most certainly just stupid as a general guideline in the present day complex world.

    • Pekka

      You write:

      CAGW is just a concept invented by skeptics to use as they like and in a way that does not reflect main stream views

      This is not quote correct.

      CAGW is the IPCC premise that:

      1. human GHGs have been the cause of most of the observed warming since ~1950 [AR4 WGI SPM, p.10]

      2. this reflects a model-predicted mean 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C±0.7°C [AR4 WGI Ch.8, p.633]

      3. this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the range of 1.8°C to 6.4°C by the end of this century with increase in global sea level of up to 0.59 meters [AR4 WGI SPM, p.13]

      4.resulting in increased severity and/or intensity of heat waves, heavy precipitation events, droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high sea levels [AR4 WGI SPM, p.8],

      5. with resulting crop failures and famines, loss of drinking water for millions from disappearing glaciers, increased vector borne diseases, etc.[AR4 WGII and III]

      6. unless world-wide actions are undertaken to dramatically curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2)

      That, Pekka, is what is commonly referred to as “potentially catastrophic AGW” (or :CAGW” for short) and I’m sure you will agree that they are the so-called “mainstream views” today

      This concept is not a fabrication of “skeptics”; it is a premise posited by IPCC.

      It is also something quite different from “AGW”, i.e. the scientifically based hypothesis that the observed LW energy absorption characteristics of CO2 (and other GHGs) would lead to a significant warming in our climate system with increased concentrations of these GHGs resulting from human GHG emissions (principally CO2), which is cited as the underlying scientific basis for the “CAGW” premise of IPCC.

      I hope you can grasp the distinction and also see how “CAGW” is not a “concept invented by skeptics”, but rather a premise being sold to the public and policymakers by IPCC.

      Max

    • Max,

      When “potentially” is added and taken seriously into consideration the discussion gets closer to main stream. How often does that occur when “CAGW” is introduced is an essential point. In web discussion that’s mostly not done at all and very seldom in a proper way. This behavior makes much of the discussion such an empty and meaningless polemic.

    • ” The ‘climate science’ is a textbook example of Cargo Cult Science (practices that have the semblance of being scientific, but do not in fact follow the scientific method).”

      Cargo Cult thinking is the kind of stuff that washes on shore in some remote South Pacific island, much like the place that Willis Eschenbach apparently calls home. That was the original premise for cargo cult, in that primitive people would do weird stuff with found objects.

      Again, why is it that all these crackpots come from Australia and other remote environments? Is Larrinkinism a manifestation at being considered castaways from the rest of the world, and that they resort to pranks and stunts as a means to get even?

      Some 2-bit profiling on my part to make sense of the situation. Where does Edim come from?

    • Pekka:
      “How often does that occur when “CAGW” is introduced is an essential point. In web discussion that’s mostly not done at all and very seldom in a proper way.”
      —————————————————————————————————
      And that distinction is almost never made in the MSM, or in political discussion – where it really counts.

    • WebHT:
      “That was the original premise for cargo cult, in that primitive people would do weird stuff with found objects.”
      ———————————————————————————————–
      I believe you misunderstand the premise of “cargo cult”. There are plenty of web references, including Wikipedia

    • WebHubTelescope | December 13, 2012 at 9:16 am |


      Cargo Cult thinking is the kind of stuff that washes on shore in some remote South Pacific island, much like the place that Willis Eschenbach apparently calls home. That was the original premise for cargo cult, in that primitive people would do weird stuff with found objects.

      __________________________
      That discussion of “Cargo Cult” can only be described as remarkably wrong. I do hope your grasp of climate theory is better. Just for starters, the CC was never linked to “found objects.” Even Wikipedia offers a better discussion.

    • It all revolves around why People Believe in Weird Things.
      This Feynman cult that is growing in these parts is very odd, almost as if it is a form of projection.

      I called cargo culters primitive, while wikipedia calls them ‘unsophisticated’. I called them found objects, while technically the objects were brought by the random circumstances of war.

      The statistical origins of the people writing crackpot theory is heavily weighted to Australia. They all share in the same desire to achieve some facile similarity to real science, but they end up looking just as odd as the cargo culters.

    • “Where does Edim come from?”

      It’s not Australia. It’s almost an antipode of it. In fact, the antipode of where I come from is somewhere ~1000 miles east of New Zealand.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Antipodes_LAEA.png

    • Captain Kangaroo

      Better.

      I quote science – something that seemingly is beyond the webster. But we will certainly mock up themselves and clueless morons.

    • Pekka

      It looks like the “bone of contention” as far as you are concerned is whether or not one uses the word “potential” before “CAGW”.

      It is “potential” by definition, Pekka, because it has not yet occurred.

      ANY projection or prediction is “potential”.

      This includes the IPCC projection of “CAGW”, which I described above.

      Max

    • Here we go again. Playing with words to get rid of real content.

      CAGW is again something that exists only in skeptic discourse.

    • Pekka Pirilla,

      This seems like another case where you are trying to deny the bleeding obvious. The justification for high-cost mitigation policies is that, if we don’t implement them, we face dangerous/catastrophic climate change. That is the whole argument. That arguments is presented by the world leaders fed and encouraged by IPCC and climate scientists. That arguments is repeated throughout the wording of the the head of the UN and in the statements at the Doha and all the previous climate chats. The argument continually presented by the climate scientists there is high risk it will be catastrophic and is “it’s worse than we thought”.

      I don’t know how you can deny that.

    • Pekka,

      You are accusing Manacker of doing what you do. You accused Manacker of:

      Here we go again. Playing with words to get rid of real content.

      Yet, in your previous post it was you that was “playing with words”. You said:

      When “potentially” is added and taken seriously into consideration the discussion gets closer to main stream.

      The wriggling and squirming reminds me of previous discussions we had over wind energy, carbon tax and fuel taxes.

    • Pekka

      You are waffling.

      I described to you the IPCC premise, citing IPCC references for each part.

      I told you that this premise is what is generally called “CAGW”, since it projects potentially catastrophic impacts from future AGW unless GHG emissions are curtailed.

      If you do not like the fact that thispremise has become known (in skeptical circles, at least) as “CAGW”, I cannot help that.

      It is the premise which is being questioned.

      Not the name given to it.

      So, do you support the IPCC premise as outlined or not?

      I have concluded that I do not support this premise, because I have not seen anywhere that it is supported by empirical evidence.

      The weak link in the chain of logic is the model-derived prediction of (2xCO2) climate sensitivity, upon which everything else is built.

      If you can show me the empirical evidence that specifically supports this premise, I will reconsider my conclusion.

      However, until I see such specific empirical evidence, I will remain rationally skeptical of the IPCC premise (whether one calls it “CAGW” or not).

      Hope this clears upfor you that I am NOT “playing with words”, but questioning the stated IPCC premise (commonly known as “CAGW”).

      Max

    • Pekka, “CAGW is again something that exists only in skeptic discourse.”

      Okay, let’s say that CAGW is purely a skeptic red herring. BBD, repeatedly implies that anyone that does not agree that warming of at least 3C due to CO2 is ignorant of the science. He uses Yocum’s razor, as opposed to Occum’s razor since anything over 1 to 1.5 requires unproven assumptions.

      In the “skeptic” mind, the debate is over the degree of warming that can be “realistically” expected in some time frame. That is what “they” feel is needed to determine what actions are justified.

      Jim Cripwell, due to the difference in semantics, would like some “empirical” evidence of what impact we can expect from a doubling of CO2. Jim Cripwell is an idiot in the opinion of the warmers, because the physics is sound, “a doubling of CO2 will cause 1-1.5C of warming at some surface which will produce some undetermined amount of warming at the “true surface” over some undetermined time frame.”

      The circle remains unbroken.

      If you don’t care for the C in CAGW to distinguished between OMG we are all going to die!” and “We need to take a pragmatic approach to resolve potential issues due to a variety of natural and manmade influences on future climate.”, how would you indicated there is a few trillion dollars worth of difference between the two scenarios?

      From realclimate:”[Response: I actually disagree with Drew's viewpoint, and that of UNEP, regarding the climate benefits of a near-term emphasis on short-lived climate forcing agents. There are plenty of compelling reasons to control soot and other particulate pollutants for human health and agricultural reasons (very little health co-benefit for methane though). But so far as climate goes, any near-term emphasis on the short-lived forcers buys a very modest reduction of short term warming at the expense of incurring greater warming within a few decades after the 2070 date where the UNEP studies cut off their graphs. Drew is quite upfront about the need to keep the short-lived climate agent mitigation from detracting from CO2 mitigation, but I think that realistically in a world of finite resources any incentives given to controlling e.g. methane will drain resources that would be better used for CO2 mitigation. An analysis of the long-term implications of incentives for methane control can be found in my WCRP paper with Susan Solomon, available in the publication section of my web site, geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1 . The right thing to do, for methane at least, is to forget about it for about a century, while concentrating on CO2 mitigation. Black carbon particulate mitigation can probably be justified on the basis of human health, without complicating the issue with its potential (and highly uncertain) climate co-benefits. I am currently working on a review of these issues for Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences. --raypierre]”

      Since land use impacts the efficiency of the carbon sink and the capacity of the land area’s ability to sink carbon appears to be underestimated by a factor of two, there are some that might disagree with raypierre over what the best first step for the next century of pragmatic action might be.

    • Pekka’s argument is literally senseless. The threat of dangerous warming is what the debate is about and CAGW is the chosen name for that threat among skeptics. Not liking the name does not make it wrong. CAGW is also sometimes used for the movement touting the threat. These are simple linguistic facts.

    • “Pekka Pirilä | December 13, 2012 at 7:24 am |

      Here we go again. Playing with words to get rid of real content.

      CAGW is again something that exists only in skeptic discourse.”

      Yes, indeed.
      In other discourses it’s the gravy train, baby.
      The way we operate.
      The scientific consensus
      The precautionary principle
      A means to an end.

    • CAGW is again something that exists only in skeptic discourse.

      Reflecting the activism / lack of integrity in mainstream discourse.

    • Pekka

      I hope that now that I have clarified that this is not a discussion about mere words, but rather of specific claims and projections made by IPCC in its AR4 report, which can be summarized as the IPCC AR4 premise (or IPCC’s “CAGW premise”).

      These claims and projections are based on a model-predicted mean (2xCO2) climate sensitivity of 3.2C.

      And the question is quite simple.

      Have you concluded, based on your scientific evaluation, that this premise is valid, or not?

      And, if yes, can you cite the empirical evidence to support this premise?

      Pekka, this is NOT a loaded question. And it is not a question about semantics. It is a question about science.

      I hope you will not evade it.

      Max

    • Pekka is technically correct if he means the word CAGW only exists in skeptical discourse, as opposed to the thing the word refers to, which is dangerous human caused global warming. By the same token the words “false advertising” only occur in the discourse of those who talk about it. The people they talk about just call it advertising. They do not say we just launched a false advertising campaign, even if it is just that.

      Among the warmers it is common to just say “dangerous global warming” or just “global warming” or even “climate change” and mean what skeptics call CAGW. Thus the word CAGW provides clarification.

    • David,

      I would describe the main stream view as being sure that there is an AGW but that it’s only possible that AGW results in severe consequences. Dangerous reflects that thinking as danger refers normally to a possibility not a certainty of something bad happening. Something may be commonly seen as dangerous even when the probability of the severe outcome is rather low, in many cases a probability of 1% is enough (an activity is often judged dangerous if 1% of participants suffer a severe injury).

      CAGW is something else. It refers to a certain outcome. There are people who tell that BAU scenarios are certain to lead to catastrophic outcome but that is not stated or implied by IPCC reports.

      The views of main stream scientists cover a wide range of views on the likelihood of outcomes that can clearly be called catastrophic. I don’t think that there would be any real gap between views of sdientists like Lindzen on one end and those who are vocal in telling that IPCC belittles essentially the risks at the other end. More or less all shades between these ends are probably present although not everyone is willing to come public to tell what she or he has in thinks on this.

      Accepting as I do that there is a possibility but not certainty of very severe outcome leads to the problem of quantification and to the problem of decision making under great uncertainty applying also risk aversion (or precaution). Too few people of any side are willing to approach with open mind the issue of choosing wise policies under these constraints. People have strong views on the conclusion without much real understanding of the facts that they claim to base their views on. This is, of course, not rare in policy questions, but I claim that the lack of understanding is more fundamental in this case because few if any of the other decisions are so strongly on long term outcome and because no-one can have experience on where very long term decisions lead.

      There are other very long term issues but few decisions have ever been made on those either. They have been put aside – and one side of this debate wants to do the same on climate change issue as well. The other side believes that this case is the one where action is needed.

    • Pekka Pirrila,,

      CAGW is something else. It refers to a certain outcome.

      That is something you made up. It is another of your “play on words”. It is another of your attempts to weasel around the issue. It is another example of your inability to admit when you are clearly wrong.

      CAGW is a short term for catastrophic or dangerous AGW. It is the catastrophe part of the argument that is used incessantly by the Alarmists to argue for urgent action. If it wasn’t for the fact the Alarmists continually talk about catastrophic and dangerous global warming there would be no justification for the high cost highly damaging mitigation policies they advocate. Again, I cannot understand how a person who holds or held a chair as an energy economist could make such deceptive arguments as you are making.

      Face it and admit it:

      catastrophic climate change is a scaremongering campaign pushed by activist climate scientists and their disciples.
      Without the fear of “catastrophe” the massive tax-payer funding would not continue and their careers would be severely curtailed.
      Without the catastrophe part there would be no justification for high cost highly damaging mitigation policies.
      Without the “catastrophe” bit there would be no justification for their real agenda: policies that promote socialist, ‘Progressive’, communism, Left ideologies such as world government, removal of property rights, more regulation, more taxation, more bureaucrats, etc.
      That’s really what underpins the ‘catastrophe’ part.

      BTW, you comments show you are most definitely one of those who believe in CAGW. You cannot “play with words” to try to weasel out of what is clearly your belief.

    • Pekka

      Thanks for answering the basic question regarding what you think of predictions of catastrophic AGW.

      I suppose this means that you are also skeptical of some of the claims and projections made by IPCC, which would fit into that category.

      Of course, I agree with you that all “catastrophe” projections or predictions, such as those I listed of IPCC, refer to “a possibility not a certainty of something bad happening”.

      Where IPCC projects high certainty levels in order to sell the message, it is very likely that the uncertainties are far greater in reality.

      And, as far as I am concerned, there is still the niggling question of missing empirical evidence.

      But, I guess that’s what the ongoing debate is all about

      If there were hard empirical evidence and a high level of real certainty, there would be no debate.

      Max

    • “The statistical origins of the people writing crackpot theory is heavily weighted to Australia. They all share in the same desire to achieve some facile similarity to real science”

      Yes it’s It truly is awful. They hide data, sabotage peer-review, hide declines, misdirect government policy, and then run coverups of it all. God knows what they’ll do next. Maybe move their IPCC headquarters to Sydney.

  10. So, how will more realistic assessment of data set uncertainty influence the IPCC AR5 conclusions and confidence levels regarding the attribution of warming since the mid 20th century?

    A more important question is: Does it matter? By which I mean, if we make robust decisions, we can deal with the GHG issue, and others as well. So why don’t we put our effort into robust decision analysis?

    What would a robust policy response give us?
    1. ‘No regrets’
    2. economically beneficial (for all the world)
    3. improved health (reduced toxic pollution) everywhere
    4. greater energy security (for all the world)
    5. Fresh water supply
    6. Improved education for everyone (and improved communications for all)
    7. reduced black carbon
    8. reduced GHG emissions

    If we agreed on points like this, we really don’t need to spend so much time and effort focusing on temperatures and trends. The answer is pretty simple. It’s give the world more electricity. To do that we need to make cheaper and cleaner electricity. That is technically achievable. It is only blocked by ideological beliefs. So, if we do the robust analysis the conclusion will be clear. Most people reading this will know by now what it is, even if they will not say so!

    The question then becomes: how do we re-educate those who hold ideological beliefs that are preventing progress?

    • Woops, just noticed Moderator’s not about technical thread and relevance. I’ll post it on the Weekend thread.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      I quote science – something that seemingly is beyond the webster. But we will certainly mock up themselves and clueless morons.

  11. And the list of uncertainties grows as we learn more about the things we know very little about. Every time we add to our knowledge we uncover another puzzle, another question where there are no answers. And yet the science is settled. If ever there was a field of scientific inquiry that begs for humility, this is it.

  12. It would be amazing if humanity actually looked to the Western men of ersatz science like Santer, Mann, Hansen and Al Gore for an understanding of the the world around us.

  13. AGW => The most successful pseudo-scientific fraud in the history of science.

    • The fraud is to claim a global warming of 0.2 deg C per decade when about 0.12 deg C per decade is due to the warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation. As a result, the current warming rate is only 0.8 deg C per century and not 2 deg C per century. The 2 deg C per century current warming rate is a fraud.

    • You missed Vaughan Pratt’s millikelvin fit. Your curves are old news now. Move with the times.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      Vaugh’s theory falls apart if there is no warming this decade. It is old hat before it starts. Of course it made no sense in terms of TOA radiative flux – so the question is why bother?

    • Vaughn Pratt’s curve is nice, but it is being critiqued as we speak, and some holes in it are apparently being uncovered.

      Let’s wait until it passes peer review and gets published before we hang our hat on it.

      And, as the Cap’n says, let’s see how it handles the current “pause” if this should continue for a few more years.

      Max

    • The Armchairman

      CK Vaugh’s theory … [makes] no sense in terms of TOA radiative flux

      Just how good (accurate,certain) an idea do we have of that anyway?

    • manaker is funny. Pratt has out girma-ed Girma and now folks who never screamed for a peer review of Girma are beating the peer review drum.

      Hey, somebody tell Cripwell that Pratt found the c02 signal in the data.

      So weird that when Pratt applies the same tools that folks like scaffetta applies to the solar series, but he find a c02 signal that people get all bent and twisted about his methods.

    • Girma | December 10, 2012 at 12:15 am driveled: ”The fraud is to claim a global warming of 0.2 deg C per decade when about 0.12 deg C per decade is due to the warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation”

      Girma, ”about 0.12 deg C per decade is due to the warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation” === is EVEN BIGGER FRAUD!!! Wake up, Girma; stop making fool of yourself! Nobody knows what is the GLOBAL temp by +-5C ==== you know by 0,12C…? You, by using data from the biggest con mafia… get out of that trans – don’t let them use you, start thinking for yourself!!!

    • Mosh
      Use some commas, man.

    • Never mind the commas. How about a substantive response to Mosher’s substantive point!

      He and I often differ, but he has you by the nads on this one.

    • BBD,
      Please let me know what expressed view of mine you imagine Moshe has by the nads.
      No, wait, let me save you the time – don’t bother looking, there aren’t any. Because I’m still only at the stage of working out what is being discussed (hence the call for commas to add clarity).
      Did you mistake me for someone else, or did your advocacy frenzy just get the better of you ?

    • Steven Mosher

      So weird that when Pratt applies the same tools that folks like scaffetta applies to the solar series, but he find a c02 signal that people get all bent and twisted about his methods.

      Even if this suggestion were true (it’s not in my case), I’d say there is a logical explanation.

      Pratt’s “CO2 is the big, bad control knob” study is intended as a verification of the “CAGW” premise of IPCC.

      The CAGW hypothesis of IPCC is being sold to the world as “scientific fact”; the catastrophic “projections” are being sold as predictions of what will happen to our planet IF we do not curtail GHG emissions (primarily CO2) dramatically.

      So it requires scientific supporting evidence that is very robust (after all, we want folks to drastically alter their life styles or face catastrophic consequences).

      Scafetta’s studies are not asking anyone to dramatically change their life styles. They are simply scientific studies; interesting, perhaps, but not earth-shaking in importance.

      So there IS a double standard, Steven – and it makes good sense.

      Can you see this difference?

      I can.

      Max

    • Steven Mosher

      Now let’s get to one of the principal criticisms of Vaughan Pratt’s CO2 study AFAIAC.

      As a methodology for “filtering out” various non-CO2 related climate forcing signals out of the past record to arrive at a residual CO2 forcing signal it is probably a sound approach (with a few caveats as expressed by some of the posters here).

      But as a tool for projecting the future it sucks, because it simply assumes the past will continue into the future, ignoring any well-founded projections of future population growth slowdown, for example.

      If human produced CO2 grew by X% during a period of population growth of Y%, it is not logical to assume that it will continue to grow at X% when population growth slows down to Y/3%, is it?

      So Vaughan’s analysis of the past record is interesting for what it’s worth, but has zero value as a projection for the future until a function to include population growth forecasts (as well as pe capita fossil fuel usage) is included.

      Max

    • Shorter Palindrone:

      ‘More evasive and entirely insubstantial yack. ‘

      If you can’t understand Mosher’s comment, you shouldn’t be commenting here in the first place. If you can’t respond substantively, be quiet.

    • BBD I can fully understand that, with a head as swollen as yours, it must be virtually impossible to extract it from your backside.

    • Palindrone

      You are still talking and saying nothing. Best be quiet.

    • BBD I am not in the habit of keeping quiet for a self-important arsehole who takes exception to a simple question.

    • Mosh
      Use some commas, man.

      ###############

      1. typing on a phone is challenging.
      2. send your resume, I’ll hire you as a copy editor. pays, $3.50 per hour

    • Manaker.

      “But as a tool for projecting the future it sucks, because it simply assumes the past will continue into the future, ignoring any well-founded projections of future population growth slowdown, for example.”

      Actually it doesnt suck. The way I read these things is as follows.
      IF the past continues into the future, THEN this is what he predicts.

      There are reason for believing total forward emissions will follow the past.
      There are reasons not to believe this. Having an estimate UNDER the assumption that things remain the same is always a good datapoint to have. Yes, there will be fewer people and yes this will be important.

      Bottom line. Its not safe to go from 15 C today to 20C in the future.
      And I would bet that many people would see that a safty margin around this would be good. Say, 17.5C is a limit that we do not want to transgress. That is we want to be sure that we dont do anything that drives us past 17.5C.

    • Mosher said, “And I would bet that many people would see that a safety margin around this would be good. Say, 17.5C is a limit that we do not want to transgress. That is we want to be sure that we don’t do anything that drives us past 17.5C.”

      That may be a problem. Mixing absolute values with anomaly. Graeme Stephens estimated the surface energy to be 398 +/-5Wm-2 or a T range of 15.4 to 17.2 degrees with a surface imbalance of 0.6 +/- 17, that is seventeen not 0.17. Oh, and a TOA imbalance of 0.6 +/- 0.4 Wm-2 that is 4 tenths not 0.15. Why not wait until y’all complete the BEST global land and oceans before we start predicting absolute values :)

      Now I am sure there are other less well informed individuals that would throw around absolute values without including a range of uncertainty or even include an over confident range of uncertainty that might be proven inaccurate, but we would never fall in that “alarmist” camp would we?

    • Steven Mosher

      OK. Let’s try a bit of basic logic. Two constraints, which Vaughan Pratt did not consider in his analysis are:

      Constraint number 1: human population growth

      Human CO2 emissions increased at an exponential rate of X% per year while human population increased at an exponential rate of Y%.

      Human population growth rate is expected (UN projections, etc.) to decrease sharply to less than Y/3% per year.

      Yet human CO2 emissions are expected to continue to increase at X% per year.

      If you find that series of statements logical, then I can’t help you.

      Constraint number 2: carbon available in Earth’s remaining fossil fuels

      WEC 2010 has estimated the optimistically inferred total fossil fuel reserves remaining on our planet today at 85% of all the fossil fuels that were ever on our planet.

      Since the first 15% got us from 280 to 392 ppmv, the next 85% will theoretically get us to a calculated 1027 ppmv

      So based on this estimate, we have enough fossil fuel to reach a bit over 1000 ppmv in the atmosphere when they are all used up.

      Vaughan Pratt’s curve says we’ll see 4C warming from CO2 by 2100.

      Using IPCC’s mean 2xCO2 climate sensitivity this would require CO2 level to reach close to 1000 ppmv.

      So Vaughan is saying we will have used up all the remaining fossil fuels on our planet by 2100. Absurd.

      Now, with the two constraints mentioned above it is virtually impossible that we will reach anywhere near 1000 ppmv or anywhere near 4C warming by 2100,

      But if you think it’s logical, go right on.

      I’d say you are bending over backward to make something silly sound logical.

      Max

      .

      With this (IMO) silly assumption one arrives at an absolute maximum asymptoticallt

    • Very interesting discussion about projections of global temperatures into the future. This is actually getting to the nub of what is important (but to be of much value for informing policy we also need to understand the damage function and the decarbonisation rate function). I have lots of questions I hope someone can answer for me. They are genuine questions not rhetorical.

      But first, I agree it is good as a first step to bound the projections with a worst case and a best case. I understand a worst case projection is an increase of 5C. What is the best case? I suggest reasonable assumptions for best case would be:

      • most coal, oil and gas electricity generation will be replaced by nuclear over a period of 50 years.
      • nuclear power will be substantially cheaper than fossil fuel electricity generation
      • cheap electricity substitutes for some gas for heating and oil for land transport (as in electric vehicles and low-cost electricity producing energy carriers).
      • global emissions from fossil fuels are reduce by 50% in 50 years
      • Due in part to lower cost energy, the world will be much richer than current projections suggest; as a result, population growth rate slows to the low end of projections. World population peaks lower that current projections.

      My questions:

      1. Why is 2.5C increase so bad?
      2. Why is 5C increase so bad?

      It seems to me there is no persuasive argument that these would be catastrophic. If there was, the proponents wouldn’t have to resort to arguments like:

      Bottom line. Its not safe to go from 15 C today to 20C in the future.
      And I would bet that many people would see that a safety margin around this would be good. Say, 17.5C is a limit that we do not want to transgress. That is we want to be sure that we don’t do anything that drives us past 17.5C.

      That is a statement of belief, not science.

      More questions:

      3. If we want to achieve the low estimate, what policies would achieve it with low uncertainty?

      My comment: I believe the policies must be economically rational. They must provide mostly winners in the short and medium term for most people, most groups, most regions and most countries.

      I suggest it could be done quickly and easily by educating the anti-nukes. The best people to do this are the anti-nukes and ‘Progressives’ themselves, such as those who blog on web sites like this.

      The how is described in a series of comments by Harrywr2 and me starting here:
      http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/01/open-thread-weekend-4/#comment-273008

    • Nerp! Nerp! Nerp!

      Conspiracy theory alert!

    • Logic fail! It would take a conspiracy to overcome the confirmation bias and the groupthink, but there’s no such conspiracy among the warmists.

    • Nerp nerp nerp – yet another BBD conspiracy theory strawman.

      We’d best just re-remind him that an organisation doesn’t need a conspiracy in order to work towards furthering its own interests. It’s something that comes naturally.

    • Tomcat

      This idiocy again:

      We’d best just re-remind him that an organisation doesn’t need a conspiracy in order to work towards furthering its own interests. It’s something that comes naturally.

      You conflate the entire field of climate science with ‘an organisation’ – presumably the IPCC.

      Now listen up, chump. Your rubbish might be worth a second glance if the IPCC was the entire field of climate science but it isn’t.

      For the entire field of climate science to ‘further its own interests’ would require the knowing, deliberate, universal distortion of data.

      No whistle-blowers. Not a squeak.

      That’s a conspiracy theory.

      And that is what you lot believe. Don’t please, push this into irony hyperdrive by *denying* this.

    • BBD,

      Yr: “This idiocy again”

      You know, BBD, you’re straining your hive-conditioned, party-line flunky, pea-brain just a bit too hard with your little, over-wrought, unconvincing, reductio ad absurdum “proof” that “consensus” climate scientists are not, in the main, sell-out, toady, enablers of the CAGW scam–toiling away (as much as a bunch of parasite, suck-up, goof-off, sloth-freak dorks with a spoiled brat sense of entitlement can ever be said to “toil away” at anything) on behalf of your trough-provider, make-a-buck/make-a-gulag, ripoff-the-taxpayer betters.

      I mean, like, I subscribe to the germ theory of disease, BBD. And so I am careful in my personal hygiene with that theory in mind. Likewise, I boil my drinking water when my water supply’s potability is suspect or drink bottled water. And I even submit myself to vaccinations. Again, I take the above sort of precautions because I am convinced by the germ theory of disease. And when I recommend the above sort of precautions to others, they can see I practice what I preach. You with me, BBD?

      So with the above idea in mind, BBD, now let’s consider what we get when we compare the carbon-peril alarms and imperious demands for carbon-austerity, that you CAGW scare-mongering hive-shills frantically toss about, with your own personal, carbon-consumption behavior. Well, we all know the score there, BBD, don’t we?, just by looking at your own personal, hypocritical, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, carbon-piggy excesses. And you’re not even close, BBD, to being the hive’s worst example of gung-ho carbon-piggery.

      And remember, BBD, carbon-austerity must be imposed on our lifestyles in order for planet earth and the kids to survive, or so you and guys like you, BBD, say. But even with stakes as high as these–where are you, BBD, and your hive-bozo pals when it comes to LEADING THE FIGHT FOR CARBON-AUSTERITY FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE? Well, again, we know the answer–you greenshirt hucksters are the first to bug-out when carbon-reduction sacrifices are called for. Kinda like having some in-your-face “scientist” pitching the perils of tobacco smoke while simultaneously blowing smoke rings in your face, don’cha think BBD?

      Look, BBD, I don’t really think you and your creep-out good-buddies want to destroy the earth and all the kids. And, most certainly, I don’t think you watermelon-brain enviro-cretins would ever even think of making life difficult–not for a moment!–for even the least of Gaia’s beloved ice-bergs and any stranded, poor-baby, pathetic-looking, photo-shopped polar-bears they might be transporting . You’re too nice a guy–too much of an airy-fairy, nature-boy-flake, instinctive Taoist–for that, BBD. So I reject the theory that you, BBD, and your hive-chums are the cyborg spawn of Dr. Evil and, rather, use Mr. Occam’s famous razor to arrive at my estimate of you and your improbable, geek-ball ilk.

      And here’s what I get when I slice-and-dice your chicken-little CAGW con: It’s all about the eco-gravy-train, BBD, you and your otherwise, unemployable good-comrades are aboard–that is, the CAGW hustle keeps your high-cholesterol choo-choo ‘a-comin’ down the tracks and you do what it takes to keep that CO2-spew baby a chuggin’ along. Anything, that is, but practice what you preach.

    • Mike,

      Hers is substantiation for your statement:

      as much as a bunch of parasite, suck-up, goof-off, sloth-freak dorks with a spoiled brat sense of entitlement can ever be said to “toil away” at anything

      Lend me your ears, children
      http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/12/lend-me-your-ears-children

    • Coincidence.

    • BBD,

      It’s really quite simple.

      * Almost all climate science is goverment-funded.
      * Goverment has a massive vested interest in CAGW being believed

      It would thus be nothing less that a miracle if there was NOT a bias in favour of alarmism. No secret planning needed, just those who allocate the funds giving it to those people and projects that seem to offer the most benefits for their employer. Government knows all too well what is good for government. In fact it would need a conspiracy for this to NOT happen.

      Your pious belief that the truth will out, at least in the short to medium term, is naive to the point of being moronic. Just follow the money.

    • Tomcat

      Your pious belief that the truth will out, at least in the short to medium term, is naive to the point of being moronic. Just follow the money.

      Your unsupported assertion that an entire field of science is significantly corrupted by money is paranoid, cartoonish nonsense. I repeat – it is nothing more than a thinly disguised conspiracy theory.

      I may be many things, but naive is not one of them. Nor am I a paranoid loon.

    • mike

      Have another beer.

    • It would take a conspiracy to overcome the confirmation bias and the groupthink, but there’s no such conspiracy among the warmists.

      Yes it’s those who say climate science is honest who are the conspiracy theorists here. Underlying all of this is the vested interest of the (monopoly) sponsor and it would take a brave and/or rich soul to speak out against the interests of his one and only possible funder.

    • @BBD
      Your unsupported assertion that an entire field of science is significantly corrupted by money is paranoid, cartoonish nonsense.

      All that’s cartoonish nonsense here, is the pious hope that organisations don’t spend their money selectively on people and projects most likely to further their own interests. Assuming you actually believe such crap, your naivete is indeed overwhelming. Realistically though I don’t think you do, you just need to say it to bolster your agenda.

    • Tomcat

      So-called ‘climate sceptics’ are basically conspiracy theorists:

      All that’s cartoonish nonsense here, is the pious hope that organisations don’t spend their money selectively on people and projects most likely to further their own interests.

      What ‘organisations’? Are you still muddling up the IPCC with the entire field of climate science? It sounds like it.

      Let’s re-visit reality, shall we?

      Science is competitive. It is a dogfight. How much kudos and funding goes to the team that pokes a big, fat hole in AGW theory? How many Nobels? Seriously. Have a think. Have you bothered to consider that what you argue doesn’t make any sense at all?

      Assuming you actually believe such crap, your naivete is indeed overwhelming.

      Have you ever had a job? You keep claiming that I am naive but you have no idea how the real world actually works. Just a paranoid fantasy of conspiratorial self-interest that is self-defeating in a competitive reality.

      And where are the whistle-blowers?

      No whistle-blowers = perfect conspiracy.

      Do please try and *think*.

    • BBD,

      Stop being such a militant prat and think for a moment.

      So-called ‘climate sceptics’ are basically conspiracy theorists:

      No, you are basically a conspiracy theorist, desperately trying to project your flaw onto others. You hilariously actually believe that within the ranks of government science, people are allocating funds so as to ignore what is good for their paymaster (government), and be objective rather than do what is good for government. Even though there is (virtually) no money or life in climate science away from a government payroll.

      Science is competitive. It is a dogfight. How much kudos and funding goes to the team that pokes a big, fat hole in AGW theory?

      A lifetime banishment from government employment? No kudos and no money – forever.

      How many Nobels?

      Maybe, for one in a million. But the other 999999 are out on the street, as said above. Big chance to take. Especially given the heavy bias towards political correctness (but maybe that’s just the ‘Peace’ prize )?

      Have a think. Your basic problem seems to be a childlike confusion between how science ought to work – and how sciences other than climate science (with no political dimension) work – and how climate science is actually financed and works.

      And where are the whistle-blowers?
      No whistle-blowers = perfect conspiracy.

      Blow the whistle on your only possible employer? Career suicide anyone? Perhaps not, there’s always waiting tables I guess.

    • Tomcat

      Clueless and foolish in equal measure.

      Have you ever had a job?

      Have you ever even *met* a working scientist?

      Have you any notion how daft your paranoid wittering really is?

    • BBD
      Again we see you have but this pathetically blind faith – no logic, and no answers. Just boundless self-aggrandisement and a disdain for manners to compensate.

    • Okay Tomcat, I will read that as no, you have never had a proper job, no you don’t know what you are talking about, no you have never met any working scientists.

      Bye.

    • BBD
      100% wrong, of course as you doubtless realise. Hardly surprising given your hopeless lack of any serious position.
      Till your next outburst of drivel then.

    • BBD …………. a self-important arsehole

      +1 – the encapsulation of the month.

    • First, I disagree with this baseless slander ;-)

      Second, you are a denialist ignoramus! Ya boo sucks!

    • BBD …………. a self-important arsehole

      BBD | I disagree with this baseless slander

      Quite so. The record levels of abuse and arrogance that are his hallmark, are no basis at all for such a verdict.

  14. Is anyone trying models at laeast on modest scales that do not use this notion of external ‘forcing’? Given the huge sums of money involved in funding climate research and the even larger sums being spent on the assumption that it gives us good guidance for practical decisions, it may be time for some very large experimental chambers to be constructed to test the presumptions of the device of using forcings as an tractable way of including changes in atmospheric composition in climate models. I do not think our theories are strong enough to resolve this on the backs of envelopes or on desktops. A step back towards more reliance on observation and experiment would seem to be in order.

  15. Without long term SIM-like data (eg Haigh et al “An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate”) any considerations of “expected” Ozone levels and upper atmosphere temperatures are all going to be stabs in the dark.

    • Over the millennia how many weathermen have demanded that we have to sacrificed something we love, to get rain? Once what we love has been destroyed how will the people then feel about the weatherman? Statistically what are the odds that the weatherman will be right this time, with what we have read over the last few years? Do the math.

  16. That there are large differences between stratosphere models of molecular density and satellite measurements is no surprise. That is because the models were built using classical thermodynamics. If quantum thermodynamics had been used, molecules would find their equilibrium height according to their state, because when a molecule accepts or rejects a photon of energy it changes state. Internal vibration changes so it gains or loses energy and gains or loses temperature. Consequently it loses or gains density and will rise or fall in the atmosphere, even though it’s mass does not change.

    As I have said in other comments, the behavior of climate change in the 20th and 21st centuries can only be explained using quantum thermodynamics. See my website above.

  17. I note the increasing frequency of papers which either seek to deny/explain the observed 21st century pause/cessation in warming, either through uncertainty or observation error.

    Isn’t anyone asking the obvious question?, namely, is the continued rise in atmospheric CO2 without associated rise in observed global mean temperature simply present day confirmation of historical evidence that atmospheric CO2 lags warming?

    • Gras, once that hypothesis becomes accepted science, the whole CAGW industry comes crashing down, taking the taxes, carbon trading & permits etc with it.

    • and once the hypothesis of a flat earth is accepted the same thing.

    • Adam. you may be right but I don’t think so. There is no doubt that the first ever consistent temperature rise of 0.45C was between 1910 and 1940 and was preceded by CO2 concentration rise e.g. Henry Ford alone made 15 million model T Fords between 1908 and 1927. The strange think is that global average temoerature fell rapidly after 1940. Classical thermodynamics could never explain this fall but quantum thermodynamics could, because the latter would allow CO2 to lose energy one photon at a time. The IPCC dodged the issue by claiming the 1961 temperature as normal, so anything before that was unimpotyant.

    • Mr. Biggs — you bring up a basic point that no one has answered for me, which is, “What would the climate/temp/weather be like outside if no humans were here?” And of course, its sister question, “What would the climate/temp/weather be like if suddenly we ceased CO2 output (which is impossible unless we all stop breathing)?”

  18. The Santer et al paper is interesting.
    It says in the abstract that models overestimate warming in the troposphere, and in the main text “The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.” This is very clear from their fig 3c, which shows that the warming in most or all of the models is higher than the observations everywhere except around the Arctic.

    Back in 2008 Santer with much the same group of co-authors (Thorne, Wigley, Solomon…) published a paper “Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere” where they said that models and observations were consistent (in response to a paper of Douglas et al). Steve McIntyre and Lucia wrote various posts questioning this, pointing out among other things that if Santer et 2008 had used up-to-date data, they would have got a different result. McKitrick McIntyre and Herman wrote a paper in 2010 showing that the warming in the models was significantly greater than in the observations.
    Now, Santer et al 2012 do not refer to MMH10, or even to their own 2008 paper!

    • David Stockwell has a series of three posts on the Santer et al paper on his Niche Modeling blog, first one here.

    • McIntyre is, of course, “He Who Must Not Be Named”!

    • Hi Paul, The current paper deals with the stratosphere (usually believed to be mainly affected by ozone in turn influenced by CFCs) while the papers you mention deal with the troposphere (believed to be mainly affected by CO2).

      The tropical troposphere battle is an interesting one, if just for the history of ideas. It was a battleground since at least 2000, and Douglass et al threw down the guantlet in 2008 (already on line in 2007) demonstrating that models and temperature measurements did not overlap within error bars. Ben Santer was livid and his first draft reply was over 90 pages. The formal publishing of the Douglass paper was not until September 2008 (although it had been available on line since Dec 2007) to await the “rebuttal” by Santer (to which Douglass et al were not allowed to reply).

      As you point out, Steve McIntyre eviscerated the Santer reply by demonstrating that, using Santer’s methods, the measured temps and models were not consistent if the data was updated to 2008. The paper was never formally published but is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0445 .

      Eventually MMH10 was published taking a somewhat different tack, along with Christy (2010, Remote Sensing) and Singer (2011, E&E). However my working hypothesis is that Santer would have continued to ignore these demonstrations, were it not for the Fu (2011, GRL) paper, which included Syukuro Manabe (godfather of CO2-climate modeling) as co-author also showing disagreement between models and measured temperatures. As late as early 2011, Thorne could publish a summary (WIRES Climate Change) stating “It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively”. However, once the Fu 2011 paper came out, it became “establishment” that there was in fact a significant disagreement between models and measured temps. So now after the Fu 2011 paper we have (Thorne, 2011 [JGR], Po-Chedley (2012), Seidel (2012) and Santer (2012) all agreeing that models and measurements for tropical troposphere temperaures cannot be reconciled.

  19. “Although less widely discussed in either scientific or policy circles, stratospheric cooling is as fundamental as surface warming as evidence of the influence of anthropogenic emissions on the climate system.”

    Judy, This is a great post. I will update energy trend graphs accordingly. The above statement is accurate. What also scientists should watch for is the ongoing decrease in the geopotentials of the upper atmosphere. This is as important as sea level and surface temperature. The total energy reduction of the atmosphere (potential and heat) is equal to the energy transferred to the surface as a result of global warming.

  20. Looks like there is a great deal of work to be done just to understand one of the historcial databases.

    “How might the climate community resolve the mysteries raised by the
    new SSU data? First, the methodology used to generate the original Met
    Office SSU data remains undocumented and so the climate community
    are unable to explain the large discrepancies between the original Met
    Office and NOAA SSU products highlighted here. The World Climate
    Research Programme’s Stratospheric Temperature Trends Assessment
    Panel (of which several authors of this study are members) has encouraged
    the scientists who generated the original Met Office data set to
    publish the methodology, but they are now retired. We encourage the
    Met Office to allocate resources towards the recovery and publication of
    as much of the original SSU metadata as possible”. Thompson, 2012

  21. So, this would be a chance for “it’s the sun, stupid” folks to explain why it’s the sun, because you might actually have a chance here.

  22. Doesn’t RSS have all this data too? Have they just put it on the back burner?

    • Christy noted that UAH data has been higher temp.’s than RSS the last few years, but that probably has nothing to do with why they switched.

    • I don’t think RSS have ever attempted to get to grips with SSU data. SSUs are defunct now anyway, superceded by the higher channels on AMSUs. RSS have recently started publishing AMSU-derived data for these higher channels, labelled C10, C11, C12, C13, C14.

      Unfortunately, the AMSU stratospheric channels don’t map directly on top of the old SSU channels. However, RSS have concocted a weighting of these channels that corresponds to SSU channel 1 (or SSU25), described on this page and named C25. There’s only about 13 years of data from AMSUs, from end of 1998 to today, which you can see here. With the SSU data ending in 2006 that leaves only eight years of overlap. Nevertheless it looks closer to the NOAA STAR data than UKMO over this period. It also looks like a good match for the models. Actually, looking at the Thompson paper, the discrepancy between NOAA STAR, UKMO and the models (particularly noticable in SSU Channel 1 / 25) is mostly the result of a sharp downward trend in NOAA STAR between ~1986 and 1992, not predicted by the models or picked up by the UKMO analysis.

    • Thanks Paul.

  23. Mikel Mariñelarena

    I notice that also in the new data used by Thompson et al there is no stratospheric cooling since the mid-nineties. Why would that be? GHG forcing has continued to increase unabated since then.

  24. Told you so:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8723

    and:

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/How%20The%20Sun%20Could%20Control%20Earths%20Temperature.pdf

    “By applying the above described mechanism an active sun causes the jets to move poleward thus ‘opening the window blinds’ for an increase in solar energy reaching and entering the oceans with the system showing a net energy gainoverall.

    A quiet sun causes the jets to move equatorward thus ‘closing the window
    blinds’ for a decrease in solar energy reaching and entering the oceans with the system showing a net energy loss overall.

    This is the climate narrative that best fits real world changes over the past ten years together with the conditions that prevailed pre 2000.

    • Hi Stephen, Thanks for your note, especially the link to your 2010 commentary. That’s useful to have a framework which could tie all of this together. For sure the papers above only scratch the surface of uncertainties. There is a mention of QBO in the Solomon paper, but only one of the databases takes it into account. In the meantime, Murry Salby has at least 8 papers in the past decade on the importance of the QBO on the stratosphere, and notes the ” climate sensitivities of temperature and ozone describe random changes between years, introduced by
      anomalous EP flux and the QBO”. See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JAS3671.1 .

      Also on the impact of the impact of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) variability on middle atmospheric ozone see http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047561.shtml .

  25. Judith, assuming you haven’t already seen it, here’s another paper with similar conclusions

    Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites

    Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044018 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044018

    http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018

    It is demonstrated that even with historical SSTs as a boundary condition, most atmospheric models exhibit excessive tropical upper tropospheric warming relative to the lower-middle troposphere as compared with satellite-borne microwave sounding unit measurements. It is also shown that the results from CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs are similar to findings from CMIP3 coupled GCMs. The apparent model-observational difference for tropical upper tropospheric warming represents an important problem, but it is not clear whether the difference is a result of common biases in GCMs, biases in observational datasets, or both.

  26. Don’t know what this all means, but it seems to add more uncertainty to the validity of models to accurately attribute past warming and project future warming.

    Will this added uncertainty be mentioned in AR5?

    Max

    • Yes, the uncertainty and disagreement is mentioned in the draft, and Santer, Solomon and MMH10 are cited.

  27. The first two papers discussed in the post (Thompson 2012 and Solomon 2012) discuss only the stratosphere, while the Santer 2012 paper discusses both the stratosphere and the troposphere. I would say the troposphere deserves it’s own post, but since were on the topic (and see my comment above) I would note the Douglass and Santer 2008 papers are available on line for free at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.v28:13/issuetoc .

    I’ve given the link above for the MM09 (unpublished) evisceration of Santer 2008. I don’t know if the Fu 2011 paper is available on line for free but the abstract is available at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048101.shtml .

  28. meanwhile over at WUWT Willis Eschenbach is suggesting that sensitivity is inversely related to temperature

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/10/an-interim-look-at-intermediate-sensitivity/#more-75523

    • Yeah, sensitivity decreases as the surface warms. If it did not, we would not be here discussing climate change. CO2 will shift things a little, but its impact still will decrease with increased available energy. What layer you use for a “surface” would change the apparent “sensitivity” to forcing. Since climate scientists selected that absolute worst reference layer possible, their “sensitivity” estimates are all over the place. Good thing they don’t have to design something that has to actually work,

    • Actually, the idea that climate sensitivity is a constant is a rather idiotic idea. The sensitivity of Northern hemisphere is greater than that of the South. (Just look at the global temp at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps . ) The sensitivity at max obliquity is greater that that at min. The sensitivity of an Earth with a lot of ice is much lower than without. Sensitivity is anything but constant.

    • Willis isnt even wrong.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Steven Mosher: Willis isnt even wrong.

      Unlike the standard flat Earth, homogeneous surface, constant insolation, equilibrium model, Willis points out that the relationship between increased radiation and warming is not constant across the Earth surface. That is a step toward understanding what an increase in downwelling radiation might actually cause. It would be worth building on the results that he reports there, for example by looking at seasonal differences, or the perturbation of the insolation caused warming by changes in humidity..

      and,

      With as much not known about energy transport processes within the atmosphere as demonstrated in the papers that this thread has derived from, no one should attempt to act as Wolfgang Pauli.

    • i think the science is going to be advanced by scientists, not whatever gets dragged in on wuwt. as has always been the case.

    • Matthew R Marler

      lolwot: i think the science is going to be advanced by scientists, not whatever gets dragged in on wuwt.

      There are a lot of freely available and extremely large and relevant data sets that have not been analyzed, or not analyzed much. It would be nice if scientists would analyze those data, instead of waiting until someone at WUWT does the analysis for them. In the mean time, the presentations by Willis Eschenbach today display the non-constancy of the relationship between radiation change and temperature change. Results that are based on the assumption that such a relationship is constant are untrustworthy, no matter who has derived them.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Steven Mosher: Willis isnt even wrong.

      A better candidate for “not even wrong” might be the assumption that there is an “equilibrium climate response” to the doubling of CO2 concentration. I can not assert outright, Pauli-like, that it is not even wrong, but I would like to nominate it for consideration.

    • lolwot > i think the science is going to be advanced by scientists, not whatever gets dragged in on wuwt. as has always been the case.

      It’s overwhelmingly clear a climate science profession still utterly unrepentant over Climategate and the ensuing coverups, still lacks the basic honesty to advance without adult supervision from the blogosphere.

  29. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

    Everyone here seems to assume that high uncertainty means that the IPCC has overstated the case for AGW.

    But, as the new data analyses are produced, we see that some measures of stratospheric cooling are nearly twice as large as in the old data sets.

    This discrepancy should not make anyone feel satisfied – the most likely outcome from these results is that we will learn that the IPCC has so far understated the severity of AGW.

    Uncertainty is no one’s friend. It is an equal-opportunity monster.

    • No – it means what most sceptics suspected. That the case for cAGW has been over egged from the out set in face of deep unknowns. The email release showed at least some were aware of the many uncertainties in their discipline and colluded to hide them. In the face of said, trust was lost and many sceptics were forced to evaluate and judge the science for themselves rather than accept the word of the IPCC etc.

    • “This discrepancy should not make anyone feel satisfied – the most likely outcome from these results is that we will learn that the IPCC has so far understated the severity of AGW.”

      I think the discrepancy means that is time for change. Since the discrepancy has been obvious for quite some time and only recently getting any attention, perhaps some new blood with a tad more curiosity and a tad less agenda is in order.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      …many sceptics were forced to evaluate and judge the science for themselves rather than accept the word of the IPCC etc.

      Oh please. “Forced”? Spare me your self-righteousness.
      It’s boring. Besides, Judith has the market cornered.

      I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have ‘evaluated’ and ‘judged’ climate science by reading blogs, and without resorting to a single experiment or any data-collection.

      Another ‘skeptic’ who is wise in the ways of global conspiracies!
      On Climate Etc.!
      What are the odds?

    • Your obviously very angry – FYI I hear yoga can help calm and mitigate these types of outbursts.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      If you think that is an angry outburst, you haven’t been paying attention.

      Yoga? Pfft.

      Scotch.

    • Good Reverend,

      Yr: “…without…any data collection.”

      For a man of the cloth, Pastor, you seem to have a rather curmudgeonly view of the flock. But may I respectfully suggest to my prelate better that us peon, peasant laity do “collect data”, in our own humble way. I mean, like, us helots collect data in the form of “observations”. For example:

      -We observed the brutal, vindictive character of the anti-science, group-think appearing in the “Climategate” e-mails.

      -We observed that “distinguished” and “respected” tenured academics, ostensibly convinced of the carbon-peril, eschewed low-carbon video-conferencing in favor of on-site, carbon pig-out, party-time boondoggle eco-conferences.

      -We observed that our CAGW scare-mongering, peer-reviewed, sanctimonious authority-figures never chose to LEAD BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE AND FROM THE FRONT in the fight against demon-carbon but always seemed to have a hot-babe, CO2 succubus or two or three on the side (and quite brazen about the whole deal) even as they demanded carbon-chastity for us peasants.

      -We observed that there was a super-abundance of troughs available to those toadies, enablers, and lickspittles who made themselves useful to the CAGW hustle. And, in that regard, we observed our enviro-betters, with their porker-snouts sunk deep in tax-payer rip-off swill, enjoying their flatulent, belching good times even as us expendable useless-eaters lost our homes and jobs.

      -And we observed that the CAGW scare-mongers were quick to raise concerns about “the kids” as a stock feature of their agit-prop. But, then, we also observed that these same gushing kiddie-lovers never uttered a peep of protest when major environmental organizations schedule their obscene con-fabs for locales notorious for their child sex-trade. With the further curious observation, on our part, that the latest climate conference held in Doha–a destination where the locals apparently have a rather puritanical, Wahabist views of “things”–saw its attendance numbers plummet in comparison with similar conferences held in Cancun and Durban.

      -We observed that when professional hive-propagandists compared “deniers” to pedophiles, our betters, even the clergy, Reverend, remained silent in the face of that calumny.

      So see, Reverend, us “skeptics” collect data after a fashion. And then we process our observations–our collected data–through our B. S. detector which, sorry to say, “forces” us to conclude that the CAGW business is a repellent scam.

      You know, Pastor, you Philosopher King and Queen wannabees frankly talk too much in front of the servants. You may think we are nothing more than “background noise” to your pampered, protected, cloistered, beautiful existence, but, you know, your Grace, us despised domestics keep our ears and eyes open even as we silently attend to our menial chores on your behalf–and so the word is out about you hive-bozo, flim-flam artists and your CAGW con-jobs.

    • Rev

      the most likely outcome from these results is that we will learn that the IPCC has so far understated the severity of AGW.

      Huh? Howzat?

      Max

    • PS Is this a “it’s worse than we thought?” intro?

    • I think it is quite clear that the trend in the IPCC reports has been to lower sensitivities to CO2 doubling and to admitting more sources of uncertainty. A few error bars have gotten smaller but new ones have been found as is often the case in science. At the same time, somehow the IPCC conclusions have gotten more firm that there is a signal and it’s likely due to man. Now some of the main players are worried that the 5th report will talk too much about uncertainties.

      Having Santer show here that the mismatch between model and data for the troposphere and stratosphere is just another example of a new uncertainty or larger error bar. A good thing to see science operating as it should.

      The original predictions have been softened to projections (again reasonable) and whenever the temp. record does not follow the model projections, there is a scramble to “explain” it. Methane levels did not rise as fast, there were aerosols in the 70′s and recently due to China (but somehow not in the 40′s and 50′s or 80′s?), there was a volcano, there is a lag due to oceans of 15 years or 35 years or 50 years. All of these things do affect climate and are feasible to some extent, but excuse me for not being in the camp that says the 1st IPCC report was 100% correct, then the 2nd also, then agree that it’s the methane, then that it’s also the aerosols and the lag. I prefer to wait 10-15 years and let the science work itself out.

      This field has been tremendously politicized and the scientific process warped a bit as a result. The climate-gate e-mails show this, the rush to get editors fired and journals blacklisted, and the obscenity of rushing to refute any paper that gets published by magically getting a paper accepted in 3 days as well as allowing some a rebuttal when others are forced to write a new paper rather than respond to the rebuttal all show that things are not “normal’ in this field.

    • “But, as the new data analyses are produced, we see that some measures of stratospheric cooling are nearly twice as large as in the old data sets.”

      Does that mean that Trenberth has lost even more heat than he thought?

  30. Mark B (number 2)

    “both ozone depletion and increases in greenhouse gases are believed to have driven the cooling in the middle and upper stratosphere”

    I can’t make sense of what scientists are saying on this subject of AGW.

    As a lay person, I asked why we can’t do experiments on a replica of the atmosphere, which would include adding CO2 to it and seeing by how much it warmed up in sunlight/infra red etc.
    I was told by a warmist scientist that it wouldn’t warm up at all, but that it is in the stratosphere where the CO2 is significant and causes warming. And sure enough, this was confirmed by an internet search. The Wiki article said the same.
    Now I see that the stratosphere is (apparently) cooling, and one of the contributors to this is greenhouse gases.
    I really am trying to understand the greenhouse theory, but I am getting nowhere, and consequently I remain skeptical.

  31. This research, which is just the latest twist in the continuing saga of climate science, seems to contradict much of what we previously thought we knew, and have built expensive edifices on. It makes me think that Donald Rumsfeld was specifically referring to this evolving new industry when he said;

    “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

    Perhaps this saying ought to be inscribed on a brass plaque and sent to every climate science practitioner, perhaps with a cartoon of Judith’s uncertainty monster?

    It would be a lot cheaper than enacting yet another IPCC assessment which never seems to catch up with developments.
    tonyb

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      * ahem *

      You learn about the world with the science you have – not the science you might want or wish to have at a later time.

    • Very Reverend

      You’re right. Lets send the plaques to the politicians AND the scientists to encourage both groups to realise that everything has consequences and we are premature by at least twenty years in taking expensive evasive action to counter something that is so unknown it probably doesnt even exist.
      tonyb

    • Talk about self-righteousness. Reverend, you’re pretty much a JOshua clone, only better educated.

    • AndrewSanDiego

      What science? Those who call themselves “climate scientists” refuse to follow the Scientific Method. They are frauds. The Hockey Team and the IPCC are in reality anti-science.

      There is yet today no actual scientific evidence that the Earth’s climate is outside the bounds of NATURAL variability of the Holocene, OR that it is dynamically unstable – that it responds with positive feedback to temperature perturbations. But that is what “climate scientists” whose data and methods are secret claim. Lysenko would be proud.

    • “There is yet today no actual scientific evidence that the Earth’s climate is outside the bounds of NATURAL variability of the Holocene, OR that it is dynamically unstable – that it responds with positive feedback to temperature perturbations. But that is what “climate scientists” whose data and methods are secret claim.”

      You are wrong on both counts. The climate has positive feedbacks and Earth’s climate is outside the bounds of natural variability of the Holocene, longer even.

    • Matthew R Marler

      lolwot: You are wrong on both counts. The climate has positive feedbacks and Earth’s climate is outside the bounds of natural variability of the Holocene, longer even.

      The graph that you display at that link shows nothing about climate. It does not even seem to be up-to-date about estimates of atmospheric CO2 concentration in recent millenia.

    • The “Reverend’s” links to the “narrative” history remind me of a fan of more BS posts.

    • Reminds me of both **Fan** of more BS and of Eli Rabbett.

  32. Well, perhaps there is hope after all. Here we read climate scientists engaged in observation and dealing with uncertainty. Is it because of the 16 year temperature pause? Glad to see they are willing to study the elements of climate and not just run the models over and over.

  33. Stratospheric Paradox: there’s always more ozone than you are told. Again (don’t tell Santer) it’s the Sun stupid: changes in UV light has a direct influence on the stratosphere due to more Ozone and this results in greater warming of the upper stratosphere and swirling, wind-driving, convective atmospheric vortices that are known as weather.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Wag:

      - there’s always more ozone than you are told.

      Those crazy scientists are always low-balling the O3.
      That Dr Rowland guy was the worst. Probably a communist.
      Montreal Protocol? It’s French (Canadian) – what else do you need to know?
      Thank god for blog-science!

      Hey – Don’t tell the rest of the denizens – but the stratosphere is not convective, and ‘weather’ is a feature of the troposphere.

    • Try as you might there is no undoing of the mechanics of a swirling vortex. Unstable is as unstable does: it makes weather.

  34. “the stratosphere is not convective,”

    But it does have the Brewer-Dobson circulation which is quite sufficient to move energy around.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Sure- but Brewer-Dobson circulation is… a model – and we all know (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) how uncertain those monsters are.

      Even if you ‘believe in’ Brewer-Dobson – stratospheric transport is mostly horizontal, not vertical.

    • “Even if you ‘believe in’ Brewer-Dobson – stratospheric transport is mostly horizontal, not vertical.” give the rev a cigar!

      http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/previdi+smith+polvani-JCLIM-2012-submitted.pdf

      You have variations in poleward heat transport and a change in the intensity of Sudden Stratospheric Warming events. The pot lid rattles while it is boiling.

    • Jeb, I should get yourself down to Minden, Nevada and beg a ride in a 2 seat sailplane on a lee wave day, 30,000ft is available often, 40,000ft is not unusual and 50,000ft not unknown. Next year the Perlan project will be close to flight at 100,000ft in their purpose built pressure cabin glider!

      But you knew that, didn’t you, you couldn’t possibly be so ignorant of meteorological phenomena as to suggest that there is no vertical mixing in the stratosphere…

    • Here ya go Rev, more than you every really wanted to know about Brewer-Dobson circulations and the QBO.

      http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/acpd-12-21291-2012.pdf

    • Captain Kangaroo

      There are interactions between the troposphere and statosphere – deep convection and sudden stratospheric warmings prominent.

      Models? Yes we all know they should be reported probabilistically if at all.

      ‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      …we all know they should be reported probabilistically if at all.

      I’m a strong supporter of the “if at all” school of model-reporting.
      (Nudge, nudge, wink wink.)

    • Captain Kangaroo

      ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full

      So really not only are the models chaotic but climate is too. Who’d of thunk. Not you certainly.

      ‘‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      So really not only are the models chaotic but climate is too. Who’d of thunk. Not you certainly.

      Hey Cap’n cut-n-paste:
      Thanks so much.
      I love a quick ad-hom challenge to my scientific manhood as much as the next guy.
      Someday, if you ever get around to having an original thought, people may even decide to take you seriously.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      So if you would like to talk science instead of dropping by with smary little snarks by all means.

      Other than that – f*ck yu too.

  35. I have been known to believe in six Brewer-Dobsons before breakfast .

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2012/12/monckton-proposes-12-global-warming-tax.html

  36. It makes me really nervous when basic data sets get called into question in a significant way. Matters of interpretation are one thing, but when the data is suddenly not what the data was, the entire enterprise starts looking like GIGO that no one can rely on, let alone trot out “the science is settled” arguments.

    • Give them some credit, its not GIGO. Climate Scientists use the most appropriate data set and most appropriate mathematical analysis to get the warming they want.

  37. All one needs the stratosphere to do is change its temperature just above the tropopause.

    A cooling stratosphere pulls the tropopause up and a warming stratosphere pushes it down.

    That in itself is sufficient to alter the circulation of the troposphere below it.

    Then, if the effect varies in magnitude between equator and poles then one sees latitudinal shifts in the jets and climate zones.

    It needn’t be any more complex than that.

    So, if solar variability can influence stratosphere temperatures, for example by affecting ozone amounts differentially between equator and poles, then there you have it.

    “Suppose, for example, that the surface temperature and the tropospheric
    temperature gradient are given and that the temperature of the stratosphere
    varies. Then, a cold stratosphere will be associated with a high tropopause (low tropopause pressure), and a warm stratosphere will correspond to a low tropopause (high tropopause pressure).”

    from here page 14:

    pdf here

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014%3C3117%3ATTITPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2

  38. At least 2 papers published in 2012 saying models with external forcing from CO2 don’t work post Y2K but models without the forcing do. One is Dessler 2012 and I forget the other. I asked my Magic 8-Ball if the models should use AMO instead of CO2 for the x-factor and the answer was:

    http://tinyurl.com/bzr2vco

  39. Do we assume backward-looking public schoolteachers (“Climatists”) using computer climate models (GCMs) have the ability to divine the future of the Earth’s climate 30-50 years hence? What have they ever done in the past? With respect to the ersatz science of climate should we have confidence in their honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and intelligence? What sets Western Climatists apart as to their abilities to create accurate computer models when their counterparts compare their understanding to the ancient science of astrology?

    Frankly, what we have seen in the past only inspires distrust. We’ve been treated to examples incompetence in data gathering, deliberate manipulation and even data gone missing. Schoolteachers are steadfast in refusals to allow their performances in the dropout factories to be objectively measured. And, we see the same with schoolteachers as Climatists: they live off tax dollars and also refuse to let anyone else see the computer climate programs we paid for. We know GCMs have no predictive ability whatsoever that much is certain. What else are they hiding?

  40. Like global warming is now the ozone hoax was a black hole manufactured by Leftists, into which the productive class were supposed to shovel their hard-earned wages into so schoolteachers can save the world from Americans who like to take a hot shower before driving to work.

  41. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

    Hilarious.

    Wagathon – If you did not exist, someone would have to invent you.

    You were ‘abused’ by a public schoolteacher-”climatist”, weren’t you?

    It’s OK – Math is hard.

    • “It’s OK – Math is hard.”

      So are good coherent rebuttals, apparently.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      How to coherently rebut “…so schoolteachers can save the world from Americans who like to take a hot shower before driving to work.”?

      Please show me the moral high-ground here – the irony-fog is pretty thick.

    • THVRJH…

      Point taken. But why even reply to such a strange rant?

    • Hey, I know people who get hot showers only in the winter when the utility affords to supply gas. They’re American.
      ==============

    • I believe he is objecting to the indoctrination of school children with green beliefs. It happens and is not pretty if it gets too extreme. I remember my 5th grade teacher, Mr. Bates I think was his name (not a joke), going on and on about Silent Spring.

      That was 40 years ago. The ridiculous and scary ad with school children’s heads getting blown off in a bloody mess if they did not follow the party line is evidence that some people take this way too seriously.

  42. “I would say that half of the 50 crackpot theorists that run rampant here are hoaxsters and pranksters.”

    The only test of this is how easily or otherwise they get refuted.

    • Particular Physicist

      Well I know about Stefanthedenier and Webhubtelescope and Myrrh. So who are the other 47 crackpot theorists. And do they each have their own theory/ies ?

    • To be a member of the crackpot theory club I had to construct a theory. My original, “a five pound bag can only hold so much pooh” didn’t qualify for membership.

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      My original, “a five pound bag can only hold so much pooh” didn’t qualify for membership.

      Immediate disqualification – Testable prediction.

    • Captain Kangaroo

      ‘Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.’ http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

      I have a theory that natural, large-scale…

      It is a fact that satellite data shows that natural, large-scale… is responsible for all of the recent warming. Who’d a thunk it?

    • Captain Kangaroo

      You got it wrong.

      Willis said that the current slight cooling was caused by “natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña”.

      That’s the “speed bumps”.

      Warming, on the other hand (when it occurs) is caused by “increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation”. [Interesting that "deforestation" is now added.]

      So we have two separate types of climate forcing: one for warming and one for cooling. When it is neither warming nor cooling they are both at play.

      But for future projections, we’ll only consider the warming factors.

      Hmmm… Lemme think about that a bit…

      Max

    • Particular Physicist | December 11, 2012 at 12:22 pm said: ”Well I know about Stefanthedenier and Webhubtelescope and Myrrh”

      Stefanthedenier is your nightmare; you are running away from real proofs – BUT, those proofs are giving you sleepless nights. You are worth 147 crackpots. My proofs can stand to any scrutiny, What kind of physicist you are; when you don’t understand that: when O&N warm up, they expand?!

      Only crackpots like you and Web run for cover, when facing the truth and reality: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/

    • My “crackpot theory” would be:

      The IPCC CAGW premise (or hypothesis) has not been validated by empirical scientific evidence, so it remains an uncorroborated hypothesis.

      Anyone care to refute it?

      Max

    • Max,

      How much spam are you ready to push to this site?

      The same pointless claims time after time after time with absolutely nothing new to say.

    • Pekka Pirila,

      Aren’t you being hypocritical?

    • Pekka

      Is that your “crackpot theory”?

      Max

    • Max, starting point is important. Since the current absolute “average” surface temperature is roughly between 15 and 17.5 C we should nail them down before the BEST global results. Since they have already slid the “average” down to 14 C from 15C, they could sneak in a 13C starting temperature and kill the betting line. Luckily, they know the TOA imbalance to 0.15 Wm-2 with a 95% confidence level, I am sure that wouldn’t change :)

    • Pekka

      But, more seriously, I sincerely hope you will try to refute my “crackpot theory”

      Have at it.

      Max

    • Pekka Pirila,

      What do you think of the CO2 sequestration masks?

      Are you going to buy them for you and your family?

      How long would you expect to wear them each day?

      Is this long enough each day to save the planet?

      Who should pay for them for all the poor people?

      Should it be a government funded program to buy them for everyone?

      Should the rich countries pay for everyone to get one free?

      Who will enforce compliance?

      Should all pets be required to wear them too?

      What about domestic animals?

      What about wild animals?

      See what the UN IPCC delegates think:

    • David Springer

      Pekka “The Weasel” Pirila is projecting again.

  43. The Skeptical Warmist

    For those who follow such things, some unusual upper stratospheric wind activity of the SAO (Semi Annual Oscillation), will work its way down into the QBO (Quasi Biennial Oscillation) over the next year and we could get a pretty good sized El Nino out of it in the winter of 2013-2014. It’s a long ways out, but the winds right now at the upper layers (25 to 45km up) in the Stratosphere over the equator have been anomalously westerly for an extended period:
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2012.gif

    Interesting to watch how this progresses…

  44. Captain Kangaroo

    ‘Stay tuned for the next update by 12 January (hopefully sooner, but the annual AMS meeting is unusually early in 2013) to see where the MEI will be heading next. El Niño came and went this summer, and its short life span is clearly over. Therefore, we are facing our first ENSO-neutral winter since 2003-04 (2005-06 was an ENSO-neutral winter, but much closer to La Niña, and dipped into La Niña rankings during spring March-April)). Furthermore, every ‘double-dip’ La Niña of the last century has been followed by either one more La Niña winter or a switch to El Niño, so this is even more unusual. It will be a few months before a return to either El Niño or La Niña is possible.’

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

  45. Nature (11 Dec 2012) acknowledge lack of public support for two government “settled science” dogmas:

    1. AGW Campaign Will Vanish on 1 Jan 1913:

    “On 1 January 2013, the world can go back to emitting greenhouse gases with abandon. The pollution-reduction commitments that nations made as part of the Kyoto Protocol will expire, leaving the planet without any international climate regulation and uncertain prospects for a future treaty. Nature explores the options for limiting — and living with — global warming.” http://tinyurl.com/amzrgyv

    2. Chinese Officials Fired for Promoting Genetically Modified Rice:

    “China has sacked three officials for breaching Chinese laws and ethical regulations during a trial in which children were fed genetically modified rice.” http://tinyurl.com/ahue2e6

    • Correction:

      1. AGW Campaign Will Vanish on 1 Jan 2013

      The good news: East and West, the public is fed up with tyrannical, irrational government dogma parading as “settled science”.

    • The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

      omanuel said:

      “AGW Campaign Will Vanish on 1 Jan 2013…”
      _____
      You’d better start getting a new paradigm as this current one will be severely challenged by the events ahead. Seriously, your cognitive dissonance could reach extreme levels in the coming years…

  46. ‘The new data call into question our understanding of the
    uncertainty of observed stratospheric temprature trends …’
    Thompson et al.

    The sighting of the first black swans, as Nassim Taleb observes,
    ‘might have been a surprise for a few ornithologists (and others
    extremely concerned with the colouring of birds,) but that is not
    where the significance of the story lies. It illustrates a severe
    limitation to our learning from observations or experience and the
    fragility of our knowledge.’ Taleb prologue.

    Take one bird, for example,
    Just ONE bird, …this one,
    Phasianus colchicus,
    The common pheasant.

    Though it’s not unique,
    Its plumage seems
    A microcosm of
    The universal profusion,
    Explosion of creativity
    Of a star-infused cosmos,
    Zig-zags of storms, pattern
    Of ocean waves and gyres,
    Colour of earth, chemical
    And geological stratas
    Of clay, silica and slate.

    And that’s just one bird … this bird’
    Plumage.

    BC

  47. edit “bird’s”
    Plumage.

  48. Well I noted that the insoluble aerosol record in the ice cores shows that aerosols vary by 2.7 orders of magnitude, or 500 times min equals max.
    As we know dust both blocks sunlight (cooling the Earth) and fertilizing the oceanic biotica (sequestrating atmospheric CO2) I suggest that Dust causes the changes in the temperature and CO2 recorded in the ice cores.

    Crackpot.

    • OK, so you may well have the correct theory, but that means the other 47 are wrong.

      Is this a level playing field? If so, then someone will waste lots of time while trying to referee and judge all the contenders. The majority of these stink badly.

      And of course all of these are competing against the big kahuna. In modern day science, no significant mainstream scientific theory has ever been refuted.

      The assertion that you must invalidate is that the earth would freeze solid were it not due to the GHG effect of CO2.

      Can space dust take the place of CO2 and prevent that from happening?

    • Captain Kangaroo

      I suppose this is a hypothetical about an Earth without life or volcanos? I’m not much good at hypotheticals – but I presume that sunshine would keep water liquid somewhere and some water vapour in the air.

      However, reality is not one or the other. Natural variability does not mean that simple radiative physics ceases to function. It is all just more simplistic nonsense from the webnutcolonoscope.

    • Or volcano dust.

    • WebHubTelescope | December 11, 2012 at 7:44 pm | Reply
      The assertion that you must invalidate is that the earth would freeze solid were it not due to the GHG effect of CO2.

      Neat strawman style. Unless you are addressing Myrrh&co, and not the other 99% of posters. In which case please say so so we can skip those posts as we do theirs.

    • BatedBreath | December 12, 2012 at 5:24 am said: ”The assertion that you must invalidate is that the earth would freeze solid were it not due to the GHG effect of CO2”. Neat strawman style. Unless you are addressing Myrrh&co”

      Wrong accusation!!! Myrrh repeated many times that: ”CO2 has nothing to do with the planet’s temperature! #2: he pointed the stupidity from both camps; ignoring that there is oxygen & nitrogen in the earth’s atmosphere. Is that so difficult to understand; or, is it painful to understand the truth – so you have to blame him for things that he rejects?!

      Try again: CO2 is NOT a GLOBAL warming gas – storks are NOT bringing babies! It’s not Myrrh’s fault, for the nutters from both camps ignoring the two elephants in the room, oxygen & nitrogen. Pas the correct message

  49. Tom , like humans ,some birds make epic migrations across
    continents and oceans, the swift spends most of its life on
    the wing, ‘winging it.’ ) I read somewhere that in its lifetime
    a tern flies about 4 million miles, the equivalent of flying to
    the moon and back 8 times! Don’t know much about the
    Chinese phoenix

  50. Beth

    According to Wiki, the Chinese phoenix (Fenghuang) is a fictional composite (sort of like “climate sensitivity” in modern-day climate mythology):

    A common depiction of Fenghuang was of it attacking snakes with its talons and its wings spread. According to scripture Erya — chapter 17 Shiniao, Fenghuang is said to be made up of the beak of a rooster, the face of a swallow, the forehead of a fowl, the neck of a snake, the breast of a goose, the back of a tortoise, the hindquarters of a stag and the tail of a fish. Today, however, it is often described as a composite of many birds including the head of a golden pheasant, the body of a mandarin duck, the tail of a peacock, the legs of a crane, the mouth of a parrot, and the wings of a swallow.

    Mouth of a parrot is good, but isn’t there a “black swan” in there somewhere?

    In real life, you can find the Fenghuang in cheap, colorful, cloisonné (enamel on brass) versions, in tourist gift shops. Brings good fortune.

    But, hey, I like your pheasant better.

    Max

  51. Thx Max, hope u have a Fenghuang ter bring u good fortune. :)
    How long were u in China?

    • Beth

      Three years (mostly in Hong Kong and southern provinces).

      I enjoyed it a lot (but I never learned either Cantonese or Mandarin).

      Max

  52. Beth

    The phoenix (female) and the dragon (male) are both very important in Chinese mythology.

    Here’s a dragon story (maybe a bit OT).

    On the road from central Hong Kong to Stanley Island there is a section of very expensive high rise buildings, where many of the very wealthy Hong Kong residents live.

    One of these buildings has an unusual shape. In the middle of the tall, flat rectangular building there is a big open hole, covering several stories and roughly one quarter of the entire width of the building.

    Why did the architect design in this big hole?

    This question came up at a dinner table, where, beside myself, there was an American engineer, a Hong Kong Chinese business lady and a friend of the architect.

    The American engineer said it must have been designed in to take care of the wind load on the building.

    The Chinese lady said no, it was because of the mountain dragon living near there, who needed access to the sea for putting out his fire.

    The friend of the architect explained how the architect had been married to a lady architect, who had designed such a building somewhere else, but had died a few years earlier. So he designed in the hole in her memory, to represent the hole she had left in his heart.

    Three true answers to the same question.

    Max

  53. Max,
    Interesting dinner table conversation. Reads like a scene from
    a Charlton Heston, Eleanor Parker 50′s movie, watched one last
    night. With yr dinner party conversation, the film would flash back
    to scenarios of the three different explanations in turn, kinda like
    Somerset Maughm. I enjoyed the last one best.
    Beth

  54. …and Big Al hung his Christmas stockings by fireplace #15 with care
    hoping that his underpaid servants soon would be there
    to polish his Nobel prize that’s so charming
    whence he got from getting dumb people to believe in Global Warming

    Andrew

  55. Seeing as it’s the season-of-goodwill-to-all, I’ll have another stab at understanding this.

    So all the anthropogenic carbon dioxide comes from a very small fraction of the planet where it rises into the atmosphere and doesn’t produce a locally-measurable temperature change. It then becomes diluted and rises much further up to very dry places around the world where it is modeled (not measured?) as producing a radiative forcing.

    The heat from this radiative forcing then goes back down, through the atmospheric CO2 and water vapor, through the clouds, and down to the surface where it has sex with liquid water. The resulting water vapor then travels back up past or through the clouds to the nearly-dry parts of the atmosphere and generates its own radiative-forcing which is much bigger than that from the CO2. This extra energy returns, down, through all that extra CO2 which is still there, through the clouds, back down to join it’s parent at the surface.

    The combined heat can be modeled at the surface but cannot currently be measured because it has dived into some deep, lonely part of the ocean where it can’t be found.

    And this might be because the ozone can’t be measured properly. Or can’t be modeled properly. Or both.

    Have I got that right?

    • Greenspan, said something almost just like this about the housing market. So yes.

    • The atmosphere is generally cooler than the land and seas. So rather than the heat the CO2 captures going back down to heat the land and seas, it slows the cooling of land and seas into the atmosphere.

    • David Springer

      It slows cooling of rocks. Water not so much. The modus operandi of CO2 is restricting the passage of thermal radiation. Rocks radiate. CO2 slows it. Water evaporates more than it radiates. CO2 doesn’t do anything to slow down evaporation. Water molecules laden with latent heat pass right through CO2 like it wasn’t there ascending to form a cloud where the thermal energy once again becomes measurable warmth. The CO2 between the cloud and surface now restricts thermal radiation from the cloud from getting back to the surface and instead makes it much easier for said heat to radiate from the cloud to outer space since the cloud is now above the densest part of the atmosphere.

      Everything about anthropogenic global warming makes sense and is easy to understand once the basic concept of how the ocean (and other wet surfaces) fails to be effected much by CO2 in the atmosphere. All you’ve then got to do is (sort of follow the money) is follow the evaporation. Where it’s colder it’s dryer and of course land is dryer than ocean. AGW thus has the largest effect over land and the colder the land the more the effect so higher latitudes which are frozen over in the winter are naturally dryer on average than land without freezing winters. Global warming is also distributed seasonally with more in the winter than in the summer.

      This disitribution of AGW is a blessing in disguise. Ask people in England if they’d prefer their winters so cold the Thames freezes solid. Ask people trying to farm in higher latitudes if they’d prefer shorter growing seaons and more killer frosts.

    • Nope that is not what the global warming alarmists are saying. They have created an artificial reality of what they think is normal at the top of the stratosphere–a metaworld of sorts. Their metaworld, however, does not actually accord with reality and their explanation for that is something unnatural must be happening. And, they have an explanation for that too: you are not being taxed enough. It’s a leap to go from global warming to taxes but the Left has been getting away with your money using that kind of logic for years and whether they’re sporting a fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ or worrying about the demise of polar bears or Rhode Island-sized glacier named Aunt Bee calving off Antarctica, Western academia just winks and counts the cash.

    • No. not even close.

    • …That’s what he said.

  56. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


    The heat from this radiative forcing then goes back down, through the atmospheric CO2 and water vapor, through the clouds, and down to the surface where it has sex with liquid water.

    Heat has sex with EVERYTHING. It’s very energetic that way.

    But seriously,
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

    • As with the rest of the AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect, your link takes to a page of more joke fake fisics from august bodies of science conned by magic tricks of clever sleights of hand and word play, here’s a better link:

      http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/06/agu-highlights/#comment-275083

    • Funny thing happened on the way to Qatar from Kyoto…

      Imagine a German George Bush running against Hitler back in September 1930 and in their hatred for the man who defeated them the National Socialist Workers’ Party wages an eight year disinformation campaign against the voters. That pretty much is exactly what happened in America beginning with Al Gore’s defeat by George Bush.

  57.  

    “Ben Santer [federal climatologist] just published a pal-reviewed paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science loudly proclaiming that the dreaded man-made global warming signal has emerged from our naturally chaotic climate… pretty much what he wrote in Naturefor the UN’s 1996 edition of this conference, 16 years ago. If at first you don’t succeed…”

    ~Patrick Michaels: “My activist-scientist friends don’t want to go back to flying in coach.”

     

  58. Willis Eschenbach

    Judith, you ask:

    So, how will more realistic assessment of data set uncertainty influence the IPCC AR5 conclusions and confidence levels regarding the attribution of warming since the mid 20th century?

    It won’t change the IPCC conclusions in the slightest. It’s been a long time since the IPCC scientists actually looked at reality and dealt with the messy stuff in the trenches, like data set uncertainty.

    Besides, the main articles and conclusions of the AR5 have already been written, it’s a dead issue. We can smell the rot already, and we’re just waiting for the corpse to decompose into readable form.

    w.

  59. Pekka – thank you for your eloquent defense of Feynman, a dead man who cannot come back and bust some heads.

    Which is why they picked him.

  60.  

    So far, the unifying “MY theory” is the only theory explains the MMM paradox. Simply put, the MMM (Mann, McIntyre, McKitrick) paradox challenges the prediction of modeling the mechanics of climate change situations of global warming (GW) going up when it is also going down and vice-versa.

    According to the unifying theory, that is why, for example, global warming (GW) can simultaneously be going both up and down—i.e., the overall GW trend over the last 10,000 years can be down, as in reality we know that is the case; and, GW also can be going up as we know it has over the last 100,000 years; and, still overall–as we also know to be true–GW can be going down for the last 4,000 and 2,000 and 16 years as well as going up prior to the aforesaid epochs.

     

  61. Australia is a civilized, cultured and successful multi-ethnic community. If you are looking for an economy to emulate ours would be a better model than China than some here suggest. We are the best friend America has – spilling the blood of our sons in every God forsaken US war for 60 years.

    Our citizens came from every corner of the world and live in a pluralist, modernist, capitalist and democratic society. This is the essence of the new global culture emerging which is the real hope of the world.

    It is time take a break. It’s Christmas and Shibboleth and I are headed for the Never Never. Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year to everyone.

    ‘I had written him a letter which I had, for want of better
    Knowledge, sent to where I met him down the Lachlan, years ago,
    He was shearing when I knew him, so I sent the letter to him,
    Just `on spec’, addressed as follows, `Clancy, of The Overflow’.

    And an answer came directed in a writing unexpected,
    (And I think the same was written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar)
    ‘Twas his shearing mate who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it:
    `Clancy’s gone to Queensland droving, and we don’t know where he are.’

    In my wild erratic fancy visions come to me of Clancy
    Gone a-droving `down the Cooper’ where the Western drovers go;
    As the stock are slowly stringing, Clancy rides behind them singing,
    For the drover’s life has pleasures that the townsfolk never know.

    And the bush hath friends to meet him, and their kindly voices greet him
    In the murmur of the breezes and the river on its bars,
    And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,
    And at night the wond’rous glory of the everlasting stars.

    I am sitting in my dingy little office, where a stingy
    Ray of sunlight struggles feebly down between the houses tall,
    And the foetid air and gritty of the dusty, dirty city
    Through the open window floating, spreads its foulness over all

    And in place of lowing cattle, I can hear the fiendish rattle
    Of the tramways and the ‘buses making hurry down the street,
    And the language uninviting of the gutter children fighting,
    Comes fitfully and faintly through the ceaseless tramp of feet.

    And the hurrying people daunt me, and their pallid faces haunt me
    As they shoulder one another in their rush and nervous haste,
    With their eager eyes and greedy, and their stunted forms and weedy,
    For townsfolk have no time to grow, they have no time to waste.

    And I somehow rather fancy that I’d like to change with Clancy,
    Like to take a turn at droving where the seasons come and go,
    While he faced the round eternal of the cash-book and the journal –
    But I doubt he’d suit the office, Clancy, of `The Overflow’.’ Bango Patterson – Clancy of the Overflow

    • One can certainly enjoy the bush and the less human company one has the better! That fact that one can do this does not mean that one is necessarily misanthropic and this seems to be a common feature of global warming alarmists

  62. Beautiful stuff CH.

    But there is a problem.

    Your post neatly encapsulates the best of the outdoor life with the worst of the indoor life which is what those pesky Greenies do and it leads them to hate humanity and all its works.

    How about encapsulating the worst of the outdoor life ( nasty brutish and short as per John Stuart Mill) and the best of the indoor life ( life expectancy more than doubled in a century)?

    Best to combine the best of both isn’t it?

    So, lets screw the planet for as much energy as is available as quickly and cheaply as we can so that prosperous peoples then voluntarily reduce breeding rates so that brings forward population stabilisation and eventual reduction.

    Then, with a wealthy and reducing global population that can afford to take care of the environment, with advances in technology we can only dream of, the world can become a better place with long term sustainability and an end to avoidable human suffering.

    The Environmental Nazis would put a stop to that natural process because of their small minded prejudices.

    • “So, lets screw the planet for as much energy as is available as quickly and cheaply as we can so that prosperous peoples then voluntarily reduce breeding rates so that brings forward population stabilisation and eventual reduction.

      Then, with a wealthy and reducing global population that can afford to take care of the environment, with advances in technology we can only dream of, the world can become a better place with long term sustainability and an end to avoidable human suffering.”

      How about focus on increase economic growth [or screw the planet for as much energy as is available]. And have big goal of really screwing up the heavens.

      Let’s not fear, some possibility, that perhaps some mad mega-corporations could devour the Moon and rest of the universe.
      Opening the space frontier will cause far more technological development than modest effort in this direction, so far have already been realization.
      Let’s cheer as mad fools as we race like mad towards the singularity.

    • I found something related. A petition to Build Death Star :
      http://thefw.com/death-star-petition/
      “So far, the petition has over 19,000 signatures”
      Needs 25,000 by December 14.

    • gbaikie | December 13, 2012 at 2:46 pm said: ”I found something related. A petition to Build Death Star”

      Hmm, what about a petition, to resurrect that dead start? Mouth to mouth; You can find here many doo- gooders / volunteers – weirdaws of any colour for jobs like that. Don’t mention to them about ”real, productive job”

    • Stephen Wilde | December 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Reply

      Beautiful stuff CH.

      But there is a problem.

      Your post neatly encapsulates the best of the outdoor life with the worst of the indoor life which is what those pesky Greenies do and it leads them to hate humanity and all its works.

      How about encapsulating the worst of the outdoor life ( nasty brutish and short as per John Stuart Mill) and the best of the indoor life ( life expectancy more than doubled in a century)?

      Best to combine the best of both isn’t it?…
      ———————————

      Mill was making assumptions from what he believed was a privileged position.

      The change in life expectancy had little to do with the location of living activity (indoors vs outdoors) and very likely vastly more to do with improved dentistry (medicine generally gets the nod, but I consider that to have more influence on simply surviving child hood, and secondarily on women of reproductive age surviving being handled by filthy-handed doctors). During most of the 19th C life expectancy differed little between tribal and urban populations – unless the tribal population was in direct contact with an urban civilization, in which case disease lopped about 10 years off the tribal life expectancy. If you had ever worked as an archaeologist on burials (urban and tribal) you might note that tribal people tended die when their teeth wore to the gum line. If they survived the abscesses in the mandible and maxilla that accompanied that, they could live to be quite elderly, even by our standards.

  63. Judith — and with the last few posts, I assume that scientific discussion here is dead? What has remained has either been jokes that are not very funny, or rants of people who… uh, rants?

  64. gbaikie.

    Cost always restrains foolishness in the end.

    Mega-corporations with daft ambitions are far more likely to result from Greenie alliances with governments and corporate interests.

    Free and prosperous individuals world wide are far more likely to make sustainable and environmentally sensible decisions than governments, single issue lobby groups and profit driven corporations.

    Those power hungry institutions must be stopped from pooling their resources as they have been doing.

    We are at a turning point in human history where the monolithic interest groups gain power over individuals or they don’t.

    Fortuitously the internet allows freedom of expression worldwide for the time being.

    Which side are you on ?

    • “gbaikie.

      Cost always restrains foolishness in the end.

      Mega-corporations with daft ambitions are far more likely to result from Greenie alliances with governments and corporate interests.”

      Re the Moon and rest of solar system.
      There are laws and public opinion which inhibit the use of the rest of
      our solar system.
      The rest of solar system is both “worthless” and too precious [or priceless].

      Analogy with Antarctic. A child’s view of Antarctic is it’s too cold for humans
      to live there. An adult knows there are laws inhibiting, companies for exploiting Antarctica resources- and that is why only government research
      bases and some tourist activity is allowed. Antarctic has laws that prevents
      the use of Antarctic resources- mine oil or gold, or whatever. Antarctic can’t be owned by people, it’s limited to being a government park like area.

      The rest of our solar system is like Antarctic.
      We need laws that allow [and actually promote the use of space for whatever purpose people [not just government] want to do.
      So if Moon was like Los Vegas that would be good. Or if the Moon was like a California gold rush, that is something wanted rather than something to be discouraged by laws inhibiting such a thing for happening.
      Or basically the commies own the rest of solar system and like everything they creating poverty and stagnation.
      We need rewards for the use of space, rewards being land not used [practical all of it] can be claimed and kept if someone uses these regions. This has been a “natural right of human” to go somewhere which is vacate and use that vacate land. Right now, the rest of solar system is off limits, legally. Legally we need to open the door as wide as possible.
      Right now, NASA is not exploring the solar system to find resources which could profitable to mine- it mostly considered impossible.
      But humans are always doing the impossible. Our current world is impossible. Look around at it, to anyone living 1000 year ago, the present world is unbelievable.
      So people hold two views, doing anything of economic value in space is not possible or practical and prohibiting by laws this from happening.
      So we open space, by legal sanctioning the possibility- and allow the future human to go into space.

    • “Those power hungry institutions must be stopped from pooling their resources as they have been doing. ”

      I suppose government [an institution] pooling vast debt is somehow better and something not to be stopped?
      Stopping power hungry institutions is unamerican and foolish.
      One should more lots of power hungry institutions who will compete against and with each other. We like Google and Bing and Microsoft and anyone else fighting for customers to serve.
      A lot better than government giving orders that limit our options.

  65. Willis Eschenbach

    Steven Mosher | December 13, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

    What is ur exit strategy if tempd go up by .4c in 20 years

    while the sun cools

    Since the warming is forecast to occur mostly in the extra-tropics, in the winter, at night, my exit strategy would be to have an additional hot mulled rum and enjoy the slightly warmer winter nights … what’s your plan?

    Of course, I’m not someone who thinks that the sun is the be-all and end-all of the climate, so whether the sun cools isn’t all that material to me.

    w.

    PS—According to BEST, the world warmed about two degrees over the last two centuries. I have not found a single example of any catastrophic or even very detrimental outcome of that 2° of warming. Where are the corpses? Where is the huge predicted rise in extreme weather? Where are the monstrous forecast changes in flood and drought patterns? Where are the islands that we are warned will be swamped by rising seas? Where are the environmental refugees? Where are any disasters that you can lay at the foot of that 2° warming?

    So I fail to see why people are so dang concerned about warming. Last time the planet warmed 2° it resulted in … well … basically nothing, but people think another 2° will signal the heat death of the planet.

    Me, I don’t think warmer winter nights are that big a deal, and not seeing any catastrophes from the last 2° warming, I’m not expecting a slightly warmer world to be that much different from today. If it were not for thermometers, nobody would even notice a warming of 1° per century, we don’t live long enough.

    • As you should know BEST is land only. The warming over the BEST record was from a low point back towards the highs of the holocene. So far we’ve seen (apart from the GHGs) conditions that life including humans have already faced before.

      The next 2° takes us into uncharted territory that could be full of tipping points and black swans simply by virtue of never being “tested” before.

      And all those frozen hydrocarbons that have survived millions of years of build up because temperature got high enough to release them…

    • Willis Eschenbach

      lolwot | December 13, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Reply

      The next 2° takes us into uncharted territory that could be full of tipping points and black swans simply by virtue of never being “tested” before.

      As far as I know, the Greenland ice core data says that the globe was a couple of degrees warmer not long ago, during the Holocene.

      So where is this fabled “uncharted territory” of warming that we have never seen? …

      w

    • Willis Eschenbach | December 14, 2012 at 12:54 am said: ”As far as I know, the Greenland ice core data says that the globe was a couple of degrees warmer not long ago, during the Holocene”

      The ”Greenland ice core data” is created for misleading; didn’t take much effort, to mislead Willis…

      Ice on Greenland is melted by about 2m, every year, from below – by the geothermal heat. Similar amount is replenished every season, by freeze-drying the moisture from the air. None of that is taken in consideration, by the shonks collecting data. . The Holocene / Crapocene ice has melted long, long time ago, new ice has deposited: Willis, that Greenland old ice supposed to be Skeptic;s crap; why are you getting stuck into it; did you run out of Warmist lies / misleadings?!? http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/

    • “The next 2° takes us into uncharted territory”

      O.K. So we now enter an new stage in the biosphere, hotter than has been known since the rise of the mammals.

      “that could be full of tipping points and black swans simply by virtue of never being “tested” before”

      but it could be perfect. We could see the evolution of unicorns, lions may lay down with Lambs and Democrats may start being honest about redistribution. Come no, why is the glass half empty? I know that colder is worse, much colder, much worse. So why isn’t a hotter, wetter planet good for all of us?

    • Warmer sustains more total life and more diversity of life; colder the converse. Where have I seen this jamais vu before?
      ====================

    • Spot on Willis, people make exit strategies in day to day life and business based upon hard testable empirical evidence. not based on somebody’s wild fantasies. Big fail from Mosher.

    • Willis Eschenbach | December 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm said: ”What is ur exit strategy if tempd go up by .4c in 20 years Since the warming is forecast to occur mostly in the extra-tropics, in the winter, at night, my exit strategy would be to have an additional hot mulled rum and enjoy the slightly warmer winter nights … what’s your plan?”

      Willis, , in 20y time from now; you will be asking your parole officers, to let you out, on good behavior / on a condition: you must stop telling lies.

      Long before 20 year from now; the public will lose patience with the: ”if,” ”may”, ”can” ”possible” The End is Nigh, Con.

      Somebody will be paying for the damages / expenses already occurred, and in progress. Crime shouldn’t pay. Otherwise, everybody would have being profiteering from lies. Would you prefer lolwot to be in your jail cell, is he a good person? what do you say / think?

    • Willis Eschenbach

      stefanthedenier | December 14, 2012 at 1:36 am


      Willis, , in 20y time from now; you will be asking your parole officers, to let you out, on good behavior / on a condition: you must stop telling lies.

      Is this supposed to be humor? If so, it is an epic fail.

      And if it is not supposed to be humor, it is offensive, unpleasant, and reflects poorly on your character.

      w.

  66. Let me bring this out as a new bit.

    Nabil Swedan, you write “If you feel it is not real, then prove your point as a scientist.”

    I cannot. As I have observed many times, CAGW is a perfectly reasonable and vianble hypothesis, which I cannot prove is wrong. All I can claim is that there is no empirical evidence to show that it is correct. And the physics on which the estimates of climate sensitivity are based are not correct; as we agree.

    But that is all. I cannot find any CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph, from which I deduce that there is a strong indication that the total climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.

    But I cannot see how anyone can claim that they can actually prove that CAGW is wrong.

    • what’s the empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect?

    • lolwot

      what’s the empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect?

      Empirical: absorption properties of major GHGs: H2O, CO2, etc.

      Theoretical: estimated “clear sky” temperature response in our climate system of doubling GHG concentration

      Hypothetical: various feedbacks, leading to climate sensitivity

      Max

    • Hypothetical: various feedbacks, leading to climate sensitivity

      How do we account for the *normal* late Holocene GAT of ~15C without invoking positive feedbacks? Water vapour and GHGs *amplify* the solar forcing. They are positive feedbacks. There is nothing hypothetical about this. Without these positive feedbacks we would be frozen solid.

    • “Empirical: absorption properties of major GHGs: H2O, CO2, etc.”

      Measurements of the absorption properties of major GHGs are empirical evidence that GHGs absorb infra-red.

      How is that empirical evidence of a greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere?

      Unless you apply theoretical calculations you can’t reach a conclusion that a greenhouse effect exists.

      Jim Cripwell doesn’t accept theoretical calculations as the basis of scientific fact. Neither I think, do you.

      So why do you accept the greenhouse effect? What empirical measurement proves the greenhouse effect exists that doesn’t rely on any theoretical calculation?

    • BBD, “How do we account for the *normal* late Holocene GAT of ~15C without invoking positive feedbacks?”

      Let’s see, that is ~ 15C +/- 2.5C for a “surface” that does not have a fixed area or altitude. ~3C +/- 1.5 C, for a more stable volume and a more stable “surface” altitude, would make more sense, since we do live on a water world.

    • Cap’n

      You bring a red herring to the table!

      Positive feedbacks are required or we would be verrrryyy cooollld…. brrr

      True or false?

    • BBD, “Positive feedbacks are required or we would be verrrryyy cooollld…. brrr”

      A combination of positive and negative feedbacks would be required or we would not exist. The “system” is bi-stable with two competing “greenhouse” effects. I learned a new word yesterday or the Alzhiemers took a break, Endogenous. I had always just considered it thermal inertia, things take time. Which one of the two systems would take the most time?

    • BBD

      You ask whether or not we would be “very cold” without the natural GH effect from CO2.

      The natural GH effect is estimated to be around 33C, with H2O (as vapor, liquid droplets in clouds or ice crystals in clouds) the principal GH gas.

      CO2 is usually estimated to account for 15% to 22% of the total GH effect, .
      So just attributing say 20% to CO2, this means, very roughly, we would be 6.6C cooler with no CO2 GH effect. That’s pretty cold, all right, so we can be thankful for the CO2 in our atmosphere.

      And besides, without it there would be no life as we know it, so we can be even more thankful.

      Max

    • must have been the Alzhiemers since I forgot the links,

      http://www.systemdynamics.org/what_is_system_dynamics.html

      and http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1005327613287

      Sorry that one is paywalled to me, but I was able to pick up some of the bits.

    • Max, “The natural GH effect is estimated to be around 33C,” plus or minus a few degrees, the uncertainty in that one assumption is greater than the estimated impact. I think Webster knows a bit about “sensitivity or errors”. they can become a monster.

    • Let’s see, since Webster did all the Fickiian diffusion work, I am sure he considered all of this. The land “surface” is 2 meters above the “surface” and that “surface” varies from a few dozen meters below msl to about 3000 meters above msl. SST is measure about 5 meters below the “surface” and makes up about 70% of the “surface” area, but at least that “Surface” only varies about 100 meters or so. The 255K is based on ~238Wm-2 TOA which is about 8 kilometers above the “surface” which if there were no greenhouse gases, theoretically would be about 1500 meters below its current “surface”.altitude.

      So after considering all of that, the estimated current “surface” temperature produces an estimated effective radiant return energy from the atmosphere of about 345Wm-3 +/- 9 called DWLR which, had the average effective radiant energy of the oceans been used, ~334Wm-2 would have created less confusion and still have been within a more realistic uncertainty range of +/- 17 Wm-2. or within 1 Wm-2 of the original estimates. The absolute “surface” temperature that produces a portion of that atmospheric return radiant energy is roughly 16.5C +/- 2.5 degrees.

      I think the 33C is outdated and with it, the other estimates.

      Now BBD (still in Christmas Truce mode), the consummate controls expert and paleo ocean dabbler, has magically selected the all the correct values to use in order to confirm the IPCC best guess of 3C “sensitivity” despite the building evidence that greater than 3 C is unlikely and the grandest of grand climate change Poobahs, Santers is recommending a do over, er. climate science Mulligan, of past climate estimates.

      tis the season

    • Cap’n

      Dodge, dodge, dodge. Answer the question please:

      Positive feedbacks are required or we would be verrrryyy cooollld…. brrr

      True or false?

    • And when you have done so, can you explain what you mean by this:

      The “system” is bi-stable with two competing “greenhouse” effects.

      Because I have no idea. Two? Competing? GH effects?

    • lolwot

      It appears you misunderstood.

      I wrote that the GH absorption properties were empirical evidence that a GH effect exists.

      Its quantification (clear sky) is estimated based on these data and the assumption that the GH effect would work in our climate system.

      IOW the principle of the GH effect is empirical, while its quantification in our climate system is not.

      The quantification of feedbacks is even more hypothetical: mostly based on predictions from model simulations, with a bit of paleo stuff tossed in.

      Hope this answers your question.

      Max

    • Don’t forget the sacred scrolls that record all that remains of the lost data, throw in an acre of tarmac and slowly cook the books over a Yamal log.

    • Jim Cripwell | December 13, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Reply Let me bring this out as a new bit.

      Nabil Swedan, you write “If you feel it is not real, then prove your point as a scientist.”

      I cannot. As I have observed many times, CAGW is a perfectly reasonable and vianble hypothesis, which I cannot prove is wrong. All I can claim is that there is no empirical evidence to show that it is correct.

      lolwot | December 13, 2012 at 6:51 pm | “Empirical: absorption properties of major GHGs: H2O, CO2, etc.”

      Measurements of the absorption properties of major GHGs are empirical evidence that GHGs absorb infra-red.

      manacker | December 13, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      Empirical: absorption properties of major GHGs: H2O, CO2, etc.

      manacker | December 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm | BBD

      You ask whether or not we would be “very cold” without the natural GH effect from CO2.

      The natural GH effect is estimated to be around 33C, with H2O (as vapor, liquid droplets in clouds or ice crystals in clouds) the principal GH gas.

      =========================

      After all this time, some decades, and this is level of ‘science’ you are all reduced to in claiming that there is such a thing as the Greenhouse Effect – so what that water and carbon dioxide imbibe thermal infrared?

      How can anyone with any logic make a leap from that to claiming that these drive global warming? How can this even be a rational hypothesis when the water cycle cools the Earth by 52°C?

      http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis
      In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation. Outside science, a theory or guess can also be called a hypothesis.

      A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory. In science, a hypothesis needs to go through a lot of testing before it gets labeled a theory. In the non-scientific world, the word is used a lot more loosely. A detective might have a hypothesis about a crime, and a mother might have a hypothesis about who spilled juice on the rug. Anyone who uses the word hypothesis is making a guess.

      How is the Greenhouse Effect a reasonable and viable hypothesis?

      No testing is ever brought into these discussions, no empirical evidence ever shown, all we get is these disjointed connections, memes repeated without anything, ever, being brought to show that such an effect is even possible. You can’t find it explained anywhere to a real physics standard, can you?

      That’s why not one of you CAGW/AGWs can ever bring any physical facts into discussions, because you can’t find any rational physics explanation so you’re all reduced to using “hypothesis” in the general not the scientific meaning, you’re just guessing. And we’re the suckers who have to put up with this because you keep claiming that the guess is scientific consensus and “viable” when you can’t show any reasoning .

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypothesis

      hypotheses (h-pth-sz)
      “A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.”

      You don’t have any facts on which to base a hypothesis. The Water Cycle falsifies it before you even begin..

      And you, generic, don’t even notice how much a jumble of unconnected guesses you use because you want to believe it is real..

      The Greenhouse Effect is not real, because the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases” is an illusion.

      That’s why you can never find any physical logic to explain it.

      From my link above:
      http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/06/agu-highlights/#comment-275083

      “..when the Water Cycle is put back into the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget, then the “33°C warming from -18°C by greenhouse gases” is seen to be an illusion.

      Without any our atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen the temperature would be -18°C.

      AGWSF lies that this is the temperature “with nitrogen and oxygen in place”, and only without its greenhouse gases ..

      Our full atmosphere of real greenhouse gases, which are not ideal gases but have volume, weight, attraction and subject to gravity, act as a blanket weighing down a ton per square foot around the Earth keeping the heat from the Sun’s warming of the Earth from escaping too quickly before the Sun again heats the surface. Compare with the Moon.

      Taking the Water Cycle out of this the temperature would be 67°C, think deserts.

      In other words, the Earth’s atmosphere of practically 100% nitrogen and oxygen alone, without water, would be 52°C hotter – so much hotter, these are the real gases actually acting like a heavy blanket around the Earth..

      The Water Cycle cools the Earth down to 15°C from the 67°C it would be without water.

      By clever sleight of hand AGWSF has created a direct warming from the minus18°C to 15°C without any connecting logical process, from beginning with the science fraud that the -18°C doesn’t include absence of our great heavy real gas blanket of nitrogen and oxygen and by removing entirely the Water Cycle.

      Real physics is logical in its connections with internal coherence..

      The “Greenhouse Effect of 33°C warming by greenhouse gases” is an illusion, a magic trick.”

      How can you, generic, scientists keep claiming this “33°C warming by greenhouse gases” is ‘consensus, viable, reasonable’ when you can’t even show what it is?

      Now you know why you can’t show what it is, because it is an illusion created by swapping and excising properties and processes and playing with words.

      It is not science.

    • @Myrrh
      After all this time, some decades, and this is level of ‘science’ you are all reduced to in claiming that there is such a thing as the Greenhouse Effect – so what that water and carbon dioxide imbibe thermal infrared?
      So this is your roundabout way of saying you no longer deny the Greenhouse Effect ? Anyway, that’s good.

    • @Myrrh
      The Greenhouse Effect is not real, because the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases” is an illusion.

      Are you making this up to fit to your desired conclusion, or are you able to show us your measurements that illustrate this? Proper physics measurements, that is, not silly Myrrh ones.

      .

    • Myrrh please explain how the “water cycle” somehow stops greenhouse gasses from absorbing IR.

  67. Chief Hydrologist and Shibboleth.

    Oh! ye strange black swans, will ye bear a greeting
    To the folk that live in the western land?
    Then for every sweep of your pinions beating,
    Ye shall bear a wish to the sunburnt band,
    To the stalwart men who are stoutly fighting
    With the heat and drought and dust storm smiting,
    Yet whose life somehow has a strange inviting,
    When once to work they put their hand.

    Facing it yet! oh, my friend stout-hearted,
    What does it matter for rain or shine,
    For the hopes deferred and the gain departed?
    Nothing could conquer that heart of thine.
    And the health and strength beyond confessing
    As the only joys that are worth possessing
    May the days to come be as rich in blessing
    As the days we spend in the auld lang syne.
    Banjo Paterson,

  68.  

    How can we pretend to know the truth of any the matter asserted? Honesty and competency is at issue–e.g., refusing to acknowledge bad behavior, Western academia essentially puts its imprimatur on Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ methods. “What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.” ~Emerson

  69.  
    The analogy of a ‘green house’ to explain global warming is tautological because it assumes what it’s trying to prove.

  70. manacker | December 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm driveled: ”The natural GH effect is estimated to be around 33C, with H2O (as vapor, liquid droplets in clouds or ice crystals in clouds) the principal GH gas. CO2 is usually estimated to account for 15% to 22% of the total GH effect, .
    So just attributing say 20% to CO2, this means, very roughly, we would be 6.6C cooler with no CO2 GH effect. That’s pretty cold, all right, so we can be thankful for the CO2 in our atmosphere”

    Manacker, are you so dumb by nature, or, did they blindfolded you?

    Do you really believe that: if it wasn’t for the oxygen & nitrogen keeping the warmth that’s in, AND above the land and oceans – the few particles of CO2 &H2O in the air would keep the planet’s warmth??!

    30km thick insulation of O&N is keeping the warmth, from minus -90C temperature outside. Don’t you have any brains, to think for yourself? Parroting most of the Warmist lies, and pretending to be a Skeptic…

    You have warm cloths, to trap oxygen & nitrogen in; when you are in that fridge called Switzerland, WHY? If you can’t notice that is plenty O&N in the atmosphere; why don’t you ask for some medical help?

    The roof of a normal greenhouse is NOT made from CO2; but from transparent glass, ”transparent” same as O&N, to let the sunlight in. Then, that same solid glass is preventing warmed oxygen & nitrogen from getting high up, to discharge that heat. b] how can the minuscule percentage of CO2 &water vapor prevent the vertical winds. yes winds, horizontal winds are cooling the surface / vertical winds are cooling the planet! do you know from what those ”winds” are made of?! If you are gone incompletely bananas, ask some children: are those winds made from oxygen & nitrogen, or from CO2? start getting ashamed of yourself, for being a ”Serial, delusional Craper”

    • Stefan

      You appear to have your knickers all twisted about the generally accepted greenhouse theory, which states that GH gases (primarily water vapor, plus some smaller ones, such as CO2) keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be if they were not in our atmosphere.

      This is not MY theory, Stefan.

      It is also not a theory that can be validated by empirical evidence, but rather by theoretical physics.

      You may wish to refute it with scientific data, and that’s OK with me – have at it.

      I simply stated that if one assumes that this theory is correct then one arrives at the conclusion that most of the effect was due to H2O, with a much smaller portion due to CO2 and other GHGs, and that those like Lacis or Alley (with their “CO2 control knob” posit) are using flawed logic to attribute essentially the whole natural GH effect to CO2.

      OK?

      Max

    • manacker | December 15, 2012 at 7:29 am said: ”Stefan You appear to have your knickers all twisted about the generally accepted greenhouse theory, which states that GH gases (primarily water vapor, plus some smaller ones, such as CO2) keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be if they were not in our atmosphere”’

      Max, saying: ”.the generally accepted greenhouse theory” is same as saying: ”the science is settled”. b] more appropriate is: ”if you support and believe in it, doesn’t mean that is correct” c] using it, promoting it is = you are spreading their lies; why you think that shouldn’t be challenged, those destructive lies?!

      Your statement is completely wrong: ”GH gases (primarily water vapor, plus some smaller ones, such as CO2) keep our planet warmer than it would otherwise be if they were not in our atmosphere”’ ==== I have proven that is complete lie; but, the Warmist are shielded by ”pretend Skeptics” like you – they are avoiding to be put on the spot, thanks to people like you, here::

      if it wasn’t for the oxygen & nitrogen – would have being 10cm of H2O, and 3cm of CO2 in the atmosphere, altogether.

      Does anybody understand that: at night, on the moon, temp gets to minus -145C, because is no O&N as insulators. If it was those ”greenhouse gases” of yours only there – if it was 10cm of H2O + 3cm of CO2 – both of them would have being SOLID FROZEN after sundown, in minutes / useless!!! Disregarding the O&N in the earth’s atmosphere – misleading that minuscule amount of H2O +CO2 are keeping the planet warmer – is a crime, that must be exposed! You are part of it; if I point finger at you, or Tony Brown – is not because you are a Swize-man (as your compatriot / the Crackpot is attacking the Australians), BUT because you are telling / supporting / promoting destructive lies. So, if I blame somebody; I can prove it why, by real proofs.

      Q: do you believe that: if it wasn’t for the O&N, the CO2 &water vapor would have kept the planet warm? If not; what’s your Hippocricy for?

    • StefanTheDenier

      Your long-winded gibberish and wild claims with no supporting references, stiffly laced with a faux air of authority and some abuse, have not “proved” anything at all. Nothing.

      I cannot recall even a single sensible comment you have ever made. Consequently your predictably crackpot outbursts serve only to reduce the level of debate here.

      Now why don’t you be a good boy, take a deep breath, and then try and present some clear, concise and well-supported argument ?

    • Stefen
      Do you really believe that: if it wasn’t for the oxygen & nitrogen keeping the warmth that’s in, AND above the land and oceans – the few particles of CO2 &H2O in the air would keep the planet’s warmth??!

      Elementary logic error. That oxygen and nitrogen may insulate the earth against some cooling, does not preclude greenhouse gasses from being warmed by IR.

    • The radiatively active atmospheric gases are cooled by IR. They’re warmed by direct contact with the non-radiative bulk of the atmosphere pre-dominantly. The net energy transfer between the non-radiative bulk and the radiatively active trace gases in the atmosphere is positive – the bulk is warming the trace gases and they transfer the energy to space by IR.

    • @Edim
      The radiatively active atmospheric gases are cooled by IR.

      You’re saying CO2 et al are cooled when they absorb IR ?

      They’re warmed by direct contact with the non-radiative bulk of the atmosphere pre-dominantly.

      Your implications are is atmospheric CO2 starts off cooler than N2 & O2.
      What is the evidence for this?
      (And, even if true, that the absorption of IR by CO2 doesn’t change that).

    • Petra, CO2 is cooled when it emits IR.

      “Your implications are is atmospheric CO2 starts off cooler than N2 & O2.
      What is the evidence for this?”

      CO2 radiates all the time and loses its energy. N2 & O2 cannot radiate significantly. Barring the direct absorption of solar energy, the atmosphere is heated by direct contact with the Earth’s surface (evaporation and convection) primarily. This energy, gained by the bulk, is transferred to the radiative active gases, which radiate to space.
      http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/components2.gif

    • Petra – please see my post above:
      Myrrh | December 16, 2012 at 2:13 pm
      http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/09/stratospheric-uncertainty/#comment-277262

      The Greenhouse Effect is a CON. The real blanket around the Earth keeping the Sun’s warmth from escaping too quickly is the massive heavy fluid real gas ocean of oxygen and nitrogen around us.

      This great heavy ocean of real gas has volume, weight, attraction, is subject to gravity.

      This is not empty space with imaginary massless ideal gases zipping around at great speeds miles apart from each other and bouncing off each other in elastic collisions …

      The CON is convincing by sleight of hand wordplay that 1-4% water and practically zilch percent trace gas carbon dioxide are that blanket..

      It really shouldn’t be difficult for minds with a bent for science to see the magic trick..

    • Petra | December 16, 2012 at 2:12 am said: ”That oxygen and nitrogen may insulate the earth against some cooling, does not preclude greenhouse gasses from being warmed by IR”

      1] CO2 &H2O re NOT greenhouse gases; they give shade-cloth effect

      2]Of course, they .get warmed up, much more than O&N; but only during the day b] during the day – they are 6-7-8km high up; where cooling is much more effective, that means: less sunlight on the ground.= cooler days on the ground.

      3] on the sunlight, CO2 warms up much more than O&N. Same as metal warms up much more than wood. BUT, at night CO2, same as metal; cools more, than O&N. Petra, try to understand what people are saying; otherwise, you will stay naive as Memphis &Tomcat

    • “Your implications is atmospheric CO2 starts off cooler than N2 & O2.
      What is the evidence for this?”

      Edim
      Your reply to this question did not address it.

      It also ignored greenhouse warming of CO2.

    • ““Your implications is atmospheric CO2 starts off cooler than N2 & O2.
      What is the evidence for this?”

      Edim
      Your reply to this question did not address it.

      It also ignored greenhouse warming of CO2.”

      Petra, that’s not really my implication. My implication is that CO2 ends up cooler all the time, by being able to radiate to space. The bulk (N2 and O2) is warmed constantly by direct contact heat exchange at the surface, but can only lose the energy by transferring it to the radiatively active trace gases. I don’t accept greenhouse warming of CO2. N2 and O2 are the GHGs, they insulate by reducing the atmospheric cooling to space.

    • @Edim
      My implication is that CO2 ends up cooler all the time, by being able to radiate to space

      1. So it radiates more than it absorbs ?

      2. Simplifying, only the Co2 near the TOA radiates to space. The rest of it radiates to other Co2 nearby, warming it. The idea of a “mean free path” applies here – the average distance radiation will travel before being encountering another Co2 molecule.

      I don’t accept greenhouse warming of CO2.

      You deny that Co2 absorbs longwave ?

    • Stefen,
      You are acting like a five-year-old — how many times do you need be told that greenhouse warming in climate, has nothing to do with how greenhouses work? It’s about absorption of infrared.
      Now write that down.

    • Memphis | December 16, 2012 at 2:19 am | Stefen,
      You are acting like a five-year-old — how many times do you need be told that greenhouse warming in climate, has nothing to do with how greenhouses work? It’s about absorption of infrared.
      Now write that down.

      What has absorption of infrared got to do with driving global warming?

      Show how this 1-4% water in the atmosphere can raise global temperature from the calimed -18°C without them to 15°C.

      How does it raise this a huge 33°C to give the claimed Greenhouse Effect global warming?

      How?

      How is absorption of infrared proof that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them”, when without water the Earth temp would be 67°C? Don’t you know what a desert is?

    • Memphis | December 16, 2012 at 2:19 am said: ”Stefen,You are acting like a five-year-old — how many times do you need be told that greenhouse warming in climate, has nothing to do with how greenhouses work?”

      Memphis, I’m here to prove that: there version is wrong. Unfortunately, you still don’t understand even their wrong version; that you suppose to support, therefore; the correct version is far ahead of you.

      1] you don’t understand the difference between: the ‘blanket effect” and fishnet effect. Because you don’t understand it; makes it meaningless for you. Even though, all of their agenda is that: CO2 &H2O clouds prevent cooling, same as the roof of a normal greenhouse.

      2] even if it was double ”blanket effect + 3 fishnet effects” you are lacking capacity to understand that: the sunlight comes from the other side of the water and CO2 clouds. b] reason you are not seating on the sun-umbrella; but you are putting it above your head – to be between the sun and your head == that’s what the clouds do to the surface and the sea. You haven’t being in big bushfires to see that: smog blocks the sunlight high up. that smog is made from H2O +CO2. BUT, that would be too complicated for you… same as Tomcat; you are saving your brains for rainy days, that’s cool.

      p.s. not many people are saying that CO2 & H2O clouds are not giving greenhouse effect. I say that: those clouds are giving a ”shadecloth effect”. your lack of understanding what yourself is saying, puts you on the bottom. 2] I’m here to prove the propaganda wrong – if, what i say, doesn’t fit the propaganda – you repeating the propaganda, will not make them correct. People that can understand things; instead of memorizing misleadings as gospel, like you; are needed.

    • Myrrh : What has absorption of infrared got to do with driving global warming?

      When a greenhhouse gas absorbs infrared, it gets warmer. The more greenhouse gas there is, the more warming. Do you follow?

      Show how this 1-4% water in the atmosphere can raise global temperature from the calimed -18°C without them to 15°C.

      Do you actually have a detailed critique of the many measurements and calculations and papers underpinning this claim, or are you just blowing off ?

    • stefanthedenier | December 17, 2012 at 1:24 am |

      You are making countless mistakes because you don’t understand the rather obvious similarity between: the ‘blanket effect” and “fishnet effect”; the difference is merely one of degree. not type. Because you don’t understand it; makes it meaningless for you.

      Even though, all of their agenda is that: CO2 &H2O clouds prevent cooling, same as the roof of a normal greenhouse.

      Perhaps you haven’t heard, but the greenhouse effect has absolutely nothing to do with how greenhouses work.

      The rest of your post was just more incoherent mumbo-jumbo.

  71.  
    The article says: the models analyzed underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere.

    So the models estimated a temperature plot that was higher at both ends – in the lower troposphere and the stratosphere. Yet, there has been no net warming for at least 14 years, and so no possible way that the whole temperature plot could have been raised at both ends.

    Quite possibly the stratosphere is in fact cooler because higher levels of carbon dioxide may be assisting it to cool by radiating away some of the energy up there.

    But there is absolutely no way in which there can be so-called “radiative forcing” of Earth’s surface from the colder stratosphere. Even if radiative cooling were slowed by a minuscule amount by the limited range of wavelengths emitted by carbon dioxide, non-radiative cooling (which transfers most of the energy from the surface to the atmosphere) merely increases and compensates, thus nullifying any effect.

    But there is an even more fundamental reason why carbon dioxide can have no effect – and you can read about it in the paper Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms.
     
     

  72. BBD, “The net strength of positive feedbacks determines climate sensitivity. Strong = higher CS; weak = lower CS. Uncontroversial, yes?”

    That is the simplistic reasoning of the day, but it assumes 1 “sensitivity” to ALL forcings. Fantasy world logic.

    “The “system” is bi-stable with two competing “greenhouse” effects.

    Because I have no idea. Two? Competing? GH effects?”

    Yes. If the atmosphere had a stable iso thermal “surface” then you could have one sensitivity to forcing since the atmosphere would be the most dominate control over all time periods. Earth though has the higher density/viscosity liquid oceans and the lower density/viscosity atmosphere, the two respond differently and over different time frames to different forcings. Without knowing the time constants involved, you can’t realistically assume a single sensitivity.

    Since the “average” energy of the oceans is 334Wm-2 and the average energy of the atmosphere is basically unknown, CS is a red herring.

    Now think about how “sensitivity” is determined. The “surface” emits energy and the estimate of the return energy of that emission is 333 Wm-2. We are going to increase the resistance of that “surface” emission by 3.7Wm-2 so the total return energy would become 336.7Wm-2. The equilibrium response to that additional resistance will be what? That would depend on the source of the majority of the “surface” emission. If you consider that the “source: of the 333 is a “surface” at ~4C and 333Wm-2, then you would arrive at one “sensitivity”. I you consider that the “source” of the 333 is a surface at 255K ~240Wm-2 you would arrive at a different “sensitivity”. Since the Earth has Ocean that decrease in temperature with depth and an atmosphere that decreases with temperature with height, the shorter term atmospheric “sensitivity” is different than the longer term ocean “sensitivity”. Since the oceans are the likely dominate variable, the longer term, ECR would be based on the oceans. That is 0.8+/- 0.2 from roughly a 1980 to 2010 baseline.

    Unless we add mass to the atmosphere to increase its density, that is it, 0.8 +/-0.2.

    Since we are not adding much mass, the change in the lapse rate is considered the negative feedback to atmospheric warming. However, for there to be a uniform increase in lapse rate there would have to be uniform distribution of energy. That ain’t happening. Land and especially higher altitude and latitude land respond more quickly to atmospheric forcing. You get blow outs like SSW events and deep convection that are regional. There is no “Global” response to “forcing” until the oceans stabilize. It is a Tale of Two Greenhouses.

    http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-tale-of-two-greenhouses.html

    Now the plot thickens. Since that actual return energy is dependent on the actual surface emission energy, the absolute value of the “surface” is important information. Anomalies only work for a limited range because of the T^4 relationship. Okay, so what is the average surface temperature?

    http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/12/okay-so-what-is-average-global-surface.html

    Frame of Reference is a very important consideration in thermodynamics.

    • Cap’n

      What are you doing hiding down here? I didn’t see you.

      BBD, “The net strength of positive feedbacks determines climate sensitivity. Strong = higher CS; weak = lower CS. Uncontroversial, yes?”

      That is the simplistic reasoning of the day, but it assumes 1 “sensitivity” to ALL forcings. Fantasy world logic.

      That is the standard position. How else do we account for orbitally triggered deglaciation? Strong positive feedbacks to the initial orbital forcing are necessary to account for deglaciation.

      Strong positive feedbacks are the defining, enabling characteristic of a sensitive climate system. This is not ‘fantasy world logic’.

    • BBD

      What you have described is classical “argument from ignorance”.

      You take dicey paleo data from carefully picked periods of our geological past which you interpret subjectively and then say “we can only explain this if we assume a high climate sensitivity”.

      The assumption is, of course, that you know everything there is to know.

      Which you do not.

      If you want to demonstrate evidence for the CAGW notion, try doing so with real-life physical observations or reproducible experimentation, not with this paleo gobbledygook.

      Max

    • manacker

      What you have described is classical “argument from ignorance”.

      I disagree.

      I suggest that what you are doing here is classic data denial.

      You take dicey paleo data from carefully picked periods of our geological past which you interpret subjectively and then say “we can only explain this if we assume a high climate sensitivity”.

      Luckily, this can be resolved by thought experiment.

      Deglaciations are apparently triggered by orbital forcing. As all we diligent scholars know, the initial forcing was regional and seasonal, not global.

      True or false?

      Strong positive feedbacks to the initial regional and seasonal orbital forcing are necessary to account for the eventual *global* glacial/interglacial climate shift.

      True or false?

      Strong positive feedbacks are the defining, enabling characteristic of a sensitive climate system.

      True or false?

  73. Since that actual return energy is dependent on the actual surface emission energy

    That’s a good start. Now, when the energy received directly from the Sun at the surface of Venus is less than 10% of what we receive on Earth, then there is less than 10% coming back as back radiation – far less in fact.

    So how does the Venus surface get up over 700K?

    Why is it so ?????

    Don’t look up the answer until you’ve thought about it.

    !!!!!!!!!!

  74. the change in the lapse rate is considered the negative feedback to atmospheric warming

    No, The dry adiabatic lapse rate always has been, and always will be equal to g/Cp in the atmospheres of Earth, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

    So you need to change mean specific heat, or the acceleration due to gravity.

    Alternatively, just edit Wikipedia because they forgot to “fix” this item ..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate

    Funny thing this real physics, isn’t it? Always throwing a spanner in the works of what humans imagine they can do to change the climate
    .
     

  75. Reasons for the fairly consistent 0.7x factor for the effective lapse rate are set out in my paper, having something to do with absorbed incident radiation entering from the top of the atmosphere which cannot be diffused fast enough in the thin air there.

    But you should note that moist rates are fairly localised and “averaged out” over the whole troposphere.

    The underlying naturally forming (and naturally maintained) dry adiabatic lapse rate “supports” the effective (or “pseudo”) lapse rate, and the latter has no effect on surface temperatures because of the propensity for the whole system to approach the theoretical temperature plot.

    This is the only valid explanation for temperature plots (and thus surface temperatures) on all six planets with significant atmospheres. The second “school of thought” in my paper is what is starting to be talked about by leading (and thinking) atmospheric scientists. It may take 20 years before it’s in the media, so remember you heard it from PSI members first.

    Unless one of you (or a silent reader) can convince me otherwise with valid physics, that there can be another explanation for the temperature of the Venus surface, then I remain unmoved.

  76. Atmospheres keep and balance heat.
    All the solids, liquids, and gases of a planet store heat.
    The sun adds energy to a planet and some of this energy
    is converted into heat.
    Solids and liquids are much better adsorbing energy and
    better at emitting energy than gases.
    Gases are type of matter that store heat in the form of
    the molecules of gases moving. In contrast to a solid in
    which the molecule vibrating rather than moving. Liquids
    are mostly like solids but some of molecule have limited
    movement- with gravity and gases limiting their movement
    “upward”.
    All planets have warm core, Earth is mostly molten rock with
    a thin surface of cooled rock. The heat of this molten rock is
    inhibited by a gradient of heat of the thin surface rock thru
    which the interior core’s heat is slowly conducted.
    Above the rock, Earth is dominated oceans of water, which
    cover 70% of the entire surface area. Above the ocean and
    surface rock there is atmosphere which transparent to radiation.
    The Earth surface radiates heat thru the atmosphere into space.

    Without sunlight adding energy which converted into heat, the
    surface Earth would be very cold. The heat from the massive
    molten core is insignificant to adding much heat to the surface.
    Miles below the surface rock there would be molten rock, but
    the gradient of heat in the solid rock inhibits the heat from
    reaching the surface [unless geological activity causes such things as volcanoes, which brings molten rock to surface. With Earth without
    sunlight, parts of ocean would remain liquid due to interior heat and
    nitrogen atmosphere would remain a gas- a very cold dense gas.

    With the addition of sunlight, the surface warms, the warmed surface
    heats the nitrogen gas, and the gases become less cold and dense.
    Water could be present in the cold dense nitrogen gas atmosphere,
    though CO2 probably would be mostly a solid at such cold
    temperatures. As atmosphere is warmed by the warmed surface, more
    water would become a gas and ocean ice would become liquid. And with enough water as gas one could get clouds allowing snow or rain.

    Suppose to the sunless earth one were to add the atmosphere of Venus.
    Or add a lot CO2 and some more nitrogen. The CO2 would mostly freeze
    out of the atmosphere and nitrogen would mostly become liquid nitrogen, and would basic start with the same Earth with lots of CO2 snow/ice, which would a solid to for any liquid nitrogen.
    When you add in the sun, the surface warms, heat the nitrogen atmosphere which also gets lot more CO2 as part of the atmosphere.
    But at Earth distance, you would not get something like Venus.
    Instead you have around 4 atm of nitrogen gas, and some quantity in terms atmospheres of CO2, very little H2O gas in atmosphere and it snowing and raining CO2 with lakes/oceans/ice caps of CO2.
    The total amount CO2 as solid could cover the Earth almost 100 meter thick, but liquid and solid CO2 would limited to regions near the poles.
    Earth surface with about 4 atm of nitrogen [plus whatever CO2 as gas]
    would much dimmer than our earth- though Earth would be more cloudless. The higher the average temperature increased the more CO2 would become gas, and the dimmer the surface would become- checking how warm the surface could become, and limiting the increase in average temperature.
    With time and geological and “cosmic” events [asteroids that kill dinosaurs] one could get event which vaporized all of the CO2, giving 92 atm of CO2 in the atmosphere. This would cause most of surface to become dark with little sunlight getting to surface- the atmosphere would cool and CO2 would snow or rain out. resulting more sunlight reaching surface. One would get some water vapor in the atmosphere, but liquid water on the surface would be rare- probably more due to volcanic activity rather than sunlight warming surface.
    A massive heat events, could add a large amount H20 gas to atmosphere, but would rain out before the CO2 would.

    So basically earth would somewhat similar to Earth without a greenhouse effect, and strange as it may seem, it would a world without greenhouse effect as the would be a shortage of the most dominant
    greenhouse gas the earth has: water vapor.

    • Without sunlight adding energy which converted into heat, the
      surface Earth would be very cold.

      Without the Sun adding its direct, beam, heat, the surface of Earth would be very cold.

      I’m having a really hard time believing any are scientists who think the Sun is only 6000°C and radiates ‘not very much longwave infrared’..

    • “-Without sunlight adding energy which converted into heat, the
      surface Earth would be very cold.-

      Without the Sun adding its direct, beam, heat, the surface of Earth would be very cold. ”

      And the energy which reaches the surface can be as much as about 1000 watts per square meter.

      “I’m having a really hard time believing any are scientists who think the Sun is only 6000°C and radiates ‘not very much longwave infrared’..”

      The sun radiates a large amount of longwave infrared.
      So does the Moon which on it’s sunlit side is a large area and about
      and about surface temperature of about 120 C.
      The reason why not much of the Moon’s longwave infrared reaches Earth, is because the Moon is 384,400 km away. If the Moon was a shorter distance away, say 38,000 km away a lot more of the longwave infrared would reach Earth.
      Also the Moon would brighter- it gives more light because would appear bigger, but also the light would be brighter- which same in regards to longwave infrared- there would larger area that emitting longwave infrared and the longwave infrared would more intense.

      So the Moon does not glow with light- it reflects sunlight- and the warmed lunar surface would emit a significant amount of IR.
      Since the color of lunar surface similar to color of asphalt only small amount light is reflected.
      [Roughly the Moon reflects about 1/10th of the sunlight as compared to a moon which was the color of snow. ]
      The warmed Moon would emit more IR than compared to amount sunlight it reflects.

      This show moon’s planck curve:
      https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Jei2HHBmE4oJ:ftp://ftp.nist.gov/pub/physics/lunarproject/Meetings
      /2005_09_28_Lunar_Therm_IR_Tansock.ppt+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShAWGDBP4kMup1Td2M6DYdbyXsbqR8Cmo5NndyFslxJWr-Z_cW7fCtGBBUwdjBsOnF4xsb2Xqtz_Yppy8cnyxg_JdOuE70UKSURdMBhDKPMrdRDg7OPsYos-uCEjIINXuu2S11r&sig=AHIEtbRM97lN5ShO2NPmBBjMotEUH0Sv-A

      And the warmed lunar surface’s IR has peak intensity at around 7,000 nm.
      7,000 nm is longwave IR.
      So because the Moon is closer than the Sun and roughly the same apparent diameter, I would guess that the Moon emits around as much longwave IR around 7,000 nm [5000- 10,000 nm] that reaches earth as compared to this longwave IR getting to Earth from the Sun.
      Whereas between, say, 2000 to 4000 nm, the Moon is emitting very little and Sun would have more this part spectrum reach Earth.

      So if talking about IR between 2000 and 10,000 nm, much more of this energy comes from the Sun, but it limited to 5000- 10,000 nm, than Moon may when full moon, be emitting as much or perhaps more this part of IR that gets to Earth.

    • gbaikie | December 16, 2012 at 8:46 pm said: ”“-Without sunlight adding energy which converted into heat, the surface Earth would be very cold”

      Brilliant discovery!.Gbainkie, how can we get read of the sun, to make you Warmist happy? Do you need a ”research funds” for it, and, how much?

    • gbaikie – AGWScienceFiction has deliberately confused heat and light.

      It is HEAT being transferred by thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared, from the Sun in a direct, continuous beam to us.

      HEAT is the Sun’s thermal energy, the Sun is a very hot Star, millions of degrees HOT.

      Thermal infrared is this HEAT in transfer by radiation. One of the three methods of HEAT transfer, the others being conduction and convection.

      Only those confused by AGWSF could mistake the reflected light from the full moon for the Sun’s thermal energy in transfer ..

      People really do need to stop thinking of ‘climate science’, as science. As I’ve shown conclusively in deconstructing the sleight of hand creating the fictional “Greenhouse Effect”, this isn’t based on real world physics, but on manipulating the terms and processes and properties of real physics basics. These manipulations were introduced into the education system, now a whole generation thinks these fake fisics basics are real world and they argue from them as if they are real..

      This is a very clever con(struction), such as someone might devise in writing a fantasy novel about an imaginary world, and that is precisely the result of all these tweaks. That’s why there is no sound in the AGW world because to get carbon dioxide to “accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years” they had to make it an ideal gas not a real gas – if you don’t know the difference you can’t see what they’ve done. This was introduced into the general education system to dumb down basic science in order to promote AGW. Their “physics basics” are not real. None of them. They are all actually absurd.

      They have deliberately taken out the real direct heat from the Sun we can all feel as heat from the Sun, so they can pretend that any real world measurements of downwelling heat come their fictional “Greenhouse Effect’s backradiation/blanketing from the the upwelling”.

      To hide what they have done here they teach that shortwave from the Sun does the heating, is the heat from the Sun. It is deliberately done to confuse the very real distinct differences between light and heat energies from the Sun. They have done this primarily by the same technique used to change real gases to ideal for the same reason, to get rid of real world properties and processes which real world physics knows and has defined by the distinct differences and similarities, which knows that electromagnetic energies from the Sun are not the same and do not all create heat on being absorbed.

      AGWSF’s basic fictional meme here is “all electromagnetic energy from the Sun is the same and all create heat on being absorbed” – this is the meme you are repeating in your “Without sunlight adding energy which converted into heat”. The use of “sunlight” is adding to the confusion, because it reinforces the fake fisics meme that “visible light from the Sun heats the Earth”. In real world physics this is impossible. Impossible.

      Impossible. Surely you can understand what “impossible” means. That’s why those who have not been indoctrinated by this fake fisics can spot immediately that this is a CON.

      This is where I spotted it and first challenged it and the response I got: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/#comment-610576

      “Myrrh, you really need to get outside more and sit in the Sunshine and feel the warmth! That is how visible and near-visible (“shortwave”) light warms he Earth.”

      Impossible. We cannot feel visible light and shortwave infrared from the Sun!

      I have given the NASA quote to show that I am not alone in saying this..

      Ira then goes on to compare this with an incandescent lightbulb – again claiming it is the visible light we feel as heat. In real world traditional physics we know that the heat we feel from a lightbulb is heat, the 95% heat it radiates out which is thermal infrared aka longwave infrared. The 5% visible light it radiates is light, not heat. We cannot feel this at all. The whole of the real world lightbulb manufacturing industries know this, know the difference between heat and light..

      I have previously explained why, because shortwave is too small to move the whole molecules of our skin and flesh and blood into vibration which is what it takes to heat us up.

      Heat energy is powerful. The beam thermal infrared which is the Sun’s heat energy we receive is directly powerful, directly from the source. Like the heat you use to cook your dinner, this is not at all like the dissipated heat hot objects radiate out in all directions, or that we might get reflected from the full moon..

      It is the Sun’s great and powerful heat energy which directly moves the water and land at the equator into vibration, directly and powerfully cooking them. This is the direct and powerful thermal infrared, longwave infrared, actually capable of doing the cooking, of making the whole molecules of matter vibrate which is also heat, kinetic energy. This is the powerful heat from the Sun we absorb as it penetrates deep into us and heats the water in us boiling our blood..

      AGWSF has removed this from its fictional Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget – and they have invested a great deal of effort in hiding this by brainwashing the general population through the education system who now think any number of absurd, impossible things before breakfast.

      Confusion reigns in these discussions because people think these fake fisics memes are real physics. Until and unless these are seen for what they really are the arguments based on them will continue to be gobbledegook, garbage in. Impossible physics is gobbledegook. Keep this for children’s stories and fantasy novels, just don’t mistake it for real physics.

    • Uggh, sorry, missed out a close italics:

      They have deliberately taken out the real direct heat from the Sun we can all feel as heat from the Sun, so they can pretend that any real world measurements of downwelling heat come from their fictional “Greenhouse Effect’s backradiation/blanketing from the upwelling”.

      To hide what they have done here they teach that shortwave from the Sun does the heating, is the heat from the Sun. It is deliberately done to confuse the very real distinct differences between light and heat energies from the Sun. They have done this primarily by the same technique used to change real gases to ideal for the same reason, to get rid of real world properties and processes which real world physics knows and has defined by the distinct differences and similarities, which knows that electromagnetic energies from the Sun are not the same and do not all create heat on being absorbed.

      AGWSF’s basic fictional meme here is “all electromagnetic energy from the Sun is the same and all create heat on being absorbed” – this is the meme you are repeating in your “Without sunlight adding energy which converted into heat”. The use of “sunlight” is adding to the confusion, because it reinforces the fake fisics meme that “visible light from the Sun heats the Earth”. In real world physics this is impossible. Impossible.

      Impossible. Surely you can understand what “impossible” means. That’s why those who have not been indoctrinated by this fake fisics can spot immediately that this is a CON.

      This is where I spotted it and first challenged it and the response I got:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/#comment-610576

      “Myrrh, you really need to get outside more and sit in the Sunshine and feel the warmth! That is how visible and near-visible (“shortwave”) light warms he Earth.”

      Impossible. We cannot feel visible light and shortwave infrared from the Sun!

      I have given the NASA quote to show that I am not alone in saying this..

      Ira then goes on to compare this with an incandescent lightbulb – again claiming it is the visible light we feel as heat. In real world traditional physics we know that the heat we feel from a lightbulb is heat, the 95% heat it radiates out which is thermal infrared aka longwave infrared. The 5% visible light it radiates is light, not heat. We cannot feel this at all. The whole of the real world lightbulb manufacturing industries knows this, knows the difference between heat and light..

    • “HEAT is the Sun’s thermal energy, the Sun is a very hot Star, millions of degrees HOT. ”

      There many star hottest than the Sun, none of them are millions of degrees hot.

      The interior of sun is millions of degrees and the wispy solar atmosphere called the corona is million of degrees.

      And planet Earth is not hundreds of degrees, despite our molten core being more than 1000 degrees and our thin atmosphere, call the thermosphere being hundreds of degrees.
      “Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation. Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 2,000 °C (3,630 °F).”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

      If think the thermosphere would transfer more this heat you obsess it, but fail to quantify, than the Sun’s corona, because it’s closer.
      But the thermosphere or the Sun’s corona does not heat Earth by any significant amount.

    • Well, that’s it then. The idiocy from AGWScienceFiction faking the physics is so ingrained that you think we don’t get any thermal infrared which is heat from the millions of degrees hot Sun’s core because, you think it some solid like Earth unable to radiate out its great thermal energy.., and yet no one has taken up my challenge to prove that visible light from the Sun heats land and water at the equator – for ‘climate scientist’ you’re extraordinarily ignorant of the direct intensity of heating required to get our huge winds and weather, and, quite unlike real scientists in that it doesn’t appear to bother you that you can’t prove shortwave light from the Sun can do this.

      ..of course gbaikie, that still leaves you with the problem that you live in a cold world without any heat from the Sun.

    • “Well, that’s it then. The idiocy from AGWScienceFiction faking the physics is so ingrained that you think we don’t get any thermal infrared which is heat from the millions of degrees hot Sun’s core because, you think it some solid like Earth unable to radiate out its great thermal energy..”

      Not a solid but closer to a liquid.
      Let’s see, this seems about right:
      “Thread: If You Could “Magically” Peel Away The Sun’s Mantle..
      ….
      “It depends on how you do the “peeling back” and what you are calling the core. Assuming you mean peel it back suddenly and give the Sun no time to readjust to its new environment, and assuming that the core is where the nuclear fusion is happening, then you would be looking at an unbelievably bright X-ray source, moreso than white or blue, and it would be billions of times more luminous that the Sun is now (it couldn’t last that way for long, it would readjust and puff out into a red dwarf). The effect on the solar system would be that we would lose everybody– all you have to do is remove half the mass of the central object to lose everything that orbits it. ”

      And this guys says:

      ” Quote Originally Posted by mugaliens View Post
      13 times more radiation, huh? I would think that would set some fairly spectacular fires around the globe while boiling our oceans in short order.

      That is only magnitude increase in visible light brightness, which is 86,000 times brighter. The amount of radiative energy that hits the earth would be 1.7 trillion times more! Then there is the increase in Solar wind to consider, if anyone is left to feel it. ”
      http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/70774-If-You-Could-quot-Magically-quot-Peel-Away-The-Sun-s-Mantle

      “The Core: The Sun’s core has a tremendously high temperature and pressure. The temperature is roughly 15 million °C. At this temperature, nuclear fusion occurs, turning four hydrogen nuclei into a single helium nucleus plus a LOT of energy. This “hydrogen burning” releases gamma rays (high-energy photons) and neutrinos (particles with no charge and almost no mass).
      ….
      The Convective Zone: In this next layer, photons continue to make their way outwards via convection (towards lower temperature and pressure). The temperature ranges from one million °C to 6,000 °C.

      The Photosphere: This is the lower atmosphere of the Sun and the part that we see (since it emits light at visible wavelengths). This layer is about 300 miles (500km) thick. The temperature is about 5,500 °C. ”
      http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/sunstructure.shtml

      “The Sun’s photosphere has a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K (with an effective temperature of 5777 K) and a density of about 2×10−4 kg/m3;[5] other stars may have hotter or cooler photospheres. The Sun’s photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules—cells of gas each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter with hot rising gas in the center and cooler gas falling in the narrow spaces between them. Each granule has a lifespan of only about eight minutes, resulting in a continually shifting “boiling” pattern.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosphere

      “This area holds about 50% of the sun’s total mass. The temperature of the core is about 15 million degrees Kelvin and the density is about 150 g/cm^3 (approximately 10 times the density of gold or lead). The pressure in the core might be as much as 250 billion times the pressure of the earth’s atmosphere. The hydrogen burning core extends to about 25% (approx. 175 000 km) of the solar radius. The temperature at the edge of the core is halved and the density drops to 20g/cm^3″
      Equatorial Radius: 695 500 km.
      Mass: 1.989 x 10^30 kg, about 333 000 the mass of earth.
      Density: 1.409 g/cm^3.
      Escape Velocity: 617.7 km/s.
      http://www.novacelestia.com/space_art_solar_system/sun.html

    • An empty vessel makes much noise – lots of irrelevant detail as usual, but still neither you nor anyone else here willing to face up to the indisputable fact that you have been conned into believing the deliberately faked physics ..

      I have explained the trick creating the illusion of the “Greenhouse Effect of 33°C warming by greenhouse gases” which anyone with even half a brain could follow, as well as giving some other examples of the fake fisics created to hide this sleight of hand, and all the response I get is silence or verbal diarrhoea as distraction.

    • “An empty vessel makes much noise – lots of irrelevant detail as usual, but still neither you nor anyone else here willing to face up to the indisputable fact that you have been conned into believing the deliberately faked physics ..”

      I will admit I was conned by Mann and his hockey stick.

      But got over it, and mostly got over it about a decade ago.
      And in general there a lot conning going on related
      to “climate science”- but vast majority of it seems to be
      related to self-deception and groupthink.

      But there is a definite an agenda behind AGW, it has
      been an issue used by those who want a more totalitarian
      government.
      And they don’t deny they are campaigning
      to spread their gospel- and are btw, are convinced that
      the scientific process [which is responsible the magical
      world we live in] is not an efficient means of achieving
      agreement and scientific progress.

      The main point you wrong about is to say it’s “deliberately
      faked physics”. Instead what far more obvious is that
      almost all Global Warmer believers are dead stupid about
      physics. So, it’s mostly a matter of ignorance and
      judgmental bias.

      Those who eager to accept authority will be selected
      to be global warming believers.
      As will be applicable to any religious nuts.
      And therefore they tend to non-scientific. And therefore
      remain clueless about matters relating to science.

    • gbaikie – perhaps it is only those who have a grounding in real world physics who can see how clever the tweaks of the sleights of hand, this is not something created out of ignorance, regardless how many in ignorance repeat the memes..

      ..without bothering to check the basic physics or provide any proof that the basic physics they use is actually possible – which is what you are doing.
      The AGWScienceFiction claim for their fictional “Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget” is that shortwave from the Sun, mainly visible, does all the heating of Earth’s land and water – why won’t you or anyone else prove this to me if you think this is real world physics?

      Surely there must be gazillions of pages showing exactly how visible light from the Sun physically heats land and water? And if visible light as from the Sun is capable of this, where are all the applications from it? We have tehrmal infrared saunas, where are the manufacturers of visible light saunas? Why do the manufacturers of lightbulbs for greenhouse growing, it’s a huge industry, do everything they can to take the radiant heat out of their lightbulbs to leave the visible for photosynthesis?

      The real world of applied science falsifies the AGWSF Energy Budget.

      I have deconstructed their fictional “Greenhouse Effect” to show how the sleights of hand were made in this science fraud – what in that is giving your problems? Or haven’t you bothered to read it?

    • “gbaikie – perhaps it is only those who have a grounding in real world physics who can see how clever the tweaks of the sleights of hand, this is not something created out of ignorance, regardless how many in ignorance repeat the memes..

      ..without bothering to check the basic physics or provide any proof that the basic physics they use is actually possible – which is what you are doing.
      The AGWScienceFiction claim for their fictional “Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget” is that shortwave from the Sun, mainly visible, does all the heating of Earth’s land and water – why won’t you or anyone else prove this to me if you think this is real world physics?”

      Why? Because ignore any evidence offered.
      And go on and on about a hypotheses which, let’s call it
      sentimental, rather than scientific.
      All I need is one bit of evidence.
      You provide none.
      The evidence you ignore is green light laser can heat up something easily.
      You ignore a simple magnifying glass.
      You ignore Herschel, who you quote as being an authority on
      the topic.
      Here go again, with Herschel the school science project which requires few materials. Google: Herschel + infared. First hit:
      http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_bio.html
      “He directed sunlight through a glass prism to create a spectrum (the rainbow created when light is divided into its colors) and then measured the temperature of each color. Herschel used three thermometers with blackened bulbs (to better absorb heat) and, for each color of the spectrum, placed one bulb in a visible color while the other two were placed beyond the spectrum as control samples. As he measured the individual temperatures of the violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light, he noticed that all of the colors had temperatures higher than the controls. Moreover, he found that the temperatures of the colors increased from the violet to the red part of the spectrum. After noticing this pattern Herschel decided to measure the temperature just beyond the red portion of the spectrum in a region where no sunlight was visible. To his surprise, he found that this region had the highest temperature of all. ”

      So the colors were heating the three thermometers, and the IR part [near infrared part] provide *more* heating than any of the other thermometers measuring the separated colors of light.
      There no evident from this crude experiment that longwave infrared, does any heating, only that the light beyond visible light [red light] heats. AND OBVIOUSLY the colors also heat, and the colors are part of the visible light spectrum.
      So, visible light: 380 to 760 nm
      Being:
      360 to 450 nm : purple light
      450 to 500 nm : blue light
      500 to 570 nm : green light
      570 to 591 nm : yellow light
      591 to 610 nm : orange light
      610 to 760 nm : red light
      As categorized, here:
      http://www.spacewx.com/pdf/ISO_DIS_21348_E_revB.pdf
      And Near Infrared:
      760 to 1400 nm : Near Infrared

      And if you go to wiki, sunlight:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
      You find this graph:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
      And wiki says,
      “Sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
      The graph shows that around 500 nm [green light] the intensity
      of sunlight is strongest and remains fairly strong up to red light:
      610 to 760 nm.
      The graph show watts per square meter per 1 nm.
      By eyeballing graph it looks like one has about 1.2 watts for
      the 150 nm range [610 to 760 nm : red light]
      150 times 1.2 is 180 watts per square meter
      After the red light [760 nm ] there is Near infared light:
      760 to 1400 nm. This has total of 640 nm.
      Let’s divide it in half: 760- 1080 nm
      The intensity drops from say 1 to .7 watts per nm.
      Let’s call it .8 watts per nm. Times 320 =
      256 watts per square meter.
      256 watts is greater than 180 watts and so one could
      expect this part of spectrum to heat more than the red light
      part of spectrum.
      But other part: 1080 to 1400 nm is probably half as much.
      So, about 120 watts per square.
      And rest of graph goes out to 2500 nm, which less than
      100 watts.

      So “As he measured the individual temperatures of the violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light, he noticed that all of the colors had temperatures higher than the controls. Moreover, he found that the temperatures of the colors increased from the violet to the red part of the spectrum.”
      So he measured 6 colors.
      Purple is 70 nm with average of 1 watt per nm: 70 watts
      blue is 50 nm with average of 1.3: 65 watts
      green is 70 nm with average of 1.3: 91 watts
      yellow is 21 nm with average of 1.3: 27 watts
      orange is 21 nm with average of 1.2: 25 watts
      and of course red: 180 watts

      So noticed all color were warmer than controls and red warmer
      than purple. With this crude experiment was correct.
      And of course the non-color part below red would have more energy and heat the thermometer more.

      Yet, you keep say visible light does not heat.

    • Myrrh : I’m having a really hard time believing any are scientists who think the Sun is only 6000°C and radiates ‘not very much longwave infrared’..

      Are you just blowing off yet again with your wild theoretical claims, or do you for once have empirical data that suggests otherwise ?

    • The idiocy of Myrrh fisicsfiction – well. one of the many idiocies – is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the greenhouse warming their WHICH WAVELEMGTH of the sun is warming the earth. All that matters is that some of this heat is radiated back out as longwave where it is captured by greenhouse gasses.

      So even if his laughable claim that some óf the sun’s measured wavelengths have been ‘éxcised’ is true, NOTHING in the basic theory is thereby undermined. NOTHING .

    • gbaikie | December 18, 2012 at 11:07 am | Re: “The AGWScienceFiction claim for their fictional “Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget” is that shortwave from the Sun, mainly visible, does all the heating of Earth’s land and water – why won’t you or anyone else prove this to me if you think this is real world physics?”

      Why? Because ignore any evidence offered.
      And go on and on about a hypotheses which, let’s call it
      sentimental, rather than scientific.
      All I need is one bit of evidence.
      You provide none.
      The evidence you ignore is green light laser can heat up something easily.
      You ignore a simple magnifying glass.
      You ignore Herschel, who you quote as being an authority on
      the topic.
      Here go again, with Herschel the school science project which requires few materials. Google: Herschel + infared. First hit:

      http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_bio.html
      “He directed sunlight through a glass prism to create a spectrum (the rainbow created when light is divided into its colors) and then measured the temperature of each color. Herschel used three thermometers with blackened bulbs (to better absorb heat) and, for each color of the spectrum, placed one bulb in a visible color while the other two were placed beyond the spectrum as control samples. As he measured the individual temperatures of the violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light, he noticed that all of the colors had temperatures higher than the controls. Moreover, he found that the temperatures of the colors increased from the violet to the red part of the spectrum. After noticing this pattern Herschel decided to measure the temperature just beyond the red portion of the spectrum in a region where no sunlight was visible. To his surprise, he found that this region had the highest temperature of all. ”

      So the colors were heating the three thermometers, and the IR part [near infrared part] provide *more* heating than any of the other thermometers measuring the separated colors of light.
      There no evident from this crude experiment that longwave infrared, does any heating, only that the light beyond visible light [red light] heats. AND OBVIOUSLY the colors also heat, and the colors are part of the visible light spectrum.
      So, visible light: 380 to 760 nm
      Being:
      360 to 450 nm : purple light
      450 to 500 nm : blue light
      500 to 570 nm : green light
      570 to 591 nm : yellow light
      591 to 610 nm : orange light
      610 to 760 nm : red light
      As categorized, here:
      http://www.spacewx.com/pdf/ISO_DIS_21348_E_revB.pdf
      And Near Infrared:
      760 to 1400 nm : Near Infrared

      And I’ve explained Herschel, and he wasn’t using a magnifying glass, his experiments were crude as you say.. We have since then become much more accurate, or do you think we’re still measuring this as he did, by moving a prism by hand at the edge of a table? This is what you offer me as “proof” that visible light from the Sun is thermal and heats matter and there’s no thermal infrared from the Sun?

      I’ve given you traditional physics which divides the main energies we get from the Sun into categories – there are categories in physics here because the main energies we get from the Sun are known by their distinct differences and distinct similarities. Heat and Light are distinct caterorgies in traditional real world physics. They are vastly different from each other.

      Traditional physics which knows the differences, which knows that visible light like near infrared is not thermal. Near Infrared is in the category Reflective as is visible light, not in Thermal. Simply, Light and Heat.

      Herschel’s experiments were too crude to pick up on this division into thermal and non-thermal, and, he didn’t know that the difference in SIZE was so great between visible and longwave infrared – his measurements of temperature were picking up on the thermal infrared spilling into the visible and near infrared.

      This is what I find all the time in this con, they mess up people’s thinking by not giving the full picture, but produce these “rebuttal memes” that are nonsense really. What is worse, for me, is that this is actually degrading to the great science which Herschel produced, it is appalling that his amazing discovery is being used to dumb down science for the masses…

      Why is near infrared also known as Colour Infrared (CIR)? Because it is known for what it is in the real world science field which has studied LIGHT in depth – OPTICS.

      I’m trying to show how the sleights of hand are made in this con – to understand them you have to compare them with the real physical properties. I don’t care if you don’t believe me, I’m not looking for your belief, I do care that you’re not taking on board that I have presented a coherent explanation which you and generic you continue to ignore even though I have given you A NASA PAGE which says the same thing!

      Heat and Light are the two main catergories of energy we receive from the Sun. The NASA page says as I give traditional physics in this, that near infrared is not thermal, that the actual heat we receive from the Sun is longwave infrared, thermal infrared, that this is the heat we feel from the Sun, actually feel as heat and that we cannot feel near infrared, as in our remote controls.

      The heat energy of the electromagnetic spectrum is called thermal for a reason… It is as NASA says, the actual heat we feel from the Sun.

      Why are you ignoring that it is also NASA saying this?

      The Sun’s thermal energy reaching us is the same heat we feel from a fire radiating its thermal energy to us; we can be in a cold room and our backs cold, but our fronts heating up nicely so we turn around and toast the other side.. This is heat energy transferred by radiation, direct to us who feel the heat on our skin and absorb it deeply and feel it internally as this aka radiant heat heats up the water in us, heats our blood and flesh and bones.. Heats us up until we sweat.. Visible light and near infrared cannot do this.

      If you have any idea of yourself/yourselves as scientists then you cannot ignore that I have given one of the greatest science bodies in the world giving the same information I am giving you.

      You’re not just arguing with me, you’re arguing with a whole body of knowledge of traditional science which has already defined the different energies from the Sun. Which has named the parts since Herschel.. Which knows the difference between gamma and radio ways, which knows how greatly different in size all the different wavelengths..

      ..which knows what they can and cannot do.

      AGWScienceFiction has deliberately obliterated all references to the diffrences in SCALE. To confuse you. Which is why you have no sense of this to understand what I’m saying when I say that Light works on the electronic transition level and so can’t move whole molecules into vibration which is what it takes to physically heat up matter. Light from the Sun cannot heat up matter because it is too tiny to do this.

      I am asking you to prove that visible light from the Sun physically heats up matter, makes matter hot, raises the temperature of matter. To understand what heat does you will have to go to traditional physics of THERMODYNAMICS, which means from the Greek, HEAT POWER.

      You won’t find visible light there.. That’s why there are two distinct ways of
      getting useful work from the Sun, photovoltaic which utilises the tinier energy of Light to convert to electricity, and thermal panels which use the much bigger molecule moving power of beam Heat from the Sun to convert water to heat.

      Water is a great absorber of heat energy. Thermal infrared is heat energy.

      Visible light cannot heat water. One, it is too small to move whole molecules of matter into vibration, which is kinetic energy aka heat, and two, because water is a transparent medium for visible light, (and near infrared, colour infrared), which means, that visible light doesn’t even impact water on the electron level – it is transmitted through unchanged, it is not absorbed at all. Compare with electronic transition absorption of visible light by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, the real gas Air, which is what gives us our blue sky, reflection/scattering.

      It take intense, physically intense, heating of water at the equator to get our great winds and weather systems. Visible light from the Sun cannot heat land or water.

      And if you go to wiki, sunlight:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
      You find this graph:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
      And wiki says,
      “Sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
      The graph shows that around 500 nm [green light] the intensity
      of sunlight is strongest and remains fairly strong up to red light:
      610 to 760 nm.
      The graph show watts per square meter per 1 nm.
      By eyeballing graph it looks like one has about 1.2 watts for
      the 150 nm range [610 to 760 nm : red light]
      150 times 1.2 is 180 watts per square meter
      After the red light [760 nm ] there is Near infared light:
      760 to 1400 nm. This has total of 640 nm.
      Let’s divide it in half: 760- 1080 nm
      The intensity drops from say 1 to .7 watts per nm.
      Let’s call it .8 watts per nm. Times 320 =
      256 watts per square meter.
      256 watts is greater than 180 watts and so one could
      expect this part of spectrum to heat more than the red light
      part of spectrum.
      But other part: 1080 to 1400 nm is probably half as much.
      So, about 120 watts per square.
      And rest of graph goes out to 2500 nm, which less than
      100 watts.

      So “As he measured the individual temperatures of the violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light, he noticed that all of the colors had temperatures higher than the controls. Moreover, he found that the temperatures of the colors increased from the violet to the red part of the spectrum.”
      So he measured 6 colors.
      Purple is 70 nm with average of 1 watt per nm: 70 watts
      blue is 50 nm with average of 1.3: 65 watts
      green is 70 nm with average of 1.3: 91 watts
      yellow is 21 nm with average of 1.3: 27 watts
      orange is 21 nm with average of 1.2: 25 watts
      and of course red: 180 watts

      So noticed all color were warmer than controls and red warmer
      than purple. With this crude experiment was correct.
      And of course the non-color part below red would have more energy and heat the thermometer more.

      Yet, you keep say visible light does not heat.

      Visible light from the Sun cannot physically heat land and water, as I have explained. These watts per square metre are irrelevant, even if they made any sense – you quote the wiki giving uv, visible and infrared yet AGWSF in its fiction Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget gives shortwave infrared from the Sun as only 1% of its “Solar”, its “Shortwave in” – it considers it insignificant and most of the time it isn’t even mentioned, nor the shortwave uv the other side of visible which is included in the “shortwave in”. AGWSF claims that Visible light is the “main energy from the Sun, “most of the energy from the Sun”. This is why I use visible in my science challenge, because the other shortwaves aren’t bothered with.

      Now, as I have trying to explain the sleights of hand, that wiki division into uv/visible/infrared does not say it relates directly to whatever else it gives on that page.

      I can’t force you to think about this, but please note, in traditional science heat and light from the Sun are two entirely distinct from each other categories and not interchangeable, so, when “heat and light from the Sun” are mentioned together like this, by “heat” is meant the Sun’s thermal energy on the move to us, radiant heat, the electromagnetic waves of thermal infrared aka longwave infrared, and by “light” is meant visible.

      If you do not know that visible light from the Sun is not thermal and cannot heat matter and can’t even be felt at all let alone as heat, then you will not notice that this is being stated in the traditional physics division into the two main categories of energy we receive from the Sun. You will simply assume it means heat is visible light as the meme fake fisics teaches.

      So, what that wiki page is actually giving as information here is not clear, but your 476 watts shortwave infrared calculation is not the 1% of the total “shortwave in” of uv/visible/nearinfrared “Solar” of the Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget.

      Aggh, missed this:

      The evidence you ignore is green light laser can heat up something easily.
      You ignore a simple magnifying glass.

      How many times do I have to stress that it is visible light from the Sun which is my challenge?

      I am challenging REAL WORLD claims! That’s why I have phrased my challenge as I have, this is about the claimed “Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget which says that visible light from the Sun heats land and water”. The Sun is not a laser, we do not have a huge magnifying glass over the equator!

      If you think these are rational rebuttals, then prove the Sun is a laser and/or that there is a huge magnifying glass over the equator intensely heating land and water to give us our great equator to poles winds and dramatic weather systems.

      How long do I have to shine an led visible light torch onto a cup of water to raise the water’s temperature 1°C?

      Actual real life wind and weather, do you know how we get these? It takes massive heating of land and water at the equator, and, I do realise it is difficult to find this clearly explained because of the sleights of hand fake fisics memes that can suddenly appear out of context because you won’t notice they’re out of context unless you know how they’re twisting real physics to promote AGW. Even on pages which otherwise give real traditional tried and tested well known physics.

      I’ll give an example because a) I want to show the traditional use of “heat and light” and some other points I’ve made but b) this page too has slipped in a fake fisics meme, much as a lot of papers do giving real research results which then slip in something about ‘global warming’ or carbon dioxide’ to justify their grant.. It’s subtle on this page, see if you can spot it (I haven’t quoted it).

      Re “heat and light”: http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/science/mod3_SunlightSolarHeat/index.html

      “The sun is the major external source of the energy, in the form of heat and light, needed to make the Earth’s processes work. The sun’s light provides energy for most life forms. Plants use sunlight, water, and minerals they collect from the soil to form foodstuffs for themselves and for animals. We eat plants and animals for food, ultimately tracing the food energy back to sunlight. The sun’s heat on the Earth’s surface and atmosphere provides the energy to move the atmosphere and oceans, producing winds, ocean currents, and the water cycle.”

      This the difference between heat and light from the Sun. Sunlight used correctly here. Light converts to chemical energy, not heat energy, in photosynthesis which is the creation of sugars. Heat energy converts to heat in directly heating matter, the land and water, which gives us our winds and weather, and note well, our Water Cycle which is missing from the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget..

      It goes on to say: “On a global scale, climate is determined by the sun’s energy affecting materials such as soil, rocks, and water at and near the Earth’s surface.”

      Hence my challenge phrased as it is – this subject is about global climate, unless you can prove that visible light from the Sun can actually, really, physically heat soil and rocks and water you have no climate..

      “The sun’s heat and light energy are constantly radiated from its surface in all directions. Early people who attempted to relate observations of the sun with everyday experiences interpreted the sun as a ball of fire or a hot object. Now, scientists often describe the sun as an “invisible fire,” referring to its chemical and physical processes. How does the sun produce heat and light in quantities sufficient to be sent into space in all directions and still affect the Earth 93,000,000 miles away?”

      The Sun is considerably larger than Earth.., and it is rather a long way away. The radiant heat we feel from a fire is the fire’s thermal energy, its heat energy – we can feel heat energy transferred by radiation (as well as by conduction and convection). As real physics teaches, the heat energy we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared aka longwave infrared, (we cannot feel shortwave infrared nor the even smaller visible or uv). AGWSF claims the Sun is 6,000°C and says we don’t get any heat energy from it..

      Well, if that were true then it’s hardly surprising that we don’t feel any heat energy from it at that distance.., however:

      ” Interaction at the nuclear level requires huge amounts of energy to initiate the reaction, but at the same time releases unbelievable amounts of energy during the reaction. In stars, the nuclear reactions are primarily the fusion of hydrogen nuclei to form helium nuclei.

      “The temperature in the center of the sun is an incredible 15,000,000 degrees (measured on the Kelvin scale). At that temperature the hydrogen atoms are ripped apart, resulting in a mixture of hydrogen nuclei and negatively-charged electrons that are no longer part of an atom.
      ..
      “It takes tremendous amounts of energy for protons (hydrogen nuclei) to combine and change into neutrons. This energy is supplied in the cores of stars by extreme heat and high pressure.
      ..
      “Of course, given the tremendous temperatures inside the sun, the helium-4 nuclei will collide with protons and with each other, creating still other types of chemical elements. These fusion reactions and other similar processes in stars have led to the formation of all the other natural chemical elements.

      “In the process of undergoing these nuclear fusion reactions, the sun emits large amounts of heat and light. This energy is a result of the positively-charged positrons smashing into the loose electrons, and annihilating each other. According to Einstein’s famous equation, the total mass of both positrons and electrons is destroyed, turning into energy. This is the energy the Earth receives as heat and light.”

      This is the heat we feel of the heat and light we get from the Sun, from the CORE, from the extreme 15million°C!

      That’s the powerful extreme heat energy reaching us 93 million miles away in 8 minutes. The Sun’s real thermal energy on the move to us exactly as we feel radiant heat from a fire..

      Don’t be fooled by AGWSF distorting scale.
      And don’t be fooled by the ‘explanations’ they give as rebuttals..

      So. We can’t feel light, light cannot heat land and water. Unless you can prove it can then you have no climate on your world (just as for different fake fisics reasons you have no atmosphere, no sound, no Water Cycle..)

      “The temperature in the center of the sun is an incredible 15,000,000 degrees (measured on the Kelvin scale).”

      Do you think a 300 mile deep band of visible light around the Sun has the power to stop that heat?

    • Memphis | December 18, 2012 at 4:52 pm | The idiocy of Myrrh fisicsfiction – well. one of the many idiocies – is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the greenhouse warming their WHICH WAVELEMGTH of the sun is warming the earth. All that matters is that some of this heat is radiated back out as longwave where it is captured by greenhouse gasses.

      So even if his laughable claim that some óf the sun’s measured wavelengths have been ‘éxcised’ is true, NOTHING in the basic theory is thereby undermined. NOTHING .

      It makes all the difference – they have excised beam heat from the Sun to create the “Greenhouse Effect”, they are fraudulently using real measurements of heat from the Sun claiming these are from “backradiation/blanketing of upwelling heat by greenhouse gases”.

      There is no basic theory when the direct thermal energy from the Sun is reinstated….

      Just as there is no “33°C warming by greenhouse gases from the minus 18°C it would be without them” – when the real blanket which slows heat loss is reinstated – the heavy voluminous fluid ocean atmosphere of real gas, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, and when the Water Cycle is reinstated.

      Did you read what I posted on that?

    • The idiocy of Myrrh fisicsfiction m … is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the greenhouse warming their WHICH WAVELEMGTH of the sun is warming the earth. All that matters is that some of this heat is radiated back out as longwave where it is captured by greenhouse gasses.

      Myrrh
      Since you provide no RELEVANT response to this (for about the 10th time of asking), your only hope of saving this bit of Myrrh fisicsfiction is to deny that the sun warms the earth. Are you prepared to take your denialism that far ?

    • Venus and Earth/Moon system trading places.
      Earth is at Venus distance from Sun and Venus at Earth distance
      from the Sun.

      Our Moon at Venus distance would change little as compared it is
      right now. Instead lunar surface reaching about 120 C, it would warm more
      100 C – 400 K to +500 K. And the temperature it cools to over
      the long lunar night would about the same as it does currently.
      So average surface temperature would be about 50 C warmer. And the lunar ice which suppose to be in dark craters of the lunar would be mostly unaffected.
      Mercury also have water ice at it’s poles [and it's closer and receives
      far more solar energy as compared to Venus distance].
      The effect upon the Moon is quite simple, the effect upon the Earth would not be simple. One thing which would be obvious is Earth which no longer have permanent polar ice caps, but not as readily obvious would the lack of any snowing on Earth at anytime.
      The simple lack of polar ice on Earth would at Earth distance should cause oceans to rise in temperature. At Venus distance the oceans should be heated to higher temperature, ensuring that there was no permanent ice cap at the poles.

      In clear skies at noon with sun at zenith at Earth distance, you have 1000 watts, which is a reduction of 360 watts from TOA of 1360 watts per square
      meter, which less than 27% reduction or more than 73 % of sunlight reaches the surface. At Venus there is about 2600 watts per square, and if
      73% reached the surface 1998 watts per square meter. Round to 2000 watts square meter. With clear skies, solar panels would receive twice the energy. But there could be a lot more clouds and the result *could be* less sunlight for solar panels, but it seems the net result would tend to increase the amount sunlight available at the surface.
      It could possible that the morning sunlight would be so intense that most clouds would burnt away before noon and this would be particular true in interior region of land areas. So the global cloudiness could increase significantly yet but interior land regions could less cloudiness than they are currently.
      Therefore lousy place to have solar panels, such as, Germany could receive far more than twice the amount of solar radiation. Though twice the amount still doesn’t make them economically viable- going from 2 Kw/hour average per day to 4 Kw/hours per day, isn’t helping much one might imagine, though it’s possible it could as high as 6 Kw/hours or higher, making it as good place in the South Western US or most places in Australia.

      Currently most of Earth’s warming is done in tropical area of Earth, which the same if Earth was at Venus distance.
      Right now tropical ocean would average temperature of about 28 C, at Venus distance one could expect tropical ocean to exceed 35 C.
      So you have warmer tropical waters and more poleward oceans would be warmer.
      Such global warming should cause more hurricanes, hurricanes would still form in tropics as they do now, and they could form in the oceans in the temperate zones.
      One could also have a greater difference between tropical and polar region temperatures- another factor which would increase hurricanes.
      And also more tornadoes, tornadoes may more common and in difference places than we have currently.

      Roughly, one could have more than twice [perhaps 3 or 4 times] as many clouds forming and more than 100% increase of the amount clouds which “melting away” from heat and sunlight.

      Presently the tropics has higher troposphere than temperate and arctic regions. At Venus distance the troposphere would higher and widen more into the temperate zones. Therefore one could more tropical condition extending up to US/Canadian border [or higher]. Or far more than 1/2 of earth would be tropical- perhaps 75%. Compared to less than 50% as it is currently.
      In northern latitudes during winter areas like Europe would much more affected by ocean warming- one would tropical like conditions during the winter in regions currently strongly affected by warmth of gulf stream- though the flow of gulf stream would greatly diminished, the ocean temperature would be significantly increased. But in polar regions [within arctic circle] one is still going to have 6 months per year of darkness and therefore will still have freezing weather, though polar ice may not form during the winter. The main thing ensuring no polar cap will be rainfall. One could have snow, and possible a lot of it, but one should also get rain. Coupled with average temperature being much higher, making glaciers have higher temperature, rain should destroy them faster than any could accumulate- though small regions could have some glaciers, higher elevations and less rain.
      One could also still have glaciers in temperate zones, though could be there is only temporary snow packs or snow is extremely rare.
      It depend upon average global temperature and average global average would depend upon average cloud coverage.
      Same cloud coverage as have presently, could easily add 30 C to average global temperature, 80% cloud coverage would still increase global average temperature, but perhaps less than 10 C.

      Other effects. The ocean could not hold as much CO2, as the would be much warmer. The direct tropical sun presently can be oppressive, at Venus distance it could be murderous. A tropical island might pleasantly warm and comfortable, at Venus distance it would be hot and at least uncomfortably warm.
      Asphalt streets can be 160 F, at Venus distance they would be higher than boiling point of water. Asphalt would be bad road material, they can melt now, they would commonly melt at Venus distance.
      Air temperature. So now we have surface temps of 160 F [71 C] and air temperature normal cooler by +20 C. Without an increase in atmospheric pressure, and with higher surface temperature one would see a larger difference in surface temperature between the surface and air temperature.
      In dry conditions could see scorching air temperatures, air temperature equaling sauna conditions, but wetter conditions will not permit high surface temperatures.
      So there balancing forces, warm air causes more evaporation, and air temperature over 50 C over oceans suggests a world covered in clouds- which could very well occur in the tropics, but not also in the temperate and arctic regions. Though one could get more clouds in temperate and polar regions if there less clouds in tropics- generating massive amount of evaporation.

      Complete cloud coverage over tropics will still make conditions in tropics warmer than they are now [at earth distance], but complete cloud coverage over regions which do not have sun directly overhead [high latitude, winter] will cause cooler conditions then than Venus distance tropics.

      So with twice the solar energy one going to have a very significantly warmer Earth- but not a Venus. Not a Venus if at Venus distance from the Sun. Not as long as you have a world with a surface dominated by oceans.
      So next, a Venus at Earth distance

    • Venus at Earth distance.

      Some people could imagine that Venus might stay around the same temperature regardless of distance from the Sun.
      I would this would require more geothermal heat than Earth has, and
      it seems Venus has less internally generated heat than Earth does.
      So I would say this is unlikely.

      Instead I think Venus is largely heated by sunlight heating the Venus clouds [which are not water]. Venus in terms of total amount of water
      has a fair amount in it’s atmosphere [probably as much as Earth in terms
      of total tonnage] but Venus is very dry because it has an enormous atmosphere making water a very small percentage of this atmosphere.
      “Atmospheric composition (near surface, by volume):
      Major: 96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2)
      Minor (ppm): Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 150; Argon (Ar) – 70; Water (H2O) – 20;”
      http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html
      .002 % is a lot when you have atmosphere almost 100 times
      larger than Earth.

      So we put Venus at Earth distance and the Venus cloud could still be
      warmed by the sun. But these clouds are not warmed as much as at
      Venus distance.
      The clouds are in a range of 20 km to 60 Km.
      In order for clouds to heat the air, they must hotter than the air and
      their must be enough air [pressure] to convect a significant amount of heat.
      At around 15 km elevation one is around the level where 1/2 atmosphere is
      above you and 1/2 is below you.
      This similar point with earth is 5.6 km.
      So at around 15 km up on Venus you have about 46 atm of pressure, it’s very hot and the sunlight is dimmed.
      At 49.5 km, the air temperature is about 66 C and the pressure is about
      the same as Earth pressure
      http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
      So lower air pressure, cooler, and much brighter sunlight. Perhaps the sunlight could warm something as warm 100 C or higher [as said earth surface at Venus distance would be] and as said in dry conditions one expect the surface heat the air to sauna-like condition. So as long the liquid or solid of clouds were warmed more the 20 C, they could heat the air by some significant amount. A warm shower will heat the the air in the bathroom- the hotter the water the greater this effect. Or spray hot sand would also warm air. And water or sand only slightly warmer than air temperature will not heat air much.

      So, there not huge difference of amount sunlight heats solid/or liquids if compares under 1 atm of atmosphere at Venus distance and Earth distance.
      something like 70 C vs 100 C.
      But in terms heating 66 C degree air, 70 C surface isn’t going to warm it
      and 100 C will warm it. Or flip side, 66 C air isn’t going cool the 70 C surface by very much if anything, but 66 C air would cool a 100 C surface.

      Now as said on Earth, the air is cooler than surface by around 20 C [or more] and this applies to 1 atm of pressure. If you have less pressure, there would greater difference in temperature. Or greater pressure less difference.
      So on Venus the range in which a sunlit solid/liquid can heat the gas maybe within say 2 atm and 1/2 atm and/or distance of couple km in elevation.
      Or let’s see lapse rate is about 9 C per km.
      So 49.5 km is 66 C, 48.5 is 75 C, 47.5 is 84 C
      And going the other way: 50.5 km is 57 C, 51.5 is 48 C
      Etc. Looking chart goes to 58 km and around 1/2 atm of pressure
      and down to -13 C.
      So it’s range of heating looks about 10 km of elevation: 47 to 48 km thru
      to 57 to 58 km. And probably most heating done around 51.5 km
      being 50 C difference between air and solid/liquids warmed to 100 C.

      Now by heating the air, you will cause hot air to rise.
      This two things, draw in more air and lifts liquid/solid higher.
      And the thermal lift could be quite substantial.

      Now at earth distance, one could say, all the atmosphere needs is get 30 C cooler- you get a 50 C difference at 51.5 km.
      First, if cool Venus atmosphere by 30 C, the whole atmosphere sinks.
      This not have any significant effect. It’s also possible the upper region of atmosphere has larger effect from this warming. Meaning one get an effect similar to the higher troposphere one gets on Earth with the tropics:
      “At latitudes above 60 , the tropopause is less than 9 -10 km above sea level; the lowest is less than 8 km high, above Antarctica and above Siberia and northern Canada in winter. The highest average tropopause is over the oceanic warm pool of the western equatorial Pacific, about 17.5 km high, and over Southeast Asia, during the summer monsoon, the tropopause occasionally peaks above 18 km. In other words, cold conditions lead to a lower tropopause, obviously because of less convection.”
      http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/tropo.html

      So if the clouds are having an effect of causing significant warming you have significant convection and significant warming of this region of higher elevation.
      Or what one looking at with Venus is the end result of “runaway effect”- and with lower amount solar energy at earth distance, you could “deflate the balloon”.
      Or with present Venus one has 10 km elevation to warm the air, at Earth distance it could instead be 1 to 2 km range [or less].

      So what should checked is what is the difference between cloud depth between daylight side and nightside.
      And it seem from written above the troposphere in equator varies- “The highest average tropopause is over the oceanic warm pool of the western equatorial Pacific, about 17.5 km high, and over Southeast Asia, during the summer monsoon, the tropopause occasionally peaks above 18 km”
      So the variation in cloud level on Venus would provide evidence [and possible falsification of this "theory"].

      So before started this post I thought give some answer of how warm Venus would be at Earth distance.
      But I discovered missing a lot information about the quantitative effect of
      the warming due to clouds.
      And will end the post with this quote:
      “Giant dust devils routinely kick up the oxidized iron dust that covers Mars’ surface. The dust storms of Mars are the largest in the solar system, capable of blanketing the entire planet and lasting for months. One theory as to why dust storms can grow so big on Mars starts with airborne dust particles absorbing sunlight, warming the Martian atmosphere in their vicinity. Warm pockets of air flow toward colder regions, generating winds. Strong winds lift more dust off the ground, which in turn heats the atmosphere, raising more wind and kicking up more dust.”
      http://www.space.com/16903-mars-atmosphere-climate-weather.html

    • So looking around, and some interesting trivia:
      “History of observations
      That Venus was permanently enveloped in what appeared to be thick, white clouds soon became clear following the development of the telescope. By analogy with the Earth, it was generally assumed that these clouds were made of water vapor, a conclusion supported by early spectroscopic studies by Secchi. The main composition of the atmosphere remained a matter for conjecture until spectroscopic observations by Walter Adams and Theodore Dunham, in 1932, established that it was carbon dioxide. Speculation about the make-up of the clouds continued. In 1937, R. Wildt suggested methanal (formaldehyde), while in 1954, Fred Whipple and Donald Menzel proposed ice crystals. Today, they are known to consist primarily of sulfuric acid.
      ….
      Cold layer
      Although the surface of Venus swelters at an average temperature of 467°C, and much of the planet’s atmosphere is also hot, there is a layer within the atmosphere that is surprisingly cold – colder, in fact, than anywhere in the Earth’s atmosphere. At an altitude of about 125 kilometers above the surface, measurements by the Venus Express probe have shown, the temperature drops to an amazingly low -175°C, cool enough in theory for carbon dioxide ice or snow to form. ”
      http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.html

    • Stuff related to mixing Venus atmosphere- still not found much information of difference of cloud height of day and night.
      This regarding Venus polar vortex:
      “The VIRTIS observations of the Southern polar region of Venus show other shapes in the core region of the vortex (Figure 5) which appear similar to the forms seen in the evolving instability features in the animation . It is therefore highly suggestive that their origins are also due to barotropic instability, indicating that the flow at the cloud level has more shear than the cloud motion measurements might suggest. This is possible due to lack of reliable tracers and adequate combination of image spatial resolution and time interval over which the tracer motions need to be measured.

      Besides the morphological similarity between a mature tropical cyclone and the Venus hemispheric vortex, another similarity between the observed features in the vortex circulations of Venus and in terrestrial hurricanes is the presence of transverse waves on the spiral bands, away from the vortex centers (Fig. 6). The lack of such transverse waves in Earth’s polar vortices is suggestive that the dynamics of the Venus polar vortices may have more in common with hurricanes than their more direct terrestrial polar counterparts, perhaps due to the large difference in the rotation rates of Earth and Venus.”
      http://venus.wisc.edu/vortex_model.html

    • Reminds me of stuff:
      “Could Planet Venus Ever Sustain Life?

      A number of factors work against Venus sustaining life. For one, it is so close to the sun. As with Mercury, this makes Venus too hot, of course. Because of the thick, greenhouse atmosphere, the temperature is constant day and night. If it weren’t for the thickness of the atmosphere, the solid cloud cover would bring the Venusian temperature closer to that of Earth. If the atmosphere could be trimmed down and reduced of its greenhouse effects, we would still have to contend with the inordinately long Venusian days. Temperatures would still become dangerously hot during the day and dangerously cold at night, with Venus having a far more light-weight atmosphere while retaining its thick cloud cover.”

      According to the Greenhouse Theory if you were to add oceans of water to Venus, one would “only” increase Venus average temperature.
      It’s simple logic, more greenhouse gases more heating. One could say the Greenhouse theory “knows” no limit to the ever increasing temperature which will result from the addition of greenhouse gas- water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.

      Whereas it’s my belief that simplest and quickest way to cool Venus would be to add lots of water. Basically the quicker, you add water the faster you cool Venus, which could faster than simply blocking all sunlight from reaching Venus. So if time is money, if you wanted to cool Venus fast, you just need a lot of water [and there oceans and oceans of water in the space environment- and it's conceivable that some time in the future {say less than 1 century] that water could cheap to buy in space.]
      So I largely base this on the heat capacity of water- a sizable amount water [a small ocean] would simple rob all the heat of Venus atmosphere.
      Plus, as long as the was water on the surface of Venus, Venus be inhibited from getting back to it’s furnace like conditions.
      But what the above quote reminded me of, is that all that water would make a lot clouds. And that these water clouds would hugely different than clouds of sulfuric acid. And I think they rise higher in atmosphere than the sulfuric acid clouds which have twice the density of water.

      [And I will mention, that seems to me a thicker atmosphere allows denser
      stuff to float in the atmosphere- whether is the denser sulfuric acid or dust.]

      But Greenhouse Theory could agree about heat capability [and latent heat absorbed] of water being able suck the heat of the Venus atmosphere, but would contend that this was only a temporary effect and that temperatures of Venus would roar back. And one could imagine they would imagine it would get even hotter.

      But the above mentions the cooling effects of clouds, but mostly thought due to it’s effects to planetary Bond albedo [it's always all about radiant properties].
      And of course bright white clouds can to reflect more sunlight than the yellowish droplets of pure sulfuric acid, but the water clouds also evaporate. So they block the sunlight and due to evaporation can cool the air down to -150 C [water does not evaporate at temperatures lower than this].
      So as said droplets of sulfuric acid could in atmospheric pressure of around 1 atm, heat up to 100 C. Water droplets would never get this hot- but instead would quickly evaporate at around 30 C [assuming atmosphere was wetter, in dry atmosphere of Venus they evaporate quickly as ice.
      So if add enough water you have to clouds at some level of the atmosphere. And of course you get rid of the pure sulfuric acid as it loves water.

      Now you take liquid nitrogen, it expands from 1 to 700 in terms volume, water also expands. So 10 meters of liquid nitrogen per square if heated become our atmosphere kilometers high.
      So a ocean water thousand of meters deep, if vaporized make makes massive atmosphere and make the surface pitch black, without even considering the clouds reflecting light. But 10 meters of water per square meter, will make plenty of clouds which would also make it very dark at the surface.

    • Not an answer. But could be related:

      “Venus has thick clouds of sulphuric acid that extend between altitudes of 40 to 60 km. Above this, the region between 60 to 100 km is known as the mesosphere, and is a transition region between the lower winds, which whip the cloud tops around the planet in four days, and the circulation of the upper atmosphere, which is driven by the influx of solar radiation. Having absorbed solar radiation, the hot upper atmosphere rises still further, circulating to the night side of the planet where it cools and sinks back to the level of the cloud tops.

      Jean-Loup Bertaux, Service d’Aéronomie du CNRS, France, Ann-Carine Vandaele, Institut d’Aéronomie Spatiale de Belgique, and colleagues have now used Venus Express to discover an unexpectedly warm layer of air on the planet’s night-side. ”
      http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/The_unexpected_temperature_profile_of_Venus_s_atmosphere

    • gbaikie wrote Gases are type of matter that store heat in the form of the molecules of gases moving.

      Such an incomplete description indicates a lack of knowledge of basic physics. How many degrees of freedom do oxygen and nitrogen molecules have? Have you ever heard of the equipartition theorem?

      Solids and liquids are much better adsorbing energy and
      better at emitting energy than gases.

      Absorbing radiation is hardly the only way thermal energy can be transferred to gases, as you seem to imply.

      I’ll leave you to do your own research on the physics involved. I normally charge for private tuition in such.

    • “gbaikie wrote Gases are type of matter that store heat in the form of the molecules of gases moving.

      Such an incomplete description indicates a lack of knowledge of basic physics. How many degrees of freedom do oxygen and nitrogen molecules have? Have you ever heard of the equipartition theorem?”

      We did this this dance before.
      The heat of any gas is about the KE of molecules of gas, solely in regards to it’s translational energy.

      “Solids and liquids are much better adsorbing energy and
      better at emitting energy than gases.

      Absorbing radiation is hardly the only way thermal energy can be transferred to gases, as you seem to imply.”

      Thermal energy or heat is not transferred to gases via radiation.
      Thermal energy or heat is only transferred to solids and liquids via radiation.

      Thermal energy or heat is transferred to gases via vibration molecules- whether from gases or molecules within the structural matrix of solids or liquids. Not via any kind of radiation whether from solids, liquids, or gases.

  77. Please see this comment as my response to comments above.

  78. Please see this comment as my response to this article and comments above.

    Doug Cotton
    Sydney

  79. Thought fer Today:
    ‘Birds, and not just black swans, offer a lesson
    in adapting to an uncertain world.’

    Great Cormorant
    Phalocrocorax carbo.

    Fenghuang bird, oddity in a species
    Known for eccentricity.

    Miscellany of parts, head of a dragon,
    That turns on your s-bend neck as the earth
    Turns from dawn to dusk, one-eighty degrees,
    Your arched, phoenix-wings, water bird’s
    Webbed feet, make you lord of the littoral,
    Mingling with the elements of air, water, earth,
    (Your feathers non-water-proof, adapted to
    Submerged swimming par excellence,)

    Fisher king of river, marsh and sea,
    So you must come to land and spread
    Your wings to dry, (streaked feathers
    Metallic in sunlight like an iron birds’)
    That you may fly.

    BC
    H/t Max Anaker and Tom.

  80. Belief argued for
    though unexamined
    a man
    and senses
    parted.

  81. gbaikie – In case you miss it, I’ve replied to your post, above. Sorry for the delay.

    Myrrh | December 20, 2012 at 7:08 pm |

    • David Springer

      I may have missed where you explained the difference between a blue photon from teh sun and a blue photon from a laser.

      Unless of course your silence IS the explanation. In that case it would be correct because the complete list of differences is:

      [crickets chirping]

    • You’re behaving like a wally. Prove the Sun is a laser, or take up my challenge.

      Not one of you is capable of proving visible light from the Sun able to heat actual physical matter of land and water at the equator -

      you have no climate.

      And not one of you brought up on this fake fisics has the gumption to admit you’ve been conned through the education system and by the tried and tested method as Goebels noted – tell a big enough lie loud enough and it will be believed. And as he also noted, the enemy to this method of controlling the population was the truth, he called truth the enemy of the state.

      I have given more than sufficient basic explanation from traditional physics to show why the “Greenhouse Effect” is total fiction, pointing out the sleights of hand. Up to you if want to continue repeating and arguing from the fake fisics created by the AGWScienceFiction meme production department when you have no answer against the many examples I’ve gone through here, but if you’re content to do that you show yourselves not to be scientists, and to our loss you think youselves natural philosophers.

    • Myrrh
      You have not “ëxplained” anything at all. Nothing.

      All you have done is repeat over and over a lot of wild claims of your own invention that have absolutely nothing to do with known physics. You can’t even handle simple logical problems that a 10-year-old would have no trouble with – eg the issue above about it making no difference WHICH WAVELENGTH warms the earth, greenhouse warming merely assumes THAT the sun warms the earth.
      (We are though eagerly looking forward to Myrrh fisicisfiction denying even this in a desperate last-ditch effort to save itself).

    • Memphis | December 21, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Myrrh
      You have not “ëxplained” anything at all. Nothing.

      All you have done is repeat over and over a lot of wild claims of your own invention that have absolutely nothing to do with known physics. You can’t even handle simple logical problems that a 10-year-old would have no trouble with – eg the issue above about it making no difference WHICH WAVELENGTH warms the earth, greenhouse warming merely assumes THAT the sun warms the earth.
      (We are though eagerly looking forward to Myrrh fisicisfiction denying even this in a desperate last-ditch effort to save itself).

      I’m sorry you’re finding this a such a struggle to follow.

      I have been explaining how the claimed “Greenhouse Effect” is an illusion created by sleight of hand manipulation of real physics.

      In other words, please do listen carefully, the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist.

      It isn’t logically or rationally possible to argue what is or is not relevant to a non-existant premise, a fiction.

    • Right on cue, Myrrh ‘counters’ with more vacuous claims. The absorption spectrum of CO2 does not include longwave etc etc etc

    • “And I’ve explained Herschel, and he wasn’t using a magnifying glass, his experiments were crude as you say.. We have since then become much more accurate, or do you think we’re still measuring this as he did, by moving a prism by hand at the edge of a table? This is what you offer me as “proof” that visible light from the Sun is thermal and heats matter and there’s no thermal infrared from the Sun?”

      A prism can be used to separate the wavelengths of light. And by using a prism, Herschel provided evidence, that separated visible light [the colors of spectrum], heats matter by different amounts, and that non-color component of the sunlight spectrum also heat matter. And this part of the sunlight beyond the red light portion of the Sun’s spectrum called infrared.

      As for laser beam or magnifying glass. A magnifying can used to focus light
      light, so say, a 4 inch diameter magnifying glass can magnify sunlight can make a point of very bright white light which can heat paper to cause it to ignite. Or you can burn your finger with it.
      A prism or magnifying glass can be obtained at low price, and one demonstrate this easily.
      A powerful green laser is not as easily obtained. But what is known about a laser is it’s beam is a limited part of the light spectrum, which has been amplified.
      So a green laser is separated light, and it’s only green light.
      It doesn’t have red, purple, infrared, Xrays, or any other type of electromagnetic radiation other than green light. And a powerful green laser can create intense heat.

      If you agree that prism can separate sunlight, that the rainbow of colors is visible light separated into violet to red light sequence and before purple is where ultraviolet light should be, and beyond red is where infrared light should be. Then you must accept that Herschel measured heat from visible light and infrared light.

      If you know of another way to separate sunlight so anyone can measure it’s separate components, thereby isolating and thereby identifying the energy of sunlight, so that it may then be quantified [thereby allowing a scientific basis of your view] this would be lovely.
      But in meantime, I will accept that sunlight can be separated with prism, that this separated light can allow one to measure the heat of colored and infrared light- and thereby proving that both visible and infrared light from the Sun can heat objects.

      “I’ve given you traditional physics which divides the main energies we get from the Sun into categories – there are categories in physics here because the main energies we get from the Sun are known by their distinct differences and distinct similarities. Heat and Light are distinct categories in traditional real world physics. They are vastly different from each other.”

      I must have missed the part where, [Myrrh] “given you traditional physics which divides the main energies we get from the Sun into categories”

      But I will give it a go:
      The only traditional physics that divide the Sun’s energy, that I am aware of is the electromagnetic spectrum:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
      Which spans a spectrum starting from Gamma ray [the shortest waves]
      to Radio waves [longest waves].
      Within this spectrum [and this spectrum includes all known energy which can radiated thru the vacuum of space] is what is called the visible and infrared part of this spectrum.
      So every part of this spectrum has been classified using system of identify by it’s wavelength, starting less than billionth of meter
      all way to longer than hundreds of meters. All energy radiated from the sun can be located within this system of measuring Electromagnetic spectrum.
      There nothing called “heat” in the this spectrum. It’s not a term
      used to by those who use this system of classifying the electromagnetic spectrum.
      Instead, it’s understood by traditional physics that any part of the spectrum of electromagnetic is capable of heating objects, if the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation is high enough.
      And the highest intensity of the electromagnetic radiation coming form our sun is in the visible and near infrared part of this spectrum.
      Or from about, 300 nanometers to about 2000 nanometers of wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. Or starting around the end part of ultraviolet light to beyond near infrared.
      Ultraviolet is in the range 10 nm to 400 nm
      And Near Infrared starts at end of visible light and goes to 1400 nm.
      Or about 90 to 95% of the intensity [or amount energy] from the Sun that reaches Earth is between 300 nm and 1800 nm.
      So simply, most of the sunlight is visible and infrared light.
      Or:
      “Sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”

      Or “watts per square meter” indicates a quantity which *could* heat an object [depending on the type of material which is expose to this amount of energy].
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

      So: “Heat and Light are distinct categories in traditional real world physics. They are vastly different from each other.”
      Is not correct if one is referring to electromagnetic radiation- which is the only known energy radiated from the sun that can reach Earth.

      [Note: magnetic changes in the sun can influence other magnetic fields-
      but we are exclude this [and you not talking this, anyhow, nor could involve much in terms of any heating anything at Earth distance.].

      It has occurred to me, one could be talking about a model in physics.
      This model would involve idealize blackbodies, and this model could use the idea of heat transferring.
      I would characterize this model as ignoring any details electromagnetic energy- basically bunching them all together with the term heat. And only talk about dispersion of heat over area- an widen surface area of a sphere the further it gets from a heat source.
      There nothing wrong with this idea. And one could say it’s forgotten about by climate scientists.
      But you can’t mix them.
      You can’t choose to add in infrared light, and assume only infrared light is only light [electromagnetic radiation] that can heat. Or in real world oppose to world of a model, that there something called heat which is radiated and light [electromagnetic radiation] is different thing.
      What this heat model tells you is there is a limit to how hot something can get at a certain distance from the Sun.
      And that limit is around the temperature of lunar surface in daylight with sun at zenith.
      One problem is Venus doesn’t *appear* to follow this rule.
      And confusion ensued.

    • gbaikie | December 21, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Reply “And I’ve explained Herschel, and he wasn’t using a magnifying glass, his experiments were crude as you say.. We have since then become much more accurate, or do you think we’re still measuring this as he did, by moving a prism by hand at the edge of a table? This is what you offer me as “proof” that visible light from the Sun is thermal and heats matter and there’s no thermal infrared from the Sun?”

      A prism can be used to separate the wavelengths of light. And by using a prism, Herschel provided evidence, that separated visible light [the colors of spectrum], heats matter by different amounts, and that non-color component of the sunlight spectrum also heat matter. And this part of the sunlight beyond the red light portion of the Sun’s spectrum called infrared. Etc.

      Idiocy. Herschels’s experiment did not show that visible light heats matter as later science exploration has shown, as I have explained, which has classified the infrared into thermal and non-thermal – as I have given in the NASA quote.

      From the way you have mangled my posts in your replies I’m coming to the reluctant conclusion that you’re either incapable of thinking to the standard required in science which is the ability to separate fact from fiction in the discipline of empirical observation and testing, or, you’re deliberately distracting from the points I’m making in my argument. Whichever, I’m really not interested in arguing with your imagination, see my last post to Memphis (Myrrh | December 23, 2012 at 7:33 am).

      gbaikie | December 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Reply Moving on to rest of Myrrh post:

      “Herschel’s experiments were too crude to pick up on this division into thermal and non-thermal, and, he didn’t know that the difference in SIZE was so great between visible and longwave infrared – his measurements of temperature were picking up on the thermal infrared spilling into the visible and near infrared.”

      But is this as far I know, only Myrrh’s assumption.
      Is there are anything he can point to that confirms his assumption.

      As I have given traditional well known tried and tested physics – see the NASA quote I’ve posted.

      And Myrrh is assuming length of wavelength is same as size.
      That longer wavelengths will cause more heat.

      Strawman, quote my words not what you imagine, I do not assume that – I repeat: From the way you have mangled my post in your replies I’m coming to the reluctant conclusion that you’re either incapable of thinking to the standard required in science which is the ability to separate fact from fiction in the discipline of empirical observation and testing, or, you’re deliberately distracting from the points I’m making in my argument. Whichever, I’m really not interested in arguing with your imagination, see my last post to Memphis (Myrrh | December 23, 2012 at 7:33 am)

      This getting way too long. Last one:
      “Visible light from the Sun cannot physically heat land and water, as I have explained. These watts per square metre are irrelevant, even if they made any sense – you quote the wiki giving uv, visible and infrared yet AGWSF in its fiction Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget gives shortwave infrared from the Sun as only 1% of its “Solar”, its “Shortwave in” – it considers it insignificant and most of the time it isn’t even mentioned, nor the shortwave uv the other side of visible which is included in the “shortwave in”. AGWSF claims that Visible light is the “main energy from the Sun, “most of the energy from the Sun”. This is why I use visible in my science challenge, because the other shortwaves aren’t bothered with.”

      So you say watts per meter is irrelevant.
      How else can anyone measure the amount energy of radiation intersecting a surface?

      Strawman again, I’ve said nothing of the kind as can be clearly seen in my words you’ve quoted. The watts per square metre you calculated are irrelevant, as I have explained. Your figure for infrared does not correspond to the 1% AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget gives for the near infrared portion, and, shortwave infrared is not thermal anyway.

      I repeat: From the way you have mangled my post in your replies I’m coming to the reluctant conclusion that you’re either incapable of thinking to the standard required in science which is the ability to separate fact from fiction in the discipline of empirical observation and testing, or, you’re deliberately distracting from the points I’m making in my argument. Whichever, I’m really not interested in arguing with your imagination, see my last post to Memphis (Myrrh | December 23, 2012 at 7:33 am)

      All this to avoid giving me what I have asked for .. I have asked for empirical, observation and testing, proof of your claim that visible light from the Sun physically heats Earth’s land and water.

      You’re obviously not interested in science.

    • Moving on to rest of Myrrh post:

      “Herschel’s experiments were too crude to pick up on this division into thermal and non-thermal, and, he didn’t know that the difference in SIZE was so great between visible and longwave infrared – his measurements of temperature were picking up on the thermal infrared spilling into the visible and near infrared.”

      But is this as far I know, only Myrrh’s assumption.
      Is there are anything he can point to that confirms his assumption.

      And Myrrh is assuming length of wavelength is same as size.
      That longer wavelengths will cause more heat.
      So accordingly one might assume the radio waves of say the 50,000 watt AM radio station could heat something- as it’s waves are a comparability a massively huge wavelength- and must be huge and very powerful in terms heating anything.

      The visible light from the sun have more watts per square meter per nm
      of wavelength spectrum than infrared does per nm wavelength spectrum.
      As indicated here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
      Which indicate that visible light has intensity at earth surface of
      about 1.4 watt per nm of spectrum per square meter.
      Near infrared light [which Myrrh calls reflective and according to him also like visible light does no heating] starts at about 1.2 watts per nm per square meter and by the point at end of Near Infared at 1400 nm, the per nm of wavelength drops to under .5 watts per square meter per nm.

      Mainly because infrared is been classified as larger spectrum does it have more total watts per square meter of sunlight, but it has lower intensity per nanometer of spectrum than visible light has.
      Or the infrared between 1000 and 1010 nm is less than half the energy
      as compared to visible light between 500 to 510 nm.
      And the infrared between 2000 to 2010 nm is less than half of energy of
      infrared between 1000 to 1010 nw.

      “Why is near infrared also known as Colour Infrared (CIR)? Because it is known for what it is in the real world science field which has studied LIGHT in depth – OPTICS. ”

      Why, because isn’t some huge conformity of word usage on the planet- in case you have not noticed.
      Different terms are used in different fields or even different regions of country. Such a *Serious* problem could only solved massively totalitarian regime that beat people who choose the describe things in some “incorrect” or “perverse” fashion.
      It’s colored because people take pictures in Near Infrared.

      It’s same reason you have the term “thermal IR”- the heat of things causes the “thermal image” to be different shades green or other ways a device may display a “thermal image”. So people using “thermal cameras” or heat seeking missiles talk or write about thermal heat or thermal IR- because the degree of heat determines what is seen/detected.

      “Heat and Light are the two main categories of energy we receive from the Sun. The NASA page says as I give traditional physics in this, that near infrared is not thermal, that the actual heat we receive from the Sun is longwave infrared, thermal infrared, that this is the heat we feel from the Sun, actually feel as heat and that we cannot feel near infrared, as in our remote controls. ”

      Have you ever look at remote control?
      It’s powered by couple a small batteries.
      Oh, how about a battery powered air drier?
      Good invention?

      “The heat energy of the electromagnetic spectrum is called thermal for a reason… It is as NASA says, the actual heat we feel from the Sun.”

      If it’s part of electromagnetic spectrum you should be provide the wavelength and watts per square meter.
      And there are many reason something could called thermal. And NASA bureaucrats reasoning is not something, I would not regard as approaching rational.

      This getting way too long. Last one:
      “Visible light from the Sun cannot physically heat land and water, as I have explained. These watts per square metre are irrelevant, even if they made any sense – you quote the wiki giving uv, visible and infrared yet AGWSF in its fiction Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget gives shortwave infrared from the Sun as only 1% of its “Solar”, its “Shortwave in” – it considers it insignificant and most of the time it isn’t even mentioned, nor the shortwave uv the other side of visible which is included in the “shortwave in”. AGWSF claims that Visible light is the “main energy from the Sun, “most of the energy from the Sun”. This is why I use visible in my science challenge, because the other shortwaves aren’t bothered with.”

      So you say watts per meter is irrelevant.
      How else can anyone measure the amount energy of radiation intersecting a surface?

  82. Let’s help a local business by making use of a local
    ‘man and his van’ to transport our weighty goods.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s