by Judith Curry
The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing. – James Hansen et al.
Jim Hansen et al. have written a remarkable document titled Global Temperature Update Through 2012. Excerpts:
An update through 2012 of our global analysis reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the facr that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.
The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.
Climate change expectations. The continuing planetary imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales. Moreover, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably to the next El Nino phase.
JC comments: Perhaps ‘standstill’ is a euphemism for ‘pause’, but recall all the flack that David Rose received a few months ago for writing about the ‘pause’. It is good to see Hansen paying more attention to unforced variability.
However Hansen’s simplistic reasoning about what can be expected in the next decade is, well, simplistic. GWPF reports on the latest decadal simulation from the UKMO, which predicts basically no warming for the next 5 years. Should we believe the UKMO model prediction? Well, I have more confidence in the UKMO prediction than in Hansen’s back of the envelope reasoning.
JC’s ‘forecast’ for the next 5 years: It looks like the AMO may have peaked, and we remain in the cool phase of the PDO with a predominance of La Nina events expected (unlikely to see a return to do El Nino dominance in the next decade). I predict we will see continuation of the ‘standstill’ in global average temperature for the next decade, with solar playing a role in this as well.
It also looks like black carbon is looming as more important than previously believed, see article at WUWT.
It also looks like black carbon is looming as more important than previously believed
That’s readily fixed. Freer energy market > remove constraints on nuclear power > low cost nuclear > replace coal electricity generation > cut CO2 emissions by 13 Gt/a by 2050 (same as Nordhaus ‘Optimal’ carbon price proposal) and cut black carbon from coal generation as well.
Plus many more benefits.
– Electricity 1/2 the cost of coal generated electricity by 2050.
– avoid over 1 million fatalities per year from toxic pollution.
I wrote about black carbon not getting all the props it deserves 6 years ago. Hansen acknowledged a larger role but he was evidently outvoted when it came time to put down the numbers in the IPCC report.
2007, me:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/ipcc-ignores-studies-of-soots-effect-on-global-warming/
A must-read even if I do say so myself. :-)
Yup. Approximate 60 year cycle sticks out of the past 150 year temp record like a sore thumb. La Nina was dominant for about 10 years circa 1950. Bad news for Austin, Texas as La Nina = drought here. We haven’t yet reached the record low lake level for Travis yet set in the 1950’s but we’re set to get there this summer if we don’t get a drought busting deluge between now and then.
Late 1950’s – early 1960’s is a good analogue of what we can expect in the next decade.
RE : next several years being like the late 50’s – early 60’s.
So I can look forward to pj’s with feet, being called to supper rather than having to cook it, black & white tv, a comeback by Elvis and in general, a care free life with little responsibility?
Then again, it could mean a return to diapers. Not ready to go there again.
It could get worse than the 50s and 60s if the long term trend in OHT is solar driven.
Going to have to get my son to add this to my ipod.
Any truth willard to the rumor you were the body double for the ab scenes?
Amazingly informative information about the standstill and James Hansen.
You outdid yourself this time Willard.
But what of ocean heat content? many will ask.
There are two points here I’d like to know about:-
(1) How robust and reliable are the OHC data?
(2) And even if OHC is indeed rising, can this be due to AGW?
AGW works through the atmosphere, and if the atmosphere isn’t warming, how can ocean warming be caused by a non-warming atmosphere?
The atmosphere doesn’t heat the ocean. The sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the atmosphere.
The answer you’re looking for is obfuscated by the usual suspects. They say ocean heat content is rising by some ungodly large number of Joules but fail to translate into an ocean temperature increase. The actual temperature increase is miniscule so they don’t give you that number.
David Springer
They can’t even really measure that miniscule number (the alleged warming, that is). It is thousandths of a degree.
First ARGO data showed cooling from 2003 (when ARGO started) to 2008 (Willis’ “speed bump”).
The ARGO data were then “corrected” to show very slight warming.
Let’s wait until we have the ARGO measurements fixed (with any “corrections” completely transparent to the public) and have around 30 years of data before we even talk about OHC.
And let’s express warming in degrees C (not joules, ferchrissake), so everyone can understand the data and the threat (?) that ocean warming represents.
Max
The critical component here is the amount of energy(J) flowing around the climate. As David S. says, the amount of temperature rise in water compared to air is miniscule.
4.18 J will heat 1 gram of water 1 deg K(~C). 1 J will heat 1 gram of air 1 degK. But air is very low density, so it only takes 0.000127 joules to heat 1 cu.cm. of air 1 deg K. Water, even seawater, is very close to 1 gr./cu.cm. 4.2 J will heat 1 cc of water 1 deg K.
The ratio is ~ 32,000 to 1. A deg C of temperature rise in 1 cc of water is 32,000 times the energy in a cubic centimeter of air. Overall, the energy in the top 700m of the ocean is something like 1000 times the energy in the atmosphere. Guess which one has the most effect on climate.
Actually the ARGO buoys are good down to millikelvins. Problem is they miss over half the ocean. They don’t go beneath ice and they only dive to half the average depth of the global ocean. I’d take any criticism of that data with a grain of salt if I were you nonetheless. Global average sea level is a metric independent from ARGO and tends to confirm what buoys are saying.
The problem is neither one of those is very alarming at the measured rate.
(1) I would also like to know better the reliability and accuracy of the OHC estimates. The ARGO measurements are with a safe margin accurate enough as individual measurements but I’m less certain of the reliability of the calculations that extend the measurements to the full ocean volume down to 750 m or 2000 m. That involves a lot of interpolation and extrapolation that must be difficult to do accurately.
(2) That’s not a problem. Ocean heat capacity is huge and one might invert the statement to say that oceans prevent the atmosphere from warming rapidly. It’s perfectly possible that ocean variability keeps the atmospheric temperature approximately constant for significant periods while the OHC keeps on rising. Solar radiation brings the heat to oceans. The atmosphere influences the heat loss from the ocean. Warmer atmosphere reduces the heat loss, but the heat loss may remain less than the solar heating for long even without continuous warming of the atmosphere.
AGW means that the heat content of the whole Earth system increases, but it does not make unique predictions on the relative rates of warming of various parts of the Earth system over periods up to a couple of decades.
David Springer posted his comment while I was writing the above. The factual contents of our answers are in agreement as far as I can see. My emphasis is, however, quite different from his.
Pekka
Your (1) and (2) make sense.
And the enormous heat capacity of the ocean undoubtedly leads to a dampening of our climate.
But I think (like Dave) that the data should be presented in degrees C (or thousandths of a degree C, if necessary), so people can understand what ocean warming is all about. (Another record can be made in joules, for scientists who can visualize this metric better.)
Max
So, whatever energy we can put into the ocean from our lockbox of fossil fuel will delay the next Ice Age, right?
================
If people are going to say “wow, that’s a small number” in that moronic Dana Tyrone Rohrabacher fashion, hey, go ahead.
It should be mentioned that due to ocean stratification and the bottom 90% being just 3C if OHC accumulation halted right now air temperature would start going down. The upper ocean warms first and that warms the atmosphere the same amount very quickly because atmosphere has no thermal inertia to speak of in comparison. Over the long haul if OHC stops rising the lower ocean will be sucking excess heat out of upper ocean as equilibrium between them is slowly reestablished.
Pre-argo the OHC data is very bad. It is far sparser than the surface statistical data, with no fixed stations, and it uses the same area averaging approximation methods but to assess a volume rather than a surface. I consider it highly questionable at best.
Re your 2 yes the question is how an enhanced GE can warm the ocean without warming the air? This amounts to redefining AGW and looks very much like what is called theory saving.
AGW works through the atmosphere
When I say this, I am taking the basic mechanism to be not that a warmer atmosphere actively warms the ocean, but rather that it slows the cooling of the oceans into the atmosphere.
This is where there’s a serious problem in my opinion. The majority of heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere is latent (evaporation). Downwelling radiation from a warm atmosphere doesn’t heat the water. Unlike sunlight which penetrates to many tens of meters instantaneously the mid infrared from the atmosphere is absorbed by the top few microns. All this does is raise the evaporation rate it doesn’t warm the water. The proof of that is that there’s a well known “cool skin layer” on the ocean which is about 1 millimeter deep and 1C cooler than the water below it. The ocean is being cooled like a swamp cooler and CO2 does little to nothing to slow that down. It’s a different story over land. Dry dirt, rocks, and ice don’t evaporate. They will get warmer in response to CO2. Given we live over land not over ocean it skews what to be concerned about as air temperarature will rise the most from AGW where there’s the least potential for evaporation. Predictably we see more warming over land than water and more when temperature is freezing than not freezing. That pretty much translates to more warming as latitude increases because with increasing latitude is decreasing temperature and less evaporation potential.
Downwelling radiation does not exist. It’s the artefact of pyrometery. These devices measure the signal reaching a point is spaces minus that which is stopped by the shielding around the detector. So they actually detect the net Poynting vectors in the view angle that comprise the Planck irradiation function in that direction. Pyrgeometers correctly use power units for this, but it’s the hypothetical flux you’d get for that emitter isolated in deep space.
To you and me, it’s the temperature.This is why pyrgeometer manufacturers specify you need two, back to back, to measure net energy flux, the only real energy flow at that point: http://www.kippzonen.com/?product/16132/CGR+3.aspx (bottom of page).
Of all ‘sciences’, it is only climate alchemy, from meteorology, which makes this elementary error. So.the evaporation of the oceans is because it has slightly higher temperature than the local air. The warming is from the SW energy. The claim that DLR exists is the cause of the imaginary positive feedback in the models.
Go into them in detail and the excess warming is offset by exaggerating cooling processes in the hind casting in particular using double real low level cloud optical depth. This is unacceptable to any science. Start again with the correct experimental interpretation.
Of course downwelling radiation exists. Don’t be silly. What you’re saying is equivalent to saying a lake that doesn’t change level cannot have water entering it. Of course it can. There must simply be an equal amount leaving it to retain a constant level.
For the ocean this is a bit trickier than a dammed river held at a constant level by adjusting the gates so inflow matches outflow. Practically all energy entering the ocean is radiation but the majority leaves via evaporation.
A land surface will warm in response to increased CO2. It must. CO2 imposes a restriction in radiation passing from land to space. Something has to happen as a consequence of that restriction.
Going back to our dam example if we restrict the opening in our gate the water level behind the dam will rise in response which increases the pressure differential across the gate forcing more water through the gate.
Pretty much the same thing happens with CO2 and land surfaces. More CO2 is like restricting the gate. Pressure builds up behind the gate, in this case it isnt’ water pressure but temperature instead. The higher pressure forces more radiative energy through the restriction. It also raises conduction but even over land conduction is minimal because air doesn’t conduct well.
Over water it’s different because there is an additional way energy can leave it. Evaporation. So when the radiative channel over the ocean is restricted instead of temperature rising in response to get the same amount of energy through the restriciton evaporation rises instead.
How much energy leaves through evaporation and how much leaves through radiation is a function of relative ease of each path. The easier path gets proportionately more flow through it. This is just like a bucket with two differently sized holes in the bottom. Each hole will have water escaping through it with more water escaping through the larger hole. On average over the entire earth evaporation is the larger hole. Over the ocean it’s much larger.
(2) And even if OHC is indeed rising, can this be due to AGW?
AGW works through the atmosphere, and if the atmosphere isn’t warming, how can ocean warming be caused by a non-warming atmosphere?
Pekka answers this referring to the great heat capacity of the ocean, which could aborb the extra atmospheric heat due to CO2, thereby damping atmospheric increases. But doesn’t that assume the oceans are cooler than the atmosphere, which is incorrect as far as I understand it ?
The ocean is not supposed to absorb heat from the atmosphere. It never does (on the net), but it may release more or less heat to the atmosphere.
Oceans release almost all the heat received from sun to the atmosphere. Four mechanisms are involved in that, IR radiation, latent heat transfer through evaporation, conduction (significant only over very short distances near the surface) and convection (not across the surface). Only latent heat transfer could go from cooler to warmer as long as the humidity of air is low enough, but all are present. Thus the assumption is that water is mostly warmer than air.
No theory of AGW is based on the hypothesis that air would become warmer than water and heat water by that. When net the heat release from ocean to atmosphere and directly to space add up to less than heating bu sun, the ocean warms, in the opposite case it cools.
On average there’s less than a 1C difference between sea surface temperature and sea air temperature. And yes it’s the ocean that’s warmer. This is why you can pretty much ignore conductive heating of the atmosphere from the ocean. Conduction requres a temperature differential and for most purposes there is none over the ocean. The atmosphere is mostly warmed by condensing water vapor. Again, over land, things change. Land surface temperature rises quickly in response to sunlight causing a large differential between it and air temperature above it. That’s why the sand on the beach can darn near burn your feet but the air temperature is quite pleasant.
(2) And even if OHC is indeed rising, can this be due to AGW?
AGW works through the atmosphere, and if the atmosphere isn’t warming, how can ocean warming be caused by a non-warming atmosphere?
Pekka > It’s perfectly possible that ocean variability keeps the atmospheric temperature approximately constant for significant periods while the OHC keeps on rising.
Pekka,
For that to be happening would require the atmosphere to be warming the oceans. I think you agree though that that is not happening, the oceans on average being warmer than the atmosphere. The oceans cool into the atmosphere, not vice-versa.
It being further agreed that AGW works by warming CO2 and hence the atmosphere, resulting in a slowing of the cooling of the oceans into the atmosphere, we are thus back to point (2) above –
ie, if indeed oceans are warming, it must be something other than AGW that is doing this . But what?
Here’s how to get rid of black carbon from electricity generation, cut GHG emissions by 13 Gt CO2/a by 2050 (same as the Nordhaus ‘Optimal’ carbon price policy) and achieve a lot more benefits as well.
Carbon pricing is an example of a policy that would require legally binding global agreements and their maintenance for a century.
Here is an alternative to a global carbon pricing scheme. This is an example of a policy that could achieve the same outcome as the Nordhaus ‘Optimal’ carbon tax policy but without the need for maintenance and enforcement of international agreements to control and monitor GHG emissions.
Nordhaus (2008) does not consider options other than a global carbon price. However, he does present figures for a policy called ‘Low-cost backstop’. It assumes a low cost alternative to fossil fuels is available and can be fully implemented throughout the world in 2011. Although the assumption of full implementation in 2011 is not achievable, some of the figures Nordhaus provides for this policy can be helpful in estimating the costs and benefits of the ‘Free Market’ policy.
Nordhaus estimates the ‘Optimal’ carbon price policy would reduce global GHG emissions by 13 Gt CO2/a in 2055 (if all the assumptions which underpin the analysis were achieved, which is highly unlikely for reasons explained here http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money#82373).. Therefore, in the following analysis, 13 Gt CO2/a saving in 2055 is the target we’ll aim for with a ‘Free Market’ policy. What would it take to achieve this?
As an example of a ‘Free Market’ policy that could make a significant impact on cutting global GHG emissions and providing many other valuable benefits as well, assume the USA decides to remove the impediments to low-cost nuclear power. Let’s consider what could be achieved by 2050.
According to EIA projections to 2035 http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=4-IEO2011&table=30-IEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630 (extended to 2055), coal will generate 18,748 TWh of electricity in 2055. Assuming average CO2 emissions intensity of 0.8 t/MWh, electricity generation with coal would contribute about 15 Gt CO2 in 2055. Recall that we need to cut emissions by 13 Gt/a in 2055.
We’d need around 2,000 GW of nuclear capacity (at average 90% capacity factor) to avoid 13 Gt of the 15 Gt of CO2 emissions from coal fired electricity generation in 2055. This could be achieved by 2045 with a doubling of capacity every two years or by 2057 with doubling every three years, starting from 2020 – assuming small, modular nuclear plants of the size of the twin-unit ‘mPower’, 360 MWe plant. [This assumes we start from zero nuclear capacity at the start of 2020, whereas EIA projects the world will have 500 GW in operation in 2020].
That is, 2,000 GW of nuclear capacity could reduce emissions by the amount of the Nordhaus ‘Optimal’ global carbon tax policy. The 2,000 GW of nuclear capacity could be achieved (from zero in 2020) by doubling the installed capacity every 2 to 3 years. The major underlying assumption is that this could be achieved by the USA removing the impediments to low-cost nuclear power.
This policy would deliver many other benefits as well, so it would be, in fact, a ‘No Regrets’ policy. Some of the other benefits are:
• Avoid increasing the cost of energy by tax
• Avoid the compliance cost
• Avoid cost premium caused by partial participation
• Avoid the inevitable and ongoing domestic political interference, international cheating and dragging the chain.
• Faster GDP growth due to lower energy prices
• People rise out of poverty faster
• Population growth slows faster
• Toxic pollution and black carbon reduced (avoiding millions of fatalities per year)
• Reduce the transporting of coal and gas – less ships, trains and gas pipelines.
• Greater energy security.
The value of these benefits should be subtracted from the cost of implementing the policy.
But what will happen to Gore and the other poor millionaire Greenies ?
Tomcat
“Let them eat crow.”
http://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/eating-crow.jpg
h/t Chris Trotter http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2011/10/eating-crow.html
We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know. The concatenation of cooling phases of the oceanic oscillations argue for two(2) more decades of cooling, and if the Cheshire Cat sunspots augur cooling, as they’ve done in the past, then we may cool for a century or more.
Hansen reveals his sophistry here. He finally recognizes the Pacific oscillation, but can’t help but hope, and say, that it will cycle sooner than we, and he, believe it will. He says the ’40-75 standstill is ‘generally attributed’ but without numbers, but the ‘general attribution’ is by modelers, you know, numbers guys. And you notice he mumbles when he mentions the sun. No, that was Judy.
==========
If it does not warm for 2 decades or more as you say, then I hope I make it that long just to be concerned about all the crows that have bit the dust because a lot of them will have been devoured.
Kim mentions solar activity. See charts at http://www.solarham.net/trends.htm
In particular, see charts of Solar Radio Flux at F10.7 cm (a proxy for solar activity), Sunspot Number Progression and David Hathaway’s Prediction (colorful frame at bottom left). The solid smooth lines are predictions; dotted smoothed lines are ranges; jittery lines are (smoothed) observations.
Hathaway originally predicted a rerun of the 2002 peak (~150), but Lief Svalgaard persuaded him to lower it to ~70s. (To his credit, Hathaway went public with credit and congratulations to Svalgaard; in my view, Hathaway has scientific integrity.)
Please note that the sun has become somewhat more active since the charts were last updated (12/2012). Svalgaard notes that activity in the southern hemisphere often lags that of the northern hemisphere by about a year. Accordingly, it is now the south’s turn to put on a show. Dalton Minimum tbd.
Archibald, David. “NASA Now Saying That a Dalton Minimum Repeat Is Possible” Blog. Watts Up With That?, July 28, 2009. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/nasa-now-saying-that-a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-possible/
See also: Curry, Judith A. “21st Century Solar Cooling” Scientific. Climate Etc., March 10, 2012. http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/10/21st-century-solar-cooling/
It is also worth noting that sunspot numbers may</i) have been coincident, but not causal, of temperatures on earth. According to Livingston and Penn, when an Umbral Magnetic Field is less than 1500 Gauss, the sunspot can not be seen. But, it may still exist.
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Thanks, and yes, I believe they are merely co-incident, both responding to a more primary cause.
=============
Right. Consequence, not cause. Now if anyone could explain the solar mechanism in detail, Nobel should have a medal in reserve.
More light reading:
Topic: Questions for Dr. L Svalgaard —- II
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=1587&post=65476
Sunspot Magnetism—Livingston & Penn
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=general&thread=855&post=30215
I really like JC’s ‘forecast’. So it must be right :)
It means plenty of rain across Australia. We’ll all be rich! And feed the world as well.
More of these ‘forecasts’ please JC :)
Here is an article by Neville Nicholls showing the correlation between SOI and Australian rain:
http://www.amos.org.au/news/id/111
Don B,
Thank you for that link. Interesting. I’d make these two comments
Some people say rain is bad. Others say rain across much of central Australia is good (fantastic, life saving, Eureka). The more it happens the better.
The real disaster, IMO, is that for 30 years we’ve been subjected to the politically correct groups (Greens, ‘Progressives’, Left etc.) blocking construction of dams. If not for this 30 year blocking of progress we’d be in much better shape now and be able to make much more use of the rain that did fall and will fall in the future. This is another example of the ‘Progressives’ blocking progress.
So, warming may mean more rain in Australia. On that basis I say: bring on the warming. :)
A thing that worries me is the historical record of heavy rains and crop failures at the onset of the Maunder and Dalton minimums. It appears that cold fronts wring water out of warm, moist air.
As always, I could be wrong. I’ll leave corrections to our gracious hostess.
Maybe this is a good time to emphasise the difference in opinion I have been having with oneuniverse. What I was taught in Physics 101, is that until you have actual empirical measurements of any physical quantity, such as climate sensitivity, then all you have is a hypothesis. And if all you have is a hypothesis, then you have no basis whatsoever about being confident as to what is going to happen inm the future. There are no empirical measurements of value of climate sensitivity.
That is what has happend to James Hansen, most learend scientific societies, the MSM and our politicians. We have never had a measured value for climate sensitivity, so CAGW always was, still is, and will be into the indefinite future, a hypothesis. And if all you have is a hypothesis, then you cannot predict what is going to happen in the future.
This is all that has happened with the pause. The confident predictions of the IPCC in the SPMs, expressions like “very likely meaning > 90% probability” have absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever, if all there is is a hypothesis. So no-one knew what was going to happen in the future, and no-one knows now. What is happening to global temperatures is what the basic physcis dictates. We do not understand this basics physics in sufficient detail to know what is going to happen in the fuutre. it was the overconfidence in the hypothesis of CAGW that has resuilted in too many people believing that the warmists could foretell the future. They cannot.
It doesn’t matter a damn what the climate sensitivity is if we have a ‘No Regrets’ policy. With that we are better off no matter what the climate sensitivity is.
Peter:
Nuclear is radically uneconomic with gas-fired generation–that’s a lot of regret in an alleged “no regrets” policy…..
Rob Bradley | January 16, 2013 at 8:14 am |
“Nuclear is radically uneconomic with gas-fired generation”
Only in the US.
The 200 MWe Chinese HTR-PM is being built at a cost of $431 million for a bit about $2.2 billion/GW. Fuel cost for a CCGT with natural gas at $4/MMBTU is going to be about $250 million/ GW year compared with about $80 million/GW year for the Chinese HTR-PM. $170 million/GW yr in fuel savings goes a long way towards a $2.2 billion/GW capital cost.
I would note the ‘delivered’ price of Natural Gas to US Electric Utilities was $3.98 in October 2012.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045us3m.htm
Rob Bradley,
If you think nuclear is uneconomic, what do you think of the economic viability of the other low emissions alternatives, i.e renewables. They would be in the order of five times more expensive than nuclear in a configuration where they could replace fossil fuel electricity generation.
So, what is the point of making comments that have no context like you have.
Regarding no regrets, I maintain that removing the impediments to nuclear can be a truly ‘No regrets policy’. Electricity could be about 1/2 that of coal fired electricity in constant 2012 $. That is, even without factoring in coal prices rising faster than inflation over the next 40 years.
I’ve provide the justification for my assertion that nuclear could be 1/2 the cost of coal by 2050 in previous comments on other threads. I can give it again if you want it.
As I pointed out in the list, there are many other benefits of low cost electricity, especially for the poorest people on the planet. They include higher GDP growth rate, reduce population growth rate, lower peak population, better jobs, more fulfilling lives, avoid millions of fatalities per year from reduced toxic emissions. I could go on.
Doesn’t this seem like a no regrets policy?
I hope your comments is not inspired by nuclear phobia, is it? If so, nor rational debate can be had on this.
We cannot count the number and type of atoms constituting the Moon to determine the Moon’s mass. Our hypotheses about the mass of the Moon therefore remain untested,. Yet we can come up with useful (and used) estimates of the mass of the moon.
We have little or no hope (in these coming decades or centuries) of directly measuring CS – all we can do is improve and better constrain our estimates.
I therefore don’t agree with your statement “Until we have the empirical data which actually measures climate sentitrivity, any particular number is as good, or as bad, as any other.” – I believe the estimates of climate sensitivity can be improved to the point of usefulness – we should at least try.
oneuniverse, you write “I therefore don’t agree with your statement “Until we have the empirical data which actually measures climate sentitrivity, any particular number is as good, or as bad, as any other.” – I believe the estimates of climate sensitivity can be improved to the point of usefulness – we should at least try”
Fair enough. Would you agree with the statement “Until we have the empirical data which actually measures climate sentitrivity, all we have with respect to CAGW is a hypothesis”?
To avoid argument about definitions of “usefulness”, I’ll modify that final sentence to “I believe the estimates of climate sensitivity can be improved – we should at least try.”
All propositions about the future are untested hypotheses.
The proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow is an untested hypothesis.
The propositions that continuing CO2 emissions will / will not lead to CAGW scenarios are both untested hypotheses.
oneuniverse, you write “All propositions about the future are untested hypotheses.”
Sorry, that is nonsense. I can look up the time of sunrise, sunset, eclipses, etc. etc., and numbers are quoted to fractions of a second. If I take the trouble to go out and actually measure when the forecasts actually happen, I would, find them to be accurate to the error that is implicit. When science passes to engineering, and we can forecast the future with complete accuracy, then we call this a law. That is the progress of scientific ideas. They go from a hypothesis, when we do not have any enough empirical data, to a theory, where there is some empirical data, to a law where there is overwhelming empirical data.
‘CAGW is a hypothesis, with not enough empirical data to make it a theory
My hypothesis is that sun will rise on day N (tomorrow). The data we’ve gathered, showing that the sun rose on days N-1, N-2, N-3, etc. might be grist to my Bayesian mill, but are useless for testing the hypothesis, since none of the data can falsify it – the hypothesis remains untested until day N dawns (or doesn’t). (One may bestow upon the hypothesis the ceremonial title of “theory”, to signify the weight of the Bayesian prior from previous days’ data, but it remains an untested hypothesis.)
In general, a proposition that’s contingent upon a future state for the determination of its truth or falsity, cannot be falsified until information from that future state is accessed. Until then, the proposition is an untested hypothesis.
The hypothesis that climate is not sensitive to CO2 is a hypothesis without enough empirical data to merit the title of theory.
oneuniverse
You compare estimates (2xCO2) “equilibrium climate sensitivity” with measurements of the mass of the moon.
There is a major difference between the two.
See D.W. Hughes:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002Obs…122…61H
Various estimates of lunar mass have been made over time using different methods, from tidal impacts to “telescopic observations of astronomical positions”, plus measurements of “low-mass orbiters placed in well-known and accurately measured orbits around the moon during the Apollo era”
“The present-day value of Me/Mm = 81.300588…is one of the more accurately-known astronomical quantities.”
Compare this with no direct measurements and model-derived estimates of (2xCO2) ECS ranging from 0.6°C to 4.5°C.
Ouch! (“Fat tail”, indeed!)
[Our hostess refers to it as “UNCERTAINTY”.]
Max
oneuniverse
You write to Jim Cripwell:
A CO2 temperature response of “zero” is the “null” (= “zero”) hypothesis.
Now it is up to you to falsify the “null hypothesis” with empirical scientific data, following the scientific method (Feynman).
Isn’t that what Jim Cripwell is requesting from you?
Makes sense to me.
Is there something wrong with this logic?
If so, what?
Max
Bravo Max! The Null is untouched yet, at least the consensus is ignoring it. Even the standard radiative GHG effect of 33 or something K is on very shaky ground, i mean the explanation for higher than black-body temperature of the surface (the average) using only radiative ‘forcing’.
Max, I’m suprised you miss my point (although I agree the moon-mass example would’ve worked better in the 19th century..). I’m just saying that even if we don’t have direct measurements of a quantity, we still tend to make estimates where possible (if we care), and these estimates are often useable.
Yet according to Jim, “Until we have the empirical data which actually measures climate sensitivity, any particular number is as good, or as bad, as any other.” ie. Jim is saying that our current estimates can all be thrown in the bin (except his).
re: null hypothesis
It’s the information in the data that’s important.
However, it’s simple enough to argue (not conclusively) that the the “null” hypothesis should be a postive effect rather than zero : our understanding of atmospheric physics predicts that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its clear-sky opacity to certain bands of IR radiation. Measurements show that the opacity is changing much as predicted by theory. Increased opacity means that some IR energy that would otherwise have escaped to space is retained (either thermalised or re-radiated back into the Earth system). It’s possible that there are processes that act so as to fully cancel out the increased opacity or more (leading to zero or negative sensitivity), but it’s not obvious that this should be the case, nor can we show that it is from the basic physics.
oneuniverse, you write “Yet according to Jim, “Until we have the empirical data which actually measures climate sensitivity, any particular number is as good, or as bad, as any other.” ie. Jim is saying that our current estimates can all be thrown in the bin (except his).”
You, as usual, misinterpret what I have said. First, I have no estimate of climate sensitiviy. All I say is that there is a strong indication it is indistinguishable from zero. This is hardly an estimate.
Second, estimates are good things to have. I never suggest that they be “thrown in the bin”. What I say is that it wrong to rely on these estimates until one has empirical data to support them. We simply cannot rely on estimates until they are supported by empirical data. I have said over and over again, CAGW is a very plausible hypothesis. What I object to strongly, is people trying to claim that the estimates make it possible to claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise with some sort of probability. I object to the IPCC giving the impression that it is very likely that some of the observed warming was caused by addiutional CO2. Estimates are never good enough to do this.
But you are never going to agree with what I am trying to say.
Jim Cripwell:
I guess not, since it’s backed by no quantitative analysis, as you’ve admitted. It’s merely a repeated assertion of yours, that CS is effectively zero (if not exactly zero) eg.
(from your comment on the “Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study” post, my emphasis)
Jim, if you want to reply to this, may I suggest the Open Thread, as this is not directly on-topic. (I should’ve done the same)
oneuniverse
“Null” is the German word for “zero”.
The AGW hypotheses posits an effect that is NOT “null” – moreover, the CAGW hypothesis of IPCC posits an effect that is pronounced enough to represent a potentially catastrophic risk to humanity and our environment..
Ergo, the “null hypothesis” is that there is NO AGW effect, and certainly that it is not so pronounced as to constitute a CAGW effect.
Let me give you another (19thC) “moon” example.
If I have a hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese, I have to provide some sort of evidence to support my hypothesis.
I can’t just call it the “null hypothesis” and ask others to provide evidence to falsify it.
Jim Cripwell is simply playing the hard line (according to Feynman) by asking those who posit the CAGW (or AGW) hypothesis to present empirical evidence to support it.
[That’s what’s known as following the scientific method, as I understand it.].
Max
Max and oneuniverse. I have remarked before that I comment on blogs mainly for my own education. If is educational to be able to put forward my ideas, and see comments from knowledgeable people. There comes a time when a respondent like oneuniverse ceases to discuss science, and merely reiterates the belief that I must be wrong, because CAGW has been proven to be correct. At this point my option is to cease continuing in the discussion. Doubtless it will come up again if our hostess fulfils her promise to have another thread devoted to climate sensitivity – I hope.
Max:
What you *can’t* do is claim that the “null” is true until shown otherwise (which is what Jim Cripwell is effectively doing). He’s making claims that go beyond saying that the data so far has been unable to reject the null hypothesis. For example :
(Jim commenting on the “Education and the Art of Uncertainty” post)
“What would Richard Feynman do” ? I’m guessing he’d ask for the data and analysis Jim used to arrive at his conclusion. That’s what I’ve been doing, anyway.
(Jim’s answer, that he’s carried out no analysis beyond an eyeballing of some temperature/time graphs, strikes me as inadequate, although it seems to have been enough for you.)
Jim: “There are no empirical measurements of value of climate sensitivity.” Some folks are working on it. Perhaps we can tell if some estimates are unsupported.
Anonymous. “New Paper Confirms Findings of Lindzen & Spencer of Very Low Climate Sensitivity to CO2” Analysis. The Hockey Schtick, January 14, 2013. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-confirms-findings-of-lindzen.html
———. “New Paper Finds Climate Sensitivity to CO2 Is About 63% Less Than IPCC Claims” Analysis. The Hockey Schtick, January 14, 2013. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-climate-sensitivity-to.html
Asten, M. W. “Estimate of Climate Sensitivity from Carbonate Microfossils Dated Near the Eocene-Oligocene Global Cooling.” Climate of the Past Discussions 8, no. 5 (October 5, 2012): 4923–4939. doi:10.5194/cpd-8-4923-2012
Björnbom, P. “Estimation of the Climate Feedback Parameter by Using Radiative Fluxes from CERES EBAF.” Earth System Dynamics Discussions 4, no. 1 (January 9, 2013): 25–47. doi:10.5194/esdd-4-25-2013
Curry, Judith A. “Climate Sensitivity in the AR5 SOD” Scientific. Climate Etc., December 19, 2012. http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/
Lewis, Nicholas. “Why Doesn’t the AR5 SOD’s Climate Sensitivity Range Reflect Its New Aerosol Estimates?” Scientific. Bishop Hill Blog, December 19, 2012. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-it.html
Pooh, Dixie
The New Björnbom paper you cited, which “confirms findings of Lindzen & Spencer of very low climate sensitivity to CO2” could be a bombshell.
Using satellite observations the study shows a (2xCO2) ECS of well under 1°C.
Is this another nail in the CAGW coffin?
How is IPCC going to handle yet another study based on actual physical observations, which shows that climate sensitivity is low?
A dilemma.
Max
Jim Cripwell wrote in
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-286174
There are no empirical measurements of value of climate sensitivity.
No, there aren’t. And there can’t be any, since “climate sensitivity” isn’t a physical variable. It’s an abstract, mathematical concept in climate science that helps with understanding to what degree the climate system represented by statistical variables responds to externally imposed changes of specific other, input variable.
You don’t want to demand that mathematical concepts must be measured now before the theory could be accepted as valid, do you?
” latest decadal simulation from the UKMO, which predicts basically no warming for the next 5 years” – JC
Isn’t that rather unfortunately sloppy language given your hectoring on uncertainty?
How does that prediction of “no warming” look at the upper bound of the confidence range??
Ah, I love the smell of scepticism in the morning.
Go Team Groupthink!
Skeptics quantify certainty, “skeptics” don’t. (They’d have nothing to be “skeptical” about if they did.)
True skeptics understand that given the type and level of uncertainty (arguably most of what we deal with in climate other than direct observations), uncertainty is not ‘quantifiable’ as in a pdf or something, but should be characterized in other ways. Read my Uncertainty Monster paper. Also my paper Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty.
That is a fair point. I meant quantified in the sense of being estimated. Do you think that uncertainty as seen in the climate debate cannot be estimated? If so, then how do you explain your estimates of uncertainty (during those times that your uncertainty monster hasn’t walked out of the room).
Joshua/BBD/Michael
You are all correct that the basic physics can still be correct and that warming may yet increase in the future. Imo, the basic physics is all that there is really a scientific consensus on. The basic physics does not cover the impact of potential additional forcings or quantify the lessening of those forcings. That is only theory.
What the three of you seem to be missing, it that it is becoming much more clearly understood that we still have much to learn regarding how CO2 impacts the actual earth climate and that Hansen and Mann over estimated its impact upon the system in total.
Imo, the entire debate boils down to two simple points.
1. How much will the earth warm/cool over the next roughly 40 years.
2. What do we reliably know about what other conditions will change and where as a result of #1 that are important to the lives of humans
I am not at all confident that we know #1 within a reasonably tight margin of error and I can find no evidence that we have reliable information regarding #2. From a practical standpoint this would seem to lead reasonable people to try to learn more and to only implement “no regrets” policies, but people are often less than reasonable aren’t they.
+ 1
Unfortunately Josh is only interested in philosophical debates about tribes, BBD in trying to supplant WEB as the leading ill tempered curmudgeon and Michael – well, if anyone can enlighten us as to what Michael is looking for here, other than perfecting the role of the braying jackass, I’d be interesting in knowing.
tim,
Happy to enlighten you.
I’m just here for the laughs.
Self-proclaimed ‘sceptics’ who are endlessly gullible, immune to reason, and with an aversion to evidence, are a bottomless pit of entertainment.
Michael–would you care to enlighten us and outline what policies you believe would make sense for the US to adapt and what those policies would accomplish?
Rob Starkey
Finite fossil hydrocarbon reserves (note I do not limit this definition to ‘fuel’) plus robust physics of radiative transfer, plus paleoclimate evidence plus uncertainty are, together, more than sufficient grounds to justify the rapid reduction in fossil HC use.
What is not justified is the ideologically-driven, self-interested rejectionism and obstruction characterising the contrarian stance. Hence the arguments.
BBD
Unfortunately you did not answer my question(s) and I’d actually appreciate your perspective in an answer.
If your goal was to reduce CO2 emissions in the US- what specifically would you do? Given the current relative inelasticity of demand for fossil fuel in the USA how much would you have to tax it to reduce consumption in order to meet your goal? Also and perhaps more importantly, what do you believe would result from such action?
BBD writes-
“Finite fossil hydrocarbon reserves (note I do not limit this definition to ‘fuel’) plus robust physics of radiative transfer, plus paleoclimate evidence plus uncertainty are, together, more than sufficient grounds to justify the rapid reduction in fossil HC use.”
Let’s examine your points.
Finite fossil hydrocarbon reserves- Does the fact that fossil fuel reserves are limited justify taking steps to “rapidly” reduce consumption. That goal would seem inconsistent with basic economics. What is the need to intervene in a supply and demand market that will have prices rise as supply eventually diminishes?
Robust physics of radiative transfer, plus paleoclimate evidence plus uncertainty are, together- Neither physics nor a examination of historical records demonstrate that warming is harmful to humanity overall or for the USA specifically. The concept of warming being harmful is based on the theory that forcings will accumulate and then as a byproduct of the warming bad things will happen such as sea level rising at an alarming rate.
Michael | January 17, 2013 at 8:58 am |
“I’m just here for the laughs.”
I’m here for entertainment and self-enlightenment. A great way of learning is to make some statement then be forced to defend it or admit it was wrong. You must have an aversion to being wrong for this to work as a learning aid. I hate being wrong.
“Self-proclaimed ‘sceptics’ who are endlessly gullible, immune to reason, and with an aversion to evidence, are a bottomless pit of entertainment.”
Warmist alarmists are even more gullible and there’s more of them so the entertainment opportunities are greater from the skeptical viewpoint. The problem is mostly that warmists have no sense of humor so if you try to have some fun on say Skeptical Science or Real Climate or any of those you get censored or banned for your trouble. Curry’s site is a good alternative. She doesn’t have the time to censor, doesn’t have the inclination to ban, is a moderate who attracts both warmists and skeptics, and is a well known expert in the field of climatology and atmospheric physics. The combination leads to a diverse group in the commentary from morons (both warmist and skeptic) whose value is entertainment-only to the best and brightest who can discuss math, science, and engineering at the highest levels. A good mix if your goal is both entertainment and learning. Swaying opinion doesn’t happen much by blog comments and in polarized subjects like this precious little opinion is changed at all by any media channel except as practiced at the very highest levels – large media outlets, speeches by national leaders, and so forth.
Rob Starkey
This is so wrong I’m not going to waste time arguing with you. See “ideologically-driven, self-interested rejectionism and obstruction” above. Consider *only* the cost to the taxpayer of drought-induced crop failure in the US:
And with html fixed:
Rob Starkey
This is so wrong I’m not going to waste time arguing with you. See “ideologically-driven, self-interested rejectionism and obstruction” above. Consider *only* the cost to the taxpayer of drought-induced crop failure in the US:
Warming will not be good for the US. And that’s *just* a foretaste and *just* agriculture.
Radiative physics. See above.
I think the US should first burn its stockpiles of hard-right Republicans, libertarian ideologues and other fundamentalist obstructionists. This bridging fuel should be used to hold down FF use during the huge, national build-out of nuclear and renewable capacity and the roll-out of a comprehensive national program of energy efficiency.
I think you are going to have to get used to a somewhat different world by mid-century. Best start now. It will lessen the shock.
BBD
Please try to not be emotional in responding.
Warming does not equate to a drought. It can be warmer and rain more correct? What reliable evidence do you have that there will be more droughts in the US because of more CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you believe that if we have less atmospheric CO2 that we will not have droughts?
With all due respect, your answer is very incomplete and does not make sense. You didn’t answer with any specifics as to what you propose to be done or what you believe it will accomplish and why.
Please keep trying. When you look at what can actually be implemented and why it will make sense reasonably, imo there will be less disagreement on the topic.
BBD:
The kulaks are to be liquidated as a class.. into bio-fuels !
Thanks, BBD.
In case it wasn’t clear, I profoundly disagree with your (“humourous” ?) call for politics-based genocide.
Rob Starkey
Do you know what a Hadley Cell is?
BBD
You are effectively demonstrating that you do not have creditable answers to my simple reasonable questions and that you only prefer to have what you believe to be meaningless adversarial exchanges.
Yes I know what a Hadley cell is and if you believe that is reliable evidence of future droughts in the US then there is little reason to continue this exchange.
So you are claiming that the Hadley Cells won’t enlarge as GAT rises? So pushing rain polewards from the temperate NH mid-latitudes?
You deny this on what basis, exactly?
BBD
From the 2nd paper:
“Simple and comprehensive general circulation models (GCMs) indicate that the Hadley cell may widen in response to global warming”
and
“Here the Hadley cell widening is assessed in current GCMs from historical simulations of the twentieth century as well as future climate projections and preindustrial control runs”
BBD- yes, I am highly skeptical of the conclusions reached based upon analysis of the output of a GCM that has been demonstrated to poorly forecast future rainfall patterns.
Do you accept and make decisions based on the output of a model that has been shown to be inaccurate? Why?
Misrepresentation by selective quotation and non sequitur:
Non sequitur:
Here’s the rest of it:
You are entirely reliant on misrepresentation and denial.
@BlahBlahDuh
Droughts come and droughts go. Overall crop production in the US on a decadal scale has never been higher. Evidently the downside of the occasional drought is not as great as the upside of longer growing seasons, fewer early and late season killer frosts, higher growth rates by CO2 fertilization, and greater drought resistance also conferred by higher atmospheric CO2.
Your argument is fatally flawed. Again. But thanks for playing anyway.
“Radiative physics. See above. ”
This is a very weak argument, IMO. You might as well suggest that my car needs no energy input to maintain a speed of 60MPH – that is basic physics (Newton’s laws of motion). If one can demonstrate that any particular instance appears to violate these laws, it does not mean that the laws are wrong, it could also be the case that there are other factors which have not been taken into account. In the case of the car, the obvious answer is “wind resistance” (amongst others, but this would likely be the most significant in the example given if one rules out such things as hills etc). For climate, it appears that we are not yet aware of what the other factors are, let alone their strength, but we *are* aware that they *must* exist and are currently calling them “natural variability”. Only time and measurements will tell us if these are temporary or permanent factors in GMST. IMO, until we can decide these issues, we cannot assume – for the purposes of public policy at least – that these other factors are both temporary and insignificant.
Rob Starkey, thank you for a post that illustrates four fallacies of skepticism/contrarianism/denialism:
————————————
Do NOT post your climate-change opinions if they contain
——————
☒ immorally short-sighted economics
☒ amoral market-first reasoning
——————
☐ slogan-based pseudo-mathematics
☐ outsider physical theories
——————
☐ personalization of issues
☐ personal abuse, scatology, obscenity, profanity
——————
☐ conspiracy theories
☐ claims of persecution
——————
☐ slogan-shouting
☐ appeals to ideological dogma
——————
☒ cherry-picking
☒ semantic quibbling
————————————
Your main mistake was: Illogically restricting climate-change discourse to forty years duration, when scientific evidence suggests that forcing reaches equilibrium only on a time-scale of centuries.
Please try to do better, Rob Starkey!
Personally I find it very interesting that when you get to discussions of:
1. What specific harms do you believe will happen to the US as a result of it getting warmer?
2. What reliable information leads you to your conclusions in #1
3. What policies do you propose should be implemented
4. What will your proposed policies cost the US taxpayer
5. What will your proposed policies accomplish
Those who seem to frequently throw around the “denier” label generally seem to shy away from providing coherent responses/plans.
Look, anybody who thinks that ~2C or more *global average* warming by late this century is going to be neutral or beneficial to the US hasn’t really been paying attention. We’ll come back to drought by and by.
I suggested that a fast-track build-out of nuclear and renewables would be a good backbone. More gas and less coal. Also some *serious* attempt at energy efficiencies. You might want to deny it, but Americans are among the world’s most profligate users of energy. The average American consumes about 250kWh per day. The average European (and average Briton) consumes half that – 125kWH per day. There is *lots* of room for improvement (I am British, btw).
But you… well let me guess. Pretend we ‘don’t know enough’. Make very sure this is basis for policy paralysis (aka ‘business as usual’) to keep all those vast corporations nice and fat.
In other words, the standard right-wing/libertarian blind insistence that Götterdämmerung capitalism is the way to go, come what may and damn the evidence. Also known as the ‘I’m all right Jack’ mentality.
BBD
Thanks for trying to provide a reasoned response. I suggest that you try to not to jump to conclusions so quickly about other’s perspectives since you are clearly wrong about mine, you may also be in regard to others. You are VERY prejudiced in your generalizations about other people that you classify as right-wing/libertarian. Argue the position and not the person.
I would not deny that American’s consumption of fossil fuels per capita is among the highest in the world. That is a fact.
Fast track building of nuclear power plants seems like a very creditable, no regrets policy. If governmental administrative regulation processes were changed these plants could be made operational far less expensively in the US and if an initiative were established to build multiple plants it would both further reduce the cost and stimulate employment in the US in the sectors of the economy that need the boost.
What I do not see is that what you suggest would have any significant impact on changing the growth curve for CO2 emissions worldwide. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that what you have proposed would reduce US emissions by 20%. That would not really impact the emissions curve worldwide for very long. Global CO2 emissions will continue to rise regardless of US actions.
BTW, what I thing you should consider is improved construction and maintenance of infrastructure. Greater storage capacity for water and far better maintenance of current infrastructure will most likely be the surest path to reducing harm to humans.
See – I knew you’d slip in a pitch for doing nothing.
The more credible projections estimate about 25% nuclear and 25% renewables as being realistic by mid-century *globally*. The US doesn’t get to be a free rider any more than Europe. We all need to get on with it, now.
BBD
You write- “See – I knew you’d slip in a pitch for doing nothing.”
I did nothing of the kind. You are very defensive.
Do you agree that we should implement proposals that make sense? Does it make sense to implement a proposal that would result in CO2 concentrations being at 450 ppm in 2050 vs. 460 ppm if the proposal also damaged employment? Do you believe it would impact the weather.
BTW- your point on hadley cells has virtually no relationship with potential US drought. To make such a claim in and of itself is silly.
Rob Starkey
And you are extremely disingenuous.
Really? See Johanson & Fu (2009) Hadley Cell Widening: Model Simulations versus Observations and Dai (2012) Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models.
Come on Rob, I asked you this ages ago – now let’s have an answer, not just abusive denials:
So you are claiming that the Hadley Cells won’t enlarge as GAT rises? So pushing rain polewards from the temperate NH mid-latitudes?
You deny this on what basis, exactly? Be specific please.
BBD
From the 1st link you posted- “There are, however, large differences in the observed and model-simulated drying patterns1, 2, 6. Reconciling these differences is necessary before the model predictions can be trusted.”
No, I have not written that it is not possible that a hadley cell could lead to periods of dryer conditions. What I wrote is that your simply writing “hadley cell” does not reliably prove anything. There is no reliable evidence that the US is heading towards drought conditions over a long term basis.
Argument by assertion:
Misrepresentation by selective quotation:
Here is the rest of it:
BBD
You appear to believe that an increasing Hadley cell will result in drought conditions in the US Midwest. Although I accept that it is possible, I stated I do not believe the theory that it could happen necessarily means that it will or is likely to happen.
If we look at actual data we see no evidence that it is happening. http://www.heartlandwq.iastate.edu/NR/rdonlyres/DB4F63FA-E263-4B0A-97D9-E6B314B370ED/133044/Guinan.pdf
The US Midwest has had extended periods of droughts throughout history and probably will in the future. Construction of more and better water retention facilities to provide water during extended dry periods would be a good long term defense don’t you agree since we have no way of knowing if reducing CO2 emissions will improve conditions?
Do you have any reliable evidence that the US will be harmed due to it getting warmer or is that your complete case?
Do you have any that it won’t? Or is denial and misrepresentation your complete case? Because that’s it so far, isn’t it Rob?
And not a word about all your misrepresentations and chicanery? Not the slightest acknowledgement? That’s called ‘bad faith’, Rob.
I’ve given you two references already (the ones you unsuccessfully attempted to misrepresent and are now ignoring as though they never existed).
Here’s another.
And another.
Why do certain people feel it necessary to deny something that most scientists agree on? Namely that global agricultural irrigation is on the edge of sustainability in many regions, including areas of the US, and that even a slight change in rainfall patterns across the temperate mid-latitudes would have extremely serious consequences?
A slight change that many scientists agree is already starting to happen, driven by the expansion of the Hadley Cells (see references above).
Let’s remind ourselves of the cost to the American taxpayer of just the merest foretaste of what is coming:
You are very confident for someone relying on a mix of misrepresentation and denial.
Nearly forgot. Here are some pretty pictures updated from an earlier review paper (Dai 2010). They were updated last year to show *less* drought evolving over time than the projections in the original paper.
I wonder if perhaps you don’t have a very clear picture of what is meant by projections of worsening mid-latitude drought over the C21st. This will help you visualise what is anticipated by many scientists who have actually studied the topic, as opposed to ‘sceptics’ who spend their time denying that there is any kind of a problem at all.
BBD
I tend to get bored when dealing with stupidity, so I am getting bored with this exchange with you.
You have not provided any reliable evidence that shows it is probable that the US will suffer any harms from it getting warmer. All you have provided is references to papers that used GCMs to theorize about what might happen in the future. These are the same GCM’s that have been demonstrated to do a very poor job of predicting future rainfall levels at any specific location or region.
I acknowledge that it is possible that droughts will occur as they have in the past. We simply have no reliable means to predict when or how severe they will be. A fear of what might happen with little or no reliable evidence to substantiate your fear seems to be a very poor basis to ask people to experience hardships.
Mostly what I deny is that people such as you are capable of sustaining a meaningful dialogue on this topic. The questions I initially asked remain valid questions.
1. What specific harms do you believe will happen to the US as a result of it getting warmer? On this you stated you fear droughts in the US?
2. What reliable information leads you to your conclusions in #1 You evidence consisted of a fear that an expanding Hadley cell would lead to these feared droughts.
3.What policies do you propose should be implemented?- You recommended building nuclear plants (which I did not disagree with.)
4. What will your proposed policies cost the US taxpayer- You avoided addressing this completely.
5. What will your proposed policies accomplish? Here is what you and many others completely fail to address. The actions you suggest would not markedly reduce worldwide emissions and would not meet your goal of having an impact on the climate.
Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe (prolonged?). Vice-versa for negative AMO. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive values of the AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dust bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite – warm AMO, more rainfall. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html
Drought over the US seems quite likely over the next decade or three with a warm AMO and cool IPO. Natual variation dominates.
Dr Curry
I have now lost track of the number of occasions when you have edited my comments but allowed offensive material in others to stand.
In this latest example, I simply *copied* the following sentence from Rob Starkey above and changed a single word:
I would *deeply appreciate* a slightly more even-handed approach to moderation.
I have a full time job, and I am very busy during regular working hours. I have deleted about 40 comments already today (a few have been yours). When i have time to moderate, i look at most recent 40 or so comments. So I don’t catch everything. So if you are not here primarily to engage in p***ing matches, then please remove the insults from your comments, and ignore any comments that you find unacceptable even if they are addressed to you. Also, you are making a large number of comments, recent stats say 81 out of the last 1000 comments on the entire blog.
I have just put one person onto moderation based on comments on the millikelvin thread
I suspect if you took a shorter time period you would get a much higher average, sort of like global warming. I only have a few minutes of time to make comments each day yet this morning BBD accused me of “trolling.” Pretty funny.
BBD – I think you have to realise that Dr Curry does not practise or preach unbiased science on this blog. She used to list Skeptical Science, Realclimate and Science of Doom on her blogroll but no longer does yet she still lists WUWT, Climateaudit, and Bishophill. Asking for even handedness in her blog moderation is probably a step too far.
louise, comments like this belong on the open thread, not here.
My blog roll lists the blogs I actually read on a regular basis (largely a function of frequency of posting and fresh material that might provide fodder for my posts), it implies no particular endorsement or not of the view points of the blog owner. For example, i think the Science of Doom is an excellent blog, but low frequency of posting and posts that aren’t directly relevant to my posts.
“Science of Doom….posts…aren’t directly relevant to my posts.” – JC.
Not even remotely.
Sad but true.
Judith, I’m sure you’ve heard (and probably considered) this suggestion before, but I think having help with moderation would be good for you. It’d only take one or two people to keep the blog free from the over-the-top nonsense we see on here at times.
BBD,
Despite your brushes with moderation, congrats on doing a fine job of advancing evidence-based reasoning (all too rare here).
A nice counter-point to the standard argument from assertion so well demonstrated by Rob.
BS,
Excellent idea.
Yourself and Max would do a fine job and keeping the conversation on the desired track.
Michael, if “Max” is manacker, I can’t imagine why you’d group him and I together. I don’t think I’ve said a positive thing about him. Ever. In fact, I’ve criticized him a number of times and I think he draws conclusions almost as ridiculous as yours at times. He certainly behaves better than you, but beyond me saying that, I don’t know why we’d be associated.
But for people who might feel like you do, I should point out months ago I told Curry there is a solution to avoid any volunteer moderator causing problems. Rather than delete things, the moderators would simply flag comments. Judith would then review the flagged comments and decide what to do with them. That would mean Judith would still have full control over moderation. She’d just have people to alert her to possible problems.
I can see why she might not want to do something like that, but at least I’m trying to be constructive.
BBD
You paint the specter of “~2C or more *global average* warming by late this century”.
But how realistic is this vision?
Not very, it turns out.
The first decade of this century saw no warming (Hansen’s “standstill”).
We now have 88 years left to 2100.
2C / 8.8 = 0.227C per decade.
But most estimates now project no warming for the next decade or so, so the 2C would have to occur over 78 years starting in 2023:
2C / 7.8 = 0.256C per decade.
Why is this is not reasonable to assume?
– We have never seen such extended rates of warming in the past.
– Several recent studies show that (2xCO2) ECS is very likely to be one-half to one-third of previous assumed range
The reasonable guess-timate of warming to 2100 is somewhere under 1C, not much different from what we have seen over the past 150 years (without any problem, thank you).
It’s an imaginary hobgoblin, BBD, you don’t need to be frightened out of your wits.
Max
Michael
Before you get your knickers all twisted concerning “sloppy language”, consider that UKMO has consistently predicted warming from AGW of between 0.2 and 0.3C per decade. The mere fact that even UKMO is now predicting “basically no warming for the next 5 years” is a major reality breakthrough for these guys.
As is the fact that even James E. “coal death train” Hansen has acknowledged a 10-year “standstill”.
The many recent studies based on observations, which all show much lower (2xCO2) ECS also provide “reality checks”.
How IPCC will handle all this new information is still up in the air, but (no matter what IPCC does) it will undoubtedly be a “game changer”.
Don’t you agree?
Max
First 13 days of 2013 on AMSU channel 5.
Get used to it. ENSO neutral is now a hottie.
Nice try son, but you need to look at Nino 3.4 Index SSTs, not atmosphere temps 4kms up, http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climimage.jsp?i=nino34
The index has been increasingly negative for the past 6 weeks and is now below -0.5degC (La Nina threshold), The last time the Index dropped at a similar rate was in May 2010
daily Ch5 is no longer trustworthy say both UAH and RSS. ENSO neutral is warm, but not as hot as it looks on the graph.
And evidence on the earth suggests RSS is underestimating surface warming. Maybe UAH, too.
JCH, “And evidence on the earth suggests RSS is underestimating surface warming. Maybe UAH, too.”
Well, the data indicates that there is a discrepancy. Yocum’s Rason indicates you tend to leap to conclusions.
JCH
RSS and USH show a slightly lower rate of warming than the surface record, contrary to what IPCC claims [AR4 WGI Ch.3, FAQ3.1, p.252]
Max
Yocum’s Rason
Yoakam’s Raisins?
Andrew
Bad Andrew, “Yocum’s Rason
Yoakam’s Raisins?”
Close enough, lil’ Abner wasn’t known for his spelling accuracy or proper use of Occam’s Razor.
Reblogged this on Howard Canitbe?.
It’s good that “the pause” is finally being conceded among some of the cheerleaders (except for our own lolwot of course). And one can only ask, what another 5 or ten years of no more warming will do to the CAGW case.But these folks will never just roll up the tarp and go home (why do I keep using sports metaphors). The sudden switch to “climate change” a few years ago which has led to the current “extreme weather” idea, really was pretty brilliant PR. I just loved the piece in the NYT’s a few weeks ago attributing snow in Jerusalem to “clmate change” induced “extreme weather. Hot, cold, snow, rain, drought, hurricanes (or no hurricanes)…all proof of what? Of themselves? It’s going to be a long fight.
You’re hopelessly confused. The earth is gaining energy. It cannot cool, and it ain’t staying flat. The SAT is 2 meters above the land surface, and somewhere around and about the ocean surface. It’s like wow, man.
The energy gain needn’t continue. Ice age. Hello. Earth calling JCH.
“The sudden switch to “climate change” a few years ago which has led to the current “extreme weather” idea, really was pretty brilliant PR.”
We may wish to consider the tactics of “change agents” and their recommendation to change the words used by the target public. These operate as “meme”s. For example (where “->” = “means”):
Sustainability -> Climate Change -> Global Warming -> Anthropogenic Global Warming -> Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming -> CO2 -> Fossil Fuels -> Bad Energy
I wonder: why it has always been CO2 that needs to be controlled?
I would expect you’re being sarcastic, but in the off chance you aren’t, or for any readers to whom it isn’t obvious, I’ll explain.
CO2 is the natural result of burning fossil fuels, which was (and pretty much still is) essential to the ongoing Industrial Revolution. Which in turn resulted in converting part (and hopefully all eventually) of the Human race from the horrible medieval lifestyle where over 90% were in grinding poverty to a lifestyle where all people have time to become educated, entertain themselves in their free time, and generally be real people rather than hopeless serfs.
The way so many of what Rand characterized as “industrial counterrevolutionaries” jumped on the Global Warming thing when it started up was sign enough what they’re after: to repress Humanity back to the dark ages and keep it there, with, presumably, themselves as the rare “aristocrats”.
This is not to deny the very real risks of rising pCO2 in the atmosphere, of which “greenhouse”-induced “global warming” is only one, and IMO not the potentially worst. But the extent/impact of the risk (if any) simply cannot be evaluated, it’s certainly no more of a “species-existential” risk than that of a giant asteroid collision, and the proposed “solutions” appear much more aimed at the modern happy lifestyle than really dealing with rising pCO2. Not to mention that there are perfectly good solutions that (probably IMO) wouldn’t impact that lifestyle.
AK Jan 19, 2013 1:55 pm:
True, a bit sarcastic, perhaps. Your connection to fossil fuels and the industrial revolution is correct and essential. However, I might take it a step closer to home than Ann Rand or her “industrial counterrevolutionaries”.
Given, that the government already controls that ~20% of the energy supply that is nuclear. The next step is government control / taxation of the ~70% of the energy supply that is fossil fuel (source: Input/Output tables of the United States).
That step is beyond “industrial”. That is to control and tax you: where you can afford to live, whether you can get to work, whether you have employment, whether you can afford to eat, whether or not you can afford to heat your home, take a bath or shower. Then, there is the capability for corruption of government: subsidies, grants and credits to favored contributors, bundlers and other supporters. Brave New World that has Agenda 21 in force.
For one example: Garrett, Major, and AP. “Administration Warns of ‘Command-and-Control’ Regulation Over Emissions” News. FOXNews.com, December 9, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/
Judith Curry
Thanks for “Hansen on the standstill” (or is it a “Mexican standoff”?)
Yep. Hansen has discovered “unforced variability” as another climate “control knob”.
But his emphasis on the ENSO changes to explain the current “standstill” begs the question: “if a La Niña phase is now causing a lack of 21stC warming, could it have been the unusual frequency and magnitude of 20thC El Niños (rather than GHGs) that were the principal cause for the late 20thC warming?”
I think it’s known that 1998 was so “hot” because of a big El Niño, but using NOAA temperature anomaly data for the top ten El Niño events alone, we arrive at around 30-40% of the total late 20thC warming.
Hansen glosses over this too much IMO.
Your “forecast” of another several years of no warming makes more sense to me than Hansen’s “back of the envelope” postulations, for the reasons you cited.
To your other point: I would agree that “black carbon” is a real pollution (and public health) problem (in addition to any climate impacts it might have) and, therefore needs addressing. Simple technology exists for resolving this at the source without much investment.
Just my thoughts.
Max
An analogy: I stop drinking 2 bottles of wine each evening and notice that my morning headaches are gone, so I tie the two together and conclude that not drinking 2 bottles of wine each evening has caused a reduction in morning headaches. Don’t I also conclude that the wine caused the headaches in the first place?
Hansen has not “discovered” natural variation. Lol.
JCH
Nope. Hansen obviously is not the “discoverer” of natural variability of our climate – but he is now acknowledging that it is an important “control knob” (with regard to the present “standstill” in warming). He just hasn’t openly gotten his mind around the possibility that the same natural variability may have been a major cause of the previous warming, which was blamed on GHGs.
Max
Don’t bother, JCH.
Max is still struggling to understand what ‘evidence’ is.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/12/draft-u-s-climate-assessment-report/#comment-285959
“Don’t I also conclude that the wine caused the headaches in the first place?”
So if you remove the wine from your house, you should get less headaches! It is not the drinking of the wine itself that causes your headaches, it is the presence of the wine in your vicinity! Get rid of it! Encourage your neighbours to get rid of it! Ban it from production and we will all suffer less morning headaches! Your basic research has “proved” it is harmful, we MUST tax this substance out of existence! Anyone who denies this is “anti-science” and should be ignored – for the greater good of the people.
Spread the word, brothers and sisters.
Oh wait, I might have been a little too quick off the mark there… what do mean it’s too late? Surely we can change the legislation? Surely people will understand we made a mistake? Why are these people who ran with my idea seemingly immune to reality?
Judith – do you really not understand the difference between saying that global temperatures are at a standstill and saying that global warming as “paused’ or “stopped?”
Joshua – do you really not understand that if the globe isn’t warming, then there isn’t global warming?
This has to be mental illness.
“You might think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.”
;-)
Well of course there can be global warming even if the globe isn’t warming. Never underestimate the topsy-turvy power of climate science.
The “pause” cannot be a cause of optimism as it is perfectly congruent with unrelenting warming of the globe. Now, those who want to get under the covers and have a happy solo with the surface air temperature will have momentary optimism and a good time. That’s about it.
JCH
You’ve likely seen it before, but there’s a picture that captures this rather well.
Tomcat –
Our methodologies for measuring global warming leave something to be desired. That considered, measurement of mean surface temperatures would not be sufficient to indicate that the globe isn’t warming – at least on any relatively short-term time scale.
Not that this would mean anything, of the total data that has been compiled for AGW science theory, what percentage of the total has been ‘adjusted’, Joshua?
Joshua, as always you leave me flummoxed. I know you’re a champion hair splitter and naval gaze par excellence, but what could you possibly mean? If it’s not warming, well then, it’s not you know, warming. That is, the warming has paused. What is confusing to you about that?
PG –
If you believe that adding CO2 warms the globe, then you believe that if you add C02, you warm the globe. The warming of the globe does not “pause” or “stop” if you continue to add CO2.
It is illogical to say that you don’t doubt the physics of AGW, and to also say that despite adding ACO2 to the climate, global warming has “stopped” or “paused.”
It is entirely logical to say that you accept the basic physics of AGW, and that despite global warming, for a short period of time there has been no observable increasing trend in global mean temperatures.
Joshua,
Do you begin to see that you’re immune to real world data? If we don’t warm for another 20 years say, will you continue to insist that global warming has not paused? What about 100? At what point…and is there such a point, will you concede that AGW is relatively unimportant with respect to its effect on climate?
Joshua is essentially just engaged in spin – he wants to redefine “global warming” to mean the presumed CO2 “global warming effect“.
Right Tomcat. So we’ll all just have to use our imaginations and pretend it’s really, really hot out, and the snow on the ground is merely a hallucination, and the failure of the seas to rise, is simply an artifact of faulty measurements. The theory is all. All hail the theory.
“for a short period of time there has been no observable increasing trend in global mean temperatures”
That’s OK, Global Warming only ever existed in the mind anyway. No changes there.
Andrew
Following on from what Joshua says, there are several potential explanations, some or all of which could be in play:
– Less DSW reaching the surface (more reflective/less transparent atmosphere)
– More energy accumulation in world oceans (more efficient mixing downward from upper ocean layer)
– Reduced solar activity (SC24)
– Recent La Ninas (per Hansen)
– ‘Cool phase’ PDO
It’s perfectly possible for the radiative physics to be spot-on and for CO2 concentrations to increase while surface and tropospheric temperatures warm only slowly – at least for a decade or two.
PG –
I am obviously not a scientist – but I’d say that if there is no demonstrable (anomalous) increase in global mean surface temperatures, no demonstrable (anomalous) increase in ocean temperatures, no demonstrable (anomalous) increase in sea levels, no demonstrable (anomalous) acceleration in the melting of glaciers and sea ice, no (anomalous) demonstrable increase in plant and animal migrations consistent with global warming, no demonstrable (anomalous) increase in droughts, precipitation, hurricanes, etc., for on the order of 100 years, then it would be logical to say that global warming has stopped or paused – because such a development would seem to me to be proof that the theory of AGW physics is incorrect.
As I understand the theory, you’d need a scale on the order of 100 years or so to reach that kind of conclusion. In the interim, we will have people arguing one way or the other – because their main interest is in being “right,” confirming bias, fighting proxy wars, etc.
However, if you accept the basic physics of AGW theory, then you wouldn’t logically anticipate those developments.
I think arguments about the estimated range of the magnitude of sensitivity are valid. As such, arguments about the magnitude of those expected anomalous increases also seem valid. But it seems to me that such arguments would be focused on a range of likely magnitude – not whether any anomalous increases will be observable. Thus – if we go back to your question – concerning whether there will be warming for 100 years – suggests to me that to logically pose that question, you must doubt the basic physics of AGW.
PG –
To be more succinct, to answer your questions I will quote someone who knows something about the science (Pekka):
I think that BBD’s comment also provides an answer:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-286283
BBD without the effing and blinding…wow. Perhaps he has some points worth considering after all.
BBD
In your “logical explanations” you left out the most logical (Occam):
– The (2xCO2) climate sensitivity is much lower than predicted by the IPCC climate models
Max
Joshua,
I’d like to step in here.
There is no disconnect between believing that CO2 is a GHC and will cause warming and acknowledging that the observed rate of increased warming indicates other factors, which may or may not cancel out any net warming from CO2.
It is entirely possible the warming from increasing concentration of CO2 leads to other factors which have a negative feedback. In fact that, in my opinion, has always been one of the sticking points in the debate. Our understanding is far too insufficient, particularly with regard to clouds. The catastrophic aspect of AGW relies heavily on the assumed positive feedback of water vapor. In this case the ass in assumed identifies where the value comes from.
tim –
The problem there seems to me to be the same as that which runs throughout this discussion. There is a distinction between global warming and global (in particular air) surface temperatures. They are not one and the same.
Again, I will quote Pekka:
Your second point is more interesting to me. Is it your contention that more is added to the earth’s climate (from a ACO2 emissions) and that as a result, negative feedbacks will occur that will result in a net negative to the amount of heat in the earth’s climate? How would work, exactly. Where did that added heat go? You’re saying that adding heat to the whole Earth system will subtract heat to the whole Earth system (by virtue of negative feedbacks)? Again, consider that surface air temperatures does not equal the whole Earth system.
“…added heat,” you say? Are you giving orders to the Sun?
Read Tim again, J. Nowhere does he say that negative feedbacks will do what you suggest. Why is that in your head?
Is it poor reading comprehension or a lack of knowledge about feedbacks? Apply some ‘critical thinking’ to that question.
==================
Wags –
Perhaps only semantic point, or perhaps a more substantive point, but either way, point taken. Terminology (specificity) is important.
Not “added heat,” but increase in the heat content of the whole Earth system.
Joshua,
You sound as if you think the earth’s climate is a closed system. That energy comes in and stays. Now i am far from being the best person to provide an explanation, as it’s been 17+ years since graduate school and physics was never my strong suit to begin with – I struggled through it, while most other subjects were a breeze.
The simple version – increasing CO2 leads to a slightly warmer atmosphere. Warmer air has increased water carrying capacity. Increased carrying capacity means increase in clouds (extent of cover, duration, type). The increase in clouds has its own feedback effects, both positive and negative. We don’t know what the sum is of those impacts. What if it is negative? Are you of the opinion that this is impossible?
The models all assume the feedback is positive. While understandable due to the characteristics of water vapor, it is still an assumption. Assumptions can be in error.
AGW seems impuissant, and some people regret that; they would prefer catastrophes.
===========
Which strikes me as breathtakingly narcissistic. Better that we all fry than be proven wrong. You’d think the pause would be cause for cautious optimism. “Perhaps atmospheric sensitivity it not what we thought given that almost 1/3 of Co2 emitted since the start of the industrial revolution has taken place during the period when the pause has occurred.” Nothing of the kind. From the NYT”s et al, crickets.
If it warms the people can be convinced through narrative that it is a bad thing and their own fault, even though a warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. Only if it cools, can this ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd’ be halted, even though cooling would be a massive social catastrophe. The human race bears an awful burden through its dependency upon guilt crossed with susceptibility to story-telling.
==================
No Joshua I dont understand the difference. Thrill me with your acumen.
Yes
there is more to the globe than the air
but
AGW acts on the air.
So if the air isn’t warming, is AGW having any discernible effect?
Tomcat
A common misconception entirely attributable to the simplistic presentation of the science to the public.
If one looks at AR4 WG1 5.2.2.3 the real picture emerges:
Follow the link above for detail. The associated graphic illustrates the huge disparity between OHC and everything else at a glance.
“paused” = “standstill” = “stopped” (temporarily)
But, what the hell, it’s ALL “temporary”
Max
Globally it did not happen, so it’s not temporary. The SAT is a region of the globe. HadCRAPPY3 is a region of that region. HadCrut4 is a slight improvement of that region of the region.
JCH
“Globally it did not happen”
Tell it to Hansen – he thinks it did (see lead post).
Max
And, yeah, people really did land on the moon, JCH – it was not staged on a parking lot in New Mexico.
Joshua | January 16, 2013 at 10:07 am |
“Our methodologies for measuring global warming leave something to be desired. That considered, measurement of mean surface temperatures would not be sufficient to indicate that the globe isn’t warming – at least on any relatively short-term time scale.”
Funny how they didn’t leave anything to be desired until the measurements became contrary to AGW dogma.
You really don’t get how transparent it is that you embrace dogma instead of science, do you?
Yet another “Mommy, mommy, they did it firrrrssssttt.”
Internet discourse has elevated juvenile pleading to a high art.
I prefer to look at it this way: temperatures are not rising nearly as fast as predicted. Now, where I come from, if your predictions don’t match the results, then you need to go back and adjust your models. But before you do that, it would be smart to increase your understanding, not just change parameters till you get a fit, which is fairly meaningless. You can do whatever you want, but I will wait and see.
Another of the increasing and avoidable costs of AGW’s CO2 obsession is that of carbon black. Carbon black is a true pollutant. Carbon black’s ability to melt ice is ignored only by AGW extremists. Carbon black is something that could be mitigated by international treaty and technological advances. Yet the AGW faithful fixation on CO2 and deceptive characterization of it as a pollutant has cost us yet another opportunity to do something good and instead pursue the unachievable and dubious.
lurker
Black carbon may cause the planet to warm a smidgen and ice to melt a nit faster (yawn!) but it’s REAL problem is that it is a pollutant, which is harmful to human health.
It is relatively easy and inexpensive to stop at the source.
And you are right, a small piece of the billions being wasted on the “war against CAGW” could solve the problem.
Max
Plan B:- Carbon Black. So that’s why they called it a Carbon Tax.
Solutions for “black carbon pollution”:
1. Carbon tax (zero effect)
2. Carbon filters at source (100% solved)
Solution 1. would cost humanity trillions in ongoing higher costs for everything with an energy component.
Solution 2. would cost a number of polluters each a small amount of initial investment.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Max
hunter,
you’ve touched on a theme I keep trying to draw people’s attention to. There are no shortages of real problems in the world. Worrying about one that to date is mostly make believe is truely something to be afraid of.
Another example to black carbon are coral reefs. The threats to the health of reefs are fairly well known. “Ocean Acidification” is highly questionable as a threat and even if so, is so far down the rankings were one to list the threats as to be not worthy of mention.
I could probably spend the rest of the afternoon listing further examples of supposed problems associated with CO2 that either don’t exist or have causitive factors of far greater impact than CO2 ever could. Until we live in a world of infinite resources, wasting those we have chasing after the boogyman CO2 is the ture crime.
There’s a nice irony here. Some of that black carbon is from Indian villagers still burning dung cakes to cook food. Burning firewood elsewhere in the third world is more black carbon. Yet more is from coal plants in countries to indigent for scrubbers.
Free these people from primitive subsistence with cheap energy. Oh, and save the ice and the corals, too.
========================
Most black carbon pollution was eliminated in developed countries decades ago. The developing countries will eliminate it once their industrial revolution makes them wealthy enough. In the meantime they have better things to do which is primarily reducing poverty.
Yes, given cheap energy, this problem will solve itself.
=======
Both problems. Who could ask for anything more?
========
OK, OK. ‘The love of cheap energy is the solution of all wicked problems.’
=======
By the way, ‘cheap’ sounds so cheap. Preferable, ‘de bon marche’.
==========
Statistically, CO2 does NOT permanently drive global warming
Hansen expects:
However Beenstock et al. 2012 show that statistically, CO2 is NOT a permanent driver for global warming. See:
Beenstock, M., Reingewertz, Y., and Paldor, N.: Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 3, 561-596, doi:10.5194/esdd-3-561-2012, 2012.
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/
Beenstock et al. results show that other papers suggesting Granger causality are due to spurious regression. Polynomial cointegration with explicit testing for significance is required.
In the long term, it is very highly likely that Hansen will be sadly disappointed in his expectations of increasing CO2 driving global warming.
Let us not forget that the record of surface temperature was corrected to lower values. The standstill may be on paper. In reality, the trend is steady warming, smaller than was suggested. If it is a standstill, then how do we justify steady temperature record breaking?
New weather stations. If a station only came into being in the 80s, it will appear warmer. But if you look at stations that existed in the 20s and 30s, it is not warmer.
Paging Steven Mosher…
Perhaps ‘standstill’ is a euphemism for ‘pause’, but recall all the flack that David Rose received a few months ago for writing about the ‘pause’.
That’s because his piece was, and remains, dishonest garbage. Rose claims the “pause” has lasted 16 years. Hansen’s “standstill” in the five year running mean has lasted maybe half that. You can see here what has happened to the 5 year running mean during the 16 year “pause” claimed by Rose.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
You can see the pause clearly in Hansen’s own data here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
People can judge for themselves whether 16 years or half that is more accurate, and so who is talking ‘dishonest garbage’.
I’m not sure the “pause” is clear at all from that graph. here is what Wood for Trees says (based on the same data)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2013/trend
andrew adams
The “pause” (or “standstill”) is pretty clear to me.
In describing the current “standstill” in global warming, Hansen has been cautious in stating: “The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade.
Rose made a claim for “16 years”.
1998 was an unusually warm ENSO year. A trend starting in January 1998 to today (15 years) would show no warming in most records.
If the trend line is started in January 2001 (12 years) it would show slight cooling in most records.
However you state it, there is a current “standstill” in global warming.
How long it will last is anyone’s guess. As I understand it, Hansen has made a guess that it will reverse in the next year or so. Judith has made a guess that it could last around 5 years, at least. The Chief (here) has made a guess that it could last one to three decades. Some solar scientists have guessed that it could last to 2050.
No one really knows.
Least of all, IPCC.
Max
Max,
Have you got that ‘evidence’ thingy straight yet?
Michael
Yep. No problem.
Never had one.
Follow Feynman and you can’t go wrong, Michael.
How ’bout you?
Max
Hopefully you’ve moved on from this dismal attempt;
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/12/draft-u-s-climate-assessment-report/#comment-285959
…..but I’ll await the evidence to that effect.
Rose is what he is.
16-year BS (neck deep)/10-year standstill/ recent RAPID warming!
An ordinary least squares trend estimate is not appropriate for the temperture time series. See the Beenstock et.al. paper mentioned above.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013 is another plot from a less biased source.
Andrew Adams: “here is what Wood for Trees says (based on the same data)”.
1997. What a convenient starting date! Try 1998.
GISTEMP LOTI (GISTEMP Land-Ocean Temperature index). What adjustments have been applied to that raw data?
HADCRUT3 = flat
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to:2013/trend
HADCRUT4 = down from 2001
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend
Please not that in Figure 5, the units of ΔF are W/m2/Year, or it is an acceleration of forcing, which is in a standstill. In other words, the forcing is constant and global warming and surface temperature rise are still in progress.
The issue is not only the standstill, pause, hiatus, summer vacation, whatever you want to call it.
The issue is that concurrent with the pause in temperatures are extremely high emissions–one third of all human emissions having occurred since 1998.
This conversation is mistakenly about the existence or lack thereof of global warming. What the conversation should be about is evidence accruing for a low value for atmospheric sensitivity.
Hansen and Rose were describing different phenomena: Rose was describing global warming, Hansen was describing global mean (surface) temperatures. They are not one and the same.
If you take the time derivative of global surface temperature, what do you get? warming, or cooling, or a pause/standstill seem like the three choices.
When Hansen talks about the current decade being the warmest on record, he is talking about “global mean (surface) temperature”.
When he talks about the current “standstill”, he is talking about “global warming”
The second is the time derivative of the first, as Judith has explained.
A lot of people seem to get these confused.
Max
The planet Earth, has a dynamic weather system that is incapable of pausing.
manacker, This is so confusing and does not make sense.
I believe that the stand still is only on paper following surface temperature correction to lower values. The trend has been and is warming, definitely.
Nabil Swedan
– The trend for the past decade has been one of cooling (as Hansen correctly states)
– The trend for the three previous decades was one of warming.
– The trend for the next decade is ?????????
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/to:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:1993/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:1983/trend
Max
Seems to me that he’s talking about the trend in surface temperatures.
The problem Joshua is that the global temperature has been used to stand for the whole of global warming. There’s a name for that rhetorical device, willard can help you.
To the extent that is true – it is a problem in that it feeds the useless aspects of the debate. For those looking for proxy battles, it works out quite conveniently; people can talk past each other until the cows come home. Climate warriors get what the want.
My sense is that the nuts and the bolts of the science makes no such conflation. The manifestations of global warming – such as global mean (surface) temperatures – are recognized as multivariate, and as such, single measures of trends such as surface temperature are not expected to be monotonic.
Joshua,
I think your admittedly incomplete knowledge of the science is leading you astray (not being snarky). A pause in surface warming is the most meaningful pause there can be in the climate system because of its physical role and also because as you know it’s where the effects are felt. So take a “fuzzy” view of the surface to include the lower atmosphere and the topmost ocean. The pause/standstill/slowdown is evident throughout. It is possible that it disappears when ENSO and ice melt effects are not properly accounted for. Continued warming of the middle and deep ocean could go on for years as a delayed response to warming of the surface that has already happened, and by itself doesn’t say much about the future. So whatever the label, the apparent pause is relevant. It is certainly possible that the ocean can shift heat around in a way to change the surface energy balance, and “reverse” GW on some time scale (a la Judith, not likely to be more than 30 or 40 years at the most, and probably less).
However, it seems to me that when you add the energy involved in the atmosphere and the energy involved in melting arctic sea ice, the surface warming trend no longer shows a pause. I am amazed that I haven’t seen AGW activists highlight this. I mean, they highlight the ice melt but fail to tie it to the “pause”.
Sorry a bit rambl-ish.
Please not that in Figure 5, the units of ΔF are W/m2/Year, or it is an acceleration of forcing, which is in a standstill. In other words, the forcing is constant and global warming and surface temperature rise are still in progress.
Billc –
I need more explanation there. I see that it is the most meaningful in the context of the rhetorical war – but are you saying that surface warming is the most meaningful pause because theoretically it is what causes the most significant positive feedbacks? What if we take sea surface ice melting as an expression of increased heat in the whole Earth system; wouldn’t that also initiate significant positive feedbacks?
Did you mean to say that it is possible that the “pause” in global mean surface temps disappears when ENSO and ice melt effects are properly accounted for?
Yes – that is something that I’ve wondered about. Isn’t increased ice melt essentially an indication of increased energy in the whole Earth system (and assuming that it doesn’t correlate with increased solar radiation or increased loss of energy away from the whole Earth system, wouldn’t that be a result of increased ACO2 regardless of the trend of global surface temperatures – assuming that there is no corresponding drop in surface temperatures?)
So again – seems to me that debates about the magnitude of sensitivity are consistent with skepticism (as opposed to “skepticism”), and debates about the physics of AGW are consistent with skepticism (as opposed to “skepticism” – and despite the attempts of some to throw those who doubt basic AGW physics under a bus) – but to say that you don’t doubt the basic physics yet assert that global warming has stopped is either illogical or the view of a “skeptic” (as opposed to a skeptic). If someone is interested in debating the magnitude of sensitivity, then there is a working assumption of the basic mechanism of increased ACO2 = global warming. Thus, there cannot be a “pause” or a “stop” in global warming to accompany increased ACO2 emissions – although there certainly could be a “standstill” in the trend of increasing surface temps (which would be consistent with AGW theory).
Poster Boy.
=======
“but to say that you don’t doubt the basic physics yet assert that global warming has stopped is either illogical or the view of a “skeptic” (as opposed to a skeptic). ”
Well, you are not very charitable with your interpretation. That reveals your bias. I don’t doubt the physics and global warming is at a standstill.
That is not illogical. By global warming I mean the symbol of global warming. The difficulty you are having is that you want to let one side play fast and loose with terminology when it suits them and then refuse to grant others the same latitude when it suits them. The global temperature index has been promoted as a symbol of global warming. When people objected to this, you were not there to settle the debate for folks. Now that the symbol of global warming has a few warts, you want to draw the distinction. Maybe you should go back and agree with those of us who objected to using global temperature as a symbol for the science.
kim –
Don used to enjoy humping on my leg at every opportunity. Although it’s a matter of little consequence, I can’t say that I was disappointed that he found a better way to spend his time. Just to let you know, I won’t be offended if you also take up an alternative activity. I might suggest reading poetry.
I can’t help myself when you murmur sweet science.
=================
As long as you add that caveat – it seems to me that you aren’t being illogical.
That is no doubt true. However, I have also read statements to the effect of “when the (heat) energy in the Earth’s whole system increases,there will be multivariate indicators, among which are sea surface level increase, ice melt, increased precipitation or other weather extremes, etc.” It isn’t as if everyone on the “warmist” side has exclusively equated increased surface temps and global warming. While I have been pointed towards surface temps as the most telling indicator of global warming, I have also, as a non-scientific casual observer of limited intelligence, been quite aware that there are a variety of indicators and no single indicator is sufficient or expected to be monotonic.
So let the chickens come home to roost. That seems largely insignificant to me as compared to promoting greater understanding – unless your motivation is basically political, butthurt or an inferiority complex.
Josh,
A good example of why I try to stay out of technical discussions. Too easy for me to be wrong and get my knuckles wacked by the school marm (with apologies to Dr Curry on the “marm” analogy).
Clearly there is a difference between stopping and standing still. On can easily stand still and not stop and likewise could be stopped but not standing still. And both are clearly different from immobile and stationary.
They all have unique meanings known only to Joshua and Michael and BBD.
Bill
You are doing this. Along with all the other ‘sceptics’ here.
Joshua,
Right, the most significant positive and negative feedbacks because it’s the primary driver of the radiation balance for both absorption, reflection and emission, especially if you count the surface-lower troposphere system. Surface ice melt has albedo feedback, but it’s part of my “surface” overall, that’s why I brought it up later. As far as the increased heat in the system, since the medium to deep ocean represents the lion’s share of that and is much more globally distributed than ice, I think that’s where pure energy balances can become less relevant. The surface and lower troposphere is where most of the energy balance is determined and the oceans are just following along. If the surface isn’t warming for a century, the ocean (and thus to some extent sea ice) could still be warming that whole time just to catch up to a past surface warming.
Yes.
No. Internal variability cannot keep GW at bay forever, but a strong enough external forcing could (aerosols, sun, cloud changes, all together, whatever).
This may be me advertising my ignorance but if the OHC is of interest as against the SST why do we use a parameter of ‘global temperature’ which is an amalgam of SST and air temperature over land rather than a total heat content or a temperature normalised say for mass or thermal density( normalise to the properties of water say)? Surely the use of the air temperature just introduces a volatility into the assessment hence all this drivel about 15 year linear trends etc.
You start to assess our vast ignorance of the vasty deeps.
========
kim
Confucius say: Nevah contemplate vast problem with half vast data.
Max
Kim: Great comment!!! We ought to learn from the bard, especially about people.
Glendower: “I can call spirits from the vasty deep.” Hotspur: “Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?” Henry IV, Part I, Act 3
Because human beings, being creatures of the surface, had a semblance of a surface temperature record. The halibut did not.
I like ‘semblance’. And without what the halibut ain’t got, we ain’t got squat, either.
=======
Joshua save, The or Y?
JCH
Indeed.
And, living in the interior or along coastlines, humans measured sea levels for centuries there where they count for humans, at various shorelines, with tide gauges.
These measurements are still quietly going on, but the big brouhaha is about the “satellite altimetry” record (which shows faster increase in SL).
This measures the whole ocean except areas near coastlines that satellites cannot measure, with an error range that is greater than the trend it is supposedly measuring.
Go figure.
Max
Would you calculate a meaningful operating temperature of an engine with some simple mean of the air intake, water jacket and exhaust temperatures?
If that was the way it was done by experts, and all authorities, then YES.
To compare then to now you must do the same. Apples to apples.
I would just look at the land air record and the sea record separately ( and the upper atmosphere temperature and so on) and form a thesis around that and not combine them (just as I would look at the various operating temperatures on the engine). I gave the latter example as a reality check. I think the combined ‘temperature’ is unhelpful and tends to distort impressions, leaving aside issues such as UHI etc.
Maybe the “experts” have it really bloody wrong technically but have a marketable product. It would not be the first time.
Yeah, well it would be an odd time to start insisting that it is NOT global temp, now.
It’s not a standstill – it’s a plateau before cooling.
My thought, too, but Good and Gracious Heavens, I might be wrong.
============
kim
I hope you’re wrong but fear you may not be.
(And where I live we do NOT need a lot of cooling.)
Max
Edim, you write “It’s not a standstill – it’s a plateau before cooling.”
Something I wrote many years ago. The start of a cooling phase that follows a warming phase is at the maximum value of the warming phase.
Let’s just enjoy the view from the top of the roller coaster.
Ah, Ferris Wheel, downtown eastside, full moon.
============
If you look at Figure1 in the Hansen document cited by Judith Curry, you can find lots of mini cooling periods during the 20th Century. I believe it’s safe to predict there will be lots more in the current century. If these mini cooling periods make you happy, and you live long enough, you may look forward to many brief but happy times in the years ahead.
Max_OK
Mini-cooling periods were nice, but this latest “standstill” is not a “mini”
That’s the difference.
And it’s also why Hansen is talking about this one.
Max_CH
Max_CH, the difference is not what you may think. The difference is natural variability hasn’t pushed the 5-year temperature average down this time as it did during the 1940’s, 1960’s, and other periods (see Hansen’s Figure 1), a fact fake skeptics don’t like to acknowledge.
BTW, the effect of a temperature level is not immediate, as you can see for yourself by doing a simple experiment at home. First, try chewing pasta after boiling it for 1 minute. Next, try chewing pasta after boiling it for 12 minutes. Do you notice a difference? If not, make an appointment with your doctor.
After watching “Doomsday Volcanos” the other evening on Nova, I’ve decided that climate change is sooo yesterday. Why worry about climate when Iceland is due to become some sort of super volcano?
Hansen has been waiting for El Godot for a while now.
Perhaps ‘standstill’ is a euphemism for ‘pause’, but recall all the flack that David Rose received a few months ago for writing about the ‘pause’. It is good to see Hansen paying more attention to unforced variability.
Agree.
If Hansen accepts that, there is no major argument between we sceptics and the AGW advocates. At least we agree on the observed data. But I wish they replace “the nth warmest” with a “flat trend”. What a game the AGW advocates are playing?
If Hansen has accepted the flat trend, how about lolwot?
Standstill, for a warmist, is a euphemism for “I really don’t understand what is going on but I can’t admit to that”
nth warmest works with me. that is consistent with flat trend.
This makes me anxious to see next year and the year after, but I don’t want to get older faster, so I will wait.
I hope Congress makes the EPA wait. What the EPA does can and has damaged our Energy Production and Economy.
Judith (or anyone else who might know)
Do you know when the Met Office revised the model they are using to make temperature forecasts? How well has the updated model done in predicting observed conditions since it was revised? Do you know what characteristics the model is designed to forecast other that temperature and how well it has done since it was revised on reasonably accurately predicting those characteristics?
Rob, you write “Do you know when the Met Office revised the model they are using to make temperature forecasts? ”
I dont think the Met Office has said anything on this issue. We know that the original forecast was based on Smith et al Science August 2007. What the Met Office seems to have done, though they dont explicitly state this, is to agree that Smith et al is wrong. But they have not issued a follow up to Smith et al, so we we do not know what the new forecast is based on.
I think it is interesting that Smith et al was a decadal foerecast, starting in 2004. One would have thought that any replacement would have been a decadal forecast starting is 2011 or 2012; i.e a forecast to post 2020. The Met.Office seems to be hinting that maybe decadal forecasts are not much good.
Jim
Somehow it doesn’t seem possible that the updated MET forecast was done without a model being used to support the assessment. They are probably right that decadal forecasts are of very limited value today becuase we currently do not understand the system well enough.
I was very suprised that Judith made the prediction that she did for the next 5 years.
Rob, you write “Somehow it doesn’t seem possible that the updated MET forecast was done without a model being used to support the assessment.”
I agree completely. The point I was trying to make is that it is difficult to work out what the Met. is getting at, until we know on what they based their new forecast. I wonder when they will tell us.
Rob Starkey | January 16, 2013 at 9:58 am |
The Met Office used the latest model in the new decadal forecast. The previous forecast used a model that contributed to AR3 so was released in the late 1990s. The system that initialises the model and which was a focus of the original research (Depresys) is substantially the same, I understand.
During the GMST pause since 1998, CO2 concentration increased by 26 ppm.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/compress:12
Year after year after year the CO2 increases but the GMST does not budge as shown:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.075/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/detrend:0.075/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.06/plot/gistemp/from:1998/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.06/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/scale:0.0000001/offset:1.4/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/scale:0.0000001/offset:0.8/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/scale:0.000001/offset
Huston, there is a problem!
girma
Over a 15-year period CO2 increased from 363 ppmv (end 2007) to 393 ppmv (end 2012) = 30 ppmv
If we take the 12 year period (since end 2000) the increase was from 370 ppmv, or 23 ppmv.
But, you’re right – no matter how you rationalize it, this is beginning to look like a BIG problem for the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC.
No wonder Hansen had to go on record to try to play it down.
Max
Pause/Standstill denialism is rife over at SkS.
Anyone checking RC?
dashound, is that you…
SkS is always the last to “get the word”
Don’t worry. They’ll eventually catch on.
Max
Judith, the gif animation of the UKMO’s 2011 and 2012 predictions is also telling, because they’ve also shortened the decadal prediction to 5 years:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/figure-1.gif
From my post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/ukmo-lowers-5-year-global-temperature-forecast-and-omits-the-second-5-years-of-the-decadal-forecast/
Regards
Thank you Bob Tisdale!
It’s great to see a True skeptic such as Dr Curry linking to the solid scientific work of David Rose and the GWPF and WUWT.
With skilled opinionators like those, you know you’re getting True science.
Even better that JC includes a personal hand-waving decadal ‘prediction’.
Solid blog-science, offered up with none of the vexing uncertainty that we sometimes read about here.
And, “…with solar playing a role in this as well.” – is really going out on a scientific limb ‘prediction’-wise.
Dr Curry says she trusts the UKMO prediction – but somehow fails to mention that the UKMO eviscerated Rose’s DM column on the ‘pause’.
( http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ )
Odd, that.
Then we are told by the Georgia Tech Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences that Dr Hansen’s reasoning is “simplistic” – Even though Hansen et al actually QUANTIFY forcing changes (including solar variance) in the cited doc.
Irony just doesn’t get any better than this.
Hilarious. Go team!
The problem is of course that we cannot presently quantify these forcings. Confusing conjecture with fact is the basic fallacy of AGW and Hansen et al personify this fallacy. Dr. Curry presents a conjecture as just that. Conjecture is the soul of science but it must always be mere.
Your contempt and disrespect for an accomplished, courageous woman is really quite telling.
“The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aerosol forcing is extremely uncertain3,4. Our comparison of the various forcings (Fig. 6a) shows the aerosol forcing estimated by Hansen et al.9 up to 1990; for later dates it assumes that the aerosol forcing increment is half as large as the greenhouse gas forcing but opposite in sign. This aerosol forcing can be described as an educated guess.”
Ya. quantified. don’t try to oversell Hansens guesswork against Curries guesswork unless you have an axe to grind. Frankly, if anybody had a definitive answer to the ‘stand still’ question they could win a nobel prize. What we have are educated guesses ( factors that hide the c02 effect ) and ignorant triumphalism on the part of some skeptics. Dont be more stupid than stupid skeptics, you make our team look bad
Alarmist
It appears that James E. Hansen has just joined the “skeptic team” (as you define it).
Hey, who’s left on the “hockey team”?
Max
Now that even our friend Michael from Potsdam does not deny anymore that “it” is not going up, we will have to discuss wether it is a “plateau” before cooling or a “faux plat” (Lance Armstrong would know the difference).
‘standstill’ has widespread currency in geological processes as does hiatus.
Dr K.A. Rodgers
Other “scientific” terms that have been used to describe the current period of slight cooling:
“speed bump”
“lack of warming”
“pause”
often preceded by the word “unexplainable”, “temporary” – (or both)
Wording (actually “wordmanship” or “framing”) has become important in climatology.
“It ain’t what you say, it’s the way that you say it,
That’s what gets results – Yeah!”
Max
You forgot “travesty”!
2012 was the ninth warmest since we started keeping track in 1880. We still have not had a year warmer than 1998. We have record snowfalls in much of the Northern Hemisphere, again this year. Earth was as warm or warmer during the Roman Warm Period and during the Medieval Warm Period and during the many warm periods of the past ten thousand years. This warm period is not different. This warm period will end with cooling just like it they all always do.
It is clear that CO2 is not having much success in keeping the earth temperature on track with the model projections. It is time to consider alternate theories more seriously.
We are at or near the upper boundary of temperature as shown in the ice core data for the past ten thousand years. The oceans will not cool quickly and we will see open Arctic and record snowfall for some years to come. Right now, the glaciers are still losing ice at their tails as their heads grow, and the ice fields are still losing ice at their edges as new ice falls on top.
This warm period will turn cooler as this new ice on top of ice fields and on the heads of the glaciers gets heavy enough to cause the ice to advance again and increase albedo. This will happen on a schedule that is similar to the cooling after the peak of the Medieval Warm Period and similar to the cooling after the peak of the Roman Warm Period.
It is easy to reverse the Albedo. When the oceans are warm and the Arctic is open, it snows more than enough to replace ice that melts in the warm season. When the oceans are cold and the Arctic is closed, it snows less than enough to replace ice that melts in the warm season. This cycle is naturally well bounded. Ice on earth can only be replenished when the oceans are warm. We are in a necessary and desirable phase of the cycle.
Look at the actual data. Snow accumulation goes up and down as temperature does.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page11.html
The major glacials worked the same way, but the amount of ice and the time it took was much longer.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page8.html
Show any actual data that says this warm period has parameters outside the bounds of the past ten thousand years, other than the CO2 which appears to be powerless and unable to take us out of the normal well bounded range of the past ten thousand years. There is nothing in all the forcings with a set point, other than the temperature that Arctic Sea Ice Melts and Freezes. My “Pope’s Climate Theory”, “Tom Wysmuller Theory”, “Ewing and Donn Theory” does have a reasonable explanation for the cycles with a set point.
Nicely presented., sir. And greatly appreciated, But of course, much to reality based for the true believers. MIss KIm is right, it’s going to take a few year of outright and substantial cooling.
The snowfall has started, it will continue and the cooling will come. Look at the peak of the Roman Warm Period and the peak of the Medieval Warm Period and the cooling that followed for a time estimate.
Herman Pope said:
“The snowfall has started, it will continue and the cooling will come.”
_____
Uh, what kind of nonsensical talk is this? Given that late spring/early summer NH snowpack has been showing a decline for many years, we can hardly get a cooling from that. We are getting more winter snowfall because there has been more energy in the atmosphere which allows more moisture in the winter atmosphere and more snowfall. But that greater energy then leads to warm summers that melt all that snow away. The data shows that we are headed in the exact opposite direction of any glacial advance. Sorry to burst your “skeptical” bubble…
Snow is good for Oklahoma’s winter wheat.
Skeptical
And winter snow extent has shown an increase…..
(Duh! That’s when there is the most snow, too. Hmmm…)
Max
The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)
Ice extent has been decreasing from the peak of the Little Ice Age until the peak of the modern warm period. The oceans are warm and the snow is falling and the cooling will follow. You want evidence of instant cooling. The medieval warm period did not go instantly into the little ice age. It does take some years. The snow extent does melt away, now, but the snow and ice volume is piling up on top of the glaciers and ice packs. This will advance later and bring the cooling.
Re manacker’s comment on January 16, 2013 at 5:45 pm
Max_CH, the same type of wheat is not grown year around. Winter wheat (there are several kinds) is planted in fall, and spring wheat is planted in spring. I know that may sound odd to you, but trust me.
It might be a good idea for you to refrain from commenting on anything about agriculture, unless you like to showcase your ignorance.
Max_CH, I apologize for my previous reply to your comment on snow. I read too fast, and mistakenly thought you were talking about wheat.
R. Gates The snow that falls on the bare ground is melting every year. The snow that falls on the top of snowfields and glaciers does not melt and that does pile up and will collect enough weight to cause the ice to advance into the next cool period. look at the data. a cool period always follows a warm period. This happens because more snow always falls in the warm periods.
R. Gates
There is no mistake. The increased snow is falling!
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/heaviest-snowfall-in-a-century-hits-moscow/475102.html
My skeptical bubble is alive and the snow is still falling.
“It is easy to reverse the Albedo.” Do you know where to find actual measurements of the Earth’s albedo? Of many different kinds of albedo, I am most interested in one that measures the fraction of insolation that is not being absorbed.
Other than snow, I am sure clouds also play a role.
Curious
Five to six times as much incoming solar radiation is reflected back to space from clouds as from the Earth’s surface (of which only a fraction is from snow or ice).
Snow and ice has a higher albedo than the land (or water) that is underneath it, but if it melts, a portion of the incoming radiation is still reflected back to space.
Clouds exist at all latitudes, especially in the tropics over the ocean, where the sun rays are most direct and intense; ice and snow only exist at higher latitudes, where the incoming solar radiation is less intense.
So, yes, your statement is correct:
“Other than snow, I am sure clouds also play a role.”
Max
Actual measurements of Albedo are available.
The latest earthshine report is due to be published soon.
I was told that it does show that Albedo has been steady since 2007.
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/
It sure is interesting to watch the machinations Hansen (and many of our local activists here) go through as they slowly get painted into a corner regarding the theory of high CO2 feedbacks. They truly don’t want to look silly, but that is the the risk you take when you stick your neck out as they have.
It is truly a character test in how one responds to this data once you put your neck on the line. If lack of warming doesn’t cause you to constrain the high end of your climate sensitivity estimates, than what will?
You get the sense with latest draft Climate Assessment Report that the data simply doesn’t matter anymore. These reports (and AR5?) are going to say the same thing regardless of what the trends in temperature, sea level rise, and extreme events dictate.
I’d like to be proved wrong here. SREX had given me some hope.
But the models said…
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8491/8387352174_3d3e26ae06_z.jpg
As I’ve said before, we need to be mindful about where the energy is accumulating in the climate system. And it’s not the atmosphere, nor is it significantly (yet) the land surface. Amazingly enough, it’s all in AR4.
That didn’t quite come out right… ;-)
“Amazingly enough, it’s all in AR4.”
Could Climate Science get any amazinger? I think not. Soon it will produce squiggly lines the likes of which have not been dreamed of. They’ll be going everywhichway! ;)
Andrew
Save your breath BBD. Remember, according the the “skeptics” the amount of energy accumulating in the oceans is far too uncertain and we’ll need another 50 years to really get a good grasp in it. The fact that a great deal of the melt in Arctic sea ice is affected by the accumulating heat in the oceans and the fact that energy is advected to the Arctic via the oceans in much larger amounts than via the atmosphere and the extreme loss we’ve seen in Arctic sea ice volume as a result means nothing to the “skeptics”.
Gates
You wrote- “The fact that a great deal of the melt in Arctic sea ice is affected by the accumulating heat in the oceans and the fact that energy is advected to the Arctic via the oceans in much larger amounts than via the atmosphere and the extreme loss we’ve seen in Arctic sea ice volume as a result means nothing to the “skeptics”.”
What is it that this means to you? Is something happening that is clearly damaging the lives of humans as a result?
Skeptical gates said, Save your breath BBD. Remember, according the the “skeptics” the amount of energy accumulating in the oceans is far too uncertain and we’ll need another 50 years to really get a good grasp in it.”
Not really, some do have a grasp on the reality of the rate of ocean heat uptake.
Toggweiler for example estimates that the opening of the Drake Passage improve the rate of ocean mixing enough to produce roughly a 4 C magnitude “abrupt” change in “global” surface temperature. The approximately 100 Sverdrup flow of the ACC introduced with the opening of the Drake Passage would allow a complete overturning of the world oceans in roughly 400 to 2000 years. Given the current approximate rate of OH uptake, the “average” ocean temperature would increase by 1 C degrees in roughly 500 years. The current “average” temperature of the oceans is then likely due to events that happened 500 to 2000 years ago.
Since BBD is convinced that delayed responses to forcing on the order of 500 years can have no significant impact on “global mean surface temperature”, pearls before swine pops into my head.
BTW, the ~ 100 Sverdrup ACC can have an annual OH uptake impact on the order of 6 x 10^ 22 joules and SSW events on the order of 10^22 joules, the current rate of OH uptake is likely not unprecedented. They are really, really big numbers though.
Rob Starkey,
The Arctic ice and general state of the cyrosphere in and around the Arctic is immensely important to everyone who lives in the NH. There is a huge influence of the Arctic on global weather patterns. Global weather patterns influence food production. If you like to eat, you probably want to pay attention to any long-term changes that are going on in the Arctic. The weather in Kansas can be influenced by how much Arctic sea ice there is. The Earth is that interconnected.
Now, this is not meant to be alarmist about it, so don’t take it that way. It could well be that an ice-free summer Arctic might lead to greater food production. But just like upsetting a beehive, you take a chance that they’ll be inspired to make you more honey, or sting you multiple times…
Gates
I would agree with what you have written about the changes in the arctic. I would disagree with the comparison to hitting a beehive however. There is no evidence of any dramatic negative impacts.
cap’n
So why the steep rise in OHC from around 1970 then? It all just kicks off forty years ago after 2ky of doing nothing? Where was the energy all that time? In the deep ocean? So why isn’t the deep ocean cooling as energy is transferred to the upper ocean layer? Why is deep ocean heat content increasing as well?
Pigs are highly intelligent.
BBD wrote: “So why isn’t the deep ocean cooling as energy is transferred to the upper ocean layer”
———————————————————–
For the same reason as ice floats
phatboy
OHC (energy) transfer from deep ocean to upper ocean. Deep ocean OHC:
– falls
– increases
– stays the same
?
BBD, “So why the steep rise in OHC from around 1970 then? It all just kicks off forty years ago after 2ky of doing nothing? ”
First, if I knew exactly why, I wouldn’t be chatting with you. Second, it “kicked off” more likely 100 to 150 years ago. Forty years ago is just when the data quality may have improved to the point we can measure the change.
Starting 33 years ago, we started getting even better data, but unfortunately it is in the lower troposphere. That is not such a bad thing though, since the lower troposphere data compared to the SST data makes a fair Watt meter.
https://picasaweb.google.com/118214947668992946731/January162013#5834144062922809074
Comparing the SH SST to the SH oceans lower troposphere, the rate of OH uptake took a turn in roughly 1995. Now you are impaled on the horns of a dilemma, do you use the lower troposphere with tons of fudge factors to explain the “pause”, the less than stellar and short term OHC data to explain there is no “pause”, or do you look at all the data objectively and say, “hey, there is a discrepancy here. Perhaps someone screwed up?”
What makes you think there’s transfer from deep ocean to upper ocean?
BBD, oops wrong data set,
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hfFQyZ3TQSI/UPcabY3WutI/AAAAAAAAGtI/NRRf1tcMxAg/s731/SH%2520ocean%2520SST%2520versus%2520lower%2520troposphere.png
The first was the SH stratosphere minus SH SST, this one is the SH lower troposphere minus the SH SST, Same shift point though.
phatboy
Nothing. Read. I was just responding to your comment – I didn’t realise you were just playing games in order to derail the discussion.
capn
No, you don’t get to make assertions like ‘OHC started to rise 150 years ago’ etc. It’s called ‘making it up as you go along to suit your own agenda’.
My response: not playing. We deal with the data we have. We analyse rationally. We don’t make stuff up.
You can respond to my comment in this spirit if you wish.
BBD, how you interpret the data is your own personal choice. I try to verify the data as much as possible. Steric sea level rise is a good verification of OHC. It is not perfect, none of the data sets are.
There is a major question in my mind of the wisdom of using a “global” surface temperature to begin with and a “global” surface temperature based on a SST which is more related to Tmin averaged with a land based “Surface” temperature that is based on T Ave. So instead of blindly quoting nonsense, I actually try to verify using all the data that is available. That quirky habit of mine, not believing data, and being curious led me to the Toggweiler papers which appear to more accurately explain the role of internal variability and the time constants involved.
Since you are quoting AR4, you obviously are either not aware or are ignoring the recent issues with the temperature data sets diverging from the models. You can continue to ignore the totality of the data and practice mushroom logic to your hearts content, but “current” best estimates indicate “sensitivty” to atmospheric forcing is in the lower end of the outdated AR4 estimates.
BBD, sorry, didn’t realise you were just being sarcastic – you’re the one who suggested heat transfer from the deep ocean
Skeptical
You bring up some valid points on Ocean Heat Content. Bravo!
To go into a bit more detail:
– Data prior to ARGO (2003) are dicey and spotty – just prior to ARGO the few expendable XBT devices were known to introduce a false warming signal – before that data are even more unreliable
– First ARGO results showed slight cooling from 2003 to 2008 (Willis’ “speed bump”); the ARGO data was then “corrected” to show slight warming instead (I have not seen a publication where the reason and extent of the “corrections” made is made transparent for all to see)
– Ocean warming is being reported in the tiniest units possible (joules) – a unit that means nothing to the general public, but sounds “big” (because there’s a bunch of them); if it were reported in degrees C (which people can relate to), the warming would be a few thousandths of a degree per year
So, yes, a bit more transparency, a better unit of measure and a few decades of data are required before these data mean very much (as you’ve stated).
Max
Max,
You haven’t seen it, because you haven’t looked for it.
Isn’t avoidance of finding the answers a great way for maintaining skepticism a a good reason for putting quotation marks around correction to imply possible fraud.
That’s exactly what you are doing time after time.
Oh, c’mon, Pekka; we don’t know much about OHC because we haven’t adequately observed it. You know that.
==================
As I’ve said before, I have a great deal of respect for Josh Willis, and I also feel sorry for him. I suspect him of being one of the more conflicted people in climate science.
============
When modelers are visited by the Phantom of Doubt, they can go tinker with their toy models and make the world go round again; when Josh hosts the unwelcome visitor he’s got to go herd 3,000 cats bleeping meowling cacaphony at him.
===============
phatboy
Stop the feeble attempts at framing please. It’s tiresome. A quick re-read of the thread would have informed you of the facts:
– Cap’n proposes OHC increase is emerging ‘energy in the pipeline’ stored up to 2kya. This *requires* two things:
– A location for the energy store, which can *only* be the deep ocean
– A *trace* left in OHC *change* as energy emerges from the deep ocean into the upper ocean layer
I simply point out that Cap’n must be mistaken because *if* this were happening *then* deep ocean OHC would have to fall as upper ocean OHC rises. It is basic physics. Sorry if you found it confusing.
You will note that while Cap’n waffles, he does not ever address this fundamental disproof of his hypothesis. Nor its implications: that OHC rise is being driven from *above*, not below. This is demonstrated by the observed increase in *deep ocean* OHC as well as upper ocean OHC. Furthermore, the increase 0 – 2000m is observed in all major ocean basins (Levitus et al. 2012 supplementary information, Fig. S1 and S2). How a single overturning cirulation could be responsible for approximately simultaneous OHC increase 0 – 2000m in all major ocean basins is a mystery to me – and to oceanographers too. In short, it’s nonsense.
There is, of course, a scientifically coherent explanation which I raised in my first comment on this mini-thread. See AR4 WG1 for the details.
I notice that Cap’n and others were at pains to ignore this information and in haste to bury it under nonsense.
Careful Pekka – if you express your anger at manacker’s serial misrepresentions you might end up in moderation.
BlahBlahDuh January 16, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
“Pigs are highly intelligent.”
Don’t flatter yourself.
By the way, the accumulation of energy is “all in AR4′ came out perfectly. Don’t you hate when Freudian slips like that happen?
For whoever it was wanted to know what the problem with Argo floats was, this is a useful paper:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JTECHO608.1
PDF here in case of paywall problems:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3o.pdf
See Section 2 on Argo data errors.
BBD, do you ever pass up an opportunity to be obnoxious?
phatboy
We both know you were trolling. You are still doing it now.
OK, I’ll quietly ignore you in future – kindly return the favour
Where’s lolwot? He’s been denying the pause for months now. Care to comments lw?
There is a glib truthlessness about everything coming from government these days. It is all we can expect.
It’s tragic—totally immoral. And, it’s ‘kinda funny when even the weather is political.
“I myself have killed all gods in the fourth act out of morality! What should now become of the fifth act! Whence now take the tragic solution! Must I begin to think about a comic solution?” ~Nietzsche
Waggy, you have a troubled mind. Get yourself a nice cushy government job, and all your worries will go away.
One inexpensive change for the better to imporve the workings of government would be to require passing a simple math test.
Waggy, if you fear the math problems on government job exams, you might warm up beforehand with the linked practice exam for firefighters:
http://www.fireprep.com/free_50_question_firefighter_p.html
Hansen has not been very creditable to many in the circles of people I talk to about climate. We did send a letter to the head of NASA, Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator, about our concerns to the damage to the reputation of NASA.
When I started reading “ Global Temperature Update Through 2012”, my first thought was that he was improving. Then I read:
A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade, but it cannot explain the standstill, because it is known that the planet has been out of energy balance, more energy coming in from the sun than energy being radiated to space.10 The planetary energy imbalance is due largely to the increase of climate forcings in prior decades and the great thermal inertia of the ocean. The more important factor in the standstill is probably unforced dynamical variability, essentially climatic “noise”.
Earth is Out of energy balance! That is not something I believe. The rapid temperature changes between day and night and between winter and summer and just day to day tell me that earth is excellent at staying in energy balance. If Hansen has earth energy out of balance then he has errors in his work that need correcting. He has not improved. He is still not very creditable.
We know that the albedo of earth in the peak of the Little Ice Age was higher than albedo in the peak of the Roman Warm Period and in the peak of the Medieval Warm Period and in the peak of the Current Warm Period. We know that albedo has been decreasing since the Little Ice Age into what may very well be the peak of the Current Warm Period. Hansen, and the other alarmist Consensus Climate people do ignore albedo. Of course it gets warmer in a period in which ice retreats and albedo decreases. The temperature difference between a warm period and a cold period is explained by the difference in albedo. The CO2 difference between a warm period and a cold period is explained by the basic physics that says the vapor of any gas that is in water is a strong function of temperature.
Open a hot and a cold carbonated drink and observe the difference.
JC said:
“I predict we will see continuation of the ‘standstill’ in global average temperature for the next decade, with solar playing a role in this as well.”
______
This “seems” like a reasonable prediction given the peaking of the AMO, sleepy sun, etc.– if we were dealing with a linear and non-chaotic system that was not undergoing accelerating external forcing with multiple feedbacks. In other words, this prediction would seem reasonable if the nature of nature was linear and not Extremistan and we could count on a predictable continuation of the current flat-temperature period. In the investing world, we would call the more likely future the “whipsaw”– lulling you into guessing one way, and whipping back the other. Given that we know we have an ongoing external forcing, if you think you can count on the “standstill” happening– most likely you can’t.
With an ice-free summer Arctic looming as a real possibility in the next decade, this will only add to the nonlinear effects. The odd behavior of the NH polar vortex this winter is probably a good indication that the next decade will be quite indicative of Extremistan.
Well since we have already lost half the ice in this century according to the warmists, then this positive feedback has already happened and still we have not warmed at all this century.
We have continued to pump all this CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate,. We have had all this ‘pipeline’ warning, that was there at the start of the century according to you and your ilk and we have had all this positive feedback from ice albedo and yet not an ounce of warming.
Still doesn’t stop you saying we are all going to burn if we lose a bit more ice though does it.
Its amazing that we haven’t warmed frankly, given the immense amout of hot air emitted by you warmists.
Alan
Of course Alan,
You seem to want to measure “warming” by troposphere only? You seem to discount the total energy of the Earth system which is more in the oceans than the atmosphere? You want to discount the large changes we’ve seen in the cryosphere? All of these show net energy increases in the Earth system. Do you even understand how we could get cooling at lower latitudes in the troposphere if the Arctic vortex is disturbed. Measure the temperature outside your freezer door (say, 6 inches away) and then open your freezer door and measure the temperature. Wow, you get cooling, but the air inside that freezer is warming, just like the Arctic warms when you disturb the circulation in the winter.
The Climate clique predicted a massive acceleration of the warming rate of the troposphere in this century not a trivial increase in the temperature of the oceans.
In the absence of any troposphere warming, what are the effects of a warming of a few hundreths of a degree of the oceans?
Alan
Alan,
Have no idea who the “climate clique” is, but the greater energy storage capacity and greater thermal inertia of the oceans combined with the fact that net heat flow is always from oceans to atmosphere would dictate that the oceans would show more consistent long-term warming than the atmosphere. What you seem to fail to realize though is that a few tenths of a degree of temperature spread out in the ocean equates to eventual huge temperatures in the atmosphere when that heat is released. The Arctic is already seeing the early signs of what warmer oceans can do.
R Gates wrote: “What you seem to fail to realize though is that a few tenths of a degree of temperature spread out in the ocean equates to eventual huge temperatures in the atmosphere when that heat is released”
—————————————————-
By what possible mechanism can a release of heat from the ocean warm the atmosphere to a higher temperature than that of the ocean surface, as you seem to be implying?
Regarding JC’s prediction of a global temperature standstill for the next decade, The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) said on Jan 16, 2013 at 1:23 pm:
“… this prediction would seem reasonable if the nature of nature was linear and not Extremistan and we could count on a predictable continuation of the current flat-temperature period. In the investing world, we would call the more likely future the “whipsaw”– lulling you into guessing one way, and whipping back the other.”
____
Well, similar to the whipsaw, given the following definition:
“A quick price movement followed by a sharp price change in the opposite direction. An investor expecting a continuation in the direction of a security’s price movement is likely to experience whipsaw in a volatile market. This risk is very important to short-term traders but inconsequential to long-term investors.”
http://invest.yourdictionary.com/whipsaw
The short-term in global temperature is also inconsequential to the long-term.
Max_OK said:
“The short-term in global temperature is also inconsequential to the long-term.”
____
Exactly. And additionally, the atmosphere is far more fickle (lower thermal inertia) than the oceans. The oceans have been showing a pretty consistent accumulation of energy over at least the past 50 years of around 0.5 x 10^22 Joules per year down to 2000 meters. Some of this is of course finding its way to the Arctic, where it is causing some pretty huge changes.
It seems the “skeptics” love to focus on the fickle troposphere over whatever periods suit them rather than look at other (larger) areas of Earth’s energy system that are not so fickle and nor as subject to as much short-term noise.
R Gates wrote: “The oceans have been showing a pretty consistent accumulation of energy over at least the past 50 years of around 0.5 x 10^22 Joules per year down to 2000 meters”
——————————————————————-
That would equate to an average ocean temperature increase of 0.0016C per year, or 0.08C over the past 50 years.
As an investor, I never put much stock in short-term market forecasts. As an observer of climate change, I never put much stock in short-term forecasts of average global temperature.
Skeptical and Okie
Agree with you both that “short term blips” are meaningless.
Come back and talk about ocean heat content when you have, say, three decades of reliable ARGO data, OK?
Any “data” prior to 2003 is next to worthless, so all you’ve got now is a “short term blip” from 2003 to today – and the folks have had to “correct” the ARGO data to change a slight cooling trend (2003-2008) to a slight warming trend (2003-2012).
Max
Can someone help me put here? Maybe MattStat?
Hansen etc al. use a figure labelled: “Fig.3 Frequency of occurrence of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980
mean) for Northern Hemisphere land” . Ignoring the issue of his using only Northern hemisphere and only summer local anomalies, does this figure statistically mean anything other than “Summers have generally been a bit warmer?”
Kip Hansen
Your namesake has just discovered that summers are warmer than winters (comes from having an indoors office job).
Max
Thanks. (PS: Jim is no relation).
Judith Curry says “GWPF reports on the latest decadal simulation from the UKMO, which predicts basically no warming for the next 5 years. Should we believe the UKMO model prediction? Well, I have more confidence in the UKMO prediction than in Hansen’s back of the envelope reasoning.”
_____________
You can be even more confident in my prediction for the next 5 years: the temperature average for the next 5 years will be higher, lower, or the same as the average for the previous 5 years.
Max_OK
Can I quote you on your “prediction”?
Or was it just a “projection”?
Or maybe an “extrapolation”?
I’ll reword it slightly this way (to meet the specs)..
“After a careful analysis of the Earth’s past climate fluctuations, climate specialist, Max_OK has predicted that it cannot be ruled out that the temperature average for the next five years will be higher than for the previous five.”
OK, Max?
Max_CH
Max_CH, I am offended by your mealy-mouthed rewording of my prediction Your “it cannot be ruled out” is nothing but a wishy-washy cover-your-butt cop-out, which I don’t need.
I stand by my my prediction that the global temperature average for the next 5 years will be higher, lower, or the same as the average for the previous 5 years.
Max_OK your “prediction” was always perfectly clear, dunno why Max_CH would want to change anything. The way you have worded it, Its the only prediction one can make with 100% confidence (given that the Earth will continue to function as normal).
Thank you, Peter. Yes, my prediction is “perfectly clear.” It’s also perfectly worthless.
The Met Office says there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998
And, the Met Office has rewritten its projection history:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=95&page=56#86769
However, there’s little to choose between the Met Office and Hansen – this offers an explanation for Hansen: “The reason for Hansen’s periodic revision of the climate history: the data in the last two decades has not matched his predictions. It most closely matches his scenario C – reduced CO2 emissions.”
Met Office / Hadley
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm
“Hansen removed most of the dips in the data (i.e. ca. 1910, 1923, 1947, 1965, 1975).
“Hansen shows 2005 as the warmest year whereas Hadley shows 1998 as the warmest year.
“Hansen’s 2-sigma error bars (green) are very misleading compared to the range exhibited in the Hadley data.”
However, there’s little to choose between the Met Office and Hansen – this offers an explanation for Hansen: “The reason for Hansen’s periodic revision of the climate history: the data in the last two decades has not matched his predictions. It most closely matches his scenario C – reduced CO2 emissions.”
Hold onto your hats: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/global-warming-inventor-warns-that-world-will-end-in-3-days/
..2 days
..1 day
“It also looks like black carbon is looming as more important than previously believed, see article at WUWT.”
So what if the big ice cube at the north pole melts?
Carbon dioxide levels not driving temperatures is what this is all about, still demonising coal.
I can’t help wondering if James Hansen’s “Confessions of a Statist: the Great Warming Standstill” represents the beginning of his exit strategy. After all, he has led a NASA team of climate scientists to sing from one hymnal. Engaged in theatrics with his Senate open window stunt and his characterizing coal cars as Holocaust death trains. He has been out front into making rational CAGW skeptics keep their mouths shut. He has a lot of onlookers as he acknowledges the science screaming from various data sets.
What do you say when you are wrong? You have carried the fate of human kind upon your broad shoulders only to awaken, as if from a mid-summer’s night dream, to realize you have mislead others. What is, is not what you thought was.
Steve Mosher, who knows Hansen, believes Hansen is a great man and great scientists. How does Hansen turn around to Steve and say…I believed I was right.
When one has as a legacy…”I thought I was doing the right thing” it is really really hard to go quietly into the night, but it is the preferable exit.
Did you read the Hansen document cited by JC ?
Max_OK
Yes. What’s your point?
Why did you wonder what you wondered after reading Hansen’s document?
Well, I wondered because it seems obvious that unless he is lying to himself, he knows something is wrong with his beloved catastrophic vision. It’s not a travesty, it’s a tragedy.
=========================
Your “wondering” is wishful thanking.
Hansen rocks !
huh, I would hardly say I know hansen. I’ve read his work. I’ve listened to him speak in person. he is a great scientist. he makes mistakes like everyone does. Oh course, he believes he is right. Dont you?
Define “great scientist”.
define “define”
Bill Clinton? Is that you?
Oh course, he believes he is right. Dont you?
No, I believe I am more likely to be right then wrong.
A great scientist? Good grief, your bar is very low..
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/25/the-team-defends-paleo-phrenology/
He’s the snake oil salesman who said that the CRU emails “had no effect on science” because he is fully at ease with corruption of data in his screaming global warming doom mongering, kept in his position by his anti coal nuclear interests.
He’s not a scientist, he’s a puppet, a stooge. And he together with the others who have provided not a jot of evidence for any of their claims with no qualms about corrupting the science process will continue to be the joke of real science.
See: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm
“NASA’s James Hansen is the United States’ leading scientific alarmist about global warming. He believes global warming is accelerating. Apparently it’s his revisions of the data that are causing the acceleration.
“This document examines the historical revision in the global temperature change as defined by Hansen over the decades. Hansen’s global temperature graphs are examined from 1981 to 2007.”
See also:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/hansen-and-karl-to-put-on-a-worse-than-we-thought-event/#comment-1199685
The fraudulent methods as shown by the Met in my link above.
These snake oil salesmen have corrupted all the great science institutions.
I am aware that I’ve been wrong on a lot of subjects, a lot of the time.
I have also come to the conclusion that I am not alone on this and that most people manage to be wrong a good deal of the time. Therefore I do not automatically believe someone to be right just because they are supposedly a subject matter expert.
My goal is to be correct more often than not. Just as I try to solve more problems than I cause.
You wrote: “Steve Mosher, who knows Hansen, believes Hansen is a great man and great scientist”
I do not believe that is an accurate view of Mosher’s belief
GREAT TIMING, ROB ! Ha Ha !
Max
I admit to being suprised that Mosher would describe Hansen as a great scientist, but he didn’t state that he believed him to be a great man.
You are correct that I was wrong to comment for Mosher
of course he is a great man. he has strong beliefs. He takes actions on those beliefs. he cares for his grand children. I happen to disagree with some of his positions. But people want to make every person they disagree with into somekind of devil. That’s the mistake mann made with mcintrye.
Steve’s perception of a great scientist and a great man are different than mine. I acknowledge being wrong in my assessment of Steve’s views.
I do not view a great scientist as being as biased and illogical as Hansen. It isn’t my 1st disagreement with Mosher
“But people want to make every person they disagree with into somekind of devil.”
And some people want to make people they agree with “Great Men.”
Probably more dangerous than the devil thing.
Andrew
When you know someone personally, as Mosher apparently knows Hansen, and the person is one who has an age and gravitas advantage plus a pleasant, friendly personality, it is easy to become convinced that this person is a “great” person (scientist, statesman, whatever).
It’s known as the “halo effect”.
When you DON’T know this person personally, you can more easily judge the person more objectively by his/her actions alone (forgetting the “halo”).
A fact of life.
Max
Don’t think that the switcheroo from “great scientist” to “great man” wasn’t noticed.
@Mosher: The fact that Hansen has made the mistake of demonizing McIntyre — as you admit — says that Hansen is in fact not a great man. No use talking about the flaws that we all share: this demonization of McIntyre (and others like him) by Hansen (and others like him) has been highly public, vindictive, and destructive to science. It remains to be seen if Hansen is a great scientist, but it’s clear that his actions have set in motion a culture and chain of events that have done more damage to science than all of the contributions he’s made as a scientist.
moshe only says that Mann demonized McIntyre. I don’t know that Hansen has demonized McIntyre publicly.
Both Mann and Hansen are wrong, but are otherwise very different.
=================
Would a great man not apologize for the “lights out in teapot dome” attempt to help realclimate smear Mc ?
how ’bout a grudgingly honest man?
how ’bout a smart man that knows he fcked up ?
how about a responsible and ethical scientist?
Thanks, tintigo, I’d forgotten that one. Then we also have Hansen’s emails, which his grandchildren may have the pleasure of reading.
====================
Where in the world are you getting the notion he’s admitting being wrong?
What universe is this? I think I’m on earth. Is that where we are?
Last year he said the 5-year mean was weak evidence of a slowdown of global warming, by which he means the surface air temperature, which should be clear to anybody who reads Hansen. He’s discussed this before.
Warming of the globe called earth continues.
Give him time. He owes it to his grandchildren to explain why he impoverished them so unnecessarily.
=============
Great scientists have always attracted the attention of gnats, buzzing around trying to garner some reflected glory by being persistantly irritating.
Kim the gnat?
Sounds like a foreign word.
It is my understanding that gnats and flies are a common occurance in a donkey’s stall.
Michael weighs in and provides corrobarary evidence.
The head Priest has been slaughtering the first born female virgin for a quarter century, promising that this will make wheat bloom in the desert, and finally admits he cannot see green shoots.
What should the villagers do now?
Doc
Obviously the answer depends on whom the villagers ask:
Head Priest: “Slaughter the second born female virgin.”
Virgin: “Slaughter the Priest.”
Max
PS If they asked me, I’d go for slaughtering the Priest. If I got struck dead by lightning as a result, so be it.
Move a quarter mile south every generation.
============
It took the Israelites 40 years to get from Egypt to the land of Canaan; as an expert in Climate Science we can do some analysis.
The distance between Cairo and Tel Aviv is 400 km, so thats 10 km per year.
So 6 mornings out of 7, they awoke, broke camp, packed up, moved 32 meters, unpacked, set-up camp, and began the telling of epic tales of the days adventures.
Hansen’s latest eructation has the distinct odor of damage control.
This may be my favorite comment ever. Coming from our very own Joshua:
That’s right folks. If you believe in the physics of the greenhouse effect, you must believe the planet is warming. You must believe the planet is warming because there are no other possibilities. You don’t even have to look at the data; you already know the answer.
Oh Brandon, that one is going to sting.
Now wait until Fan writes a piece in praise of Hansen’s statistical ability and his unchallenged ability to measure the slope of a line, along with many strange symbols.
Doc
Fan is curiously quiet – after all the post is all about Fan’s hero, “Death Train” Hansen.
Max
Fan may now be Hydrogen.
Not sure though because there was an absence of emoticons.
DocMartyn, for it to sting, Joshua would have to realize how dumb that sounds. Since he keeps repeating it, I don’t think that’ll happen.
Brandon Shollenberger
Joshua’s quote says it all.
“If adding CO2 warms the globe there can be no “pause” or “stop” in warming.”
Ergo:
If there is a “stop” or “pause” in warming, and CO2 is being added, adding CO2 does NOT warm the globe.
Seems logical to me.
Max
Josh
:)
That’s good, manacker. Your logic in improving. If you think that there is a “stop” or a “pause” in the warming, then you reject basic AGW physics.
That is exactly what I’ve been saying. Anyone who says that they accept the basic physics of AGW, and also says that the warming has “stopped” or “paused” is either being illogical, or is failing the basics of skepticism (i.e., is a “skeptic”).
joshua, ” Anyone who says that they accept the basic physics of AGW, and also says that the warming has “stopped” or “paused” is either being illogical, or is failing the basics of skepticism (i.e., is a “skeptic”).”
Oh really?
He’s only a bird, in a gilded cage.
============
manacker, if we go with Joshua’s argument, that’s what we’ll have to tell people. Anyone who looks at a graph of temperatures and thinks there is a pause is deceived or a deluded science denier.
I’m sure that’ll convince lots of folks.
Joshua,
Your logical argument only makes sense with the term ‘stopped’, but does not make sense with the term ‘paused’. ‘Stopped’ means there will be no more warming and if you agree that adding more CO2 will cause more warming via radiative heat transfer physics, then by adding more CO2 you cannot ‘stop’ the warming. Agreed. However, this is not so with ‘paused’. If you ‘pause’ it means warming may resume at some time in the future (or perhaps even cooling… but let’s not go there for the sake of this argument). So it is logically possible to accept radiative heat transfer physics (AGW) that says adding more CO2 will cause more warming and still recognize the warming trend may not be uniform and may have a ‘pause’ or two as other forcings are also in play. I mean, are you really saying Hansen fits in with your definition of ‘skeptic’? Because that’s what he’s saying… isn’t it? What’s the difference between ‘pause’ and ‘standstill’?
John –
Yes, I have thought about the argument you make there.
I agree – if we assume that the term global warming = global mean (surface) temps then “pause” is not illogical (whereas “stopped” is).
Or, in other words, if we assume that AGW necessarily implies that global mean surface temps will rise at some point in the future (although we might argue about estimated probabilities of the extent) on the assumption that mitigating natural variations will cancel out over the long term. In that sense, yes, “paused” would be fine as opposed to “stopped” – which implies that it will not continue (please note that accompanying Rose’s article that Judith defended mightily, there were numerous references to global warming having “stopped.”)
But my argument rests upon the (what seems to me to be) unscientific conflation of global warming and increase in global mean of (surface temps). It is a fair argument that both sides use that conflation for purposes of confirming biases – but “Mommy, mommy, they do it tooooouuu” (or “…they did it fiiirrrssst”) seems to me to be an argument best left for jr. high school students.
As such, I reject the logic of “global warming” has paused – although not the logic of “global mean (surface) temps has stagnated.
Joshua wrote: “As such, I reject the logic of “global warming” has paused”
————————————————————-
You’re quite right.
The surface temperatures may have stagnated, but the oceans have inexorably continued warming at a rate of 0.016C per decade.
phatboy –
I like the sarcasm, but the logical problem remains.
I think that arguments about magnitude of sensitivity and estimates of certainly are the rightful domain of a skeptic (and even, IMO, arguments about the physics of AGW) – but the “skeptical” illogic of claiming to accept the basic physic of AGW and at the same time claiming that global warming has “stopped” or “paused” remains.
I do acknowledge that it is true that if we can measure all manifestations of increased heat content, and it amounts to as small a figure as that you site, then the question of illogic becomes effectively a question of semantics.
Joshua, I don’t see the illogic.
A runaway train can slow right down or even almost stop on a gentle uphill. Doesn’t mean to say it won’t get going again.
I agree.
It is an excellent one:
Wow. Joshua is still defending this ridiculous position. I didn’t think I’d have to do this, but I’m going to show how wrong it is. Let’s consider a very simple hypothetical:
We have a planet where the only non-constant radiative forcings are from CO2 and methane. Both of these are emitted at high rates similar to Earth, and this planet warms. One day, methane emissions are completely stopped. Over the next few decades, atmospheric methane levels plunge. What would happen?
Nothing about radiative physics effect says emitting CO2 ensures warming. Like most things in this world, our planet’s climatic systems are far more complicated than that. It is perfectly possible to have CO2 emissions and cooling or a lack of CO2 emissions and warming. It is perfectly possible to have CO2 emissions and a “pause” or “standstill” in warming.
In other words, Joshua is a fool.
> Nothing about radiative physics effect says emitting CO2 ensures warming.
Chewbacca will find a way to make sure this sentence makes no sense.
By “this sentence”, I meant Joshua’s, not Chewbacca’s.
Not that Chewbacca’s sentence can’t be interpreted as not making any sense.
willard –
It is interesting how brandon amuses himself by arguing with himself:
So he writes this,
as an argument with himself about this:
Apparently he mistakenly thinks that he’s arguing with me about something there, but in fact, he isn’t – as earlier in this very thread I wrote:
So – despite accepting that (as Pekka says) ACO2 increases heat content to the whole Earth system, we see the argument from brandon that “there is nothing about radiative physics effect [that] says emitting CO2 ensures warming.”
Seems to me like we’ve got a problem with definition of terms – but be that as it may, since I’m clearly not qualified to argue the science I’ll let brandon take up the technical argument with Pekka – since is is in clear disagreement with him.
Or perhaps, brandon would just prefer to do more of this I suppose:
http://tinyurl.com/agw6lo6
Brandon
You are saying when you replace a thin blanket with a thicker one you get colder.
How is that possible?
Wow. Just wow. Not long ago I said Joshua raised a valid point when he said a warming in the surface temperature record should not be conflated with global warming. The two are related, but not the same. Now, in response to me pointing out CO2 levels can rise while total radiative forcing decreases, Joshua says:
That’s right. To say I’m wrong, he conflated the very two things he said we shouldn’t conflate. It’s weird. It’s even more weird when one realizes his comment in no way responds to what I said. Consider:
I am certain Pekka Pirilä would agree with what I said. Anyone with any sense would. Increasing CO2 levels will tend to increase radiative forcing, but it is possible other things will counterbalance or even overwhelm that effect. This is a basic scientific fact that Joshua apparently either ignores or fails to understand.
In other words, Joshua created a strawman in which he conflated two things (he has previously said shouldn’t be conflated) and appealed to an authority that disagrees with him… because he doesn’t understand an incredibly simple point. And then he suggests I’m humping his leg.
As I said: Wow.
Girma, I have no idea why you’d resort to metaphor when the point I made was already quite simple. It seems to needlessly confuse matters, especially since metaphors are never precise.
I’m not even sure I said what you claimed you said, but your question has an obvious answer. The fact a blanket is thicker doesn’t mean it will warm you more. A thicker blanket made of one material can easily warm you less than a thinner blanket made of a better material.
Joshua makes a valid point:
Of course, he only makes this point now. Where was he when, for over a decade, Hansen and other global warming proponents conflated the two? It was only when “global warming” stopped that he and others started saying global mean (surface) temperatures weren’t actually a measure of global warming.
I’ve made the same point to R.Gates multiple times. If “global warming” shouldn’t be used to refer solely to surface temperatures, why aren’t we criticizing the people who decided to make it mean that?
Excellent point.
It’s irrelevant to the Rose story in a way, though it is true.
In the Rose story we are comparing apples to apples. Jones\ way of thinking of global temps, his previous way of stating it, compared to a year later.
Apples all the way..
Ah. “Mommy, mommy, they did it fiiiirrrssstt.”
Now where have I seen that before?
Joshua’s reasoning continues to amaze.
Joshua,
You are still ducking my question about you promoting the ridiculous conspiracy theory that CAGW skeptics are massively funded by big business etc.
I am looking forward to the evidence to support your assertions, or your retraction of your promotion of stupid conspiracy theories.
As I recall Josh, we usually see it from you.
I quit complaining to my mom a long time ago.
timg56, it’s funny you mention that. It was just last week Joshua did what he accuses me of.
Of course, I’m not actually doing what he accuses me of. He’s attempting to insult me for excusing behavior by saying others did it first. That doesn’t make any sense. I didn’t excuse any behavior. All I did was say he should have been behaving one way from the start.
And he talks about people being illogical? Puh-leez.
Joshua, nobody is saying “they did it first” In short, those making the case for global warming conflated two concepts. They created a symbol. They promoted a symbol. That has become a part of the discourse. people in power get to do that. Now, you want to un conflate the term and in the process you are treating others with zero charity. You are letting your bias and your desire to find them in the wrong color your interpretation of their words. You dont even consider that they might be using the term differently than you use it. In fact, your conclusion ( they are illogical) SHOULD HAVE CLUED YOU IN, that your interpretation was the problem, rather than their lack of logic. the fact that you cannot see how your bias colors your reading, isnt that shocking.
Further –
Bit of an ambiguous antecedent there (is “he” me or Hansen)?
Assuming it meant me…
I have only been observing the climate debate for a couple of years…so that would be your first logical error. What makes you think that you know what I was saying years ago? If I were you, I’d stick to commenting on things that I know something about.
Second, I haven’t said that “global mean (surface) temperatures aren’t actually a measure of global warming.” Another error on your part.
In case you’re interested in knowing what I think (as someone not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to debate the science) – I would say that global mean (surface) temperatures are an indicator (or measure) of global warming – but they are only one measure of such, but not sufficient as a complete measurement.
Oh, please, it’s not all about you. It’s all about Hansen. The Death Train guy, get it?
==========
Funny, considering that you have chased me around on this thread (as you have on past threads) to leave your little droppings (insults).
Hmmmm.
Sometimes it’s a problem that you can’t delete comments once they’ve been posted.
It seemed obvious to me that it was Hansen to which Brandon was referring to but Joshua’s point about the physics of global warming and the CO2 connection used by AGW supporters being now in conflict with the data (assuming the absence of lags) seemed to be a valid one.
Joshua:
Yes Joshua. I was ambiguous by using a pronoun to refer to the same person three times in three sentences. It’s not like I explicitly referred to “he” and “Hansen” as different entities in those sentences.
First off, “measure” and “indicator” are not the same thing as you pretend. Second, your entire point relies on an uncharitable interpretation of what I said. Even if you were right on definitions (you aren’t), you’d still just be relying on semantic nit-picking to disagree with me.
The meaning of my comment was perfectly clear. If you want to fail to understand it, you can, but it will only speak to your character.
Morissette irony?
As a layman, looking for sense in all this, the only conclusion I can come to is;
Does anyone know what they are doing here? If they don’t, why is it costing us so much money on something that clearly isn’t ‘settled’? When I read stuff such as this I can only think it’s all BS.
Science Gets The Stratosphere Wrong
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/science-gets-stratosphere-wrong
Discuss.
ColOldMan, The article you link shows the problem. When NASA had a mission to the moon, they developed a leadership hierarchic, delegates authority, established verification procedures, they figured out how to herd the cats.
Scientist are cats, not natural born leaders.
As both a cat lover and scientist I take offense to that; herding cats is relatively easy
Concur. They respond to fear and curiosity. Guilt? Not so much.
Yes, deities.
=======
Good to see you changing yr name from Hydrogen to Alarmist,
Alarmist. So less pusillanimous ter make personal attacks under
yr real name instead of hiding behind a pseudonym.
Beth
But what should we say about the Fig 3. of this most recent paper. That’s the one that has been shown to be highly misleading as it defines extremes in relative to the local average temperatures of period 1951-1980. Emphasizing the extreme tail is just the serious error that Tamino brought up and that I have been writing about on this site.
Steve Mosher wrote that Hansen has admitted the error. If so, then why he’s presenting faulty arguments yet again?
The point is that comparing local averages of past with local extremes of the present selects strongly cases where the local temperatures have risen more than the average of all locations even in absence of extremes. The reason may be cold past as well as warm later years. There are always such cases irrespectively of the presence of overall warming trend as under such conditions same places cool and some warm. As the Fig. 3 is badly corrupted by the factor that’s not at all related to any worrying trend, it’s a serious matter that they keep on presenting it.
How can they do this again?
Many people picked up on that error.
Essentially, a distribution of anomalies says nothing about anything.
Why does he continue to push the same faulty arguments? That’s anyone’s guess – I couldn’t possibly comment.
I have never had a problem with the climate dice analogy. What were the warmest 33% of temperatures in the base period, now occur 66% of the time, with 9% even warmer (3-sigma) events that were very rare in the base period. This is averaged over many stations. So it goes from 2 faces of the die being in that warm range to 4, plus some chance of even warmer that wasn’t there before. It is just changing probabilities defining the 33% temperature ranges by the base period.
I have always problems when strongly misleading presentations are used. The Fig. 3 is fundamentally wrong. The wider distributions are basically formed by combining local distributions that are probably not broadened at all or very little. The local distributions are not centered at the same value, which leads to a wider distribution for the combination. The same thing would happen without any global warming. Thus even without global warming there would be an increase in apparent extreme temperatures. Of course the whole distribution would not be shifted, but the basic phenomenon would be there.
There has been more warming in some areas and the extremes of those areas differ more from the past average of the same areas, but there are also areas of less warming and their maximimus differ less from their past averages. That’s unavoidable whenever there are local differences in warming. The Fig. 3 does not give the slightest evidence that the cases that appear as most extreme there were at locations where that’s a particular problem. It might equally well be the case that the lesser warming at other locations has been more significant than the greater warming at those places.
There’s far too much in that figure that’s purely an artifact of the methodology. That figure is misrepresentation of statistics. No scientist should publish that unless he can tell more about the cases where the extremes are obtained and unless the significance of that is discussed as well.
Misleading does not belong to science.
This particular paper seems quite reasonable and I haven’t any other problems with it based on a rather cursory reading. Using a discredited and fundamentally misleading figure is, however, a big mistake in my view. It tells that Hansen et al do not appreciate scientific honesty enough and are willing to mislead when the message is right for them. That’s a way of loosing credibility.
It’s, of course, also possible that they haven’t understood fully the error they have made even if they have accepted that it influenced some of their earlier conclusions. The point is that the error did influence severely most quantitative results of the previous paper, not only a minor part of them.
Ancient shamanic practice requires evocation of human fear and guilt about weather wierding. ‘Warming’ and ‘climate change’ are no longer evoking the desired responses. Ironically and tragically, Hansen sacrifices his own grandchildren to these ancient scruples.
================
Jim D, A 3-sigma event in eg Alaska is not the same thing as a 3-sigma event in eg Libya, not by any stretch of the imagination, yet Hansen lumps them together as if they were exactly the same animal
I think a lot too much is being made of the histograms. In words, what they tell us is this. For 1951-1980 and for each station define the temperatures that make the warmest 1/3 of the summers, which is a threshold temperature for each station, e.g. it might be 25 C somewhere. This would mean the summer average temperature of 25 C is exceeded 1/3 of the time. Then check how often this 25 C threshold is exceeded at that station in the current climate summer average. It turns out to be more than 2/3 of the current summers on average, which is double the frequency. Yes, this change is not globally uniform, just an average, some have more and some have less than double the frequency of warm summers defined that way. Hansen’s “dice” paper showed distributions of excedence in standard deviations, and these picked out extreme events well as 3-sigma areas. The 3-sigma area went up to 10% from about 0.5% if you look at annual maps, with a large variation between years in the locations of the extremes. It is not skewed by a few locations.
Jim,
This is exactly the wrong conclusion that the figures promote by being misleading.
Try to understand the point I and Phatboy have been trying to make understood.
One way of stating the point is that it’s impossible to know correctly the right temperature of comparison for each locality. Using the average from the past does not work correctly but leads to all the false conclusions. The whole graph is based on that and that’s wrong.
Two kind of variabilities are involved, the spatial variability between the changes in average temperature from the past to the later period and the variability around the mean at every location. The distribution presented is a convolution of these two distributions. It gets broader because the variability in the change of average temperature grows, but this variability can equally well be good oar bad as long as it has not been analyzed whether the warming is stronger at locations where it’s beneficial or where it’s harmful. As long as this additional analysis has not been done it’s just wrong to present that misleading graph and draw the kind of conclusion from it as you do. When the analysis is done some other more meaningful graphs can be drawn.
Pekka, the first part of what I said doesn’t convey whether it is good or bad that summers are now twice as likely to be “warm’ by the objective criteria of the base period. For some places, this may be better. It is just a statistical fact, not political. When it comes to 3-sigma events this can become political, because the best global examples of large 3-sigma areas recently were the Russian drought and forest fires in 2010 and the severe Texas drought of 2011. Whether these recent example mean that the formerly rare 3-sigma events are always bad is a subjective opinion. We need more to be able to tell whether they are a bad signal, but statistically they cover a twenty-times larger area now making them more frequent at many locations.
Pekka, I have tried to understand why you say you can’t use 30 years of temperature data to decide what is defined as warm, average and cold for each station, and then apply this same standard to the current climate and re-evaluate the percentages that were formerly 1/3 each. This looks like a completely valid statistical way to compare time periods. You could do something similar with individual stations. Take the 10th warmest of the 30-year base period, and see how frequently it is exceeded in the current period. On average 2/3 of the current years would exceed that according to the statistics. I think this would be a reasonable expectation too given the extent of climate change which is near a standard deviation at many locations.
Jim,
The principal point is that probably all the broadening is just an artifact of the method from the point of view of understanding extreme temperatures. Thus every conclusion that’s affected by the wider width of the distribution at later times is false. Only such conclusion can be considered valid that don’t change when the distribution is replaced by one of the same width as the narrowest ones and located at the center of the one shown in the pictures.
There may by additional effects, but the paper doesn’t support that possibility at all, it’s totally neutral on that. All contrary ideas are due to the misleading nature of that picture.
As I have stated repeatedly the corresponding distributions broaden over time even in the absence of any global warming or any other general trend in the climate. That would happen because even in such case some areas warm for a while and others cool. That happens without anything that could be considered a negative (or positive) trend. That’s just an unavoidable consequence of the spatial variability in the local trends around the global average. That happens equally for warming, cooling and unchanging global climate.
The difficulty of understanding this is perhaps the strongest reason for saying that scientists should never publish such figures. They are misleading in so subtle a way that people like you don’t easily realize, how they have been misled.
In judging a scientific paper there’s a simple rule. When an error has been observed, don’t take seriously anything that can even remotely be affected by that error until the error is corrected and all following steps redone based on the corrected analysis. There is most certainly an error in that paper. The error is in mixing statistical properties of global (or wide area) temperature distributions with the statistical properties of those related to individual locations. The most serious error is related to the differing trends or changes in the average temperatures, but an similar error applies also to the variances. These errors affect almost all the paper as almost all the data and figures are based on similarly erroneous use of the data. It’s not that the error is done at one point, it’s prevalent to all comparisons, i.e. to the whole approach.
It’s not clear that the analysis can really be corrected without loss of statistical significance.
Jim D
The “climate dice” refers to extremes being “extremer” when the “globally and annually averaged land an sea temperature anomaly” is warmer than before.
How much warmer – and how much “extremer”?
“0.7C?”
So the new record high for location X is 48.7C rather than 48.0C?
While the new low for location Y is -45.0C rather than the record low of -45.7C.
Big deal.
Even if this were true, it’s hard for me to get too excited about it.
Max
manacker, the climate dice refer to individual locations and individual seasons. You roll the die for a summer (June, July, August) at a given place. Defining the warmest third by 5 and 6, based on 1951-1980, the die are now loaded in such a way that 5 and 6 occur twice as often as they would when unloaded, at least on average when you consider large numbers of locations together statistically, because some would be less loaded and some more. The northern continental areas have probably warmed more than average by this measure.
manacker, and you have to remember this is the summer-average temperature. If that changes by one standard deviation, that is noticeable, especially at the extreme end. A 3-sigma summer would be several degrees warmer than the base-period average, and their frequency increased by about twenty on average to about a one in ten chance in the current climate.
Jim D, if one place has a 3-sigma summer several degrees warmer than average, it must mean that another place or places are cooler, or the same place is cooler some other time of the year, if the global average has only increased by a fraction of a degree.
But that’s the thing about averages – they are determined by averaging data, which often varies wildly from the mean. Averages certainly do not determine the data, unless you’ve found a way to reverse the flow of time.
Also, a 3-sigma summer in Alaska is probably not going to lead to heat-related deaths, is it?
phatboy, I don’t think you know what Hansen meant by the 3-sigma events. They are defined to be rare in the base period (once every few centuries in a normal distribution), but as the distribution shifted, the warm tail made it more like one in ten for that base-period-defined threshold. Therefore, no, a warm perturbation today is not canceled by a cool one some other time. A once-in-a-few-centuries warm event became once per decade, and as this happens more frequently, so do the consequences of this, like droughts. Texas becomes less comfortable as Alaska becomes more comfortable, except for the natives.
Jim D
Let’s look at real US high temperature records by state
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wheat7.htm
Only 6 were after 1990
Only 1 was after 2000.
23 were in the 1930s
7 were before 1930
So much for “Hansen’s dice”!
Max
Jim,
How various temperature changes cancel in estimating their significance is not known. What is, however, known is that the Hansen et al climate dice paper has not given any evidence at all for an effect that is stronger than that obtained from shifting the temperature distribution keeping its width unchanged. The most likely reason for the broadening is an artifact of the method. As long as the paper is known to be in error and the most likely is as I write above, that’s what we should think is true.
Pekka, I think I have mentioned before that the changing width is not a key finding of the Hansen paper. Just a shifting distribution changes the probabilities in the way he describes, or at least 90% of the effect is the shift. The width can change artificially by the current period being in a faster warming phase than the base period. Hansen realized this with his trend-removal test.
manacker, you are talking about daily maximum temperatures, not seasonal averages, and records not distributions. Take the warmest one third of summers at some location of your choosing and see if most of those occurred recently. Or equivalently, take the average summer temperature map of some area now versus that in 1951-1980. You would see a significant shift. Unfortunately the GISTEMP site’s mapping capability is down at the moment, otherwise I would show you.
Jim D, you said yourself that a 3-sigma summer “would be several degrees warmer than the base-period average”.
The whole point is, by what possible mechanism can a fraction of a degree increase in global average lead to such a widening of the distribution curve?
Much more likely, as Pekka points out, this widening is simply an artefact of the methodology.
Jim,
The trend effect is not the point. Thus trend removal test is irrelevant.
phatboy, it doesn’t take widening, just a shift to illustrate the main effect. 3-sigma in the current climate is not what we are talking about. It is 3-sigma relative to the base period of 1951-1980. What was a 3-sigma summer temperature in that period is now much more common.
Several skeptics have said you can’t define a distribution when there is a trend. This especially applies to long base periods, otherwise we might use the 20th century as a base period.
The broadening is the only result that could be considered scientifically interesting. The shift alone is far too trivial and self-evident for that. The broadening is also so strong that it does affect significantly also those results that are present due to the shifting alone.
But as said so many times the broadening is not a correct result.
Pekka, I dispute that because they can make the same statements about 3-sigma (base period definition) areas whether there is broadening or not. That a shift alone has the property of making the extreme areas expand faster is a thing to emphasize even though I agree it is expected from the properties of the bell function. Hansen makes his points to the public, and for them even this is not obvious, and he has good ways of illustrating the points with graphics.
If Hansen wants to make a valid point, he has the opportunity of using valid graphics. Using misleading graphics based on analysis known to be in error is not acceptable for a scientist.
That’s what I wanted to say when I brought this up. To me it’s not forgivable that he continues to use misleading graphics be based on erroneous analysis known to be in error.
Anyone who does not want to loose credibility as scientist must adhere to the principles of presenting science correctly.
If that someone happens to be the best known scientist in his field, then his behavior affects the credibility of the whole field.
If Hansen has made clear how he produced his graphics, it is scientifically valid to present it because it should be independently repeatable. Others may want to calculate things differently, but I have yet to see anyone modify Hansen’s simple methodology, because anything else would make it more complicated due to making assumptions about the artifacts you want to remove, and that makes the interpretation even more difficult. What Hansen has done is the most straightforward, and therefore the easiest to understand, way of doing this.
He has not made it clear. He has on the contrary made wrong nad misleading statements on that.
The esteemed James Hansen co-operated with Tim Wirth’s chicanery of opening the Congressional hearing windows to a DC heatwave. Worse, in 1988, he claimed regional predictive skill for his climate model, claimed it had predicted this particular heat wave, and that the heat was a consequence of anthropogenic global warming.
He’s been deceitful from early on, but the real damage came after he fooled himself.
=========
I reserve judgement on that until someone re-does Hansen’s climate dice paper with different conclusions. Until then, and I doubt it will happen, this is the one that stands.
As I already wrote, nothing scientifically interesting is likely to be found by that approach. The analysis is powerless, when done correctly. Therefore it’s indeed likely that no-one will publish a corrected version ot that. The only thong that could be clearly done is to publish a simple refutation of the paper that would tell that the results are not justifiable.
That kind of comments are often written, but who would write in now? The error was brought to open by Tamino, who almost certainly is not willing to do that. That he was probably the first to point out the actual error makes it less likely that anyone else will write such a comment.
Thus we may well be stuck with the present situation.
“Steve Mosher wrote that Hansen has admitted the error. If so, then why he’s presenting faulty arguments yet again?”
He’s presenting faulty arguments yet again, because he is AGAINST COAL, he is a huge supporter of the nuclear industry and the nuclear industry helped set up CRU to alter temperature records worldwide. Big Oil helped set up CRU for the same reason.
This is an industrial scam and any scientists who can’t see through the brainwashing propaganda and think above being manipulated are hardly fit to analyse anything.
“… global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably to the next El Nino phase.”
Wow, what a courageous prediction. Global average temperature will rise when a significant part of the globe warms with the next El Nino.
What next? Northern hemisphere temps will rise significantly in the next few months as the calendar moves inevitably to April, May, June and July?
Who says CAGWers never make falsifiable predictions?
“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade”
At last we have an admissin of a standstill in global temperature for the last decade.The question now is – is it just a pause or is it permanebt? Probably neither.Certainly if CO2 is the main culprit we have to think again. Perhaps my theoretical model (above) is correct.
The Hansen data leaves us in no doubt that global warming is basically a northern hemisphere problem which makes it curious why our Australian PM is so keen to lead the world in action against it. Certainly we feel the effects of Nino/Nina but that is nothing to do with CO2. Is the N/S difference due to there being more geeenhouse gases in the North or more urban heat islands?
The fall in temperature between 1940 and 1970 remains a problem with the Hansen explanations. He blames it on unknown aerosols, yet it is perfectly natural for molecules of CO2, according to quantum theory, to change their state by losing a photon of energy under certain conditions that have never been properly explored by climate science.
Finally, as a pioneer mathematical modeller I congratulate Hansen et al on their attempts to model global climate. Maybe in the future there will be computers powerful enough to do it.
Finally, as a pioneer mathematical modeller I congratulate Hansen et al on their attempts to model global climate. Maybe in the future there will be computers powerful enough to do it.
Computer power is not the problem. Consensus Climate Theory is wrong and the wrong Theory is properly modeled and the model projections are understandably and properly wrong.
The theory may be wrong, but a properly validated model would expose that. Proper validation would require every single process to be validated against historical records or specific experiments. Yes, the computers lack both the spatial and temporal resolution to do the job.For example, the accuracy of the model depends on how much power is absorbed in vibration modes of the CO2 molecule, because the specific heat of CO2 at the standard temperature is no were near enough. You need quantum theory to establish which vibration modes exist and which are exicited or de-excited by photons of IR. The vibration modes are likeiy to be very sharp and pose a computation problem best solved in the laboratory.
The thing is water vapor distribution in the atmosphere is not uniform. It means optical depth in the thermal IR band is only weakly related to average specific humidity, it is mainly determined by higher moments of the distribution (a thin metal plate may be absolutely opaque, while a wire fence is almost transparent, even if it has the same amount of metal in it per unit area).
Overall greenhouse effect is set by IR optical depth (or rather, by its relation to SW optical depth), not by average concentration of greenhouse gases (water vapor included).
Therefore IR optical depth can either go up or down if concentration of well mixed components are increased. There is a good chance it remains pretty stable for a wide range of well mixed component concentrations (at a value of ~1.87), and what is required to have this effect is only a slight scale invariant redistribution of atmospheric humidity. Which can’t be represented in gridded computational models of course by any means other than parametrization. What is more, it is not measured either so far, so any parametrization scheme is virtually free of empirical constraints.
It is high time to trash the current paradigm in climate science and start measuring optical depth as a function of frequency. It’s not so difficult, only needs several satellites on high orbit, wideband imaging facilities installed with good temporal resolution and lots of surface based transmitters, operating in many narrow frequency bands, emitting a unique long period pseudorandom sequence in each band and at each transmitter. Signal to noise ratio of signal intensity measurement can be made high that way, which gives an optical depth map of the atmosphere with good frequency & spatio-temporal resolution.
I can’t see why this age old hack, developed in radar technology is not applied in climate science. Of course, it may turn out average IR optical depth is in fact more stable than projected by computational models, so what? It is the way science is supposed to work, is not it? On the other hand it may turn out average IR optical depth is proportional to well mixed GHG concentrations with a specific constant of proportionality. Or it may depend on latitude. Whatever. One will never know until it gets measured.
The upshot is flatlining temperatures observed in the last one or two decades may be caused by a hidden, as yet unidentified homeostatic mechanism mediated by changes in fine details of water vapor distribution (never represented properly in computational models, neither measured ever). In this case any increase in carbon dioxide concentration (below a very high level) could only have a transient effect.
Of course, scale invariant changes in water vapor distribution (like changes in its fractal dimension) can have their own (probably second order) effects on climate, but one can’t even start to identify them unil a proper framework is established.
Can you tell more specifically what’s wrong with the existing radiation codes. As far as know all correct and relevant details that you list are well understood and taken into account.
If detailed spatio-temporal distribution of absorber is unknown, no radiation code is able to calculate anything. Specifically, relation between average absorber density and Planck weighted average optical depth is indeterminate.
In which ways is it unknown and how do the unknown details affect the outcome?
Very little.
If you disagree then tell how they could have a significant effect.
Pekka asserts that the unknown unknowns have little effect.
===========
kim, those are known unknowns, not unknown unknowns.
No. Radiative heat transfer and concentrations of all GHG’s except water vapor are understood well. They are not unknowns. Water is a more complex issue even as vapor but in particular as clouds.
There be hippogryphs.
=======
@Pekka Pirilä – “In which ways is it unknown and how do the unknown details affect the outcome?”
This is how history of water vapor mixing ratio above a single site in 4 days looks like. Now, in fact the same thing is happening above each spot all the time, but it is not measured except in rare, select cases.
You would calculate global Planck weighted average optical depth of the atmosphere in the thermal IR band how? Specify input dataset & algorithm please.
Second question of yours. Let’s consider four equal semitransparent slabs. Let’s suppose we know they cover an area twice as large as that of a single slab and each one absorbs 60% of the light at a specific frequency as it goes through it.
That is, optical thickness of a single slab is 0.92, two slabs on top of eachother 1.84, three 2.76.
What we do not know is how the slabs are distributed. There can be either two stacks of two slabs or a stack of three beside a single slab. For the first case it is easy to see that average optical thickness of the setup is 1.84. But how much is it in the second case?
I can tell you, it is about 1.47. Which means 23% of the light is let through, while in the former case it is only 16%. A huge difference, is not it?
Radiative properties of entities involved are the same in both cases, only their distribution differs. It is the same kind of problem with water vapor, except its distribution in the atmosphere is vastly more complex.
kim
It is generally known that the unknown unknowns can have no effect.
Max
Optical depth is measured at a range of frequencies by some satellite instruments. High spectral resolution measurements are made at a number of different locations by the DOE ARM program, http://www.arm.gov. See also the previous thread http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/
Lots of disparate things are measured, indeed. But the function we are interested in at the moment is the time function of Planck weighted global average optical thickness of atmosphere in the thermal IR and its trend over the last several decades. I can’t find that result at the ARM site, so if you think it is there, a pointer would be appreciated.
Real calculations are not done based on averages for moisture content. Nothing else varies in a way that would make any difference.
JC says:-
“Should we believe the UKMO model prediction? Well, I have more confidence in the UKMO prediction than in Hansen’s back of the envelope reasoning.”
The following is the latest comment I have seen regarding the MO’s prediction it is from Richard Betts:-
“(it’s not yet been shown to be useful to anyone, although we hope it will be when we’ve developed the technique further)”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/1/10/spot-the-difference.html#comments
“Well, I have more confidence in the UKMO prediction than in Hansen’s back of the envelope reasoning.”
Yup, so do I!
I predict Global Mean Temperature will stop being the focus of attention for the alarmists. A fairly easy prediction given that process has already happend what with ‘Extreme Weather’ becoming de rigueur for climate commentators. The Arctic and Greenland also still seem to have legs.
I was right all along.
I predicted the global warming pause as shown:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmstModel.png
I am finishing writing the article that explains my empirical model.
Girma, you have put out chump bait, but the chumps aren’t biting.
Actually, I am predicting GMST drop to 0.2 deg C in the next ten years.
Girma
Hansen predicts it will re-start warming any time now.
Judith predicts it will be at least five years down the road.
The “Chief” has predicted cooling for a decade or three.
You are predicting a specific amount of cooling to occur in the next ten years.
IPCC predicted 0.2C warming per decade.
Let’s see who came closest.
Max
P.S. Doesn’t look like “chump bait” to me, Okie. Just a bunch of predictions using different crystal balls.
It’s very dry here in ol’ Melbourne town.The river is down, lost
its silver riffles and depressed because it can’t fool itself any
longer that it’s one of the great rivers The billabongs are
shrinking hangin’ out fer the next La Nina. Yes, Peter Lang,
and then…
frogs croakin’, crops growin’, and money comin’ in the door. )
Like Walt says:
‘To plough land in the fall for winter-sown crops,
To plough land in the spring for maize,
To train orchards, to graft the trees, to gather apples in
the fall,
O to bathe in the swimming-bath, or in a good place along shore…’
,,,jest as long as we have enough carbon to keep them plants growin’.
Listening to the Radio 4 feedback on the Met Office 5-year forecast makes it clear that even the Met Office don’t trust a 5-year forecast because of natural variability (it is called experimental), and this one does not change their view of climate warming in the longer term. Julia Slingo makes it clear that the BBC report confused the public with their headline because it conflated a decadal prediction with climate change.
Met Office prediction Then:
http://web-beta.archive.org/web/20120206093904/http:/www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
Met Office prediction Now:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
Actual data does sometimes cause people to think a little. Met Office Then and Now is hugely different. the Now is getting closer to what will really occur. Look at the temperature after the Roman Warm Time and after the Medieval Warm Time and you will see what the temperature will do after the current Modern Warm time. My forecast is that what will happen is going to be just like what has happened.
So…..Hansen has been argued to a standstill eh …
(I’ll just get my coat)
Check out Hansen’s figure 5, specifically the forcing from CO2 in the past 15 years. This forcing is flat.
What? Atmospheric CO2 increased from ~365ppm to ~395ppm during that time. Yet the forcing from it remained flat!!!???
Error. Does not compute.
David Springer
Hansen’s Fig. 5 is very interesting. Rather than dismiss it, why not research that claim a bit? Is it wrong? Or is Hansen at least making a supported and so reasonable statement?
Be sceptical not dismissive.
(I think the threading may have collapsed btw.)
You just have not understood this figure. Look at the y-axis. The figure doesn’t show the forcing over time, it shows the forcing change over time, the first time derivative of the forcing. Thus, the “flat” curve means that the increase in the CO2 forcing has staid about the same in recent years, at about 0.028 W/m^2/year or so.
Exactly my point. Atmospheric CO2 increased from 370 to 395 ppm but there was no increase in forcing associated with the rise.
The prediction paths all follow the positive ramp in forcing growth rate established and remarkably straight from 1950 to 1990. Quite obviously the flattening of the CO2 annual forcing growth rate was not anticipated. This begs an explanation.
this versusthis?
I didn’t dismiss figure 5. In fact I highlighted it.
Why are these the same creative quotes from the Hansen et al. essay that were posted by Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com? The second, longer quote gives the impression that these three paragraphs are one sequence of statements in the essay. However, paragraph 1 comes from page 1, paragraph 2 is a fragment from page 6. Immeditiately following statements that make clear what Hansen et al. think about whether “global warming has stopped” are omitted. Paragraph 3 is from page 1 again.
Does one just copies from the other one?
The repeated claim by Rose made in the Daily Mail is that “global warming has stopped” 16 years ago. The claim is combined with some creative presentation of limited temperature data. By making such a claim it is suggested that the physical process of heat accumulation in the atmosphere-ocean-land-cryosphere system due to the perturbation in the radiative balance by anthropogenic greenhouse gases has not been happening anymore for 16 years. Hansen et al. do not make such a claim. On the contrary, they explicitly say that global warming continues:
Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions, while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1). Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades. We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.
(http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf, page 6)
Judith Curry seems to suggest that something has been significantly different for the last 15 to 17 years or so, compared to the preceding decades. I just don’t know what the alleged empirical evidence is for such a claim. Lack of statistical significance of the atmospheric temperature trend over a limited time period is not sufficient. Also, it is not correct that something similar hasn’t been observed before. The period from 1980 to 1994 showed a similar lack of statistical significance of the atmospheric temperature trend. And since the temperature increase in the few years between this period and the recent period wasn’t statistically significant either, then there hasn’t been any statistically significant increase in any of the three limited periods since 1980? So, no global warming in any of the three periods since 1980? And yet, the multi-decadal temperature increase over the whole since 1980 is statistically significant, i.e., there has been global warming over the whole period. A statement and its negation can’t be both true at the same time. One of the two approaches must be wrong.
If the recent temperature record statistically significantly deviated from the multi-decadal positive temperature trend, then this would be empirical evidence for the claim something has been different in recent years. As long as this is not the case, I do not see any scientific basis for such a claim.
The anomaly of the ocean heat content is more important than the atmospheric temperature anomaly for the conclusion whether global warming stopped or whether it hasn’t, anyway.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
The NOAA data do not show that the heat anomaly hasn’t been increasing anymore.
“Judith Curry seems to suggest that something has been significantly different for the last 15 to 17 years or so, compared to the preceding decades. I just don’t know what the alleged empirical evidence is for such a claim. Lack of statistical significance of the atmospheric temperature trend over a limited time period is not sufficient. Also, it is not correct that something similar hasn’t been observed before. The period from 1980 to 1994 showed a similar lack of statistical significance of the atmospheric temperature trend. And since the temperature increase in the few years between this period and the recent period wasn’t statistically significant either, then there hasn’t been any statistically significant increase in any of the three limited periods since 1980? So, no global warming in any of the three periods since 1980? And yet, the multi-decadal temperature increase over the whole since 1980 is statistically significant, i.e., there has been global warming over the whole period. A statement and its negation can’t be both true at the same time. One of the two approaches must be wrong.”
It seems to me that between 1980 and 94 there was little warming,
but during the longer trend of 1980 to the present there has been a trend of about 1 C per century. But seems much of warming occurred
in 20th century and that in 21st century, there has been little or no warming.
The climate projection in the 20th century and in 21 century relating increasing global temperature due rising CO2, would indicate more warming should have occurred.
If you had assume that global temperature will not rise much more than 1 C in Century and that rising temperatures have not been mostly due to global CO2 levels, than current global temperature seem normal. And that one expect various fluctuation of cooling and warming in the future.
Personally it seems unlikely we get a spike in warming as large as super El Nino in latter part of 20th century, which could occur within next decade and with slowing of solar cycle and other factors it’s possible we could see tendency for more cooling in next decade.
Hansen refuses to consider the possibility that the current pause is a result of reduced solar activity, and the final end of solar heat lag effects from the 20th century. I.e. solar activity was high in most of the 20th centiry and then peaked in about 1985, together with a 20-30 year heat lag (since it remained high until 1996 as well), and oceans take a few decades to equilbrate, (the same as summer takes about 6 weeks to reach maximum temperature after the summer solstice, and every day it takes a few hours after noon to reach maximum temperature), so the earth has taken a few decades to reach maximum temperature after the long high in solar activity during the 20th century, and will now go down in temperature over the next few decades, with now both a negative PDO, and reduced solar activity.
C02 has little effect; late 20th century warming was largely a heat lag effect from solar activity, combined with a positive PDO; (this also fits perfectly with the pause since the late 1990s, which was not predicted using AGW); with currently a negative PDO and reduced solar activity, which means temperature will stay flat or go down to at least 2035, with the solar activitylikely remaining low. C02 might have some, small effect, but will be overwhelmed by natural variation, the same as it was in the 20th century.
Wonder what Hansen et al will say if the temperature drops between now and 2035?, it will take Enron style accounting for alarmists to account for it, but common sense will ultimately prevail, and C02 will be shown, even by Hansen and his modelled muddle, to have little effect, about 1 degree C per doubling, not 1.5 to 6C.
He is also wrong about the mid 20th century pause /or slight drop in temperature, this correlates well with a negative PDO, and has nothing to do with aerosols, which also have little effect. He never considers natural variation, until the last few decades, when c02 was supposed to actually have a stronger effect.
Concur. The question then becomes is the rise since the LIA still operative or have we turned cooler from the millenial scale seeming cycles?
==============
By 2035 I bet we will have pull all troops out of Afghanistan- maybe have left Germany, also.
As far as weather goes, no real change.
Why is OHC in all major basins *increasing* below the 0-700m layer? If this is a transfer of energy from the oceans to the atmosphere, OHC should be decreasing at depth. In fact it should be decreasing at all depths. It is not. It is increasing both 0-700m and 0 – 2000m (see Levitus et al. 2012 supplementary information Fig. S1 and S2).
Quick visual summary: combined 0-700m and 0-2000m OHC (NODC).
Jim Cripwell wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-286805
What makes you think those expert opinions are not based on empirical data? If you look in the IPCC report than you can see that the statements in the report rely on published scientific papers. Hundreds that are referenced in each chapter. And no one actually forces you to just believe what the expert opinions in the IPCC report say. No one hinders you to study the scientific papers yourself and evaluate the evidence and arguments presented in them, on which those expert opinions in the IPCC Report are formed. This is what a true skeptic would do.
What would you do, if the the IPCC didn’t exist and the IPCC reports weren’t published? You just would claim that there was no empirical evidence for the hypotheses, because something like the IPCC and their reports didn’t exist, wouldn’t you? However, the IPCC doesn’t actually do the research. If the IPCC didn’t exist, the scientific papers would still be out there.
It has increasingly become clear to me that your claims about the evidence that was allegedly totally missing are not based on actual knowledge of the scientific literature about the topic. Those claims are made by someone who hasn’t even bothered to check and to make himself familiar with the matter. So I suspect that your claims are not really scientifically motivated.
Exiting science does not represent full certainty but it represents the best information that we have. Based on that it’s very likely that the warming will continue given enough time. Scientists who agree on that may have differing views on what’s enough time. Hansen seems to think that a few years are enough while Judith predicts that the standstill continues for 10 more years.
It’s not absolutely certain that the climate sensitivity is high enough to lead to significant warming between now and 2035 but waving a drop over that period without a specific reason like really major volcanic activity would certainly tell that the best understanding of today is found lacking.
The previous paragraph can be rephrased to mean that it’s highly unlikely that such cooling to 2035 will occur. Therefore it’s highly unlikely that anyone is will be required to think what such cooling indicates.
We are almost certainly heading towards warmer future and that will almost as certainly be seen in 2035.
Exiting -> Existing
waving -> having
is will be -> will be
(Why didn’t I read the comment before posting it.)
Pekka, you write “We are almost certainly heading towards warmer future and that will almost as certainly be seen in 2035.”
I must admit I admire your faith, but deplore your science. With absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that when you add X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels, it causes global temperatures to rise by Y degrees C, you are certain that we are “heading towards warmer future”. I am sorry. Until I see some actual measured empirical data that proves that adding CO2 to the atmopshere changes global temperatures at all, I will go on believing that no-one has the slightest idea of what is going to happen to future global temperatures – least of all me. Only if we assume that things are going to go on doing the same sort of thing that they have been doing since good temperature records began, do we have any basis for future predictions. And my guess is that at some point, the current temperature trend is going to change.
But Cripwell, there is evidence and you know that there is evidence. you need to un fool yourself or tell the truth, fer crissake
Steven, you write “But Cripwell, there is evidence and you know that there is evidence. you need to un fool yourself or tell the truth, fer crissake”
Of course you are correct. I have said over and over again that CAGW is an extremely plausible hypothesis. There is lots of evidence that something like CAGW could be occurring, and I cannot prove that it is wrong. We are agreed on that, and I hope you will give me credit for saying so.
But that is not the issue. There are all sorts of examples in science where there was as much good evidence for some hypothesis as there is for CAGW, and it turned out that the hypothesis was, in fact, wrong. What we ought to accept, as physicists, is that until the final empirical data is available, there is doubt that the hypothesis is correct. The vital information in the case of CAGW, is the proof that when CO2 is added to the atmosphere from current levels, it causes global temperatures to rsie. That empirical evidence is non-existent; it does not exist; there is none. How many more ways can one find to say the same thing. And you will not admit that this vital empirical evidence does not exist.
And until that vital empircial evidence is available, it should be impossible for anyone to be confident that CAGW is occurring. That was the point I was trying to make to Pekka. What I keep on saying, and you and ever other warmist ignore my comments, is that it ought to be impossible for anyone, leasst of all the IPCC, to be confident – “very likely >90%”, that adding CO2 to the atmopshere cause global temperatures to rise. I agree that CAGW MIGHT be happening, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is likely to be happening.
Now will you address the problem of the IPCC’s confident statements about CAGW?
Jim Cripwell wrote in
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-286729
What are “final empirical data” supposed to be? Apparently, something that provides absolute certainty with Zero room for any doubt. I would think, as a physicist you should know that there is no absolute certainty not just about about any hypothesis, but also about any theory in nature sciences. Are you arguing that lack of 100% certainty about the validity of a theory is the same as having no evidence for the validity of the theory at all? With such a criteria you would have to claim that there is no evidence at all for any scientific theory in any scientific field, and that we didn’t know anything about anything.
Well, obviously you dismiss every evidence that has been presented as such in scientific publications so far for the validity of the statements in theory about the causal chain between increasing greenhouse gases and temperature increase. Why is what has been presented so far not evidence according to you? What are the specific flaws of such studies? Or is it the argument from above, where lack of 100% certainty was the same has having no evidence at all? What evidence would you accept then to not claim it wasn’t existent at all? How would the evidence have to look like, specifically, which you would not just outright dismiss again? With your statements I have seen so far here, you just keep the door open for yourself to raise the bar infinitely, as long as it is convenient for you, and to immunize yourself against anything that is being presented.
Well, first you would have to show where “the IPCC” has made any statements about something like “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” before your request that someone else addresses the confidence of those statements was even a valid one.
“is that until the final empirical data is available, there is doubt that the hypothesis is correct. ”
UNFOOL yourself. There is no such thing as “FINAL” empirical data. Doubt is always possible. No theory is ever proved. Given the evidence we have we reason to the best explanation given that evidence. Doubt remains in ALL SCIENCE. The issue is not the absence of doubt or the absence of some “final” evidence. There is no final evidence for anything.
To Steven and Jan, Of course I knows that there is no such thing as final evidence in physics. But that is different from no evidence at all. There is no empirical data that proves that when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it causes global temperatures to rise. There I have made a claim. Is it correct or not? A simple yes or no is all that is required.
Jim Cripwell:
There are no proofs in science – so yes, your claim is trivially correct and uninformative.
oneuniverse, you write “your claim is trivially correct and uninformative.”
Thank you. Now this leads to the next question. On page 8 of the IPCC SPM to AR4 of WG1, we find “Most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic gas concentrations”. From page 3 of the SPM “very likely” means “>90% probability”. Note I am not discussing whether the claim about most of the increase is true or not. What I am asking what is the basis for the claim that it is “very likely”, i.e. “>90% probability” that the claim about GHGs is true?
The well bounded temperature of the past ten thousand years is a very strong indicator that the next ten thousand years will be bounded the same way and the warmer future is not going to happen. Recent data is well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years and, other than CO2 and crop productivity, which are both above the normal, there is no climate parameter outside the well bounded range of the past ten thousand years.
According to the AR4, “”Likelihood may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views. ”
If I recall, our host Dr. Curry has some knowledge of this, and indicated that many of the statements of likelihood are not the result of quantitative analysis – they are merely expert opinions. I suspect that’s the case for the passage you’ve quoted. The IPCC reports generally do not reveal the basis, quantitative analysis or otherwise, of the specific likelihood statements. Maybe in AR5 ?
oneuniverse, you write “they are merely expert opinions. I suspect that’s the case for the passage you’ve quoted.”
I wonder how you can write this, and not get worried. Nullius in verba. On the word of no man. I am supposed to take the word of some expert on this issue, and no basis whatsoever is provided to support the statement. And this is supposed to be science.
You say my statement on empirical data that proves that adding CO2 to the atmopshere causes global temperatures is TRIVIALLY true and UNINFORMATIVE. Yet, with no empirical data on this one vital issue whatsoever to support the IPCC claim that something is >90% probable, I am supposed to accept this expert judgement, and not be outraged.
Clearly my idea of scientific skepticism is very different from yours. I do not believe just the opinion of ANY expert, no matter how many qualifications he has, and what important position he occupies. If the supporting empirical data cannot be provided, then any opinion given is not worth the powder to blow it to hell. That was what my mentor, Prof. Sir Gordon Sutherland hammered into my head in Cavendish Labs, and that is the basis of how I do science. And furthermore, all the scientific experts who I have encountered in my career would agree with me. Such behaviour is completely and utterly unscientific.
Jan,
While I admittedly have read (or more correctly read the abstract of) a small percentage of published papers, my impression of the evidence you refer to “in scientific publications so far for the validity of the statements in theory about the causal chain between increasing greenhouse gases and temperature increase” is that it is highly model based.
Jim, my exchange with Dr. Curry mentioned above, about the use of expert opinion in the IPCC, was critical on both our parts. I thought my use of the phrase “merely expert opinions” may have clued you in about my evaluation of its worth. (In general, my comments on the IPCC reports have been almost exclusively critical – I won’t recap them here).
Jim:
Yes, which is why I asked you to provide the data and analysis to back up your repeated claims that climate senstivity to CO2 is indistinguishable from zero. Your answers have been less than straightforward. You declined to help me determine some of the specifics of your analysis. You still haven’t produced the data and analysis. The analysis you described on the ‘Goldilocks’ thread doesn’t back up your claim, as far as I can tell.
oneuniverse, you write “Your answers have been less than straightforward.”
I dont know if you cannot read, but my answers have been as complete as I can make them. Let me try again. I can only operate from what I call negative data, since there is no ;positive data. I cannot find a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. Dont ask me which temperature/time graph; I have looked at as many as I can find. This does not mean that a signal does not exist, nor does it mean that a signal will not appear in the future. All that it means is that I cannot find one now. Since I have concluded that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph, I deduce that the total climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero.
Is that clear enough, or what more can I add to make it clear?
“I cannot find a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph”
Its been shown to you many times.
Scaffeta shows it.
Pratt shows it.
Foster shows it
Berkeley Earth shows it.
it’s been shown to you, but you refuse to see. There are explanations for why you cannot see it. None of them are complimentary to you.
So, moshe, what’s the cause(s?) of the millenial scale climate changes which bring us the climate optima and minima, and where are we on that scale?
==========
moshe, your certainty about attribution is disconcerting and uncertainly explains your concern. You would leave Nature out of the temperature rise lately? Have you checked with her lately? Beware the wrath.
============
Oh, boy, here ya go, Jim. Muller’s found the signal. And Pratt. It’s all settled now, so listen to moshe like a good boy, or he’ll think you are bad.
=============
Pekka and moshe ignore the elephant in the room. They’re not gonna touch it, cuz they already know what it looks like.
=====================
The problem for you moshe, and I’ve mentioned it once before, is that if your vision of attribution is correct, think where we’d be without it.
==================
Is your analysis just consist of looking at graphs of temperature for the CO2 signal?
You could provide the analysis itself : The datasets you used. What assumptions you made. The method you used to estimate CO2 sensitivty. etc.
If you’ve done many analyses, you could share at least one, preferably the one you consider to be the strongest.
Is your analysis just consist of looking at graphs [..]
Sorry, “Is” -> “Does” .. I’m not trying to impersonate Ali G.
Steven, you write “it’s been shown to you, but you refuse to see.”
I was trying to tell oneuniverse my idea. I was not longwinded. I ought ot have added, when a signal is found, it is elimentary to MEASURE total climate sensitivity. That is what a signal means. It means you can quantitatively MEASURE the effect that CO2 has on global temperatures against the background on natural noise variations.
The question you have never answered is my claim that there is no empirical data that proves that as you add more CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels, this causes global tmeperatures to rise. I asked you if this claim was true or not. You have never answered. A simlpe yes or no is all that is required. But you refuse to answer.
‘These two ideas are opposite sides of the samed coin. If there is a CO2 signal, then there is proof that as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere it causes global tmeperatures to rise. If there is no proof that more CO2 causes global temperatures to rise, then there is no CO2 signal;.
Where are the measured values of total climate sensitivity from Scaffeta, Pratt, Foster, and Berkeley Earth?
oneuniverse, yiu write “Is your analysis just consist of looking at graphs of temperature for the CO2 signal? ”
Yes.
You also write “You could provide the analysis itself”
There is no analysis. There is a simple observation that I can find no CO2 signal. That is all.
There is no analysis.
Ok.. !
What are your thoughts about this graph of the rate of change of the global surface temperature indices (land and land+ocean)
( I see (roughly) the rate of change increasing for the land indices since about mid-20th C. For the land+ocean indices, the rate of change seems to increase in the 2nd half of the 20th C compared to the first half, but less markedly than for the land indices, and in fact the longer HadCRUT4 record actually shows greatest acceleration in the 19th and early 20th C portion.)
Without having good information about the nature and strength of the various forcings, and using only the mean surface temperature indices, it’s not possible to identify or rule out a CO2 signal.
oneuniverse, you write “Without having good information about the nature and strength of the various forcings, and using only the mean surface temperature indices, it’s not possible to identify or rule out a CO2 signal.”
From My Fair Lady Prof. Higgins sings “She’s got it! I think she’s got it!”. I could not have expressed it better myself.
“Finding a CO2 signal” in the temperature record (land or land+sea or whatever) is a matter of “wanting to find a CO2 signal”.
If, like Mosher, you truly BELIEVE there should be a “CO2 signal” and scrutinize the data long enough, you will undoubtedly FIND one.
Max
Jim ;)
I’ve been making this point to you since 23rd Dec (link and following comments ) : eg.
CO2 hasn’t been the only climate forcing in the 20th century, and our knowledge of other processes that may have affected the Earth’s energy balance (eg. via changes in cloud cover, ice cover, atmospheric aerosols concentrations and distributions) is incomplete and contains uncertainties on the order of the estimates of the forcing changes themselves.
..
How does your analysis allow you to distinguish between a climate sensitivity to changes in CO2-effected radiative forcing of 0 K/(W.M^-2) and say 0.3 K/(W.M^-2) , if there are these large uncertainties in the values of the forcings?
[ unit typo corrected ]
oneuniverse
“CO2 change is not the only climate forcing”.
Indeed!
Add in lots of natural forcing (or “variability”), much of which is not well understood.
Problem is: we do not know whether or not these natural factors have been the dominant forcing factors in the late 20thC warming (as they were in the statistically indistinguishable early 20thC warming – and the 21stC standstill).
Uncertainty writ BIG.
Max
oneuniverse you write “How does your analysis allow you ”
How many more times do I have to say it. I dont have any analysis. I observe that I cannot find a CO2 signal. I conclude that the total climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero. Period. That is it, and that is all there is.
Jim you’ve agreed with me that ““Without having good information about the nature and strength of the various forcings, and using only the mean surface temperature indices, it’s not possible to identify or rule out a CO2 signal.”
As I see it, this means that it’s difficult to constrain the range of possible values for CS. As you see it however (afaict), this means that CS is indistinguishable from zero. Either there is a language problem, or we disagree on this basic inference.
oneuniverse, you write “it’s not possible to identify or rule out a CO2 signal”
I hoped you understood what I was talking about when you wrote this. Apparently not. The first part says it is not possible to identify a CO2 signal. This is my main point. If one cannot identify a CO2 signal, then so far as I am concerned, this is a strong indication that the CS is indistinguishable from zero.
However, I cannot prove that no CO2 signal exists; as you put it, I cannot rule out a CO2 signal. All I can say is I cannot find one. Anyone can prove me wrong by identifying a CO2 signal. But this must be a signal in the scientific sense. A measured value of how much CO2 affects global temperatures, which is identifyable above the noise of natural variations..
So your sentence says it all so far as I am concerned. I cannot find a CO2 signal; no one has shown me one that exists. But this proves nothing as I cannot rule out that a CO2 signal could exist now, or in the future. But you are right in the sense that no-one knows what the CS is for CO2. There are all sorts of estimates, but until we actually measure it, we dont know what the value is. Please note this is my understanding of what is meant by the scientific method. It is perfectly legitimate to speculate and hypothesis on any aspect of CAGW. But until we have an actual measurement of CS, then no-one should claim anything on the subject with any sort of estimate of probability. The probability will be the error in the measurement of CS when and if this is ever done.
You also write it is “As you see it however (afaict), this means that CS is indistinguishable from zero.” I hope I have never said that the CS is indistinguishable from zero. If I have said this I apologise, as it is dead wrong. All I claim is that there is a strong indication that the CS is indistinguishable from zero. There is a world of difference between these two statements.
So, Pekka, what’s the cause(s?) of the apparent millenial scale climate changes which bring us the climate optima and minima, and where are we on that scale?
Your certainty of warming is disconcerting but it explains your concern. Now, what can explain your fear, since a warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life?
============
kim
Let’s be properly objective about all this. Please, note the italicised text, which is emphasised not for shouty purposes, but because these words are crucially important to the discussion you are trying to have.
The MWP and LIA are tentative. There’s no evidence for a global, synchronous MWP. There is no evidence for a global, synchronous LIA. The proxy evidence suggests strongly variable regional climate with no single pattern persisting on larger spatial scales.
Possible attribution for MWP is a slight increase in TSI (increased solar luminosity and decreased volcanism/stratospheric aerosol loading). Proxy evidence suggests a strongly positive NAO and persistent La Nina mode of ENSO over the period ~1050 – 1400CE, possibly operating together as a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop (Trouet et al. 2009). Possible attribution for LIA is slight decrease in TSI (decreased solar luminosity) and a shift to a negative mode for the NAO.
While there’s no doubt that climate is variable, there’s no conclusive evidence for persistent, global-scale climate change over the last thousand years. Note ‘persistent’ and ‘global-scale’. These are important qualifications.
In contrast, modern warming (especially post-1970) is global in scale, and confidence in attribution to CO2 forcing has risen to a very high level.
Modern, Medieval, Roman, Minoan, you get the picture. See it on the wall?
==============
kim
This is a disappointing response. You are chirruping again rather than engaging intelligently.
Do you have any references supporting the existence of a global and synchronous ‘Roman’ or ‘Minoan’ warm period? Do you? Can we see them please?
Do you want to try again and actually *respond to what I wrote*? I’m prepared to give it one more go.
BBD
Wrong.
There is LOTS of evidence for a global MWP (studies from all over the globe using different paleo methodologies, composite studies from several sites, historical records from all over the civilized world at the time, actual physical evidence, etc.)
And there is NO evidence showing that the MWP was NOT global.
The “null hypothesis” is a “global MWP slightly warmer than today”
Show me the evidence that contradicts the “null hypothesis”.
Max
PS There are individual locations today, which are not warming, despite the general warming trend; no doubt this was the same during the MWP.
A high resolution Antarctic ENSO proxy show both the decadal patterns we familiar with but millennial scale variability. The MCA and LIA were most certainly global. Note the El Nino dominance in the from 1000 to 1260 AD – similar to todays.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim
The warming from the 70’s is mostly natural.
Sadly Pekka, you’ve ignored my question above @ 8:03. You’ve asserted warming, presumably on the basis of a CO2 control knob, and neglected what Nature may have in store for you.
You have a most elegant case of the pathology.
=========
Standstill?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
What standstill?
wikipedia science huh
Rob, I know. I can’t tell you how many times he referred me to wiki. It would be funny if so sad. Poor tempt.
If you don’t like Wikipedia, have you tried Conservapedia? It defines itself as “a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia” with “commandments” instead of boring old rules.
They describe AGW as a “liberal hoax” which should appeal to the numpty contributors to this blog.
tempterrain
The 10-year standstill, which even James E. Hansen acknowledges.
Max
For those who think its all a Wikipedia conspiracy I’ll just link to this NASA graph.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-1.png
Whatever you want to call it , there’s nothing particularly different in the general upwards trend in the longer term temperature record.
As recently as the early 90’s there was a definite cooling and there’s no sign of that in the graph now.
More on Hansen’s fake temperature tantrums: http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/08/08/hansens-study-did-global-warming-cause-recent-extreme-weather-events/
As Met Office has modified its predictions as follows:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
When is IPCC going to revise its prediction below?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-26.html
Note that Met Office’s current projection matches the projection if CO2 was held constant at the 2000 level!
Girma
Ask Mosher: “Where’s the CO2 signal after 2000?”
Max
You have to remember that the 5 year forecast is derived from a large number of individual runs each with slightly different starting conditions matching the range of the observational uncertainty in the real starting conditions.
Using the previous model it would seem that the internal variability in the model got smoothed out very quickly leaving behind only the CO2 warming.
In the current model, it would seem that the internal variability is more sustained, and I guess they will hope it is more realistic. But a bit like the old model and maybe a lot like the real earth, the internal variability will eventually average out and you will be left with the warming signal from the rising forcings.
I’d bet real money that when AR6 rolls around and this new model gets run for a hundred years it will demonstrate about as much warming as the last.
One thing that all can probably agree upon is that if you mention Hansen in a headline, the article will get alot of attention and comments
Climate activist and money manager Jeremy Grantham had these words about Jim Hansen in a November 14, 2012 article:
“The damaging effects of climate change are accelerating. James Hansen of NASA has screamed warnings for 30 years. Although at first he was dismissed as a madman, almost all his early predictions, disturbingly, have proved conservative in relation to what has actually happened.”
Why would Grantham say that? More of his thoughts:
“Overstatement may generally be dangerous in science (it certainly is for careers) but for climate change, uniquely, understatement is even riskier and therefore, arguably, unethical.”
http://www.nature.com/news/be-persuasive-be-brave-be-arrested-if-necessary-1.11796
It’s no secret. It is a convenient truth that promoting the idea that Americans caused global warming has been very lucrative for many over the years who have been involved in the fear business.
More lucrative than the rejection, which is pomoted by the denial business, of published results from several decades of scientific research about anthropogenically caused global warming? How many are “many”? And what about you present some testable empirical data to support your inciting statement?
Jan,
Any tips on how I can get a piece of this denialist money train?
On a more serious note, there are people who have done what any good accounting professor will tell you – follow the money. The results they turned up not only fail to support the “big oil / fossil fuel” funding of folks who disagree with various aspects of the CAGW meme, they show where the money is really going. Billions of dollars of it just in the US.
No one can be unaware of the billions American taxpayers shelled out for filing cabinets full of junk science and the lost opportunity costs and liberal fascist stonkernomics based on anti-Americanismand anti-capitalism is robbing the productive of the fruits of their investment of sweat and sacrifice and depriving the youth of a prosperous future.
Whatever one’s position on the science, it’s is indisputable that by now there are plentiful inducements for scientists to maintain an alarmist bias. Of course the usual climate mouthpieces…the MSM go-to guys like Mann and Hansen are so deeply invested they’ve have to be saints to suddenly start admitting doubts. One ignores this reality at one’s peril. Does it mean CAGW isn’t correct. No, it does not. Is it a reason for a certain amount of skepticism when these guys open their mouths? Yes it is.
We use a one-dimensional radiative-convective model for the atmospheric thermal structure to compute the change in the surface temperature of the earth for large assumed increases in the trace gas concentrations; doubling the N2O, CH4, and NH3 concentrations is found to cause additive increases in the surface temperature of 0.7°, 0.3°, and 0.1°K, respectively. – Hansen 1976
JCH
That’s the same model Hansen used to crank out his failed 1988 forecast.
Max
North Atlantic ocean heat content has rapidly declined since 2008. This is the last leg of the AGW movement. http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
I think we we should be concerned about the decline in SST of the southern ocean which carries the worlds largest current (ACC)). The recent drop in South Atlantic SST and the continuing drop in the East Pacific should be of more concern for the worlds climate than a small increase in co2.
Eh, but that’s not Hansen’s main message, is it?
Hansen’s main message is simpler and stronger (from the concluding paragraphs):
————-
Hansen’s Key Observations
• continuing planetary energy imbalance
• rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
————-
Hansen’s Key Predictions
• global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years
• sea-level rise rates will accelerate this decade
————-
Hansen’s Key Wild Card
• climate forcing due to aerosol changes and their effects on clouds.
————–
Overall Conclusion Hansen’s main scientific points and crisp decadal predictions are clear and logical, yet are so unpalatable to skeptics, contrarians, and denialists, that these main points are commonly minimized and/or ignored and/or denied (by Judith’s cherry-picked excerpts, for example). Nonetheless, more-and-more leaders appreciate that Hansen’s main points are just plain right.
So Hansen’s main message isn’t complicated, eh?![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1&c=20201002)
“Nonetheless, more-and-more leaders”
How close did Hansen 1970 come to reality? How about Hansen 1988?
To be fair Hansen has adjusted his prognostication’s downward when the evidence became overwhelming. Unfortunately…his followers somehow can’t manage to ‘unburn’ those they burned at the stake….
Specific citations? Verbatim quotes in-context? Neither given? Then claims have little weight, eh?![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1&c=20201002)
Fan
You wouldn’t really expect Hansen to “change his position”, would you?
He’s “locked in” to the CAGW premise (coal death trains, tipping points, Venus runaway effect, deleterious climate changes, sea level changes measured in meters, extinction of species, etc.).
Even if he has been forced to acknowledge that there is a current standstill in warming, don’t expect him to change his “shtick”.
No scientific evidence in this world would ever change Hansen’s viewpoint.
Right?
Max
These are the reasons Hansen was wrong …
It should be clear from the recent comments on Roy Spencer’s latest thread that Jeff Conlon (owner of “The Air Vent” website) was wrong in assuming that microbolometers (infra red thermometers) disproved what Prof Claes Johnson said about how one-way spontaneous radiation cannot transfer heat from a cooler source to a warmer target.
My March 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” was in large part a review of what Claes had written. He and I are in frequent communication, along with about half a dozen core members of PSI who really know their physics, and we have not been proven to be incorrect on any of this by anyone offering a valid rebuttal based on valid physics.
The significance of what Claes proved in “Computational Blackbody Radiation” is that back radiation cannot affect the rate of cooling by non-radiative processes. The latter account for at least two-thirds of all the thermal energy transferred from the surface to the atmosphere.
The rate of cooling by non-radiative processes is slowed, not by back radiation, but by the presence of all air molecules at a very close temperature at the surface/atmosphere boundary. These air molecules are at the temperature they are, because Loschmidt was right and his physics, nearly 150 years old, has stood the test of time, and now been proven correct empirically. A thermal gradient does develop autonomously in a gravitational field and is more than sufficient to explain that “33 degrees of warming” supposedly due to WV and GHG. So the greenhouse is demolished and falls to the ground, which it never was warming in the first place. QED.
Doug Cotton
http://climate-change-theory.com
Typo: Jeff Condon was wrong
That’s cool, Doug! Hmmm … the 10,000 meter-tall water column of the Challenger Deep stands in a gravitational field equivalent to (calculates) 250 Kelvins of energy for each water molecule.
Uhhhh … how come the water’s so d*mn cold down there?
Comedy!![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1&c=20201002)
Doug,
Understanding the adiabatic lapse rate isn’t that easy and there does seem to be conflicting information from supposedly reliable sources on the net.
You might want to take a look at this:
“A column of dry air in hydrostatic equilibrium is considered, bounded by two fixed values of the pressure,and the question is asked, what vertical temperature profile maximizes the total entropy of the column? Using an elementary variational calculation, it is shown how the result depends on what is kept fixed in the maximization process. If one assumes that there is no net heat exchange between the column and its surroundings—implying
that the vertical integral of the absolute temperature remains constant— an isothermal profile is obtained in accordance with classical thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of gases ”
http://www.nioz.nl/public/fys/staff/theo_gerkema/jas04.pdf
They are wrong. The gradient is derived without using the ideal gas law or anything to do with pressure. The derivation is based on isentropic conditions such that PE+KE=constant for molecular free path motion between impacts. It is a two-liner …
M.Cp.T = M.g.H
T/H = -g/Cp
(Cp is Specific Heat, T is temperature difference, H is height difference, g is acceleration due to gravity)
See my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” on PSI (just Google) and also Geoff Wood’s comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988
There is no other way to explain Venus surface temperatures, or Earth’s.
Doug, that manuscript is apparently not hosted on PSI any more. And a Google search finds only internet spam that has been posted by … Doug Cotton.
One reason may be, that PSI site’s thermodynamical reasoning is generally faulty and the PSI site’s thermodynamical conclusions are in general just plain wrong. To see this, get a copy of Frenkel and Smit, Understanding Molecular Simulation: from Algorithms to Applications. Then following Frenkel and Smit’s instructions, numerically simulate an elastic hard-sphere gas in a gravitational gradient.
Then your own computational simulation will illuminate for you three facts:
• The First Law is respected (because the atomic collisions are elastic)
• The Second Law is respected (because the dynamical flow is symplectic)
• The gas column at equilibrium is isothermal (as demanded by the First and Second Laws, when they are properly understood and applied).
Write the gas-column simulation code yourself, Doug Cotton, so as to be certain that you fully understand every detail of it!
Good luck in progressing toward thermodynamical clarity, Doug Cotton!![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1&c=20201002)
“Classic thermodynamics’, tempterrain include the original Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which only related to heat transfer at the same altitude, so that there was no change in potential energy. Thus entropy considerations degenerated to just temperature considerations.
But now, as in Wikipedia, we have a more general statement ….
An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
Gas molecules in diffusion process move in free paths between collisions maintaining PE+KE=constant. Thus there is only one “accessible” state, namely that in which entropy does not change. Hence there is a temperature gradient in a gravitational field, and your quoted author is wrong, and Roy Spencer is wrong in his Item (6) as I have pointed out to him on that thread about the GHE.
The thermal profile in a gravitational field has been confirmed by over 800 experiments since 2002. Details are in “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms.”
All should read this comment by, Geoff Wood, qualified in astrophysics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988
The following are excerpts ..
As Doug has said about a dozen times, gravity modifies the mean free path between collisions. That is ‘every’ upward, ‘every’ downward ‘every’ sideways, ‘every’, ‘every’ free molecular path between collisions is modified. Therefore it is impossible for the modified ‘collisions’ that result, not to impart the gravitational ‘information’ into the macroscopic development of the gravitational thermal profile. This is the ‘diffusion’ process.
At this point, we have a reasonable depiction of the thermal profile of ANY atmosphere. FROM BASIC PHYSICS.
Given a simple reason why any atmosphere tends towards this isentropic profile as depicted and described by entry level physics, why would anyone look for a more complicated reason to explain what we already know!
gbaike Yes and no. You haven’t explained how the temperature is maintained at the Venus poles, where less than 1W/m^2 of incident solar radiation reaches the surface, and not much more reaches the lower troposphere. Why isn’t surplus energy just radiated away as easily as it was absorbed, and in addition, some could move away from the surface by convection. What stops it ? The answer is in my paper.
“Doug Cotton | January 20, 2013 at 1:00 am |
gbaike Yes and no. You haven’t explained how the temperature is maintained at the Venus poles, where less than 1W/m^2 of incident solar radiation reaches the surface, and not much more reaches the lower troposphere. Why isn’t surplus energy just radiated away as easily as it was absorbed, and in addition, some could move away from the surface by convection. What stops it ? The answer is in my paper.”
On Venus it doesn’t matter how much solar energy reaches the surface.
Because the surface is already too hot for the solar energy to increase the heat of the surface.
Take some electrical infrared directional heater. Such as:
http://www.infratech-usa.com/automotive/
“With this technology, the heating element operates at approximately 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit, and will produce a dull orange glow when in operation that generates minimal visible light. ”
“When used between 18″ and 36″ from the surface of the drying substrate, an Infratech heater will generally reach target temperatures from 140° F to 200° F.”
http://www.infratech-usa.com/automotive/faqs.php
So if had this on Venus and had the heating element 18″ away from
the Venus surface- it’s not going to heat the surface. But the heating element will heat the Venus air because it’s hotter than the air.
So there only two options. Believe greenhouse theory.
Or heat atmosphere gas at higher elevation.
{or don’t sun heating Venus].
Say, you going to build something to heat Venus. Something like an asphalt parking lot type surface. And have big enough so it would have some effect upon global temperatures- so say at least of an area of million sq kilometers. What is mostly going to heat Venus depends upon how high the elevation of surface is.
1 km above surface- it will probably do nothing in terms of warming Venus.
40 Km above the surface and it should have some effect in terms of heating Venus. 50 km could be better. What will determine the best elevation is how much air is being warmed per square meter.
A modified version which could work better the a flat surface is making the “parking lot” multi-leveled. Have floors of mesh- say iron mesh 1″ square. Or have mesh size vary- bottom 1/4″, then 1/2″, 1″, 2″ and say 4″. So you 5 floor and some sunlight may shine thru all of them- but assume less than 10%.
At some lower elevation these mesh surfaces will not be much warmer than the air, but if increase the elevation at some point the mesh should be considerably warmer than the air. It could be more than 100 C difference between mesh temperature and the air temperature.
The greater difference is not the best location. The important aspect is how much air is being heated. And you want the air cooling the mesh.
This 5 stories mesh “parking lot” should cause convection of air, and the speed of this updraft will add to the cooling effect of the mesh.
The speed of air flow may be quite important, you probably can’t create hurricane level wind- but highest level of air flow would be the best.
And the acid clouds on Venus would doing a much better job than this
dinky 5 story mesh parking lot. Obviously the clouds are bigger and they have “more stories”, and up drafting droplets do better job than a fixed grid of metal. And of course the clouds are free.
Well, Doug, Geoff Wood may well be qualified in Astrophysics but either he’s incorrect, or Verkley and Gerkema, who seem at least equally well qualified, are incorrect. Someone’s got it wrong!
I think Geoff Wood’s argument is that the molecules have energy which consists of kinetic energy and potential energy. He’s assuming that the molecules in a column of air, under a gravitational field, will tend, on average, to have the same energy. So the molecules at the top of the column, which have more potential energy, will move slower than those at the bottom and therefore have a lower temperature.
I don’t think this is the right way of looking at it. In a volume of air there will be a distribution of molecular velocities. Some molecules will move quicker. Some will move slower. In a column of air under a gravitational field which, unlike our atmosphere, is in thermal isolation, the quicker molecules will tend to rise higher and lose some of that velocity (or energy) and the slower ones will fall and gain velocity. At equilibrium the molecules at higher levels will have the same velocity as the ones at a lower level. Therefore all temperatures equalise and the column is isothermal. This is a condition of maximum entropy.
This also complies with the first law of thermodynamics which states that heat tends to flow from relative hot to cold. So, if there is no heat flow, there can’t be any relative hot or cold.
Our atmosphere isn’t isothermal. We know that from our own experience as we climb a mountain. That’s because it’s not in thermal isolation. Heat is being radiated into space from GH gases (including water vapour) in the upper atmosphere. There is a heat flow from the surface to the upper atmosphere, largely in the form of convection currents, driven by the temperature gradient, to replace the lost heat and maintain equilibrium.
You have quoted the Second Law, not the First. But there is a more complete form of the second law which says entropy either increase or remains the same. This is so that there can be no contradiction. The First Law must always apply, so the Second Law has to be modified to include potential energy. In any event, this is not a “heat flow” – it is a conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy and vice versa, just as when a pendulum swings back and forth, with slight upward motion as well.
No, There is no reason for the “quicker ones to rise higher.” Their direction is random. Diffusion has a propensity to equalise KE at the same height. Suppose you somehow started only with a layer of molecules in the middle, and a vacuum above and below in a sealed container. Anyway, it’s all been proven empirically now in over 800 experiments.
Geoff Wood and I are correct because energy cannot be created and entropy cannot decrease during molecular free path motion between impacts. Read my paper easily found with Google “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” and the linked experiments (discussed in more detail on Tallbloke’s talkshop) and also the Appendix of my paper, and/or watch the video http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY
The temperature at the poles of Venus (over 720K) cannot be explained by any “runaway greenhouse effect” because there is less than 1W/m^2 from the Sun that gets through the Venus atmosphere to the surface at the poles. The only explanation is that the atmosphere autonomously develops the observed thermal gradient, radiative equilibrium is maintained, diffusion distributes the kinetic energy around the whole globe and so the hot base of the Venus atmosphere supports the surface temperature which is similar at all locations.
Doug,
There’s no mistake. The “Hot to Cold” principle is encompassed by the First Law not the Second. See about a third of the way down the page on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics. Apologies to those who think Wiki is so biased that it can’t be trusted on anything, but I’m sure you’ll find other sources say the exact same thing if you care to look.
“There is no reason for the quicker ones to rise higher” ??
Let think about this. We all know that hot air rises. That’s an example of quicker molecules rising higher.
Let think some more by way of a thought experiment. We start off with a column of air at a uniform temperature and then apply a gravitational field. The air becomes relatively compressed and decompressed at each end of the column. The compressed air becomes warmer and the decompressed air becomes colder.
What happens next? Does convection equalise the temperatures to essentially bring about a condition of maximum entropy (which is the 2nd Law) and an isothermal column of air? I think that is what V&G are predicting and I’d say they were right.
This could possibly be tested experimentally, though its probably not that easy, by spinning a column of air is a centrifuge, to simulate a gravitational field, and measuring the temperature in the column.
Is this one of your 800 experiments? Or do you know if this has been done?
“The temperature at the poles of Venus (over 720K) cannot be explained by any “runaway greenhouse effect” because there is less than 1W/m^2 from the Sun that gets through the Venus atmosphere to the surface at the poles. The only explanation is that the atmosphere autonomously develops the observed thermal gradient, radiative equilibrium is maintained, diffusion distributes the kinetic energy around the whole globe and so the hot base of the Venus atmosphere supports the surface temperature which is similar at all locations.”
I agree. But even if 1000 W/m sunlight reached the Venus surface,
it would not still warm the surface and *still* could not warm the atmosphere.
Heat up some air on the Moon [1360 W/m], than transport this warmed air
to the Venus surface. This air will be colder than the surrounding air.
Instead transporting the warmed air to Venus surface, transport the warmed air to upper atmosphere of Venus, say 50 Km above surface. Now the warmed air can be warmer than surrounding air.
Or it warms rather than cools the atmosphere.
For Venus to be as hot as it is, the air needs to be warmed at high elevation- the more heat capture at highest elevation results in highest surface temperature of air.
tempterrain
You are assuming that I am talking about a cold to hot transfer, or KE moving downwards, but I am not. Please read the four page Appendix to “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” and note the reasons why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated. They are not what you are thinking.
temp, you read the wiki article wrong – read it again.
Under “Second law”, you will find: “The second law states that spontaneous natural processes increase entropy overall, or in another formulation that heat can spontaneously be conducted or radiated only from a higher-temperature region to a lower-temperature region, but not the other way around.”
Just to continue with this. As V&G mention in their paper, there is still quite a lot of confusion over the effect of a gravitational field on a column of air. They come to the conclusion that the column should be isothermal.
This point is also discussed by Nick Stokes:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/greenhouse-effect-and-adiabatic-lapse.html
Nick asks what would happen if the atmosphere consisted of pure nitrogen. Nick says “heat flux to the N2 goes nowhere. For N2 cannot emit it to space. It can only conduct it back to the surface ” That’s right. So would this hypothetical atmosphere be isothermal , or much nearer to isothermal than our real atmosphere?
Nick doesn’t think it would. He argues that the dry adiabat would still set up a temperature gradient. If a parcel of air is lifted, its pressure is decreased, since pressure decreases with height, and its temperature falls due to the expansion. If the air is dry and the process is adiabatic, the rate of temperature fall is 1°C per 100 meters of lift . If that parcel descends again to higher pressure, its temperature then increases at the rate of 1°C per 100 meters. This is known as the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
So how does this tie in with V&G’s finding? At first sight it would imply there is a contradiction. But the above explanation assumes that the parcel of air can be moved and kept in isolation from the rest of the column. It isn’t like that. If a parcel of air is moved up, yes, it will cool., But if its in thermal contact with the rest of the column it will exchange heat and end up at the same temperature. Also the raised parcel will contain cooled air initially but if the parcel is porous the slower molecules will escape and sink to lower levels.
So I don’t think there is any contradiction, when you think about it. V&G’s statement is still correct and not in contradiction with the well known 1°C per 100 metre dry adiabatic lapse rate.
What would the atmosphere be like without any radiative heat transfer at all is an interesting question to ponder even if it’s of little direct significance. I have made my own comments on that on my site under Random topics and I have argued on that with DeWitt Payne on several occasions at Science of Doom, most recently today.
No parcel of air has to move anywhere. The thermal gradient does not have to have convection as its cause, nor a hot surface. It all happens at the molecular level (over many years of course) and Venus is a good example. Atmospheres absorb incident radiation from the Sun at all altitudes, and radiate it away until they cool to the predetermined thermal profile. It is impossible to have an atmosphere which does not absorb any of the Sun’s insolation, especially in the UV and visible. There will always be some molecules that do so, and when they do absorb they have so much extra energy that they can easily re-emit. But some won’t and will instead warm the surrounds by diffusion. In any event, we have the atmosphere that we have, and it has water vapour which reduces the gradient as is well known. Hence water vapour leads to a lower surface temperature, so there goes all that positive feedback the IPCC likes to tell you about.
Doug,
I’ve also commented above. The thermal gradient isn’t caused by convection- its the other way around. Its the thermal gradient which causes the convection. It can be regarded as heat moving from hot to cold (as required by the the first law of thermodynamics) or the maximisation of Entropy (the second law).
“No parcel of air has to move anywhere. The thermal gradient does not have to have convection as its cause, nor a hot surface.”
No parcel of air *needs* to move anywhere, but parcels of air on Venus do rise.
The problem here is one might be confused. Rising parcels of air, means dropping air [somewhere] and rising parcels of air may become a cooler temperature, BUT rising air does not cause the the parcel of air to lose heat. And “what goes up, always goes down”.
So rising parcel of air, causes more heat to get to the surface, quicker.
You don’t need such causation [as the heat will diffuse throughout], but rising parcels of air causes this to occur faster.
“I’ve also commented above. The thermal gradient isn’t caused by convection- its the other way around. ”
A thermal gradient is not caused by convection, nor is does convection
cause thermal gradient.
Convection is imbalance of heat in an atmosphere [in which obviously has gravity].
If you don’t have “enough” imbalance of heat, so not enough imbalance of heat to cause parcel of air to rise- there still a thermal gradient. Balanced heat is thermal gradient in atmosphere in a gravity field.
The “cause” of thermal gradient is having gas of atmosphere, having gravity, and having heat.
Or a thermal gradient is a expression/manifestation of heat, atmosphere, and gravity.
Convection or downdraft is an abundance of heat or lack of heat expressed in a parcel of air.
The Second Law (with this condition quoted from Wiki) “Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system” is exactly what I talk about in the 4 page Appendix of “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms.” I don’t have time to write it all out here.
That Appendix is my response to points made by all of you.
Doug,
I hope you find time to get some of it properly peer reviewed. Otherwise, rightly or wrongly, it won’t be considered to be of any value whatsoever.
PS Don’t forget that the movement of heat from hot to cold is part of the first law of thermodynamics, not the second.
tempterrain
Of course my November 2012 paper has been reviewed by several suitably qualified peers. Then, since late November, it has been subjected to worldwide open review, and no one has successfully rebutted it.
I can detect by your comments that you do not have an appropriate level of understanding of heat transfer physics and thermodynamics in general.
Please read the four page Appendix in the paper.The First Law places no restriction upon heat transfer or temperature. Only the Second Law does.
The Second Law says: “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. “
For a gas molecules between collisions the process must be adiabatic. So PE+KE = constant. Hence there is only one possible state, which is both maximum and minimum entropy, and is in fact the state wherein entropy does not change. Hence, in an adiabatic process in still air there must be a propensity towards isentropic conditions, and thus a thermal gradient – QED
(In the simplified case where there is no change in PE then the Second Law implies KE + constant PE = maximum possible state – ie hot to cold only.)
Hence the IPCC statement relating to isothermal conditions at 255K would violate both First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
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 sometimes wonder what it takes to be a sceptic. In my case it seems a case of saying precisely this – something that has been obvious for a decade but now has entered the mainstream. It is evident also that these large scale climate patterns result in changes in both the extent and location of low level, rain bearing cloud cover. The cloud cover changes are consistent with changes in ocean heat content in the satellite era. The conclusion seems quite inevitable – that both rcent temperature and precipiation changes are the result predominantly of natural variation. It is apparent also that we have not seen the limits of natural variation in the records of the last century.
The decadal standing waves in the climate system – otherwise known as the AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc – are expressions of the underlying dynamic and complex system. The underlying – chaotic – physics of the climate system results in abrupt and non-linear change. This would seem to be the significant risk in changing the composition of the atmosphere – the potential for conditions well outside of the envelop of the steady evolution of climate.
The solutions for emissions involve both technological and social innovation – addressing population, black carbon, ecological conservation and restoration, food security, health and education and economic deelpopment. Unfortunately these things seem not on the radar of the average pissant progressive. So we can look forward to another generation of continued obfuscation and misdirection even as the world fails to warm.
El Niño-La Niña are the result of natural climate change, not the cause. It is no coincidence that the large El Niño happened in 1998, close to the maximum of the 59.6 year natural cycle which is probably due to Saturn/Jupiter alignment with the Sun. A maximum around 1998 could have been predicted many years earlier, just as I can predict there will be 30 years of slight cooling from 1998 until about 2028. We can also predict 500 years of long term cooling (at about 0.5 degree per century) that should start within the next 200 years at the most.
ENSO may be initiated by changes solar UV/stratispheric interactions as I suggest elsewhere in this post. SAM pushes more or less cold water into lower latitudes. More or less flow in the Peruvian Current enhances or otherwise upwelling in the region of the Humboldt Current. This sets up multiple feedbacks in wind, wave, cloud and current that determines the evolution of ENSO. ENSO in turn modifies climate – especially through cloud feedbacks. It is all a complex and dynamic system that shifts independently of the control variable and itself modifies the periodicity of the resultant climate states. These climate states last 20 to 40 years in the proxy and instrumental records. I doubt that even that is dependable.
The solar magneto may indeed change UV as a result of primarily the orbits of the large outer planets. But this latter is a many bodies problem that is chaotic and unpredictable. The periodicities are variable because they are dependent on the shifts in orbital state space between strange attractors. Your faux precision is an absolute nonsense.
If you think it ridiculous, then you need an explanation for the plot in the Appendix in my “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published on a few websites in March 2012. So far that plot has been quite effective in predicting (a) slight cooling until 2028 and (b) a long-term maximum approaching within 200 years at the most, with an increase of no more than about 0.8 C degree in the long-term trend by that maximum. Thereafter 500 years of cooling. You need to read Dr Nicola Scafetta’s latest papers. (Jnl Atmos Physics).
The ‘cycles’ are not cycles but chaotic bifurcation and modes tend to persist for 20 to 40 years. As I say – if driven by solar UV as a conteol variable for instance these periods are not precise the same and on Earth they are modified further in ocean and atmosphere circulation. Simply adding 30 year increments means nothing at all. Your graph predicts nothing at all. It remains nonsense to project such limited data so far into the future.
You need to understand and explain this.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=ENSO11000.gif
I think your claims are profoundly unscientific.
‘ A fan of *MORE* discourse | January 17, 2013 at 4:51 pm
the 10,000 meter-tall water column of the Challenger Deep stands in a gravitational field equivalent to (calculates) 250 Kelvins of energy for each water molecule.
Uhhhh … how come the water’s so d*mn cold down there?’
Nice question, were are some more.
Why are the oceans colder at the bottom than at the top?
If this is due to cold water from the surface diving to the bottom, what does it tell us about ‘equilibrium’ models of, say, CO2, when we must have a rapid mechanism for cold surface waters to get to the bottom of the ocean?
However the Mediterranean is fed only by the Atlantic near-surface, rivers and rain water, and yet here too the bottom is colder than the top. Why are the bottom waters as cold as the surface waters found in winter nights?
How long does it take surface brine’s to fall from the cold, wintery night surface to the bottom of the Mediterranean ?
Come on Fan, put me right.
Having disposed of Doug Cotton’s skepticism, it is my pleasure to dispose of yours DocMartyn! Please see:
Concise Answer
• The Mediterranean depths are considerably warmer than Atlantic depths, and
• The Mediterranean’s relative warmth is sustained by relatively shallow Atlantic waters tidally cycling through the Straits of Gibraltar.
So it’s not complicated DocMartyn!
What will the next skeptical question be?![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1&c=20201002)
You explanation is completely untrue, indeed, it is the most ill-informed piece on nonsense you have disgorged.
http://robinson.seas.harvard.edu/PAPERS/encycirc.pdf
Try reading this comment by Geoff Wood, qualified in astrophysics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988
Having disposed of Doug Cotton’s skepticism
Really? Where? Perhaps I missed some comment with some real physics from you. Or perhaps you missed a reply of mine.
Thermal gradient in the ocean
Firstly, the specific heat of water is more than four times that of air. Hence the autonomous thermal gradient due to gravity in still water in adiabatic conditions (eg a sealed, perfectly insulated cylinder in a lab experiment) exhibits a gradient of about a quarter that of air, as has been observed in actual experiments, because the calculation required is -g/Cp where Cp is specific heat.
However, local conditions over-ride the natural gradient in certain locations. In the atmosphere, wind temporarily over-rides it. In the ocean it is over-ridden both by currents and also the obvious fact that the Sun warms the top of the ocean more than the depths where its insolation hardly reaches.
” as has been observed in actual experiments “. ??
Any chance of a reference?
LOL … the recent references (2010) of my post nicely answer many of the questions raised in your old reference (2001). It’s good when scientific advances yield solid common-sense answers to climate-skeptic concerns, eh DocMartyn?![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1&c=20201002)
Nonsense The bottom of the Mediterranean consists of dense brine’s that arise from cooled, evaporated seawater. These dense brines actually siphon into the Atlantic as they are denser than the warmer and less dense Atlantic brines.
You don’t actually read the papers you cite do you?
Hansen has done more to decimate crow populations than anyone or anything, ever.
It is amazing he can still choke them down?
Notice Your post has been inspected for elements of objective reality (specific citations … verbatim quotes in-context … reasoned deduction from verifiable facts).
None were detected.
Whoops! That above quote was by Reality.Check, not DocMartyn.
To his credit, DocMartyn *does* commonly supply verifiable references (albeit not always the most recent references) that are accompanied by polite logical reasoning. Good on `yah, DocMartyn!
i>Our results highlight that an initialization of the upper-ocean state using historical observations is effective for successful hindcasts of the PDO and has a great impact on future predictions. Ensemble hindcasts for the 20th century demonstrate a predictive skill in the upper-ocean temperature over almost a decade, particularly around the Kuroshio-Oyashio extension (KOE) and subtropical oceanic frontal regions where the PDO signals are observed strongest. A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/1833.full
Shallow and misguided space cadets such as FOMBS notwithstanding – the world is still not warming for a decade or three at least.
Looking at their Figure 1, how much warming do you reckon they have between 1995 and 2020? 0.7 C?
All of it in one year.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:1998
Is the point not the forecast of SAT slowing down due to large scale ocean and atmosphere patterns? And 1995 was still a little cool from Mr Pinatubo as well as a little La Nina. And as we are talking PDO – you need to think about the periods of shifts not just arbitrary points. And as sunshine says – quite a lot of recent warming happened in 97/98 and is ENSO.
Jim D
Looking at the Figure 1 you cite (actual observation, Ishii) I see around 0.5C warming from 1980 to 1998 and slight cooling thereafter.
Is that what you see, too?
Max
Robert Ellison, the point seems to be that any slow down is quite temporary because even by 2020 they have the warming rate back over 0.2 degrees per decade including the previous 25 years.
manacker, yes, 0.5-0.6 degrees for the last 30 years. This is about the expected rate. Your point was…?
Initialised models are not much good – early days – and worse the further out they go. Even the authors comment on only a decade out. I would suggest you show the same restraint.
‘A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise.’
Robert Ellison, I can guarantee you would not have said the model gets worse if it had not been going up. You would have a hard time finding a model that doesn’t do this with rising CO2, so all the models are “worse” for your case.
All models are chaotic – that is they diverge over time.
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. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
So the difference between initialised and unitiisalised models is that boundaries are defined that reduce chaotic divergence. This should in theory produce better forecasts over the periods where the boundaries can be defined realistically. In this case some 10 years for the PDO.
The other models diverge exponentially and there is no testing of the limits of divergence – so the limits of precision and the range of possibilities is unknown. The members of the opportunistic ensembles used are arbitrarily selected based onsubjective expectations of plausible outcomes. This explains the results but doesn’t confirm them.
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Which are you Jim – simplistic, optimistic, pessimistic or realisitic? eecause it’s sounding real simplistic.
Jim D
To your query:
I responded
To which you replied:
My point was that the “projections” beyond today are simply based on arm waving.
It is just as likely NOT to warm at all from today to 2020 as it is to warm.
And IMO it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to warm by 0.2C from today to 2020 (which is what it would require to reach your 0.7C warming).
Got it now?
Max
If the late 1950′s – early 1960′s is a good analogue of what we can expect in the next decade then it is possible we will not experience ’98-like conditions before ~2050
It’s not just a climate standstill. It’s a 30 year natural slight decline from 1998 to 2028. Read what Geoff Wood (qualified in astrophysics) has explained ..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988
The point which Geoff and I make is that the “33 degrees of warming” supposedly caused by water vapour and carbon dioxide etc was already there due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere. This happens on all planets, and also fully explains why the poles of Venus are over 720K, even though they receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation from the Sun. For more detail read my article “The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” easily found with Google. I’ve also recorded an introductory 10 minute video here http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY
Doug Cotton
http://climate-change-theory.com
“The point which Geoff and I make is that the “33 degrees of warming” supposedly caused by water vapour and carbon dioxide etc was already there due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere.”
The point I mkake is that this 33°C/33K “warming” is an illusion – the water cycle brings it back down to that from the 67°C the Earth would be with the real greenhouse gas blanket of oxygen and nitrogen, but without water.
AGWScienceFiction has executed a two-pronged magician’s/conman’s sleight of hand here by attributing the minus 18°C figure to Earth with oxygen and nitrogen and only without the AGW “greenhouse gases”, but it is standard industry figure for the Earth without any atmosphere at all.
Real World
Earth with full atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, 15°C
Earth without any atmosphere at all, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, minus 18°C, compare with the Moon
Earth atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but without water, 67°C, think deserts
The AGWSF fake Greenhouse Effect has taken out the Water Cycle which brings the 67°C down 57°C to 15°C and perpetuates the science fraud that water raises the temp from minus 18°C to 15°C.
That’s how they get their riduculous arguments that the 1-4% water and trace carbon dioxide “act as a blanket raising the temp 33°C”, when the real blanket keeping the Earth warm is oxygen and nitrogen and nitrogen.
But, there’s no point in pointing this out to them. They can’t understand this real oxgen and nitrogen blanket because they don’t have gravity, they don’t have gravity because they don’t have “real” gases subject to gravity, with volume, weight, attraction etc., and in its place have subsituted the imaginary massless hard dot of nothing “ideal” gas not subject to gravity without these real gas properties.
They have not only excised the water cycle, and excised rain from the carbon cycle, but have excised the whole atmosphere which is the heavy voluminous fluid ocean of real gas Air weighting a ton on our shoulders and in its place have empty space with imaginary ideal gas molecules travelling under their own molecular momentum at great speeds through this empty space miles apart from each other bouncing off each other in elastic collisions, no attraction, and so “thoroughly mixing”.
In other words the fictional AGWSF Greenhouse Effect goes straight from the surface of Earth to empty space!
It is on this they posit their radiatiative heat transfer – they don’t have convection because there is no convection in empty space, they don’t have anything to convect…
If you’re going to argue with them about gravity you need to first point out they don’t have any, because they have created an entirely imaginary world for their Greenhouse Effect of imaginary molecules without the real gas properties which make real gases subject to gravity.
They have excised Van der Waals..
This is junk science because none of their “physics” exists, it’s a deliberately created fanasy fisics impossible in the real world. Their empty space atmosphere created out of descriptions of the theoretical non-existant hard dots of nothing ideal gas bouncing off the sides of its “container”, it’s how they get their imaginary “pressure” because they have no concept of volume so can’t understand gravity.
Their container for their empty space atmosphere being the non-existant glass of their greenhouse which prevents longwave infrared direct from the Sun entering, which is heat radiation, and for which they have substituted shortwave mainly visible light to heat their imaginary Earth, impossible in the real world.
Some have the variation that their imagainary Sun produces insignificant amounts of longwave infrared, which in the real world is radiative heat, aka thermal infrared, longwave infrared.
You’re arguing with people who have no concept of the real world around them.
You’re arguing with people who sincerely believe their fantasy world “physics”. They don’t know that their world is created out of sleights of hand tweaking real physics by excising whole properties and processes, misattributing properties and process, taking laws out of context, plays on terms, etc. Which is why these arguments get so convoluted.
These fake fisics concepts are in and through all their claims for the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect.
For example, because they don’t have real gases with attraction so they don’t have rain in their carbon cycle, because their gases have no attraction, (all rain is carbonic acid the attraction of water and carbon dioxide); so they claim their carbon dioxide can accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years.
Because they don’t have real gases with gravity their imaginary massless hard dots of nothing carbon dioxide “goes at great speeds in empty space mixing so thoroughly bouncing off other hard dots of nothing that it can’t be separated out from the other ideal gases”; so it accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years.
To add further confusion they also add Brownian motion as a “reason carbon dioxide is thoroughly mixed” – regardless that Brownian motion in nanometre distances in voluminous fluids is impossible in ideal gas empty space scenario.
This AGWSF fictional Greenhouse Effect world does not have any internal coherent joined up logic physics, it was designed to confuse the basics of the physical world, not to enlighten..
..designed to deliberately dumb down physics for the masses in order to promote the various anti coal etc agendas by this AGW scam.
The rest of the science frauds, as for example the Met Office temperature shenanigans, are in support of this fake fisics basics of their models.
Some might not like having it pointed out that this impossible in the real world fantasy fisics was introduced into the education system so have spent their time premising their own real world research on a complete and utter fiction.
But it has to be faced.
Doug Cotton, doesn’t it strike you as odd that the simple physical model that Geoff Wood presents, and that your and fellow members of Principia Scientific International (PSI) defend so vociferously, applies with equal force to (1) the water molecules in the 10,000-meter gravitational column of the oceanic Challenger Deep, and (1) the air molecules in the 100,000-meter gravitational column of the atmosphere over the Challenger Deep.
And yet, the gravitational two columns are observed to have totally different temperature profiles, eh? Which suggests that the physical reasoning behind the PSI models is so over-simplified … missing so many key mathematical elements and physical ideas … that the PSI group’s “outsider” thermodynamical theories are just plain wrong?
“And yet, the gravitational two columns are observed to have totally different temperature profiles, eh? ”
A good question. The adiabatic temperature profile limits the temperature gradient in the atmosphere to a certain negative number. Actually developing the adiabatic temperature profile requires a heat source which on earth is the sun heating the surface. At night with no sunlight a warm-above-cold temperature inversion develops in the atmosphere and convection stops, resulting in a stable atmosphere which lasts until the next day when sunlight starts convection again. There is no heat source on the bottom of the ocean so the warm-above-cold temperate inversion is stable and permanent.
“Doug Cotton, doesn’t it strike you as odd that the simple physical model that Geoff Wood presents, and that your and fellow members of Principia Scientific International (PSI) defend so vociferously, applies with equal force to (1) the water molecules in the 10,000-meter gravitational column of the oceanic Challenger Deep, and (1) the air molecules in the 100,000-meter gravitational column of the atmosphere over the Challenger Deep.”
Liquid water is not a gas.
Gas temperature relate to molecules colliding.
The temperature of water is not related it’s molecules
colliding.
The temperature of water or any liquid is related to vibration
of the molecular structure of the liquid.
When there is enough energy, water evaporate or boils [turns into gas].
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html
“Fully understanding the structure of water is a surprisingly difficult task. In water’s solid form, ice, the molecules are known to form a tight tetrahedral lattice. The current model holds that liquid water should be similar to ice but less structured since heat creates disorder and breaks bonds. In liquid water, then, the tetrahedral structures would loosen their grip, breaking apart as the temperature rises, but still inclined to remain as tetrahedral as possible. This new research adds a kink in this theory, requiring some sort of secondary structure. The greater density of liquid water implies that the molecules are more closely packed than the simple tetrahedra seen in ice. These data help explain how that can happen.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news186417938.html#jCp
Summary
• Gbaikie’s comment is correct not only for water, but for all liquids, solids, and gases.
• The union of microscopic (atomic level) Hamiltonian dynamical models with macroscopic (system level) thermodynamical models, succeeds extraordinarily well at predicting a vast range of physical phenomena (including heat conductivity, heat capacity, sound velocities, viscosity, thermal expansion, solubility/insolubility, etc.)
• The oversimplified models of Principia Scientific International (PSI) do not correctly account for the thermodynamical behavior of any liquid, solid, or gaseous system.
Conclusion Rational thermodynamical skepticism requires a broad-based mathematical analysis that encompasses both microscopic Hamiltonian dynamics and macroscopic thermodynamics. The PSI models do not meet this standard.![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1&c=20201002)
morediscourse@tradermail.info
A fan of *MORE* discourse
See http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287083
I’ve covered that in another comment. Doesn’t it strike you that water has a specific heat which is about four times that of air, and the Sun warms the upper layers more than the gravity induced thermal gradient of about 2.5C per Km warms the lower layers. Perhaps you forgot specific heat is in the denominator.
Pochas This statement is not correct: At night with no sunlight a warm-above-cold temperature inversion develops in the atmosphere and convection stops. Produce evidence of (a) the temperature of the air adjoining the surface being warmer than the surface at night, thus “stopping convection” and (b) any other inversion in calm conditions at night in the troposphere. Convection continues at night, my friend, especially in the tropics. Do the trade winds or those up near the tropopause stop at night – except in the doldrums?
Convection is not necessary for the autonomous thermal gradient which is the equilibrium state in a gravitational field as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (See my comment further down.)
If I notice, any incorrect physics like this posted by anyone will be highlighted. Get your physics right, guys, and understand the implications of the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you haven’t done at least a pass degree in physics, you are probably out of your depth, like most climatologists. I’ve had enough of this travesty of physics called a GHE.
Why uncritically reference a conservative, anti-mitigation policy think-tank like GWPF commenting on the UKMO science, rather than UKMO on UKMO science? Then falsely suggest dueling predictions (UKMO vs Hansen)?
What’s up? Please explain.
UKMO and Hansen both suggest that surface temperatures over the next five years will continue to rise, despite the dampening effect of natural factors. The longterm upward trend continues. And both offer analysis in the overall context of the planetary energy balance.
Oh, you would bring up the Met Office. There is such a mess over there that I’m not sure the UKMO can comment credibly on UKMO science. Roger Harrabin is winging it, and flailing.
==========
Martha
Don’t you agree that the case for dangerous amounts of warming now seem to have been overstated? If warming is slow it is much less dangerous isn’t it?
If AGW is slowed by natural variation it can/will also be sped up by natural variation.
Only next time, the 21st century, there will be a lot more ACO2.
JCH- that is not necessarily true at all. The current rate can be explained by either the additional forcings theorized not actually having the impact that some thought they would, or by other long term factors having a greater impact than were initially considered (deep ocean impact). It absolutely does not mean that it will necessarily come back stronger. I agree that is a possibility, but there is no reliable evidence to confirm
Sure, Rob, dangerous warming was oversold. Now the meme is to be weather and climate ‘weirding’. Roger Harrabin has been on this remit for several months. The Bish has a recent post about it.
The problem is that weather isn’t weirder, nor is climate, as statistics and paleontology and weather records tell us.
Strike One-Dangerous AGW ain’t dangerous.
Strike Two-Climate Change has always happened and is inevitable.
Strike Three-Weather Weirding is just the latest, and most ancient, scam.
There’s no joy in Alarumville tonight, Mighty CAGWY has struck out.
===========
Except that the Met Office prediction/projection has a definite A-shape to it so they do predict a small decrease. They also stop this projection at five years out. I wonder if that is because it continues to drop? That would be interesting as I have never seen any projections before that do so.
The Oracle, Weather Astrology, BBC;
Dear Oracle, I seem to have come to a standstill in life. How can I
move forward, break out of this hiatus?
Wierd.
Dear Wierd,
There are times when we become overly defensive and afraid
of change. But change is natural and may be beneficial. You need
to reassure yourself that taking risks, adapting to what’s out there
is fundamental to our planet and it’s species’ evolution.Now with
certain planetary alignments, Mars with Jupiter you are ready to
face the future with courage, say to yourself, ‘Do not be afraid!’
Oracle.
There is encouraging news that some main-stream scientists are now leaking important information on the climate, solar and space sciences because they finally realized that they were helping to enslave future generations by fudging experimental data and observations to receive research grants and awards.
http://thepointman.wordpress. com/2013/01/18/on-climate- science-and-all-those-leaks/
As this video illustrates, official efforts to hide the source of energy that powers the Sun may be the undoing of would-be world tyrants:
http://informthepundits. wordpress.com/2013/01/15/ fabulous-solar-activity-video/
With kind regards,
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA POrincipal
Investigator for Apollo
“Truth is victorious, never untruth.”
Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur’an 17.85
Unauthorized leaks of official information appears to be a problem that officials cannot stop from happening.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/on-climate-science-and-all-those-leaks/
This is a very good link to Pointman, Oliver. Thanks.
===============
Jim Cripwell; http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-286869 :
”I dont know if you cannot read, but my answers have been as complete as I can make them. Let me try again. I can only operate from what I call negative data, since there is no ;positive data. I cannot find a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. Dont ask me which temperature/time graph; I have looked at as many as I can find. This does not mean that a signal does not exist, nor does it mean that a signal will not appear in the future. All that it means is that I cannot find one now. Since I have concluded that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph, I deduce that the total climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero.
Is that clear enough, or what more can I add to make it clear?”
You are right! The climate sensitivity caused by antropogenic CO2 emissions ‘is indistinguishable from zero’. That is true already on the total CO2 increase, and the human share of that is only about 4 %.
Comment of mine; http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/#comment-280032 :
”According to pragmatic philosophy (e.g. as stated by John Dewey) any theory has to be regarded as a hypothesis that has continually to be empirically tested. This makes a continuous development of theory be fulfilled. As to the AGW hypothesis this kind of testing seems to be ignored by IPCC.”
Even it is clear enough we ought to finish Kioto-type CO2 cuts and their new plans. As to AR5 the only human way to improve the welfare of us is to learn due measures to adapt ourselves to any kind of natural events. And this is where we have to direct all of our research resources available.
There are ways of various kind to prove that the recent warming and increase of CO2 in atmosphere are dominated by natural factors; look e.g. at my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 etc.:
1)The CO2 content in the atmosphere is controlled together by both all CO2 emissions from sources to atmosphere and by all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to sinks. Nowadays when the yearly total CO2 emissions are little over 200 GtC (CO2 as carbon) and the yearly human CO2 emissions are about 8 GtC, the influence of the human CO2 emissions on the CO2 content in atmosphere is approaching 4 % at the most. For instance, when the CO2 content in the atmosphere is 390 ppm, the manmade share of it is only about 16 ppm at the most; in the reports of IPCC the human share of recent CO2 content in atmosphere is assessed to be about 100 ppm without any proper evidence.
2)In the recent Mauna Loa measurements the rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 content is changing in accordance with the seasons and ENSO cycles, but the rate of increase in the trend of CO2 content is caused by longer cycles of natural warming.
3)Being based on measurements in reality during the last three decades e.g. Lance Endersbee claims: “Oceans are the main regulators of carbon dioxide”. This means that the global mean sea surface temperature mainly controls the CO2 content in the atmosphere; when the mean sea surface temperature is rising, the CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing.
4)By interpreting the analysis of Bob Tisdale, the global sea surface temperatures used by Endersbee in his calculations have been controlled by warming of the sea surface waters outside the tropical sea surface i.e. mainly by the warming of the sea surface waters of higher latitudes where the sea surface CO2 sinks are.
5)As a consequence, the partial pressure of CO2 has been rising in these as sinks acting surface waters, which has been making CO2 absorption from the atmosphere to the sea surface sinks become slower. Because of that, the CO2 content in the atmosphere has been increasing. It means that more CO2 from the total CO2 emissions to the atmosphere has remained in the atmosphere to increase its CO2 content, in order to reach a new dynamic balance between CO2 emissions and absorptions. As the warming of oceans is the dominating reason for the increased content of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and as nowadays the human yearly portion ( about 8 GtC CO2) of the all yearly CO2 emissions ( little over 200 GtC CO2) to the atmosphere is about 4 %, the human role on the recent yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also about 4 % at the most. For instance when CO2 content in the atmosphere increases 2 ppm per year, the human portion of that is only about 0.08 ppm at the most.
6)Media have introduced that during the year 2010 the yearly increase of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has rised from about 3 % to about 6 %. It means that, in the yearly human emissions of about 8 GtC, there has arisen a new yearly recordbreaking increase of about 0,5 GtC in the manmade CO2 emissions. As at the same time the increase of CO2 in atmosphere have been about 4 GtC per year, one can find that the increase of 0,5 GtC CO2 in the manmade CO2 emissions is not able to explain the rise of carbon dioxide in atmosphere, not even though all the anthropogenic CO2 increase (0,5 GtC) of emissions would remain in the atmosphere. In reality the share of manmade CO2 emissions per year remaining in the atmosphere is only about 2 % from the yearly increase of human emissions of about 0,5 GtC, as consistent with what the yearly total CO2 increase of about 4 GtC in atmosphere is in relation to the total yearly CO2 emissions of little over 200 GtC, expressed in procentages. The 2 % from the mere manmade increase of 0,5 GtC per year of CO2 emissions causes only an increase of 0.01 GtC i.e. 0.005 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Nowadays only the sea surface warming expressed by Endersbee seems to make higher portions of manmade CO2 in atmosphere possible, as the warming of the as sinks acting sea surfaces at the higher latitudes makes absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere become slower. For instanse, in the latest yearly increase of 4 GtC CO2 in the atmospehere there is a portion of 0.16 GtC of human CO2 i.e. 0.08 ppm CO2 as presented above.
7)Tom V Segalstad says, http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_CO2-Science_090805.pdf : ”The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%).
8)Further interpreting of Bob Tisdales analyses indicates that during periods of several decades dominated by El Niño events (e.,g. 1910-44 and 1976-2009) change trends of SST are increasing, and during same kind of period dominated La Niña -event 1945-1975 there are changes of SST but not such a trend.
9)The correlation between CO2 content in atmosphere and sea surface temperature is connected especially with global sea surface temperature during time periods when El Niño events are dominating. The key role there appears to be related to the temperature of sea surface on higher latitudes where the sea surface CO2 sinks are.
10)The same principle based on Bob Tisdale’s analysis can be used to explain Ernst-Georg Beck’s claims on the rise of CO2 content during the first part of 20th century, including the drop of the CO2 content during the La Niña dominated years 1945-1975. Being direct measurements, the CO2 contents in the atmosphere used by Beck are accurate enough for those purposes; link http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/ . Whereas the ice core proxy values of carbon dioxide content used by IPCC are incompatible with any one of direct measured values, because they are mean values of some centuries, even at their best.
11)As to the observations on potential causes of CO2 changes in atmosphere in reality, one can state:
– Based on cosmic ray variations, one can interpret that during the present interglacial period, Holocene, GST and SST changes follow activity changes of Sun. The machanism is being solved. The trends of CO2 changes in atmosphere are dominated by changes of SST.
– Even during glacial and interglacial periods – mainly being caused by orbital changes – CO2 content in atmosphere have followed temperature changes. For instance during glaciation there have been influenced by two causes: cooling surface waters dissolve more CO2 from atmosphere and a colder climate makes CO2 emitting from biosphere to increase, in which the dissolving of CO2 to sea surface wins the emission of CO2 from biosphere to atmosphere.
– According to geological observations, during the latest 100 million years changes of CO2 content in atmosphere have followed climate changes, especially due to temperature changes
Nicely put Lauri, except for a few typos. That the CO2 increase is due to human emissions is far from well established. Assumed but not established, such is the state of climate science.
Laura Yes, the entropy conditions spelled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics establish the fact that water vapour reduces the warming due to gravity from about 50 degrees back to about 33 degrees. CO2 plays a minuscule cooling role because it also radiates like water vapour, but you won’t detect it because its cooling effect is less than 1% of water vapour’s, so why waste time looking? I’ve already analysed trends and predicted slight cooling till 2028, then 30 years of warming, but long-term (500 years) of cooling starting in about 50 to 200 years from now, such as from the MWP to the LIA – about 2.5 degrees in total over 500 years.
Wow – my comment about David Wojick’s political leanings gets ‘disappeared’ yet Wagathon’s multiple posts alledging mass government commie cover-ups and conspiracies remain?
See Judy above re: moderation. You wanna blog, git one.
=========
Personal attacks on an individual commenter here deleted, particularly if there is no other content in the message.
It seems we must watch our Ps and Qs.
Yup – just like WUWT. Even handed moderation is neither preached nor practiced.
A cultural note:
Although we have never met, I believe that Louise and I are both from the post-industrial Mordor known as Greater Manchester (UK)
We Greater Mancunians are a clannish bunch of car thieves and petty criminals with a distinctive regional accent. We stick together, even in cyberspace. Please don’t think harshly of her for defending tribal honour. She has no choice. Failure means banishment to the place called L*verpool.
As for myself, I am indebted, and next time I steal a really nice car tradition requires that I give her the keys. Innit, Louise?
Three cheers for Graham Stringer.
====================
Along with a carry out of White Lightning
Louise
Can you think of a site that allows for better, open communication on the topic of climate than here?
Louise
You drive a hard bargain, but it will be so.
I allow a fair amount of trash talking on week in review and open threads, but I am much less tolerant on topical threads, guest posts, and posts that are receiving alot of hits from the outside. So head over to the open thread for this kind of conversation. Nasty attacks that get personal, particularly in comments that do not have any kind of substantive scientific argument or reference, will be deleted
Anybody who thinks moderation here is heavy hasn’t tried to decipher one of “Fan”‘s comment thingies.
Annonn,
Fair point. They often contain links to those scientific paper thingys……. quit confusing for many of the ‘sceptic’.
The trouble is that FOMBS references are random and he doesn’t understand any of them. If there were any relevance to anything climate related it is merely coincidental.
Just the sort of stuff to appeal to a superannuated Queensland hippie like you Michael – snark but no substance.
Louise,
The moderation policy on this site seems fairly evenhanded and fair to me. If you want to launch personal attacks, maybe you should stick to sites that encourage that type of behaviour.
In an earlier time a penny awful science like AGW Theory was of course not unheard of—see, e.g., the history of The Piltdown Man Hoax. Unfortunately, it less embarrassing for Western scientists to have joined the museum of hoaxes than it should be in an age when we all might have assumed that at least scientists were immune from superstition. What with man walking on the moon I think we somehow came to believe Western science was honorable when in reality is has become more lying, scheming and conniving than ever before imaginable.
Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature. Swanson and Tsonis (2009) – Has the climate recently shifted.
The future is another country – as they say – and these predictions are all speculative and approximate. The forgoing is based on records in the very limited instrumental record – although I have elsewhere in this post cited a high resolution ENSO proxy from the Law Ice Dome showing both multi-decadal variability in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) and millennial variability.
I have some time ago here discussed decadal variability in cloud cover in some detail – http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/ – it seems btw that the intervening period has seen a sad decline in civility.
The large scale changes in ocean and atmosphere are everywhere evident especially in hydrology. There are abrupt shifts in the pattern of ocean sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure – changes in the standing waves in the climate system that are identifed as the AMO, PDO, IPO etc. BTW – these are not independent phenomenon but linked in the dynamic and complex global climate system. It seems unlikely that low level clouds – especially marine stratocumulous – would not respond to large scale changes in ocean and atmospheric conditions. Indeed this has been seen both in surface and satellite observations.
The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. IPCC s3.4.4.1
In the CERES and ARGO period – the minor ocean warming is dominated by shortwave changes in TOA flux – presumably associated with modest El Niño persistence in the period from 2003. This is changing as La Niña intensifies in the current cool IPO mode. These modes tend to last 20 to 40 years. Although – as shifts between modes are chaotic – predicting the next shift is problematic. A repetition of the pattern of the 20th century – from warmer to cooler to warmer – is not guaranteed either. A shift from cooler to yet cooler seems on the cards as a possibility.
Yup, and cooler to cooler will prawly be the sun wot dunnit. But how?
===============
The recent evolution of solar cycle 24 indicates that the Sun may well be following such a trajectory (Owens et al. 2011). Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) and Jones et al. (2012) have used GCMs and EBMs to predict that this will offset anthropogenically rising global temperatures by no more than about 0.2°C in the year 2100, relative to what would happen if the solar output remained constant. Similarly, Lean and Rind (2009) find that the solar decline would delay the arrival at a given temperature level by no more than about 5 years. Thus, these predictions show that continued solar decline will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming. However, the decline should do much to end the debate about the fraction of global warming that can be attributed to solar change. For the first time since about 1900, long-term solar and anthropogenic trends are now in opposite directions.
Don’t look now, JCH, but those three studies and a 0.2 degree C diminution by 2001 fix those researchers and their prediction in an unholy cross of curves if cooling intensifies or warming doesn’t return. Then three possibilities become more likely: 1. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is lower than alarmists trumpet. 2. The sun is acting by other than TSI. 3. Other, as yet unknown, cooling mechanisms are at work.
=====================
JCH
And they appear to be roughly equal (net trend = 0).
Makes you wonder about earlier warming periods (if you’re the curious type) doesn’t it?
Max
A bit of decorum Kim – we are witnessing the demise of a paradigm.
I would opt for solar UV driving both the NAM and SAM feeding into lower latitude ocean and atmosphere processes.
The literature relevant to how solar variability influences climate is vast—but much has been based on inadequate statistics and non-robust procedures. The common pitfalls are outlined in this review. The best estimates of the solar influence on the global mean air surface temperature show relatively small effects, compared with the response to anthropogenic changes (and broadly in line with their respective radiative forcings). However, the situation is more interesting when one looks at regional and season variations around the global means. In particular, recent research indicates that winters in Eurasia may have some dependence on the Sun, with more cold winters occurring when the solar activity is low. Advances in modelling ‘‘top-down’’ mechanisms, whereby stratospheric changes influence the underlying troposphere, offer promising explanations of the observed phenomena. In contrast, the suggested modulation of low-altitude clouds by galactic cosmic rays provides an increasingly inadequate explanation of observations.
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/28365/
There is more from the hugely prolific Lockwood here – http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1353
If as I suspect most warming was due to climate modulation by this ‘top-down’ mechanism – some regions are in for a chilly time of it as solar activity declines – abruptly – for a few hundred years. It would provide a promising explanation for Bond Events, AMO, ENSO and the PDO.
I’ll try to be as decorous as your prose is elegant. Yes, Robert, this is what I fear, and the less prepared for future cooling, the worse we’ll be. Ultimately, cooling is inevitable, so planning for adaptation to future cooling is a no regrets activity.
How can we lose? If we’ve planned for cooling, we’ll be less surprised. If we get warming, hallelujah; more total life and more diversity of life.
======================
& yep, I’ve been hip to UV since Happ. A most uncertain link now is from the variation in UV to the variation in clouds.
The sun is very sultry and we must avoid its ultry-violet rays.
H/t Noel C. with a tour of Plum’s Orchard.
=========
Yes, that sultry sun is no shrinking-violet.
A mini tribute ter Climate Etc Open Society.
Judith is holding an e salon here,
Folks with every opinion you’ll hear
And some others beside …
Great data on weather …and wierd,
Views certain and uncertain allowed,
Ad hominums, but civility preferred.
What I really love is that my spellchecker considers both ‘weird’ and ‘wierd’ mis-spelled. Now, that’s hypophonetically weird. Mebbe hypotenusely so.
=====
kim
C’mon now, kim. Doncha no its spelt “weerd”?
Max
It’s a weird world and I’m a wierd speller and it looks like
some wild whether comin’, weather or know? Better look
out fer frost bite or un-presidented snow. Kim I will nit u
some worm sox.
Well those who are neither feeding off the AGW teat nor pursuing a hypocritical anti-industry agenda can easily interpret the pause or standstill as evidence that skeptics were right to be skeptical and that too many climate scientists have pretended for far too long to know much more than they actually do.
Some comments here remind us again to accept basic physics for the atmosphere but reject basic physics for the ocean.
And where are those guys who were telling us the so-called pause is just a skeptic lie. Ah yes, they just changed the subject now that they are nakedly exposed as the true liars. At least Hansen doesn’t fool himself forever. While most of the catastrophists here would argue black was white until the next ice age comes.
A 10-year “standstill” does not equal a 16-year “pause”.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
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
With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, 2.1, and 1.4 W m2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record. Furthermore, the observed interannual variability of near-global ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1 net radiation is found to be remarkably consistent with the latest ocean heat storage record for the overlapping time period of 1993 to 1999. Both datasets show variations of roughly 1.5Wm2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s.
http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
Gee whiz – the oceans warming faster to 1999 than greenhouse gas forcing suggests? As a result of cloud changes? My – if real that would put the cat amongst the space cadets.
JCH
No.
But a “10-year ‘standstill’ in the five-year mean global temperature” could equal a “15-year ‘pause’ in the average annual temperature”.
Max
JamesG wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287097
And yet, the heat anomaly in the upper 2000 m of the oceans has continued to increase, also during the “standstill” of the global atmospheric temperature.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
“Skeptics” tend to easily favor interpretations of data that seem to confirm their preconceived views, whether it’s a temporary upward wobble in the Arctic sea ice extend, like the one after the minimum on record at this time of the Arctic sea ice extend in 2007, the temporary decrease of the sea surface level in 2010, or the recent period of about 15 years or so, in which a trend in the global atmospheric temperature can’t be detected with statistical significance.
However, I prefer to not jump to conclusions. I would like to see some empirical, statistical evidence first, which shows that the atmospheric temperature record in recent years was not just another temporary wobble. It would have to be shown that the recent temperature record can be statistically significantly distinguished from the statistically significant warming signal, which can be detected when performing an analysis that uses data over multiple decades, from the mid-1970ies to present, or from the mid-1970ies up to the time, when the alleged change in the behavior of the global atmospheric temperature is supposed to have occurred. If there was such evidence then I would see a scientific basis for the conclusion something has really changed in the global atmospheric temperature record during the new century compared to the decades before. Then one also could try to figure out what caused it, and what needs to be revised about our understanding of the climate system. As long as such evidence has not been provided, statements about “pause” in global warming, “stopped” global warming or similar are mere conjecture. So far, no one has delivered. Or can you point me to any scientific source where this has been done?
Well, we may see in a few years, whether the ones who make such statements have just been fooled by noise, or whether there is more too it. My personal approach is to go with my views where the evidence leads me.
You appear slightly dismissive of a recent trend of “15 years or so” compared to the “decades before” and the “statistically significant upward-warming trend” from the mid-seventies.
The “mid-seventies” up to-date, ecompasses about 37 years. Please explain further, which fractions of those years are you assert as being significant, and why?
Climate modelling has been undergoing a quiet revolution – and it is not one that should be allowed to go unnoticed by the long suffering public. Weather has been known to be chaotic since Edward Lorenz discovered the ‘butterfly effect’ in the 1960’s. Abrupt climate change on the other hand was thought to have happened only in the distant past and so climate was expected to evolve steadily over this century in response to ordered climate forcing.
More recent work is identifying abrupt climate changes working through the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Arctic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and other measures of ocean and atmospheric states. These are measurements of sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure over more than 100 years which show evidence for abrupt change to new climate conditions that persist for up to a few decades before shifting again. Global rainfall and flood records likewise show evidence for abrupt shifts and regimes that persist for decades. In Australia, less frequent flooding from early last century to the mid 1940’s, more frequent flooding to the late 1970’s and again a low rainfall regime to recent times.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or three if the recent past is any indication.
The climate shift after 1998 is the reuslt of cloud change – and is captured by both satellites and earthshine. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Earthshine-1.jpg –
CERES and ARGO miss the shift – but recent warming of the ocean is consistent with changes in reflected shortwave at TOA. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif – Much as earlier changes in TOA reflected shortwave is consistent OHC.
Noise is not something that explains a lot in climate.
Oh – the shifts are associated with changes in the intensity and frequency of La Nina and El Nino – as well as in shifts form PDO cool to warm or vice versa. The 2 are related in what is known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.
I know this is a repetition but there are huge gaps in understandding just how complex the system is and how complex and dynamic systems such as climate behave.
michael hart wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287142
I am dismissive toward the assertion about a “pause” of global tropospheric/surface warming or that global tropospheric/surface warming has “stopped” since 1997 or 1998, or whatever the claimed specific year is, as long as no evidence is being provided that the global tropospheric/surface temperature record since this time can be statistically significantly distinguished from the tropospheric/surface warming trend, which is statistically significant in the decades up to 1997/98.
The global temperature trend from the mid-1970 to today is statistically significant. The temperature trend from the mid-1970 to 1997/98 is also statistically significant. Why do I say this? Because I can successfully reject the statistical Null-hypothesis of a Zero-trend over these time periods, with more than 3-sigma probability.
Obviously put it in the wrong place – http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287186
Obviously gone right over his head anyway.
Robert I Ellison wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287146
Robert I Ellison wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287146
Switching between different phases of ocean/atmospheric circulation patterns is not the only thing that has happened between 1909 and today. The global surface temperature anomaly is about 0.5 K higher today than it was in 1940.
What declining since 1998? No statistically significant declining trend can be detected in the global surface temperature since 1998. If you claim otherwise, show me the evidence, please.
Are you talking about an increase or decrease of clouds? Globally or regionally? Besides, this just would shift the question to what caused those cloud changes? Clouds are a dependent variable in the system, not an external climate driver.
What am I supposed to do with that? A graphic without any explanation about the data, and what is shown, and no reference to the source of the data is provided.
What about a scientific reference?
My apologies – an oversight entirely – http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
The surface temperture peaked in early 1998 (in all monthly records I believe) and has not been exceeded since.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
‘Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system. ‘ AR4 s3.4.4.1
Low frequency climate variability is a reality of course and clouds respond to changes in ocean and atmospheric conditons. Some of it seems associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation – there is some discussion here with a few references. – http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/ –
These are secular changes that seem to change the Earth’s energy budget.
@Jan: Several issues.
First, you can put a straight line through a relatively short time series, but that doesn’t mean you can extrapolate that line beyond the data. Time series are tricky that way. Ask the new Excel user who put a straight line through Apple’s stock price and tells his neighbor that Apple stock will be worth a million dollars a share by the time the decade is out.
Second, once an increase has occurred, how long do you think it would take to have the slope become statistically non-significant? As a little experiment, I generated a time series that went from 0 to 1 over 120 time periods, and added some noise. I did a linear regression, and sure enough, the slope was statistically significant. Then I added longer and longer lengths of 1 (with noise) to the end of the series and did the regression again. With 12,000 time periods, the slope of the entire series was still statistically significant, even though anyone paying attention would note that the series was flat for 99% of its length.
Third, the unshakable conviction that it’s all due to CO2 has led to a neglect of investigating other mechanisms. For example, did you read the recent results about black soot, which was significantly underestimated (or ignored) for decades, but has now jumped to second place (behind CO2) in terms of its impact. In some cases, such as the Arctic melt, it may be the primary driver.
Not to mention, it’s a severe health hazard even without considering its climate impact. But it has been ignored because orthodoxy says it’s all CO2. Same for clouds, which have been neglected for decades.
So you ask for explanations of any possible slowdown knowing full well that factors that have been known for decades have been starved of research dollars because The Consensus has tended towards self-reinforcement and confirmation bias rather than science.
The idea that the deep ocean can heat while the surface does not is rather more massive conjecture than I would care to attempt – and based on around a handful of datapoints for heavens sake.
A true scientist should be skeptical and particularly skeptical of things that are opposite to accepted physics and most particularly skeptical about conclusions based on such ridiculously sparse data. NOAA fails on all 3 counts. Ever notice that whenever temperatures are in stasis or dropping there is a rush to find errors and make adjustments or blabber on about “noise” in a meaningless manner. The Argo data is just one of many datasets that were adjusted up. I’ve yet to hear of any adjustment that goes the other way. I wager that if Argo had showed massive warming then they wouldn’t even have bothered to look for “errors”.
To this skeptc, whenever a paper suggests optimism about CAGW then it is vigourously excoriated by the establishment. By contrast anything that looks pessimistic sails through peer review despite massive obvious massive errors and cherrypicking. Talking about conjecture, it is currently fashionable to blame all extreme weather (hot or cold events) on CO2 levels despite the “pause” or “standstill” not having increased for 16 years, no data to support the conjecture, and not even a theory behind the premise. And yet you somehow think the problem lies with us skeptics??
Just noticed that my handle has reverted to Chief Hydrologist for some unknown reason – fixed I hope.
Is this an admission you were never a Chief? :-)
‘Biosketch. Robert styles himself in the blogosphere as a Chief Hydrologist. ‘Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.’
It was always so – and we have had this discussion before. Beware the one line snark and the 10% rule. I am a ‘Principal Environmental Scientist’ and discipline leader for my company – but that’s pretty boring.
Long term climate predictions are certainly possible because the trends shown in this plot appear to be continuing quite well and allowed me to make predictions of 2011 and 2012 being cooler than 2010.
Read carefully what the plot is all about – basically first and second derivatives of a curved function …
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9686/appendix60yearcycle.jpg
Welcome back Chief Hydrologist, please can yer forcast a little
La Nina fer Melbourne soon? The river Yarra and the resident
cormorant would be grateful.
Darlin’ Beth,
Cool water is upwelling across the Pacific and the sea surface temperature is appoaching L Nina conditions in all the right places. But it will take a few more months before the dust settles one way or the other.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.1.17.2013.gif
We still have a big high – and very hot water – sitting in the Bight. This is keeping polar fronts well to the south. The good news is that the northern monsoon has finally arrived. This will cool off the inland and then the southern regions. You may get some rain that far south eventually.
According to the BOM you have a 50% chance of more than median rainfall in the next couple of months. That means that you have a 50% chance of less than median rainfall. Doesn’t really help much – but the bottom line is that the odds aren’t great for lots of rain anytime soon.
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
Dear Robert,
There’s the science fer ya, can’t argue with highs and hot
hot water…but … might it speed things up if I do a rain dance? )
Beth.
Sounds like fun. I’ll bring the drums.
Just for the (all time) record, Sydney’s temperature of on Friday of 45.8C equals 114.4F.for those who speak that language. It was over 115F at my place in the north west of Sydney metro. But don’t worry, things will get cooler after 2014, at least until 2028.
Peter Lang, we will leave to you to collect the carbon tax from the Chinese. I think the designated contact is a Lt. General in the Peoples Liberation Army. Keeps an office up near the Yalu river.
Der Spiegel has an article on the ‘stop’, translated by P Gosselin
http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/19/spiegel-ends-europes-climate-denialism-european-media-now-scrambling-to-explain-end-of-warming/
The Axel Bojanowski article is interesting. It covers essentially the same story as David Rose’s article (more correctly referring to 15 years of no warming, rather than 16).
James E. Hansen tells us “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade” (which isn’t much different).
Of course, Bojanowski comes to a different conclusion of what is happening (and what is going to happen) than Hansen does.
We’ll just have to wait and see who is right on this one, but there is no question that it poses a dilemma for IPCC in its new AR5 report.
Max
Die kalte Sonne. Hail V&L!
============
Those who understand German should read the original article rather than Gosselin’s post on it.
I have read both, why do you think people should rather read the original?
We’re entering the most interesting (and amusing) part of the AGW saga. The bandwagon is heading for the abyss and the travelers are looking for the possibilities to jump off, imperceptibly if possible. I hope humanity will learn something from the experience.
The article also identifies the problem with stratospheric water vapor eg Solomon which suggests that the decrease in SWV has reduced the radiative forcing by around .1 wm^2. since 2000,after doubling in previous decades.
The problems that arise are
1) Poor understanding of the mechanisms.
2) Reversibility of the decadal variability (which suggests natural variability)
such as an absence of volcanic perturbation eg Joshi and Shine 2003
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C3525%3AAGSOVE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
3) Hypersensitivity of the TCS of models to SWV.eg Joshi 2010 and model error ( a perpetum mobile problem)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/7161/2010/acp-10-7161-2010.pdf
With SWV one could suggest that one should not play dice (an De Mere problem) as the length of the series are not long enough.
Robert, I like your “Chief” handle.
Don’t mind if I keep referring to you as the “Chief”?
(You can call me Max – but not Max_OK)
Max
What will we do when most agree AGW has been exaggerated?
I don’t think we will ever have an engaging topic like AGW.
The amount of time I spent on it would have earned me another degree.
“What will we do when most agree AGW has been exaggerated?”
Most know the AGW has been exaggerated.
But liars don’t bother to *admit* it.
The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.
From JC’s link above.
Girma wrote in
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287356
I’m still waiting for that someone brings some actual empirical, statistical evidence for this alleged “global warming stop”.
Jan,
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
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.”
Stuff statistics. As Einstein said – everything that can be counted doesn’t necessarily count; everything that counts can’t necessarily be counted’. I would suggest that the ocean and atmosphere records for the stop are too limited to quibble over yet again – but you seem to be in the newly endangered minority as paradigms shift.
In Hansen’s report, the flat temperature is first mentioned on page 4, past the middle of the page.
This Alarmist messages from NASA media services came out the day before and does not mention a flat temperature. I have seen nothing of this in the TV news or the newspapers I read. Instead of this alarmist headline: NASA FINDS 2012 SUSTAINED LONG-TERM CLIMATE WARMING TREND
The headline should be: Global Warming Standstill.
Even when Hansen admits to a flat temperature, NASA still puts that way back in the details and puts the alarmism first.
—–Original Message—–
From: NASA News [mailto:hqnews@mediaservices.nasa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:13 PM
To: NASA News
Subject: NASA Finds 2012 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend
Jan. 15, 2013
Steve Cole
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-0918
stephen.e.cole@nasa.gov
Leslie McCarthy
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York
212-678-5507
leslie.m.mccarthy@nasa.gov
RELEASE: 13-021
NASA FINDS 2012 SUSTAINED LONG-TERM CLIMATE WARMING TREND
WASHINGTON — NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1988, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis Tuesday that compares temperatures around the globe in 2012 to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century.
The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago.
The average temperature in 2012 was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit
(14.6 Celsius), which is 1.0 F (0.6 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline. The average global temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1880, according to the new analysis.
Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperature from year to year, but the continued increase in greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere assures a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but on the current course of greenhouse gas increases, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous decade.
“One more year of numbers isn’t in itself significant,” GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is because we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat and largely controls Earth’s climate. It occurs naturally and also is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Driven by increasing man-made emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been rising consistently for decades.
The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year in the GISS temperature record. By 1960, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory, was about 315 parts per million. Today, that measurement exceeds 390 parts per million.
While the globe experienced relatively warm temperatures in 2012, the continental U.S. endured its warmest year on record by far, according to NOAA, the official keeper of U.S. weather records.
“The U.S. temperatures in the summer of 2012 are an example of a new trend of outlying seasonal extremes that are warmer than the hottest seasonal temperatures of the mid-20th century,” GISS director James E. Hansen said. “The climate dice are now loaded. Some seasons still will be cooler than the long-term average, but the perceptive person should notice that the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing. It is the extremes that have the most impact on people and other life on the planet.”
The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea-surface temperature, and Antarctic research station measurements. A publicly available computer program is used to calculate the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place during
1951 to 1980. This three-decade period functions as a baseline for the analysis. The last year that experienced cooler temperatures than the 1951 to 1980 average was 1976.
The GISS temperature record is one of several global temperature analyses, along with those produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
These three primary records use slightly different methods, but overall, their trends show close agreement.
For images related to the data, visit:
http://go.nasa.gov/10wqITW
-end-
To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
hqnews-subscribe@mediaservices.nasa.gov
To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
hqnews-unsubscribe@mediaservices.nasa.gov
There’s been some discussion on this blog on atmospheric lapse rates and whether they depend on a GH effect for their existence. There’s a more comprehensive discussion here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/08/12/temperature-profile-in-the-atmosphere-the-lapse-rate/
I’m not totally certain of the answer myself , I have tended one way then the other previously but I now think that they are probably linked more closely than is generally accepted. The atmosphere probably wouldn’t be isothermal, the troposhere would be very thin if it existed at all, and the lower atmosphere would behave like the troposphere.
Its interesting that there is still this level of disagreement on this even within mainstream science. The discussion shows how scientific ideas and differences should be discussed, with no accusations of hoaxes, Al Gore or UN conspiracies !
The primary concept in the troposphere is convective-radiative equilibrium. In short, convection determines the lapse rate (moist adiabatic profile), but radiation allows convection to persist by opposing the convective warming effect. Without radiative cooling, convection would produce a warm enough atmosphere that further convection is suppressed by the stability. The important part of radiation is the clear-air cooling due to GHGs. Yes, the net effect is cooling. GHGs warm by absorbing solar radiation and surface IR radiation, and cool by emitting upwards to space. The cooling part dominates the diurnal average in most of the troposphere. Clouds modify this but don’t change the net effect globally.
So, if GHGs cool the troposphere, how do they cause surface warming? The key is that they emit downwards and upwards, and the downward emission adds to the surface forcing, so the surface sees several hundred W/m2 of IR in addition to solar radiation and has to be warmer to compensate.
tempterrain
Anyone living near the mountains knows that it is cooler at higher altitude. Somewhere between 0.5C and 1.0C per 100m is the usual value quoted.
As the “science of doom” article explains why this is so and tells us, “this value is not affected by ‘greenhouse’ gases”.
The sun warms the surface of the Earth, which then warms the atmosphere from the “bottom up”.
SoD tells us “The atmosphere will always correct this via convection.”
This happens every morning in the Alps, as the sun reaches the valley floor and warms it up. The lighter warm air rises up the side of the mountains (“Talwind”).
In the evening, when the sun goes down, the cool wind from the mountains (“Bergwind”) sweeps down into the valleys.
This is all a natural process, which has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
Max
SoD also points out:
“this value (the lapse rate) is not affected by ‘greenhouse’ gases”.
Yes, I do acknowledge that many people do think that. But is it right?
The lapse rate only applies to the troposphere which is the lower layer of the atmosphere, the layer subject to the movement of convection currents. Above that, in the stratosphere, the lapse rate changes sign. ie the temperature rises with increasing elevation and reduced pressure.
So if there were no GH gases and therefore no convection currents, would the lapse rate still be the same?
I do think that it wouldn’t, but I must admit that I’m not totally sure about that.
tempterrain
There is no evidence to support the notion that convection currents I described are dependent on CO2 (or any other GHG).
Max
Max,
The idea is that heat is lost from the upper atmosphere by radiation and replaced from below by heat carried upwards with convection currents.
So if there is no radiation there would be no upward flow of heat.
Tempterrain,
The standard description of the atmosphere is dependent on emission from GHG’s. Without them the atmosphere would be very different and the surface much colder at least if we would still have water to form ice and snow. Without them the albedo would be low and the effective average temperature of the surface above 0C. Even in this case the real average would be below 0C because the effective average gives more weight to the high end than the real average.
How far up we would still have the adiabatic lapse rate is an open question I have discussed recently at Science of Doom. Some convection would still be present due to the latitudinal and diurnal variability in solar heating, but it would be very different from the present one. Therefore it’s difficult to tell, what the outcome would be.
Very weak emission from the atmosphere is enough to guarantee the presence of a lapse rate based on nearly adiabatic cooling in rising convection and warming in subsiding convection. The thickness of the convective part of the atmosphere depends on the absorptivity/emissivity of atmosphere but does not drop below 4-5 km even when the emissivity gets extremely low. Only when the emissivity is so low that conduction has a comparable strength with radiative heat transfer may the thickness decrease further.
What happens, when the amount of GHG’s goes down is that the energy fluxes of the atmosphere go down. The surface radiates more and more directly to space and its temperature gets determined directly by Stefan-Boltzmann law. As the surface cools, also the troposphere cools and the temperature at tropopause gets very low.
Temp, I am in the yes but camp. Temperature is an indication of heat exchange. The more hits the sensor receives the higher the temperature it would read and vice versa. For there to be a temperature gradient, the number of hits has to change so the colder point has to lose energy as fast as the warmer point loses energy. GHGs allow the colder point to lose energy. But, the real world is not adiabatic. As pressure decreases the probability of a hit decreases so the molecule, or photon can travel further between hits. If the column is restricted to the same dimensions, it can’t, so the whole column would have to become isothermal if it were truly adiabatic. If the containment is gravity and the volume a sphere, then as the distance from the surface increases, the probability of hits would decrease. Without radiant transfer, the volume would just keep expanding until the molecules are lost to space. Either way, there will be a lapse rate.
typo: forget the last sentence
Hansen uses a base period of 1951 to 1980 so no wonder he can claim that “Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies.” This totally ignores the fact that there was a step warming thanks to the super El Nino of 1998 that raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years and then stopped. There was no warming after that but all the years that follow it sit on top of this high temperature platform and thereby get nominated as belonging to the ten warmest. His choice of baseline for the twenty-first century is inappropriate for this reason and he should establish a different baseline for all the twenty-first century years. He evidently is not too literate in global warming theory either because he tries to explain the current non-warming period by saying that the “…current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.” This is abject nonsense because both are joined in pairs and you can’t have the one without the other. Also, it is not 5 years but 12 years according to satellites and 16 years according to the Met Office. As my book explains, ENSO is a physical oscillation of ocean water from side to side in the equatorial Pacific.The period of the oscillation is about five years. That is the resonant period of the ocean basin but local conditions can temporarily modify it. It starts with an El Nino wave originating in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool that carries warm water across the Pacific to South America. There it runs ashore, spreads out about twenty degrees north and south, and warms the air above it. Warm air rises, interferes with trade winds, joins the westerlies, raises global temperature, and we notice that an El Nino has arrived. But any wave that runs ashore must also retreat. As the El Nino wave retreats sea level drops half a meter behind it, cold water from below wells up, and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino warmed the air, the La Nina will now cool it. This heat exchange can be very precise. Thus, in the period between 1979 and 1997 there were five El Nino peaks, with La Nina valleys in between. Check out Figure 15 in my book to see it. You will notice that the global mean is a horizontal straight line 18 years long. It is defined by fellow dots placed midway between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. Random deviations from the mean are less than 0.05 degrees during the entire 18 year period. Since El Ninos and La Ninas always come in pairs there is no such thing as predominantly El Nino-like or predominantly La Nina-like conditions. And there very definitely was no such thing as an El Nino-like Pliocene as he has mentioned elsewhere. You can’t make an oscillation stand still! What makes all this possible in the first place is the fact that both equatorial currents are blocked in the west and warm water carried by the trade winds piles up to form the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool. That is the warmest water on earth. When enough has piled up gravity flow starts along the equatorial countercurrent and carries an El Nino wave to South America as we saw. This has been going on as long as the present configuration of equatorial currents has existed which is to say since the Panamanian Seaway closed. In the Atlantic Ocean Brazil deflects both equatorial currents north so that there is no way for water to pile up and a similar oscillation is impossible. Getting back to global temperature, the 1979 to 1997 period I just discussed is another no-warming period, separated from the current one by that step warming I mentioned. The origin of that step warming is oceanic and not anthropogenic: the very large amount of warm water brought across the ocean by the super El Nino of 1998. This only happens once in a century. Putting all these periods together we can say with confidence that there has not been any greenhouse warming at all for the last 33 years. Stepping back from there, Hansen looks at 1940 and above: “The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible” That’s the excuse and it is laughable. What he says is that it was a warming period except that all those aerosols blocked out the sun. And then if you want to know how do you know that he says nobody knows. Likely story. And his predictions are even worse: ” The continuing planetary imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales.” Whoa. Stop right there. What is there to continue? There is no warming now and I agree that this will continue. But warming? As I just pointed out, there hasn’t been any for 33 years and there was none before because aerosols blocked out the sun as he says (!). That aerosol excuse has been a fairy tale for years that none of them has been able to substantiate. And apparently they have given up on claiming the early century warming as their own. For any objective observer this leaves actually zero anthropogenic warming for the last 100 years. The man talks gibberish when he invokes “…our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade” and then shows his ignorance of El Nino when he claims that “… global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably to the next El Nino phase.”
___“That’s the excuse (….stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975) and it is laughable.”
Laughable? Deep concern about Hansen and colleagues that they know about a stand-still since 1940, but are unable to recognise that there had been a World War since September 1939, immediately followed by the three coldest winter in Northern Europe since about 1830, 1939/40, 1940/41, and 1941/42. After December 1941 the war extended over the entire North Atlantic and the Western Pacific until August 1945, coinciding with a global cooling until mid 1970s. The temperature decrease and the three hash winters in Europe can be linked to six years naval activities, as discussed at: http://climate-ocean.com/book%202012/_ToC/_ToC.html
+1 Arno Arrak for comments on the signifiance of choice of
baseline in determining global warming and for your dynamic
description of El Nino / La Nina events…. I understand now
that my rain dance will have no effect. )
Girma’s prediction for global mean temperature until 2045:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmstPrediction.gif
I assumed the cooling pattern from 1895 to 1925 apply for 2015 to 2045.
Agree with Arno. There are some stable rural temperature stations with long term records of zero warming in the industrial era. Well maintained Antarctic science stations (Amundsen, Voctok, Davis and Halley) all show zero warming since 1957.
An early post by George mis-calculates ocean to air volumetric heat capacity, the actual ratio at the surface is 3200 to 1. The mass specific heat capacity ratio is 4 to 1, and seawater is 800 times the density of the air at sea level.
Musings on irony (in under one thousand words).
‘Irony’ as previously stated, a case of parallel views, the too confident perception ( hubris, confirmation bias…) versus the reality. Examples
of same;
Oedipus: I will leave no way untried to bring to light the killer of Laius.
Tiresius the seer: Don’t do it.
… Small child; But the emperor has no clothes!
Freeman Dyson: Recollections of false confidence:as a young man
advising Crick, one of the discoverers of the Double Helix structure of
DNA, not to abandon physics for biology. ‘The next 20 years still
belongs to physics.’
Climate expert, Dr David Viner in 2000: ‘Children just aren’t going to
know what snow is.’
Dr Hansen …
TfT: “Do not succumb ter confidence in gaussian probability, think of
the black swan, that most ironic of birds.”
gbaikie You wrote about Venus the surface is already too hot for the solar energy to increase the heat of the surface.
You have not explained the source of heat (providing the necessary 16,000W/m^2 to keep the surfeace of Venus hot. By failing to do so, you display absolutely no understanding of heat transfer and radiation.
The Venus surface would not be hot if there were a propensity for isothermal conditions in a gravitational field, as Roy Spencer claimed.
Do you agree or not that an autonomous thermal gradientin a gravitational field is a necessary corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I have proved?
From Wikipedia the Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated …
>”An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.
“gbaikie You wrote about Venus the surface is already too hot for the solar energy to increase the heat of the surface.
You have not explained the source of heat (providing the necessary 16,000W/m^2 to keep the surface of Venus hot. By failing to do so, you display absolutely no understanding of heat transfer and radiation.
The Venus surface would not be hot if there were a propensity for isothermal conditions in a gravitational field, as Roy Spencer claimed. ”
Per wiki:
“An isothermal process is a change of a system, in which the temperature remains constant: ΔT = 0. This typically occurs when a system is in contact with an outside thermal reservoir (heat bath), and the change occurs slowly enough to allow the system to continually adjust to the temperature of the reservoir through heat exchange. In contrast, an adiabatic process is where a system exchanges no heat with its surroundings ”
As read this. A gas in gravity well is NOT isothermal. Rather it is adiabatic.
A liquid or solid is different- it’s isothermal.
This difference is because gas has no molecule structure- and liquid and solid do.
AND the heat of a liquid or solid is ONLY due to vibration of the molecular structure. And heat of a gas is ONLY due the kinetic motion of molecules.
When one has a gas only high pressure it can act *similar* to a liquid.
So btw, if Roy Spencer is talking CO2 on Venus under pressure greater than 72.8 atm- he *may* have a point, but other this, he is wrong.
“Do you agree or not that an autonomous thermal gradient in a gravitational field is a necessary corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I have proved?
From Wikipedia the Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated …
>”An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. ”
Yes.
Wiki explanation of second law of Thermodynamics applies to Venus and/or applies any adiabatic atmosphere.
As for this “You have not explained the source of heat (providing the necessary 16,000W/m^2 to keep the surface of Venus hot].
If have container of hot gas. Two exactly the same. And release the gas, one at sea level and one at 50,000′. The gas released at 50,000′ adds more heat to total atmosphere.
But this is not very significant.
What is much more significant is that the hot gas at Venus surface can not be heated by intensity of sunlight at Venus distance.
Whereas you CAN heat the gas on Venus at higher elevation.
And the only significant way one can heat gas with any kind of radiant energy, is by heating a solid or a liquid which once the solid or liquid become warmer than the gas, then the warmed surface can heat the gas.
“And the only significant way one can heat gas with any kind of radiant energy, is by heating a solid or a liquid which once the solid or liquid become warmer than the gas, then the warmed surface can heat the gas.”
There is exception if a liquid is heated and turns into a gas, that gas can also heat other gas. And this why ocean surface skin temperature is near
the same temperature as the air above it.
Or obviously, warm gas can heat cooler gas.
Year 2000 prediction => “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Year 2013 observation (13-years latter) =>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265333/Blizzards-black-ice–FLOODS-Fresh-falls-hit-Britain-thaw-starts-south-theres-snow-come.html?ICO=most_read_module
Doug Cotton,
Suppose you had a long wire thermoelectric device (a thermocouple) aligned with the gravitational field which you say, in itself, is the cause the temperature differential in a column of gas.
That would generate a tiny, but finite, amount of electrical power. So where would it come from? You can’t have a perpetual motion machine which just converts heat into power. That does contravene the second law of thermodynamics.
There’s no problem explaining it in our own atmosphere or the Venusian atmosphere because both a driven by massive heat engines. But take away that heat engine and the implication is that there must be no lapse rate or thermal gradient in a column of gas.
No, tempterrain an isothermal atmosphere would be one which would “contravene the second law of thermodynamics.” Do you understand what that Law says about entropy? Do you understand my comment here about the Second Law? How much physics have you done at university level?
The long wire has the same thermal gradient at equilibrium when placed vertically in a gravitational field. Conduction in metals and diffusion in gases are both subjected to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So your postulate, already talked about in my paper, debunks nothing.
Why don’t you just read my paper first?
Doug,
You ask ” How much physics have you done at university level?” which is a bit odd as you don’t seem to believe in University Physics. As far as I know all Universities are, unlike yourself, in basic agreement with the IPCC in their interpretation of the mechanism of climate change.
I posted a link by two eminent university professors and all you could say was “they are wrong”.
Instead of just dismissing my point with an airy “go and read my paper” comment (which I don’t believe it addresses anyway) why don’t you explain yourself in your own words?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states (from Wikipedia)
An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.
Hence the Second Law of Thermodynamics confirms that, at equilibrium, an isentropic state will develop, simply because that is the state which has the most entropy of all states “accessible to the system.”
This is why diffusion creates equal temperatures in a horizontal plane, but also unequal temperatures in a vertical plane. Isentropic conditions apply in each plane in equilibrium, but in the vertical plane potential energy varies, and thus kinetic energy does also so that PE+KE=constant..
Hence an autonomous thermal gradient in a gravitational field is a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and so the GHE is debunked by standard physics.
See the comments starting here …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-69064
Roy Spencer’s error will be very widely publicised within 2 or 3 weeks in an article likely to be read by tens of thousands.
Doug,
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it”
I’m not sure if evolve is the right word but basically that’s right. Except that the Earth or Venus can never be an isolated system. They are just too close to the sun.
OK gbaike – you asked for it
My comments in bold between yours …
As read this. A gas in gravity well is NOT isothermal. Rather it is adiabatic.
A gas cannot be adiabatic. Only a process can be.
A liquid or solid is different- it’s isothermal.
Any solid, liquid or gas is isothermal when the temperature is the same throughout.
This difference is because gas has no molecule structure- and liquid and solid do. This does not determine whether or not isothermal or isentropic conditions apply.
AND the heat not “heat” – you mean “temperature” of a liquid or solid is ONLY due to vibration of the molecular structure. And heat of a gas is ONLY due the kinetic motion of molecules. No, the Equipartition Theorem says the temperature (not “heat”) of a gas is due to translational, vibrational and rotational kinetic energy (KE.) “Motion” is only translational, so you left out the other degrees of freedom.
When one has a gas only high pressure it can act *similar* to a liquid. Not relevant to this discussion
So btw, if Roy Spencer is talking CO2 on Venus under pressure greater than 72.8 atm- he *may* have a point, but other this, he is wrong. Pressure does not maintain any particular temperature, whether in gas or liquid or solid. Different planets have quite different temperatures at altitudes where the pressure is the same. Pump up your car tyres – do they stay hot for ever?
“Do you agree or not that an autonomous thermal gradient in a gravitational field is a necessary corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I have proved?
Do you agree about the automatic (autonomous) thermal gradient which develops in a still atmosphere (due to diffusion of KE in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and thus debunks the claim that back radiation warmed Earth’s surface 33 degrees? Yes or No?
From Wikipedia the Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated …
>”An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. ” Yes I quoted this too
Yes. Yes, what? – Yes, you agree with Wikipedia’s statement? Yes, so do I.
Wiki explanation of second law of Thermodynamics applies to Venus and Earth and the whole universe and/or applies any adiabatic atmosphere. an atmosphere is not “adiabatic” – a process can be adiabatic. So what are the consequences – isothermal or isentropic?
As for this “You have not explained the source of heat (providing the necessary 16,000W/m^2 to keep the surface of Venus hot].
If have container of hot gas. Two exactly the same. And release the gas, one at sea level and one at 50,000′. The gas released at 50,000′ adds more heat to total atmosphere. No it doesn’t. Why should it? You cannot create extra KE inside the container just because you take it up there in a plane or something.
But this is not very significant.
What is much more significant is that the hot gas at Venus surface can not be heated by intensity of sunlight at Venus distance.
Whereas you CAN heat the gas on Venus at higher elevation. But the temperature of the atmosphere near the TOA of Venus is colder than -50 deg.C, so how does it transfer thermal energy to the surface? I wanted you to describe the process of heat transfer. How does the energy get into the surface?
And the only significant way one can heat gas with any kind of radiant energy, is by heating a solid or a liquid which once the solid or liquid become warmer than the gas, then the warmed surface can heat the gas.
No it’s not the only way. The gas can absorb incident Solar radiation. For example, carbon dioxide absorbs around 2.7 microns wavelength. Where are the solids or liquids being heated up in the atmosphere, or at the poles of Venus by 1W/m^2 of sunlight getting through the thick atmosphere?
I’d say your scored about 5% for your “physics.” Who’s next?
Doug Cotton,
Look, you don’t accept the Greenhouse effect even exists. You’re not in any position to mark anyone else on Physics. You’re a crank.
I don’t respond to assertive statements like this. I suggest you think about the consequences and those who will die if the hoax is not stopped.
Read my comment on the Second Law of Thermodynamics below. It’s not saying what you think it is going to say.
“OK gbaike – you asked for it
My comments in bold between yours …
-As read this. A gas in gravity well is NOT isothermal. Rather it is adiabatic.-
A gas cannot be adiabatic. Only a process can be.
-A liquid or solid is different- it’s isothermal.-
Any solid, liquid or gas is isothermal when the temperature is the same throughout.”
In the real world [especially] if talking about large mass like a planet- none of the solid, liqiuds or gases are isothermal.
The interior of a planet is hot, and the heat moves through the rock [giving a thermal gradient- higher the heat difference the less isothermal condition of the rock]. So in the non-real world could one talk about solid, liquid or gas being the same temperature. Or in real world you have
examples where temperatures are more similar throughout- such as Earth’s deep ocean. So water below, say, 500 meters of Earth’s ocean could be said to be isothermal.
So you were giving me choice of how describe an atmosphere, I describe them as adiabatic. Meaning generally the same heat but different temperature related to elevation differences. That gases are different temperature and my explanation why they were different. In atmosphere gas temperature decreases with higher elevation*.
Whereas In a pressurize container gases do not function this way- the gas is more as isothermal- using that term makes more sense than describing as adiabatic [but such pressurized gases would be the same heat and temperature].
*Of course one can have higher air temperature above the stratosphere- that’s a different topic.
-This difference is because gas has no molecule structure- and liquid and solid do.-
Your bold: This does not determine whether or not isothermal or isentropic conditions apply.
Wiki:
Isentropic process
In thermodynamics, an isentropic process or isoentropic process (ισον = “equal” (Greek); εντροπία entropy = “disorder”(Greek)) is one in which for purposes of engineering analysis and calculation, one may assume that the process takes place from initiation to completion without an increase or decrease in the entropy of the system, i.e., the entropy of the system remains constant. It can be proven that any reversible adiabatic process is an isentropic process. A simple more common definition of isentropic would be ” No change in entropy”.
The difference in temperature [not heat] of atmosphere due change in elevation [or adiabatic nature of an atmosphere]- is what meant by a Isentropic process.
And I was explaining why.
And I will give it another shot: The temperature of gas is motion of molecules. Same speed of molecules but more of them per cubic inch is higher temperature. More of them per cubic inch at same speed is a higher velocity of averaged gas.
And liquid or solid can not have more them per cubic inch – like gas can.
-AND the heat [ your bold: not “heat” – you mean “temperature”] of a liquid or solid is ONLY due to vibration of the molecular structure. And heat of a gas is ONLY due the kinetic motion of molecules. –
[Do I mean temperature instead of heat? I thought heat was better term- that it was a clearer term.
But if you want it to be temperature instead of heat- it’s ok by me.
Temperature is measurement of heat. The heat of gas is translated
into temperature- so equal it’s to the temperature [or heat] of a liquid or solid.]
Your bold: No, the Equipartition Theorem says the temperature (not “heat”) of a gas is due to translational, vibrational and rotational kinetic energy (KE.) “Motion” is only translational, so you left out the other degrees of freedom.”
I repeat, the heat or temperature of a gas is only translational.
One may want to account for “the other degrees of freedom”
of molecules of gas but they are not related to the temperature
[or heat] of a gas. The the glowing H2O and CO2 molecule is what the Greenhouse theory is “all about”- but these glowing molecules are not warmer than a non glowing CO2 molecule of gas.
Though how a CO2 gas glows could tell you the temperature of a CO2 gas is [or any gas]. But the glowing isn’t making it warmer.
It can completely unrelated to a gas’s temperature- hence the fluorescent light bulb. A gas which is having it’s “other degrees of freedom” excited and emits ultraviolet light which the powdered surface absorbs and re-emits whitish visible light.
But it’s different story with solids [or liquids]- they can reflect but don’t emit “higher temperature” unless they are at a higher temperature [see, blackbody temperature].
-So btw, if Roy Spencer is talking CO2 on Venus under pressure greater than 72.8 atm- he *may* have a point, but other this, he is wrong.
Your bold: Pressure does not maintain any particular temperature, whether in gas or liquid or solid.
I agree.
But pressure is related to temperature of a gas. No pressure, no temperature of a gas. Gas traveling at 200 km/sec [somewhere around our orbital velocity in your path around the Milky Way galaxy] has nothing to do with it’s temperature.
Continuing your bold: Different planets have quite different temperatures at altitudes where the pressure is the same. Pump up your car tyres – do they stay hot for ever?
They cool to temperature of the tire. And have higher potential energy but lower heat.
Pressurize gas, it heats up, and radiates heat, once cooled and then returned to ambient pressure and it’s cooler [hence refrigeration and heat pumps- one could use flame of propane gas to provide the energy in order to refrigerate stuff [propane refrigerators need no electricity in order to power a compressor].
[“Do you agree or not that an autonomous thermal gradient in a gravitational field is a necessary corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I have proved?
Do you agree about the automatic (autonomous) thermal gradient which develops in a still atmosphere (due to diffusion of KE in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and thus debunks the claim that back radiation warmed Earth’s surface 33 degrees? Yes or No?]
No. Instead I think the arrival of the 33 C cooler number according to Greenhouse theory is wrong.
Or earth without greenhouse gas is problematic because Earth is covered with ocean of water, and above -150 C ice evaporates into
a “greenhouse gas”. So you can’t talk about water planet and imagine
it without H2O gas- unless it beyond Jupiter.
So i believe oceans are critical aspect which explains Earth’s “average
temperature”.
So if you must not have the H2O gas, then you could imagine covering the planet with pane of glass. And in this world the average temperature would not be -18 C. And you want to paint some of glass the color of white to act something like clouds, it still would not be -18 C.
And also the 33 C number is bogus because it’s 33 C added to uniform temperature of -18 C.
In other words by imagining Earth as Blackbody [perfect absorber, emitter, and conductor of sunlight and heat] one create a uniform planetary temperature. No one explains how to convert a uniform
to an average global temperature. And with greenhouse theory they *simply* ignore this aspect. I think there nothing particularly wrong with simply ignore it if you don’t care about being exact.
Or said differently if want to say Earth uniform temperature is about 5 C,
this is fine- close enough- as long as you don’t think this means Earth’s average temperature is about 5 C.
Or if want a real science, it’s a bad idea to playing around with fictitious blackbodies.
PS: The problem with your statement “The gas released at 50,000′ adds more heat to total atmosphere.” is your use of the word “heat.” In physics the word “heat” relates to a transfer of kinetic energy and is not energy itself, let alone the total of potential energy and kinetic energy.
“PS: The problem with your statement “The gas released at 50,000′ adds more heat to total atmosphere.” is your use of the word “heat.” In physics the word “heat” relates to a transfer of kinetic energy and is not energy itself, let alone the total of potential energy and kinetic energy.”
Fine, replace heat with increases the temperature atmosphere.
So released gas at 50,000′ would increase the temperature of earth atmosphere more as compared to at sea level.
Yes, temperatures are “at a standstill.”
The whole point made by nearly 200 suitably qualified members of Principia Scientific International is that the planet is not going to boil.
If this fraudulent hoax is not stopped, then, yes, people are going to die in their thousands, because $100,000,000,000 has been promised for developing countries, not for humanitarian aid, but for carbon dioxide aid.
Carbon dioxide actually has a minuscule cooling effect, nowhere near as much as water vapour though That’s genuine science because it is based on the laws of physics that are well proven over the centuries.
Those climatologists who are misleading the public and governments completely misunderstand, or overlook the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which reads (quoting Wikipedia) …
An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.
Do you have any idea of the implications of this law?
(1) The atmosphere has a propensity towards an equilibrium which is isentropic.
Do you know what equal entropy implies?
(2) It implies there is an autonomous thermal gradient raising the surface temperature even more than that “33 degrees of warming” supposedly due to an imaginary GH effect.
Do you know what that means?
They are wrong. Carbon dioxide does not warm the surface one iota.
If you don’t understand the physics, then I suggest you stop propagating the hoax. The world can look forward to 500 years of natural cooling after about 2140, and it won’t get more than a degree warmer before then.
Roy Spencer is wrong in saying conduction would produce isothermal conditions in his point (6). It is Roy who either needs to make even just one comment on his own thread to either admit he’s wrong, or prove all of us at PSI are wrong in some way, perhaps because the Second Law of Thermodynamics would not somehow lead to isentropic conditions, rather than isothermal in a vertical plane. It would be very strange if it did so. Do you not notice the word “entropy” in that quote from Wikipedia?
Why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated when energy flows up the equilibrium thermal gradient.
I thought I should explain in a bit more detail how the energy gets into the Venus surface. There is no significant amount direct from the Sun – perhaps 10 to 20W/m^2 out of 16,000W/m^2 that would be needed for a temperature over 730K.
Incident solar radiation (mostly in the 2.7 micron band) is absorbed by carbon dioxide at various levels in the atmosphere.
Remember how I explained that the “level playing field” becomes a sloping one in a gravitational field? In calm conditions, with equilibrium established, new deposits of energy will spread out in all directions.
Yes, some will travel up the (very shallow) thermal gradient, gaining about 0.1 degrees every 10 to 12 metres.
This does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The concept of hot to cold only applies in a horizontal plain. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is now stated “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”
Hence, isentropic conditions form at equilibrium in all directions, and there are isothermal conditions only in horizontal planes. So these horizontal planes spread equal temperatures right around the very slowly rotating Venus planet.
New thermal energy being absorbed can be thought of like various showers of rain falling on an ocean. The extra water (energy) spreads out over the whole ocean.
So too does the extra energy absorbed by the atmosphere, no matter at what altitude.
When there is the “right” thermal gradient at equilibrium we have maximum entropy. Adding extra thermal energy at the cooler, higher “end” means that there is a reduction in entropy because we have a more ordered state with more than the expected amount of energy at the cool end. So the Second Law says entropy will increase until it can increase no more when all that extra energy is spread out over the whole troposphere at least.
Hence some energy will flow up the thermal gradient because the Second Law never said it couldn’t if the gradient is the equilibrium gradient. Such a gradient is like a level playing field (or ocean) and extra energy moves in all directions in what is actually convection, as distinct from diffusion wherein no extra energy is being added.
So when some of the energy gets to the surface interface it can continue into the surface if it is cooler, or “support” a slightly warmer surface if that’s the case. I suspect that the temperatures of the base of the atmosphere and the surface of Venus would be almost identical.
Basically the same process occurs on Earth and other planets, and that is why we are at a “standstill” – because all the extra carbon dioxide has no warming effect whatsoever.
.
” Doug Cotton | January 21, 2013 at 7:31 am | Reply
Why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated when energy flows up the equilibrium thermal gradient.
I thought I should explain in a bit more detail how the energy gets into the Venus surface. There is no significant amount direct from the Sun – perhaps 10 to 20W/m^2 out of 16,000W/m^2 that would be needed for a temperature over 730K.
Incident solar radiation (mostly in the 2.7 micron band) is absorbed by carbon dioxide at various levels in the atmosphere.”
Most of Venus CO2 is below something like 15 Km elevation.
Where would most of the heating of CO2 gas occur and how much solar energy is reach elevation where most of the solar energy is [somehow] heating the CO2 gas.
For example, one could say that, as guess, probably more half of the sun’s energy is heating the top 30 meters of the Earth’s ocean. Despite some sunlight reaching below the top 100 meter.
What elevation range on Venus is absorbing more than half of the solar energy?
“The amount of water vapor in clouds varies widely depending on temperature, pressure, etc., but five grams per cubic meter is about average.”
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1263/can-a-cloud-weigh-as-much-as-a-747
Suppose you wanted 10 meter thick rain clouds on Venus.
Per 50 grams of water per square meter.
And 50 million gram per square km. Or 50 metric tonnes.
Surface area slightly less than Earth, let’s say Earth:
510 million square km. Which total 25500 million tonnes.
25.5 billion tonnes. Or 25.5 cubic km of water.
“The two outlets of the Mississippi River eventually discharge a combined average of 580 cubic kilometers per year ”
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1133/geosetting.html
So average amount water flowing from Mississippi River in
in just over 2 weeks. A lot of water.
Gulf Stream “…this rate increases to 150 million cubic metres per second”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream
So that is rate of flow of .15 cubic km per second or 25.5 cubic km in 170 seconds. So amount water flowing of Gulf Stream in less than 3 minutes.
Or probably around 3 times the amount water in the polar regions on the Moon. Massive amount water, especially if you wanted to lift it from the Earth surface. But we get it somewhere else which easier. For example,
the dwarf planet Ceres:
“This 100 km-thick mantle (23%–28% of Ceres by mass; 50% by volume) contains 200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28dwarf_planet%29
So strip mining 1/10th of Ceres mantle could be rather difficult/costly, but a lot easier the lifting the water from Earth. Or it could a lot easier to re-direct some space rocks with high water content and have them impact them on Venus [though it’s might be considered waste of water which could have more profitable uses].
But question what affect would there be, if this much water was put in the Venus atmosphere?
Now, the water will end up in the atmosphere, but will the atmosphere be like a dry sponge and not have any clouds as result.
We probably lack the information to be able predict this.
Venus atmosphere is suppose to have about 20 ppm of water
in the atmosphere and that is a lot water in Venus
vast atmosphere. So it could take 10 or 100 times more water.
Or 2 x 10^-7 times ~4.8 x 10^20 kg is 9.6 x 10^13
Or 96 billion tonnes/ 96 cubic km of water and the amount estimated
in Venus probably has error greater than +/- 25.5 billion tonnes.
But assuming one could cause there to be clouds water 10 meters thick or a thin fog of water droplets. What would the result be in terms
Venus temperature?
It doesn’t matter at what altitude the thermal energy is added from incident solar radiation. If it rains on one side of an ocean, that extra water will spread over the whole ocean, even the whole globe. Gravity looks after that, just as it spreads out energy deposited anywhere in the atmosphere. And it has had hundreds of millions of years anyway, so even that 10-20W/m^2 near the base of the atmosphere will have contributed over the years. Yes, and the thermal energy absorbed in the top of the ocean will also disperse to greater depths by diffusion, convection and ocean currents.
There are no oceans on Venus causing latent heat (due to evaporation of oceans) to be transferred to the Venus atmosphere. The water vapour that is in the Venus atmosphere is still a small percentage of the total, that being over 96% carbon dioxide. Anyway, both water vapour and carbon dioxide absorb incident solar radiation, so what’s your point?
The specific heat of water vapour is higher than that of carbon dioxide, so it will reduce the gradient slightly, and thus have a cooling effect, just as it does by reducing the gradient to the “wet adiabatic lapse rate” on Earth.
“It doesn’t matter at what altitude the thermal energy is added from incident solar radiation.”
I can understand that you don’t *believe* that warmed clouds
on Venus are a major element that warms Venus. But you have
no rational basis to say it doesn’t matter at what altitude the thermal energy is added.
Let’s review. Venus is often described cloaked in clouds.
The clouds are said to reflect something like 70% of the solar
radiation. And no one would claim that clouds could not
absorb solar energy and be heated- one argue about how
much the clouds are warmed from the Sun, but you can’t
say they aren’t warmed at all.
” the planet itself is permanently cloaked in thick cloud”
http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/venus-telescope.htm
“since Venus is cloaked with a perpetual overcast. ”
http://www.space.com/15989-venus-transit-view-earth.html
“Venus is cloaked by dense clouds of sulfuric acid.”
http://www1.fccj.org/pacrews/solar_system2.htm
One could say the most obvious aspect of Venus is it is cloudy.
If you believe in the greenhouse theory it would not matter as much if clouds are warmed, because you think the reason the atmosphere
is warm, is the radiant energy is trapped near the surface- and trapped
radiant energy further from the surface would have less effect.
In science a question one should ask is what provides evidence that a hypothesis is wrong. So that if Venus is significantly warmed from clouds, this would require considerable convection of air at the cloud level. Because that is where I am say Venus atmopshere is being heated.
If you could identify where you think most of heating is occurring on
Venus, that too could checked to see if this hypothesis is correct-
it should also be a region of a lot convection of air.
Warmed air rises.
“There are no oceans on Venus causing latent heat (due to evaporation of oceans) to be transferred to the Venus atmosphere. ”
I would go even further- there not evidence of Venus ever having any kind of ocean at any time. If consider that planets are “born” in a hot environment- there no reason for Venus, after the sun began shining,
to have been cooler. It could have been hotter.
And/or Earth is considered to have gained ocean mainly from two processes, planetary differentiation:
“When protoplanets accrete more material, the energy at impact causes local heating. In addition to this temporary heating, the gravitational force in a sufficiently large body creates pressures and temperatures which are sufficient to melt some of the materials. This allows chemical reactions and density differences to mix and separate materials”.
And simply impactor which have high water content.
So basically one low water content material which general geological
processes separates water in mantle/core and transports water to surface [volcanos] and impactors with high water content [or lower water content] impact a body and water remain at the surface.
The accretion period of planet is relatively a short period of the billions of year of their history- and very violent [rocks falling like rain].
It seems to me there was no garden of Eden time on Venus. Rather it began in Hell and may have over time have become less hellish. Unless one imagines Venus was born in a more outer part of the solar system.
” If it rains on one side of an ocean, that extra water will spread over the whole ocean, even the whole globe. Gravity looks after that, just as it spreads out energy deposited anywhere in the atmosphere. And it has had hundreds of millions of years anyway, so even that 10-20W/m^2 near the base of the atmosphere will have contributed over the years. Yes, and the thermal energy absorbed in the top of the ocean will also disperse to greater depths by diffusion, convection and ocean currents.”
I think that on Earth one expect additions to heat of it’s oceans over
long periods of time [thousands of years]. But seems quite different matter to add hundreds of C as compared to tens of C.
And with Earth oceans one talking much larger heat capacity. A 5 C increase in average earth ocean temperature is more energy than a 50 C increase.
Earth ocean: 1.4 x 10^21 kg
Venus atmosphere: ~4.8 x 10^20 kg
CO2 specific heat is 1 to water’s 4.2
Now, let’s say Sun output increased by 10% [not that it ever done this]
So TOA earth: 1499 W/2 and Venus: 2970 W/2.
Such increase will obviously heat or increase the average temperature
of Earth and Venus.
On Earth surface instead of around 1000 W/2 one could expect it to
be 1100 W/2. And we immediately start getting highest high daily temperature everywhere on the planet. There probably be at least a 10% chance per day everywhere to get a new high temperature- going on for decades if not for centuries. But as centuries wear on the chances would lower of getting new high temperature- though global average may continue to slowly increase.
On Venus on it’s surface we don’t know the amount that reaches the ground as well we know the amount reaching the earth surface. But
we could guess it less than 5%. So 5% of 2700 is 135 W/2 and 5% of
2970 is 148.5. Or it should be less than 20 Watts per square meter added. So 10% increase solar flux on Earth surface and 10% increase on Venus surface.
I suppose if you think the small amount solar energy reaching surface is resulting massive multiplier, it’s possible you think that doubling Venus surface average temperature is possible with 10% increase in solar flux reaching the surface.
I tend to think only few degrees, say 5 to 10 C increase is possible- less than 10% increase in temperature.
And trying to think how prove it.
Hmm.
One way to look at it, is we know that on Venus surface there should
be great variation in the amount solar energy reaching the surface.
Due to “chance” a thicker clouds during the day and have times when there much thinner or no clouds. Plus difference due angle of sun and/or distance from the equator. Which means compared to average amount, there must areas getting a much higher amount than average
amount of solar flux. And therefore on should massive amount heating in some certain areas.
“And therefore on should massive amount heating in some certain areas.”
Should be “And therefore one should see massive…”
But it also seems one should see convection cells or high pressure areas like we get on earth. In other word one should get growing larger areas of clear weather or less clouds.
Or similar areas on Earth gets desertification due location near Equator [e,g Sahara desert ].
Or why are the cloud of sulfuric acid fairly uniform globally?
Also, if clouds are doing most of heating one should high pressure areas above them. This high pressure area wouldn’t spread the cloud apart, but
should interfere with higher elevation wind patterns. Or other effects.
Doug Cotton, among mathematicians and scientists there are recognized signs of crack-pottery, and from a purely objective point-of-view, your numerous and lengthy recent posts (and the PSI theories in general) show most of these signs.
To avoid a (possibly well-justified?) dismissal of your ideas, why don’t you attempt to fix these problems, by the well-posed computational path previously suggested?
Otherwise your theories (and the PSI theories) will continue to be ignored … for the sensible reason, that these theories are just plain unfixably wrong!
I don’t respond to verbiage. I respond to valid physics, or questions relating to such, wherein I am happy to help those with genuine enquiries.
Why don’t you just try to understand the very well established Second Law of Thermodynamics? That is, if you understand entropy.
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. “.
Yes, same applies to Einstein.
This statement in your link is incorrect “The Second Law is respected (because the dynamical flow is symplectic)” because they have not used the correct version of the Second Law which has entropy considerations which are nowhere to be found in their computations.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated thus …
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.
Go back to http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287981 and try harder to understand it.
Everyone:
A vertical isothermal state in a gravitational field has less entropy than an isentropic state, the latter having maximum possible entropy, and thus being the equilibrium state as referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I quoted it above from the Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics’ item. Hence a thermal gradient forms autonomously by diffusion at the molecular level.
QED
Judith,
Hansen’s article seems balanced and well argued to me. Where exactly do you find fault with it?
Nick
Jim Hansen, Roy Spencer (and IPCC et al) are all wrong in assuming the atmosphere would be isothermal without GHG.
They are also wrong in assuming that the Sun was capable of warming the surface of Venus, Earth or other planets to the observed temperature which is then maintained by back radiation being supposedly the only process that slows such surface cooling. They forgot that conduction and evaporation also decrease with a narrowing temperature gap.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is stated (in Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics”) thus …
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”
If there were to be a sealed cylinder of air which was isothermal, then there would be an “ordered” state with more total energy (PE + KE) at the top. Hence this would not be an equilibrium state, because entropy could increase, and it must. There will only be equilibrium when the sum (PE+KE) is the same at all heights.
A vertical isothermal state in a gravitational field has less entropy than an isentropic state, the latter having maximum possible entropy, and thus being the equilibrium state as referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I quoted it above from the Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics’ item. Hence a thermal gradient forms autonomously by diffusion at the molecular level.
Furthermore, any additional thermal energy deposited at the top can, and will, diffuse towards the bottom, creating a new equilibrium. This means there can be a heat transfer up the thermal gradient if that gradient is equal to or less in absolute magnitude than the normal equilibrium thermal gradient.
This is how energy absorbed in the Venus (or Earth) atmosphere at any altitude from any source, be it upwelling or downwelling radiation or latent heat release (on Earth) can flow towards the surface, heating the base of the atmosphere and subsequently heating the surface, or “supporting” its existing slightly warmer temperature by slowing the rate of cooling.
That’s interesting Doug.
“Jim Hansen, Roy Spencer (and IPCC et al) are all wrong in assuming the atmosphere would be isothermal without GHG.”
where do they say this exactly?
Have you studied physics or what? What did you study?
Nick
Doug,
You write
“If there were to be a sealed cylinder of air which was isothermal, then there would be an “ordered” state with more total energy (PE + KE) at the top. Hence this would not be an equilibrium state, because entropy could increase, and it must. There will only be equilibrium when the sum (PE+KE) is the same at all heights.”
I don’t get it. Surely the difference in PE will be so tiny as to make practically no difference?
So “tiny” in the atmosphere? It makes the difference of the observed thermal gradient, after allowing for intra-atmospheric radiation, release of latent heat and some other minor factors in the tropsphere. Anyway, see my other comment, read my paper and article, and we can start discussion from there.
“Doug,
You write
“If there were to be a sealed cylinder of air which was isothermal, then there would be an “ordered” state with more total energy (PE + KE) at the top. Hence this would not be an equilibrium state, because entropy could increase, and it must. There will only be equilibrium when the sum (PE+KE) is the same at all heights.”
I don’t get it. Surely the difference in PE will be so tiny as to make practically no difference?”
This is about falling.
Things that fall in atmosphere are slowed by air resistance. At molecular level there is no air resistance. There is collision every nanosecond but
no energy is lost
So the velocity of air molecules are about 400 m/s. If it falls for 1 second
it’s 9.8 m/s. Rather insignificant compared to 400 m/s.
If it falls for 10 seconds it’s 98 m/s becoming more significant as compared to 400 m/s. Falling for 10 seconds is distance of 490 meters.
Falling for 20 seconds is distant of 1960 meters.
50 seconds: 12,250 meters with added velocity of 490 m/s
One could ask the question if dropped liquid nitrogen in a tube, at what height would it need to drop from so it gains enough heat to overcome
it’s latent heat to transform from a liquid into a gas and for gas molecules
to attain average velocity of 400 m/s?
Boiling point: -195.8 C [about 77 K ]
Latent heat : 199000 joules per kg
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/nitrogen-d_1421.html
Per kg the amount joules need to raise temperature
from above this boiling to room temperature is around 1000 joules
per K per Kg. So roughly 240,000 joules.
So slightly less than total heat is require to change the liquid
to a gas. And since 12,250 meters with added velocity of 490 m/s.
If poured liquid nitrogen in a tube 12,250 meter high when it hits the ground
it will all have been vaporized. The air would may be a bit cold, but not cryogenic. At some greater height, no matter how much liquid nitrogen pour down the pipe it would all become room temperature or warmer air.
And of course if doing this with pipe only 10 meter tall, you don’t get this all
it- the bottom fill nitrogen liquid and cryogenic temperature nitrogen air.
Nick See point (6) for Roy Spencer here …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
and, if we can assume Hansen agrees with the official IPCC statement, see what the IPCC said as quoted in my article where my degrees are also mentioned. Note the reference to the whole Earth and atmosphere being below freezing (ie that 255K.)
Would you like to discuss the physics pertaining to the autonomous thermal gradient necessitated by the entropy requirements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as stated in Wikipedia …
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system”
If so, please start by reading my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” including the Appendix. It’s linked from my website which you can open by clicking my name above.
I look forward to your attempted counter argument based on valid physics. I trust we can start from the above statement of the 2LoT as common ground, and have an appropriate, comprehensive discussion of the physics involved. Others are welcome to join in.
Doug,
It is interesting to speculate, with those who are open to rational argument, just what an radiatively inert atmosphere would be like.
Unfortunately I don’t think you qualify.
Just how you’ve managed to convince yourself that the presence of various atmospheric gases which demonstrably impede the transmission of IR radiation away from the Earth has no effect on its surface or atmospheric temperature is not easy for the rest of us to know.
If you’re so way off the mark on the fundamentals, what chance have you of getting it right on the finer points?
Doug,
Thanks for your reply. I did have a look at your paper on PSI, but it contained no references to the scientific literature, only web links. Your degrees are listed there as business administration, not physics or climate related sciences. It seems to me therefore that you have no credibility in this area, putting it mildly.
Nick
NickB
Not to defend Doug’s hypothesis. but I believe that judging someone’s ability to have substantive thoughts on the topic of climate by the number of scientific degrees they may have earned is a bad criterion.
Willis Eschenbach is a good example of someone who is very knowledgeable but lacks a formal scientific education in climate-related physics or meteorology.
Max
PS An example of a substantive comment by Willis over on the Shaun Lovejoy “macroweather” thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/21/macroweather-not-climate-is-what-you-expect/#comment-288160
Here’s a purely numerical test of the Cotton/PSI thermodynamical worldview, that Climate Etc readers are invited to test on their own.
Let
be the vertical coordinate of a fluid column (it can be any gas or liquid), and let 
be the local energy density of that fluid column, and let 
be the local mass density of that fluid column, and finally, let 
be the entropy density of that fluid.
Specify starting values for the energy density
and mass density 
, and (numerically) compute the total energy 
, total mass 
, and total entropy 
as the following integrals.
Now do the following calculation (numerically!):
(1) Specify any convex entropy function
.
(2) Include the effects of the gravity potential by
, where 
is the gravitational acceleration.
(3) Holding the total energy
and the total mass 
fixed, (numerically!) vary 
and 
so as to maximize the total entropy 
.
Note In practice, it suffices to divide the fluid column into (say) fifty vertical cells, and (numerically!) maximize the entropy
by varying the mass and energy (both!) in each cell, holding the total mass and total energy constant. Most modern computing languages have built-in routines that can carry out the required constrained maximization (Mathematica’s “FindMaximum[]” for example).
Call the entropy-maximizing mass density
and the entropy-maximizing energy density 
. Then compute the 
-dependent (but is it?) entropy-maximizing temperature 
from
Prediction (the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics) It is a remarkable mathematical theorem, that although the mass density
and the energy density 
both will be found (in general) to be strongly 
-dependent, the temperature 
so (numerically!) computed will be found to be independent of 
, which is physically to say, the temperature of a fluid column in a gravitational gradient is constant throughout the column.
——————-
Note It is illuminating for students to thermodynamics to do the above calculation numerically at least once. Having seen the Zeroth Law at work “with their own eyes” — applied specifically to fluid columns in a gravitational field! — it becomes easier for students to appreciate that the Zeroth Law can be derived by the calculus of variations in complete generality, without recourse to numerical examples.
——————-
Conclusion The PSI variety of “skeptical outsider” thermodynamics fails not in consequence of the Second Law, but in consequence of the Zeroth Law. Carrying through this numerical calculation will substantially improve your appreciation of the predictive power and generality of the Zeroth Law, Doug Cotton/PSI members/Climate Etc readers!
manacker
suppose someone tells you they have a refutation of a particular scientific theory. suppose also you are not trained in that science, and want to judge whether it will be worth my while to get clued up about this. Then you find out that this person did not have much in the way of training in the relevant discipline themselves. Would it have no effect on your prior belief as to whether the alleged refutation should be taken seriously?
In this world we do not have time to steep ourselves in every scientific discipline to judge wheat from chaff. We rely partly on credentials. It seems to me there is no sensible alternative when time is scarce.
Also this comment was only part of a set. When you add in that there were no references to the primary science in the paper, what are you left with, as reason to take this seriously?
nick
NickB
I am not going to enter the slippery slope of starting a discussion of a hypothetical person refuting a hypothetical scientific theory, because to do so would be meaningless.
I am simply telling you that in “climatology” ( a science, which is still in its infancy) it would be foolish to write off a hypothesis because the person proposing this hypothesis does not have a higher degree in climate-related physics or meteorology (as you were apparently trying to do with Doug Cotton).
The only thing that counts is the hypothesis itself – attack that, point out specific flaws, backing your critique with specific scientific evidence – but don’t simply attack the academic authority of the person proposing this hypothesis.
IOW:
Use: “argument from evidence”
Rather than “argument from authority”
(Feynman)
Max
gbaikie and others:
My response to absolutely everything of relevance that you have said in all above comments is contained in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” which is on the PROM (Peer Review in Open Media) menu on the Principia Scientific International website. Please be sure to read the four page Appendix as well.
I would appreciate it if any future comments or questions relate to the content of the paper, and that quotes are not made out of context or with an obvious lack of understanding of the content.
The paper has been on that PROM menu for over eight weeks, and may soon move to the “Publications” menu, so if the link below* doesn’t work at some future date, please search for the title using quote marks. It is easily found on Google and major search engines.
I am happy to answer questions about the content of the paper, and, if you think you can make a valid rebuttal, just send such to the CEO of PSI and a response will be forthcoming if you make valid points supported by evidence.
Note that the modern version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is (as in Wikipedia) …http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
This version is necessary in order to take into account differences in potential energy at different altitudes. The original Clausius statement only related to kinetic energy (that is, the concept of heat flow being always from hot to cold) but that only applies in a horizontal plane.
* http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_paper_PSI_Planetary_Surface_Temperatures.pdf
Doug,
You must be one of the world’s unrecognised geniuses. And everyone dismisses you as a crank or a crackpot.
How frustrating is that?
tempterrain
People who take the time to attempt to challenge the “status quo” by exploring new concepts are to be welcomed into the discussion.
If the hypotheses, which they propose, can be falsified by empirical evidence, then these hypotheses can be discarded. So far, I have not seen you try this approach with Doug Cotton.
Simply insinuating that the individual who proposed a new hypothesis is a “crank or a crackpot”, doesn’t achieve anything.
Remember that Alfred Wegener had no formal education as a geologist. His radical “continental drift” hypothesis was met with open hostility from the defenders of the geological consensus status quo position and he was also considered to be a “crackpot” at the time.
Max
Max,
Look, its not just me who can be a bit sarky towards the Skydragons, or rather those who imagine themselves as knights-in-armour slaying the beast.
The Greenhouse effect has been established science for 150 years or more. Anyone would have to have an overblown sense of their own importance to think they were right and everyone else wrong.
So yes Doug could be a genius but, if not, then he has to be a crackpot..
I’d just ask about motivations too. Its only in recent years, after the start of concerns about the effect of increasing GH gas concentrations, that anyone has had any problem with it. This is obviously an attempt to cast doubt on established science to undermine the case for emission controls.
We can all of us appreciate and admire Doug Cotton’s commitment and persistence in seeking a better understanding of Nature. All knowledge-seekers soon learn that Nature’s judgments upon our efforts can be harsh. And that is all the more reason to appreciate the integrity Doug Cotton’s recent efforts … even though the verdict of Nature (most folks would say) is against the technical correctness of those efforts. So Thank You, Doug Cotton!![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffeeff&fg=0000ff&s=1&c=20201002)
The verdict of nature is that all climate change is natural.
My reasons are in the Appendix of “Radiated Energy and The Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
I am far from being alone in believing in the autonomous thermal gradient in a gravitational field and the veracity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics when stated correctly as here …
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. “
Any physicist who knows about entropy should be able to understand my derivation of the autonomous thermal gradient in a gravitational field, directly from the requirement for greatest entropy, as in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
None of you can prove this physics to be incorrect.
My response to all the above comments is in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” where you should also note the four page Appendix.
..
I repeat None of you can prove this physics to be incorrect.
Find a physicist who thinks he can! Read my paper if you have a degree in physics and think you understand it. Silent readers are also invited to do so.
Anyone is invited to submit an official rebuttal to the CEO of Principia Scientific International and it will be considered by myself and several peers, including professors and some with PhD’s in climatology, astrophysics and other related disciplines who are among nearly 200 members of PSI who know that carbon dioxide has no warming effect.
I suggest people stop making assertive statements that simply claim that I am wrong, without a single word of valid physics to support their contention . Those who do start talking physics had better be sure of what they say, or I will not hesitate to highlight their errors, backed up with cited evidence. Try me!
Doug Cotton, no-one doubts your sincerity. And no-one doubts your bellicosity either! Most of all, no one doubts that your much-touted manuscript:
• has no numbered equations, and thus
• has no mathematical deductions, and moreover,
• has no numerical computations, and in consequence
• makes no quantitative predictions, and finally
• inexplicably ignores (without comment!) the Zeroth Law.
Uhhh … perhaps these lacks should remedied? Because otherwise, folks are likely to read your manuscript not as a scientific exposition of a novel climate-change theory, but as a case-study in denialist cognition (which is becoming sadly commonplace nowadays)!![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffeeff&fg=0000ff&s=1&c=20201002)
Fan,
You say “Doug Cotton, no-one doubts your sincerity”.
I don’t know about that. No sincerity is required to argue against emission controls per se. Scientific integrity can be a hindrance. It all depends on motivations.
Having googled psuedo scattering – it should be no surprise that it goes directly back to you at SoD this time
Sorry, but Professor Claes Johnson and Prof. Nasif Nahle have now proven beyond any doubt – both in theory and in empirical measurement, that IR radiation which is emitted from a cold atmosphere does NOT increase the temperature of the oceans or land surfaces.
Electromagnetic radiation does not exhibit a particle like nature. Planck’s suggestion of this (made in desperation) was wrong!
The IPCC models depend upon an incorrect assumption that these fictitious “photons” from a cold atmosphere can warm the surface…[Moderator’s note – rest of “essay” deleted] ..It is pseudo-science.
– Moderator’s note – please check the Etiquette. Here is an extract:
Basic Science is Accepted – This blog accepts the standard field of physics as proven. Arguments which depend on overturning standard physics, e.g. disproving quantum mechanics, are not interesting until such time as a significant part of the physics world has accepted that there is some merit to them.
The moderator reserves the right to just capriciously delete comments which use as their premise that standard textbook physics is plain wrong.
This is aimed to reduce the continual stream of unscientific rubbish that gets placed here as comments.
Those interested in such entertainingly bad ideas, just Google “physics is wrong”, “quantum mechanics flaws” and so on.
Hopefully there is nothing unclear about this? If you don’t believe the last 100 years of physics, good luck and please promote your “theories” elsewhere. Call standard physics “pseudoscience” on another blog.
The photon is literally a ‘packet of energy’ – a discrete quanta equal to Planck’s constant times the frequency. It is this quality that implies the particle like nature of the particle. It is also of course a wave else how could it have a frequency.
A molecule that absorbs a photon at a specific wavelength absorbs a specific quanta of energy and releases the same amount on emission – the quantum effect.
I think you make too much of the black body idealisation – the atmosphere being far from a black body.
Pseudo scattering? Doug, we went over this before, it is advection and/or scattering, no pseudo involved. An isothermal layer has to be perfectly isothermal or there is advection or scattering. That is the problem with your gravito-thermal perpertual motion machine thingy. To have a lapse rate there has to be an energy flux. If you contain a volume, you are limiting energy flow so you get nada that makes sense.
Of course, that is also why “sensitivity” is grossly over estimated, so I guess you are in good company.
Can you explain what meant by:
“To have a lapse rate there has to be an energy flux.”
What quantity of energy flux?
The quantity of energy flux seems to have
little to do with a lapse rate.
And one could say any matter has energy flux of some amount.
A gas in an atmosphere has certain amount heat or energy content.
For example If earth had much cooler atmosphere, say 100 to 200 K
cooler, it would shrink and become denser and perhaps affect
the distance involved in it’s lapse rate.
“I repeat None of you can prove this physics to be incorrect.”
I will try something different. I will explain it as I understand it.
A given amount of radiant energy, say 1000 watts per square
meter, can only heat the molecular structure of solids and
liquids to certain level of heat [which measured as temperature].
1000 watts per square meter is unable to make matter as warm
as 200 C, without somehow altering this the intensity, such as
magnifying the 1000 watts per square meter, so as to increase
it’s intensity.
Said differently, a frying pan that was heated so it is 200 C [by some heating element] can not have any heat added to it by 1000 watts per
square of sunlight.
This not only means the 1000 watts per square meter of sunlight
can not increase it’s temperature, but also can not reduce to amount
a frying will cool. The cooling frying pan will cool by a certain amount
and the energy of this sunlight will not have any affect upon how much it cools.
And Doug Cotton provides ref to Prof. Johnson paper which provide an
explanation.
What follows from this fact, is amount of heat which can be stored
depends on the intensity of Sunlight. Doug Cotton and Prof. Johnson
say that Greenhouse theory wrong [and I agree it is wrong] but
accordance with this idea, a another thing wrong about the Greenhouse
theory, is that there models divide the intensity of sunlight by 4, thereby
“creating a world” unable to be to be warm. The NASA model, Prof. Johnson cites has TOA solar radiation at 340 watts per square meter [1360 divided by 4 is 340]. Mars gets about 600 watts per square meter, and look at that place.
But even 600 watts per square meter is enough for this sunlight to heat water so it’s a liquid.
But 340 watts per square is world which needs to saved from a frozen fate.
But the reality is Earth TOA has average of about 1360 watts per square meter and this enough solar intensity to easily cause the tropical region of Earth to be well above freezing.
According to what Doug Cotton and Prof. Johnson are saying [which I agree with] is it’s madness to divide the intensity of sunlight by 4.
You’re wrong. If you measured the input power required to maintain the frying pan at 200 C, you’d find that it would decrease when 1,000 W/m^2 external radiation was applied. You seem to be confusing heat and temperature, they are not the same thing.
gibaike, expressing the wisdom of considering both peak available energy and average energy doesn’t require reinventing physics though. Postma tried the same approach, but lost his audience at the beginning by making extravagant claims.
Then convincing either the skydragons or the Hansen’s that they missed a step will require more than just logic.
“David N | January 24, 2013 at 9:46 am |
You’re wrong. If you measured the input power required to maintain the frying pan at 200 C, you’d find that it would decrease when 1,000 W/m^2 external radiation was applied. You seem to be confusing heat and temperature, they are not the same thing.”
We found something to disagree about.
Now what do suppose the difference would be?
I am wondering if you think the amount energy needed to maintain
a frying at at 200 C is easily measured?
Such take 2 frying pans with heating elements turned on the same
amount and comparing temperature when one is in sunlight and
one is in the shade.
Or do have better idea of how to determine this?
Instead could adjust the element. So if using a gas flame
you could eyeball it. Which might work if there is enough
difference, so such possible error margins would not be problem.
I guess question is, how much exact calibration is needed
for the experiment?
Would 150 C temperature frying pan have significantly larger
difference? Or maybe even better 100 C?
You could ohmically heat the pan by passing a current directly through it, or inducing a current with an external coil. Adjust the current until a surface thermocouple measures your set temperature, and measure that current. Maintaining 200 C in vacuum would take about 2.4 kW/m^2, so applying direct sunlight will produce a measurable difference. If you are serious about performing this experiment, you should use only one apparatus, so the only difference is the presence or absence of sunlight.
“You could ohmically heat the pan by passing a current directly through it, or inducing a current with an external coil. Adjust the current until a surface thermocouple measures your set temperature, and measure that current. Maintaining 200 C in vacuum would take about 2.4 kW/m^2, so applying direct sunlight will produce a measurable difference. If you are serious about performing this experiment, you should use only one apparatus, so the only difference is the presence or absence of sunlight.”
Assuming
200 C is 2.4 kW/m^2.
And
150 C is 1.8 kW/m^2
120 C is 1.4 kW/m^2
100 C is 1.2 kW/m^2
80 C is 1.0 kW/m^2
How much measurable difference would predict for 200C?
And for:
150 C?
120 C?
100 C?
In normal conditions when sunlight is around 1000 Watts
and due to convection losses the highest temperature
reached is about 70 C [158 F].
If heated a frying pan so that it’s highest temperature reached in the shade was 70 C if you then, removed the shade, how much warmer
would expect it to get?
Probably using thin material [sheet metal painted black] which uniformly warmed by heating element [say hot plate] would have the most sensitive [quicker] response to any heat generated by sunlight.
So if one put frying pan on hot plate. Placed say dozen pennies on frying and put the sheet metal on the pennies.
So that you heat the sheet metal so that one has constant temperature over period of 1/2 hour in the shade. Remove the shade and have sunlight shine on it for 1/2 hour.
What would expect the temperature difference to be?
The fry pan being heated should reduce convection losses as it’s in addition to heating the sheet metal, it’s heating the air, and therefore I would expect from this effect some warming of the plate due to sunlight.
But I would be impressed if it was 10 C difference.
70 C is 343.15 K
If I times 343.15 K by itself 4 times and times this by .0000000567
I get: 786.17 watts
And 353.15 K is 881.9 watts
So roughly [despite the decimal points] the sunlight would be adding 95.7 watts per meter per second to sheet metal if it increase by 10 C.
So in this particular situation do think the sunlight would add 100 watts
per square meter per second or something like +700 watts per square
meter per second?
And I believe if repeated the above so instead of 70 C heated in shade
one were to heat it to 80 C, one would see less 100 watts per square
meter per second added by sunlight.
And at 100 C or 200 C, close to none added.
Second thought:
Better than pennies, would be insulation of some kind. So the sheet
metal is not heating the frying pan. So hanging sheet a cm above
frying pan with some thread. Would seem the best solution.
gbaikie
Do it on an induction stove.
Max
You need to stop assuming and start learning. Radiated power is not linear with temperature. You are correct that as temperature increases a fixed input will have less effect on the equilibrium temperature, but there is no basis for your belief that a hot surface can somehow disregard incident radiation.
The explanation for the madness, is no doubt a fascinating tale.
But wish to move on to other aspects of which agree with Doug
Cotton paper and wish to explain it, my way.
Next, point is atmospheres and their gases. Which in my opinion are
similar bodies of liquids, but have some important differences.
To start, any atmosphere is storing heat. And it stores heat as kinetic
motion of individual molecules of gas.
A molecule of gas in not storing heat, rather it’s the interaction of
many molecules which has heat. And this heat can measured
and so can said to have a certain temperature.
Earth’s atmosphere in sunlight is filled convection of gases- or
packets or parcel of air which had different amount heat [which
generally means different temperature] and parcel air will rise
when they have more heat than the surrounding air.
An atmosphere [in gravity well] will balance it’s heat.
The question is what *would* an atmosphere look like if
it’s heat was to be balanced. And this is about the lapse
rate of atmosphere. Any lapse rate of an atmosphere concerns
the changing temperate of atmosphere with higher elevation.
The most significant factor which affect lapse rate is the presence
of H2O gas. This is commonly explained in terms ideal gas law.
And in simplest terms, H20 is not a ideal gas.
And therefore accordingly, any non-ideal gas would also
affect lapse rate.
CO2 is *mostly* considered an ideal gas, or in regard to the
tropospheric conditions found on Earth, CO2 almost
exclusively acts as an ideal gas. And in these same
conditions H20 mostly *doesn’t* act as ideal gas. I am
talking rule thumb type stuff not in absolute terms.
The exceptions may or may not be important- but I
regardless, won’t consider them at this time.
So H20 is the only significant non-ideal gas in Earth
troposphere, and it’s discussed in terms of
“dry adiabatic lapse rate (DALR)”
which is “9.8 °C per 1,000 m” and “Saturated
adiabatic lapse rate” which is 5 °C per 1000 meter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
But the question is what is fundamental causes the
lapse rate of the atmosphere.
It is not really a dispute, in a sense. Everyone
knows it’s caused by gravity.
But in another sense it is disputed- or much confusion
is associated with it.
One can summarize it quite simply: those believing in
greenhouse theory believe greenhouse gases greatly
affect the lapse rate and even hold that the lapse rate
is solely caused by the greenhouse effect.
Since H2O gas is considered a greenhouse gas, there is
no denying that H20 gas affects the lapse rate.
BUT it’s because H20 is non-ideal gas, and not so much
to do with H2O radiant properties. Or CO2 gas doesn’t
affect lapse rate.
And I would say neither H2O or CO2 cause there to be a
lapse rate in the atmosphere. And such statement would
be disputed by some believers of theory of the
greenhouse effect.
And so the question is if one had atmosphere comprised
of solely non-greenhouse gas, would be a lapse rate
in the atmosphere?
And honestly, I can’t imagine how there
could *not* be a lapse rate in such an atmosphere.
Or to me it’s unknowable how someone could consider it
otherwise.
And I don’t anyone who made any effort to explain how
this could be. But it does seem to be assumed by some.
But the argument lies in the degree of how much a
lapse rate is altered by factors [including radiant
effects].
And this “real argument” in my opinion is fairly pointless,
and predictably will lead to discussion of such things
as inversion layers, etc.
No doubt fascinating. But pointless and unrelated
to discussion I wanted to get.
Which is:
An atmosphere [in gravity well] will balance it’s heat.
gbaikie, To start, any atmosphere is storing heat. And it stores heat as kinetic
motion of individual molecules of gas.”
Why start there? The amount of heat the atmosphere is storing is miniscule with respect to the oceans. The atmosphere receives most of the little energy it does store for a brief period for the oceans. You don’t charge the oceans the same way you charge the atmosphere. Without the relative constant source of energy from the oceans there would be no stable lapse rate.
It is like charging a battery
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/01/battery-charger.html
If you start by considering the relative charge in and the maximum capacity of, each cell in the battery, you simplify the problem instead of chasing Skydragons.
The question is what *would* an atmosphere look like if
it’s heat was to be balanced?
So an atmosphere of pure nitrogen replacing
Earth’s mixture which H20 is most important in
this regard.
Should have lapse rate of 9.8 C per 1000 meters.
So, on Earth the lapse rate changes above the troposphere.
A change in lapse defines where a troposphere ends.
Why it changes is again fascinating, but again more detail
than I want try to explain.
Or said differently the troposphere includes most of Earth
atmosphere and I want focus on main elements.
Now, way I would explain what Doug saying [and I would welcome
correction by Doug in this regard] is that if had say a billion
molecules of gas. The billion of molecules have more energy,
and therefore more potential heat content if they are at a higher
elevation. So a billion molecules of air at 1000 meter elevation
are 9.8 C cooler, but they would gain energy if travel to
0 elevation and thereby have same temperature [or heat].
But also they don’t actually have “go anywhere” without
the molecule actually moving, the heat will be transferred.
If they move the the heat will realized, but even if they don’t
move, the heat or energy can move- must move.
So if air is cooled near surface, heat will transferred from
air above it.
One doesn’t need the convection in sense of movement of
air molecules to transfer this heat.
In simple and obvious terms:
If the surface is cooled the entire atmosphere is cooled.
In dramatic terms, if one could somehow cool and maintain
the surface near to absolute zero, one get a rapid collapsing
atmosphere- are more exactly, atmosphere that falls. It’s
exponential in it’s collapse. Btw, this exponential nature,
tells you something.
Now a warming atmosphere is probably less obvious aspect
of this.
And more dramatic heating would be a surface temperature
of say 2000 C. 10,000 C would probably give escape velocity
to all the gas molecules [and none them remaining on earth],
but 10,000 C is vaporizing the entire planet. So something
like 2000 C is closer to a more realistic upper limit- and
someone could do the math but I think most of
atmosphere would not escape the gravity well of earth at
least in an immediate sense.
But anyhow if surface suddenly were 2000 C, what happens.
Well lapse rate is irrelevant, atmosphere gases rush to top
of atmosphere and one has massive churning of the
atmosphere. But once all atmosphere is warmed then a
lapse rate would return.
One thing would be certain, H2O would be a ideal gas. H2O would
not affect the lapse rate. But many different compounds may be
non-ideal gases. For instance, lead. Or perhaps various Sulfur compounds. So figuring out lapse rate seems very complicated.
And I gone made something like a gas giant- the “surface” would pressure higher the under the ocean [cause you would be].
So let’s make 200 C, less exciting but same thing, lots convection
no lapse rate, than once all atmospheric gases warmed up, you
would return to having lapse rate.
But what is air temperature at the surface. With 200 C skin surface, the air should less than this temperature. To be clear, pressure is 1 atm- higher pressure would lessen the difference between skin and air temperature.
Hmm, if you are heated from surface [as in geothermal energy]
do you have air surface temperature difference with surface.
Or the air temperature difference on Earth largely due the day and night variation of solar energy?
Power went off but it saved the post I was making [how/why not sure].
But I post it before some other idiot runs of a power pole:)
The mathematics deriving the thermal gradient -g/Cp are in the Appendix of my paper. Perhaps you missed it. Quantitative predictions pertaining to future temperatures are in the Appendix of the earlier paper published March 2012. I provided links to both papers in my 6:07pm comment above. Perhaps you missed that comment also.
Tell me when you are going to start talking about the physics involved and cease your trolling.
Having googled psuedo scattering – it should be no surprise that it goes directly back to you at SoD this time
Sorry, but Professor Claes Johnson and Prof. Nasif Nahle have now proven beyond any doubt – both in theory and in empirical measurement, that IR radiation which is emitted from a cold atmosphere does NOT increase the temperature of the oceans or land surfaces.
Electromagnetic radiation does not exhibit a particle like nature. Planck’s suggestion of this (made in desperation) was wrong!
The IPCC models depend upon an incorrect assumption that these fictitious “photons” from a cold atmosphere can warm the surface…[Moderator’s note – rest of “essay” deleted] ..It is pseudo-science.
– Moderator’s note – please check the Etiquette. Here is an extract:
Basic Science is Accepted – This blog accepts the standard field of physics as proven. Arguments which depend on overturning standard physics, e.g. disproving quantum mechanics, are not interesting until such time as a significant part of the physics world has accepted that there is some merit to them.
The moderator reserves the right to just capriciously delete comments which use as their premise that standard textbook physics is plain wrong.
This is aimed to reduce the continual stream of unscientific rubbish that gets placed here as comments.
Those interested in such entertainingly bad ideas, just Google “physics is wrong”, “quantum mechanics flaws” and so on.
Hopefully there is nothing unclear about this? If you don’t believe the last 100 years of physics, good luck and please promote your “theories” elsewhere. Call standard physics “pseudoscience” on another blog.
The photon is literally a ‘packet of energy’ – a discrete quanta equal to Planck’s constant times the frequency. It is this quality that implies the particle like nature of the particle. It is also of course a wave else how could it have a frequency.
A molecule that absorbs a photon at a specific wavelength absorbs a specific quanta of energy and releases the same amount on emission – the quantum effect.
I think you make too much of the black body idealisation – the atmosphere being far from a black body.
I quote from a document I have previously written ….
“The dual wave and particle nature of radiation is recognised, but it is considered more appropriate, and indeed necessary, for an understanding of radiative heat transfer to consider the frequencies and intensities associated with the wave nature of radiation, for only then can the one-way transfer of heat be described and quantified in a meaningful manner.”
On this thread I have been talking about the autonomous thermal gradient in a gravitational field, determined by the entropy requirements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, you will find mention of radiation and the small role it plays in this article I wrote recently.
By the way, “Science of Doom” (SoD) is totally incorrect about Venus and mistakenly states that its surface receives more than 10 times the insolation which the Russian calculated as a planetary mean from measurements made by probes which landed on the Venus surface..
SoD is all computations (without accurate understanding of the physics)coupled with a lack of understanding of the implications of the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as quoted in comments above. Such implications are explained in my recent paper and the article cited above.
.
As I explained the frequency is related to the energy through Planck’s constant. Energy is absorbed and emitted in quanta. Again this is not Weins displacement in a black body – but energy quanta absorbed and emitted. These are necessarily the same as the energy states of the molecules are determined by the allowable electron orbits. This is a component of the potential energy of the molecules. So these quanta of energy are free to pass to and from the surface and the atmosphere without the need to invoke spurious physics of ‘pseudo scattering’. And without violating the statistical validity of the 2nd law. It is pretty much equivalant to FOMBS defence of the 0th law of equal temperatures – utterly irrelevant.
This is your fundmental error – although there are many more.
Well, that’s what you think about what happens with radiation which you think can cause entropy to decrease in an independent process. Of course you don’t have any empirical evidence, though. My counter argument is in my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published on several websites in March, 2012.
When you want to talk about the far more important issue of the autonomous thermal gradient resulting in a gravitational field due to the entropy requirements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then I’ll be all ears. That’s the topic of my more recent paper and the above linked article, and that’s what debunks any radiative greenhouse effect.
Individual photons have no memory of the temperature of the object that emitted them, which is why the Cotton theory is bunkum. Imagine a radio photon which is emitted only at very cold temperatures naturally. Can it not be absorbed by anything warm? Does your radio not work? The basic flaw is that photons carry no information apart from their own wavelength and they are absorbed just as easily by hot and cold surfaces. Cotton thinks a photon from the cold atmosphere cannot be absorbed by a warm surface because it has some kind of memory of its emission temperature. No, a 15 micron photon is absorbed just as easily whether it is emitted by a warm surface or emitted from the atmosphere. The wavelength is what matters.
“Individual photons have no memory of the temperature of the object that emitted them, which is why the Cotton theory is bunkum. Imagine a radio photon which is emitted only at very cold temperatures naturally.”
Not just very cold objects emit radio- a warmer human body
would also emit radio photons, naturally.
“Can it not be absorbed by anything warm? Does your radio not work?”
Being near a 50,000 watt radio tower does not warm a radio absorbing it’s radio waves.
A radio is detecting a radio signal and amplifying it- or rather, it’s amplifying the signal it’s carrying.
Advantage of radio is tends to go through things- not be absorbed easily
by most things- if it was absorbed by air, they would not work. It passes through walls, but thick bunker walls has more affect upon it.
If a radio signal is absorbed and converted to heat it can’t be detected by a radio, but a radio signal doesn’t need to be absorbed to be blocked from being detected by radio.
A large radio disk can detect radio signals from an asteroid tens of millions of km [or 100 or 1000 millions] from Earth. It can get better signal
by using radar [and sending and bouncing a stronger radio signal off the target].
That radio wave or long-wave infrared can be detected [by instruments designed to detect them] doesn’t mean they warming things.
What would be important is the intensity of the signal.
Put hand near a campfire and you can feel it’s heat, stand 100 feet away from it, and you don’t feel it’s heat- less intensity.
Put a campfire 10′ apart- have 5 of them- one middle, 2 on either side. Stand back 100′ from them- they still aren’t going feel warm.
How does a molecule of CO2 [or million of them] at distance of 100′ warm anything?
How much do CO2 molecules 10′ or 1′ away warm anything?
The five campfires could be detect if one were on Moon- but doesn’t means they are heating the Moon.
gbaikie, however little, a detected photon is an absorbed photon and an absorbed photon adds its energy to the thing absorbing it.
“Jim D | January 23, 2013 at 10:30 pm |
gbaikie, however little, a detected photon is an absorbed photon and an absorbed photon adds its energy to the thing absorbing it.”
Let’s say a photon is absorbed and adds it’s energy.
How many trillions trillion trillion photons are there per second?
And however many there are in 1/10th second, they are gone in 1/10th of second, so every second replaced with
trillions, trillion trillion new ones.
So had look for a more exact number.
This from the sun:
“So the number of photons emitted at 550 nm is roughly: 3.82e26 J/s * 0.4 / (3.6e-19 J/photon)= 4.2e44 photons/s. Wow – what a huge number!”
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-04/1051351741.As.r.html
So from sun, trillions, trillion, trillion, and 3/4 trillion, so *maybe* trillion, trillion, trillion is too high, but you need more of them per watt when they are a longer wave length.
So earth could be kind of breeding ground for the little guys.
Oh, and in terms mass of the all photons hitting earth. tony873004
guesses it’s: “the Earth gains 1.98498 kilograms every second from solar photons.”
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-56496.html
Next, so we get a photon absorbed so it’s now heat.
If you somehow keep track of this heat, how long does stay there? Could it not leave in less than a nanosecond? And if it stays for less the second, does it count?
Lookie, a Photon Flux – Power Density Calculator:
http://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/photon-flux
So: “Room temperature thermal energy of a molecule…………………………….0.04 eV
So as wild guess, human body emits somewhere around billion trillion photons??
And compared to light bulb:
100 W light bulb does 3 x 10^20
http://www.vias.org/physics/example_6_3_01.html
And same here:
http://www.ehow.com/how_8151062_calculate-photons-per-second.html
And “A standard 100 watt light bulb is only about 8% efficient at producing visible light….
With only 8 watts of light coming out, the approximate number of photons is 8 watts / (3.3 x 10^-19 Joules), or about 2.4 x 10^19 photons per second.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061021111745AAuzIB4
So obviously a lot photons are emitted which aren’t visible, it’s seems the warmed glass bulb emits more photons than 2500 K filament- wonder if that is counted.
Experimental!!!!
http://courses.physics.northwestern.edu/Phyx103/quantum_timeline.html
So you admit that pseudo scattering is a nonsense?
Doug,
I was thinking I might have been a little unkind in calling you a crank and a crackpot but Chief dug (pardon the pun) up this quote of yours on SOD from 2 years ago and I feel OK again now!
Just to make it clear Electromagnetic radiation does not exhibit a particle like nature. Planck’s suggestion of this (made in desperation) was wrong! The IPCC models depend upon an incorrect assumption that these fictitious “photons” from a cold atmosphere can warm the surface…
Are you the same Doug Cotton who wanted to know how much Uni Physics I’d studied? There’s lots about the wave/particle duality in all courses. Planck’s work is fundamental to 20th century Physics.
You’re not only objecting to the IPCC’s interpretation of climate change, you’re objecting to the last 100 years of scientific understanding. Max’s defence of your position shows that climate change deniers aren’t interested in any increased scientific understanding and that they’ll side with any crackpot who speaks out against the IPCC.
Doug Cotton: From your paper: But, just as a vacuum flask does not further warm the coffee, neither does any additional
temporary thermal energy trapped by the atmosphere warm the surface.
A thermos does not warm the coffee; it reduces the rate of heat loss. Therefore the coffee is warmer at some later time than it would be without the insulating vacuum. Thermoses can be and are improved by silvering the surface of the glass. This will reflect radiation back into the coffee, thereby further reducing the net radiated heat loss.
Your theory and that of the man you cite, Claes Johnson, in which net heat transfer is considered a fiction, cannot properly explain how a thermos works. Johnson’s equation can be experimentally confirmed or rejected by a simple experiment with a thermos. When challenged to do so in one of the original “Dragon” threads on this site, Johnson demurred and disclaimed his own equation.
Considering that your theory is the fruit of that rotten tree, it should not surprise you that some posters here have been a bit dismissive.
“A thermos does not warm the coffee; it reduces the rate of heat loss. Therefore the coffee is warmer at some later time than it would be without the insulating vacuum. Thermoses can be and are improved by silvering the surface of the glass. This will reflect radiation back into the coffee, thereby further reducing the net radiated heat loss.”
But main thing that makes a thermos work is inhibiting heat from conduction and convection of heat.
It is only slightly improved by the silvering.
Or silvering by itself, does make a thermos.
A silver cup would cool faster than a ceramic cup- silver is excellent
conductor of heat.
A heavy ceramic cup, doesn’t work as good as thermos
but works slightly better than less heavy cup [more a bit more
heat capacity and more insulation]
But if you don’t screw on the lid, a thermos works about a good as
ceramic cup- preventing evaporation of the hot coffee is large
factor.
And of course CO2 does not reflect infrared. Reflection is bouncing
the radiation back. Whereas CO2 absorbs and emits in all directions.
Nor is CO2 gas an effective as glass or ceramic [or rock] in terms of absorbing longwave IR.
The total amount CO2 in our atmosphere if it were liquid or solid
would be about 4 mm thick [a square meter has less 4 mm think].
And 4 mm of glass, ceramic or rock absorbs more longwave IR.
Night vision which use a special type glass which transparent
to longwave IR can “see” thermal heat and the CO2 in atmosphere
is mostly transparent [high level of CO2 from a fire doesn’t significantly
block the signal- nor higher concentration of CO2 in urban areas
or +1000 ppm CO2 of normal indoor air.]
The improvement, however great or slight, is due to a reduction in net radiated heat loss. Everything else you wrote about leaving the cap off, using a cup, etc is completely irrelevant.
CO2 emits in all directions, and many of those directions can be considered “down.” Everything else you wrote about imagining it as a solid, etc is misdirection. You can’t have it that back-radiation is both nonexistent and small.
“The improvement, however great or slight, is due to a reduction in net radiated heat loss. Everything else you wrote about leaving the cap off, using a cup, etc is completely irrelevant”
I agree that silver lining does help keep the coffee warm by a little bit.
But CO2 does not function in a similar way as a silver coating does.
Nor do greenhouse gases function as blanket or pane of glass.
One confusing metaphors with an actual comparison.
And biggest farce is one ignoring how a thermos or greenhouse
actually works.
Everything but the poor metaphorical comparison is not relevant.
Greenhouse theory is a theory which all about retaining heat. Why look for unicorns when there are actual well known ways to retain heat?
“CO2 emits in all directions, and many of those directions can be considered “down.” ”
Less than 1/2 of the directions.
Less than 1/2 this when considers that angle from radiation travels is important. The shortest distance is a straight line.
The angle from the sun or light bulb matters in term how surface responds to the radiation and distance traveled.
The intensity of sunlight is strongest at 9am to 3 pm [a light bulb would similar as would glowing molecule]. So from surface one horizon is 180 degrees, most of sunlight hits the surface when at 90 of this total 180 degrees.
So less than half is closer to a quarter than a half.
And there other diminishing factors.
But biggest factor is: even a silver lining doesn’t do much.
“In other words, you agree with everything I wrote, and disagree with Doug Cotton, but you decided to argue with me anyway.”
I had previously made some criticisms and I am not aware of recent revisions in his paper.
One thing I suggested was for him to clearly document what [who]
he arguing against. Or making the case by citing references, so not
have the appearance of straw man argument.
I am not sure what Doug disagrees about.
But he seems thinks the gases in Venusian atmosphere are warmed directly by sunlight.
And I do, disagree with this.
“Your theory and that of the man you cite, Claes Johnson, in which net heat transfer is considered a fiction, cannot properly explain how a thermos works. ”
Perhaps this is true, at this point I will not attempt to refute it.
But instead will apply your same standard:
I would say greenhouse theory is about radiant properties of greenhouse gases, and it doesn’t explain how a thermos works.
Nor even does it explains how a actual greenhouse works.
Or I would say a thermos works much better than greenhouse gases- and how it works is missing from greenhouse effect theory.
One may say, it’s focused on the shining lining instead the bigger factors involved.
Plus, that the shining lining is unrelated to greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases- as they do not reflect.
So the glass of real world greenhouse is only a bad analogy to greenhouse effect.
As is the sliver lining of thermos is a bad analogy
of greenhouse gases.
Or no one who understands greenhouse effect would say they are the same mechanism- only analogous- a way to explain something to unclean masses [and in my opinion, a false way to explain something]..
“Or I would say a thermos works much better than greenhouse gases- ”
Correction, a thermos works much better than a “Greenhouse Effect”
Reflection of IR back into the coffee and downward emission of absorbed IR both have the same effect of reducing heat loss. I’m not using a thermos as an analogy to the greenhouse effect, actually it was Doug Cotton who did this in his paper. I’m saying that a theory which attempts to refute net radiative heat loss cannot explain thermoses and atmospheres.
“Reflection of IR back into the coffee and downward emission of absorbed IR both have the same effect of reducing heat loss. I’m not using a thermos as an analogy to the greenhouse effect, actually it was Doug Cotton who did this in his paper. I’m saying that a theory which attempts to refute net radiative heat loss cannot explain thermoses and atmospheres.”
I have said Doug Cotton should work on the presentation of his paper-
but not because I do a better job of it.
But it’s not as though Doug invented the idea of explaining how the greenhouse effects work by comparing it using reflective material.
And I have a fundamental disagreement with it which I have tried to express.
One can hope Doug is getting some feedback which could of use to him.
Now, getting to point: “I’m saying that a theory which attempts to refute net radiative heat loss cannot explain thermoses and atmospheres.”
Yes. But I don’t think it’s all about radiative heat loss.
I know Greenhouse Theory is suppose to be entirely about radiative heat loss.
But I would say Earth’s average temperature is mostly about gaining heat and retaining heat.
Or I could say, greenhouse effect theory should be about a “greenhouse liquid” rather than all the focus of greenhouse gases. That Earth ocean works more similar to greenhouse and that droplets of water is more like pane of glass than a gas can be.
So what retains heat the best on Earth? Oceans.
What obviously keeps nights warmer [particularly on land] clouds [droplets of water].
And I would say trying to figure out how Greenhouse Effect adds 33 C is mostly about starting from the wrong beginning.
As said to Doug, the reason Venus is warm is because the sunlight warms the droplets pure acid in the Venus atmosphere [and perhaps dust is also being warmed].
Or radiant energy does not warm gases.
And to warm Venus to higher temperature than what blackbody should be able to be warmed to, is largely because upper elevation air is being massively warmed by the sunlight- heating up liquids [or solids] which in turn are heating the atmospheric gases.
So we both agree that upper elevation air must warmed somehow,
but he appears to be ignoring the dense Venusian clouds.
So on Venus I am focusing on what causes the warming. And not going to into why Venus retain it’s heat.
If believed that CO2 was radiating much heat, how Venus atmosphere retains it’s heat could be problem.
In other words, you agree with everything I wrote, and disagree with Doug Cotton, but you decided to argue with me anyway.
gibaike said, “Yes. But I don’t think it’s all about radiative heat loss.
I know Greenhouse Theory is suppose to be entirely about radiative heat loss.
But I would say Earth’s average temperature is mostly about gaining heat and retaining heat.”
That is the transition problem. At some point, it is all about radiant heat loss and radiant heat gain, but there is a gap between the radiant loss point for CO2equivalent low thermal mass gases and radiant heat gain point high thermal mass solar absorption.
To simply the greenhouse analogy you could consider a greenhouse built over a solar pond versus one over just soil. The higher thermal mass greenhouse would have a more stable temperature range. For the thermos, consider one full of hot coffee and one with just a little left in it, which would stay warmer longer?
Because of the higher thermal mass, in both cases, the energy source can be approximately as effectively isothermal for a longer time period. There are no “true” isothermal systems, just ones that are better approximations of isothermal.
That is why for Earth’s “greenhouse effect” the “average” temperature of the oceans provides a better thermodynamic frame of reference to work from. You just complicate the problem selecting arbitrary frames of reference.
gbaike said, “Yes. But I don’t think it’s all about radiative heat loss.
I know Greenhouse Theory is suppose to be entirely about radiative heat loss.
But I would say Earth’s average temperature is mostly about gaining heat and retaining heat.”
“That is the transition problem. At some point, it is all about radiant heat loss and radiant heat gain, but there is a gap between the radiant loss point for CO2equivalent low thermal mass gases and radiant heat gain point high thermal mass solar absorption. ”
Yes. I agree:
“At some point, it is all about radiant heat loss and radiant heat gain”
“To simply the greenhouse analogy you could consider a greenhouse built over a solar pond versus one over just soil. The higher thermal mass greenhouse would have a more stable temperature range. For the thermos, consider one full of hot coffee and one with just a little left in it, which would stay warmer longer?”
Start with full thermos.
More coffee is always better:)
Jim D’s objection was handled in the March 2012 paper. Of course radiation has information regarding the temperature of the source – it’s right there in its Planck distribution. Any group of photons has a frequency distribution.
Everyone: Why doesn’t low frequency high intensity radiation in a microwave oven heat the plastic bowl, when the bowl would certainly get warm in much lower intensity Solar radiation?
Robert hasn’t produced empirical evidence of backradiation (say, at night) making anything that was warmer than its source even warmer still.
Everyone: Explain how, when less than 1W/m^2 of solar insolation reaches the poles of Venus, they get to more than 730K. No publication discusses a greenhouse effect specifically at the poles, so don’t bother me with links to all the “runaway greenhouse” garbage (which I’ve studied for thousands of hours) because there’s only 1W/m^2 going in from the Sun, and so no more coming out into the atmosphere, and so no more coming down again as back radiation. But you’d need over 16,000W/m^2 by SBL, now wouldn’t you? The true mechanism is in my paper.
tempterrain No, it is you who is objecting to physics first put forward by Loschmidt in the 19th century, and now confirmed with over 800 experiments in the 21st century. Furthermore, it is easily proven as a corollary to the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And it’s in my paper.
Everyone: Anyway, I haven’t been talking about radiation on this thread until it was brought up as a red herring. What I was discussing is quite clear in comments up thread, and in my November paper which explains why radiation plays only a small cooling role in determining planetary surface temperatures. So let’s drop talking about radiation, and stick to the subject of the autonomous thermal gradient in a gravitational field which is a direct corollary of the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I shall copy and paste once agai from Wiki “Laws of Thermodynamics” …:
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system “
Robert hasn’t produced empirical evidence of backradiation (say, at night) making anything that was warmer than its source even warmer still.
Robert wasn’t trying to. Robert was saying that the 2nd law is statistical and that pseudo scattering is scientific gobbledegook.
The system is neither isolated or in equilibrium.
Here is an estimate of global entropy production.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=EntropyProduction.jpg
And here is the source – http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00114-009-0509-x
The most common condition for the Earth is divergence from equilibrium through internal processes and changes in external energy inputs. Maximum entropy implies that perturbations from equilibrium will induce negative feedbacks that will move the system towards equilibrium.
It is however the divergence from equilibrium that is of most interest to rational observers.
“Everyone: Why doesn’t low frequency high intensity radiation in a microwave oven heat the plastic bowl, when the bowl would certainly get warm in much lower intensity Solar radiation? ”
Because microwave oven were designed to emit a wavelength that H2O water molecule absorbs.
Does a microwave oven heat H2O gas?
Maybe you don’t want to talk about radiation here, but you talk about it a lot in your paper, and it’s all wrong. You spend a good many paragraphs parroting Claes Johnson on net radiation. Now, when your grasp on the subject is shown to as be shaky as Johnson’s, it becomes a “red herring.” If it’s so unimportant why did you include it so prominently in your paper?
1. Microwave oven heating is by friction. It causes water and oil molecules to spin and rubbing against other molecules does the warming. It can’t do anything with non-conducting solids but avoid conducting solids because those create a whole new effect based on antenna theory. Watch metal leaf on china go off like fireworks.
2. Venus poles are hot for the same reason the mantle beneath them is hot. It’s called geothermal heat and has little to nothing to do with the sun and everything with having a super insulating 90 bar CO2 atmosphere trapping heat from the liquid rocks not far below the surface. Even on the earth the rocks get hotter as you dig down but our atmosphere can’t keep the surface of the rocks hot because it’s really wispy and wimpy insulator compared to Venus.
Thanks for asking questions instead of answering them because your answers aren’t correct in these cases.
Doug Cotton, do you think photons are only produced in Planck distributions? Take your microwave example. Would that be a Planck distribution representing microwave temperatures (3 K for example is the cosmic background microwave). How can such cold radiation heat anything according to your thinking? Your assumption is just wrong. Microwave photons can be produced with very different distributions, like radio waves can, and can be absorbed just as well as other photons by warm surfaces.
LOL … Climate Etc readers who like to do things thermodynamically (without worrying about quantum details) need to reflect that fluctuations in an insulated column of fluid conserve two quantities (namely (1) energy and (2) mass), and so the fluid has two local thermodynamic potentials (namely (1) the inverse temperature and (2) the chemical potential).
No thermodynamical calculation gives correct answers unless all conserved quantities, and their conjugate potentials, are allowed to fluctuate, so as to maximize the total global entropy.
So yet another common-sense way to see that the Cotton/PSI gravity-gradient thermodynamical theories are just plain wrong, is to notice that Cotton’s manuscripts vary only one potential (the temperature). Chemical potential variations are entirely ignored. Doh!
For a modern (and free-as-in-freedom!) treatment of thermodynamic potential theory, consult Zia et al. “Making Sense of the Legendre Transform“. Check it out, Doug Cotton/PSI researchers!
Perhaps the lesson here is that when skepticism hardens into denialism, rationality flies out the window?![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0044&s=1&c=20201002)
You’re a laugh a minute FOMBS.
Here is an estimate of global entropy production.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=EntropyProduction.jpg
And here is the source – http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00114-009-0509-x
The most common condition for the Earth is divergence from equilibrium through internal processes and changes in external energy inputs. Maximum entropy implies that perturbations from equilibrium will induce negative feedbacks that will move the system towards equilibrium.
Doesn’t that give you comfort FOMBS?
It is however the divergence from equilibrium that is of most interest to rational observers.
Yes that’s a very valid point and all should note what “A fan of MORE has said ..
No thermodynamical calculation gives correct answers unless all conserved quantities, and their conjugate potentials, are allowed to fluctuate, so as to maximize the total global entropy.
This is exactly the principle that I make use of in explaining why the thermal gradient in a gravitational field is a direct corollary of the need for “greatest entropy” as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics.*
It’s all in my November paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” which is currently on the “PROM” menu (but may soon move to the “Publications” menu) at Principia Scientific International http://principia-scientific.org/
* “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”
Oh, and by the way, just exactly when, where and how do you suppose the chemical potential of a mass of mostly nitrogen, oxygen and argon is going to change by some chemical reaction between these gases in the troposphere? I did say, troposphere, not stratosphere or above.
What you seem to be forgetting is changes in gravitational potential energy as molecules move freely between impacts. Has the penny dropped yet? There’s plenty of detail on this in the Appendix of my latest paper.. Maybe you’d like to talk about what I have actually written, rather than what you think I might or might not have.
Don’t forget to try to answer the two questions addressed to everyone in my comment above.
No – cant figure out why my comment is awaiting moderation.
“Why doesn’t low frequency high intensity radiation in a microwave oven heat the plastic bowl, when the bowl would certainly get warm in much lower intensity Solar radiation?”
Its 2.4GHz (so maybe not that low frequency) in a microwave oven. Some types of plastic would warm, but the types of plastic used in containers for microwave ovens is transparent at that frequency so don’t absorb any heat.
Robert hasn’t produced empirical evidence of backradiation (say, at night) making anything that was warmer than its source even warmer still.
Clouds at night do keep the ground warm. even though the temperature of the cloud is lower than the ground. That’s an example of backradiation.
Explain how, when less than 1W/m^2 of solar insolation reaches the poles of Venus, they get to more than 730K.
You need to consider the total insolation. Not just at the poles. The temperature difference between the Venusian day and night is quite small even though the Venusian day is over a 100 Earth days in length . The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; high winds maintain a near constant temperature not only between day and night, between what would be considered seasons on Earth, and between the equator and poles.
So let’s drop talking about radiation……
No. Its just not possible to leave IR radiation out of any sensible climatic discussion.
tempterrain:
No the plastic is not transparent (in the strict sense of the word) to microwave radiation. Yes, MW radiation does appear to pass through it, and water inside a sealed plastic container does get heated almost as fast. But the radiation does not pass in a straight line through the plastic, like light does through glass. This is because it is “pseudo scattered” and thus follows a random path. Microwaves are nothing like x-rays, after all. Try recording shadow images on film on the other side of a thick plastic sheet with MW radiation passing through it. Do you get sharp shadows as with x-rays or light passing through glass?
No, clouds at night, if cooler than the surface, can only slow the rate of cooling of the surface. They cannot make it warm up by way of radiation.
No, less than 2.5% of the solar radiation gets through the Venus atmosphere, and only 1W/m^2 gets through at the poles. So the rest of it is either reflected or absorbed and re-emitted back to space. So how can it affect the surface temperature? How does sufficient thermal energy actually get into the surface at the Venus poles? You may assume that the Venus atmosphere is not as hot as the surface at the poles, and that atmosphere has a thermal gradient with a mean of about -9C/Km to -10C/Km up to the tropopause.
Sorry to have to mark you 0/3 for those questions.
No, I agree it’s not possible to leave radiation out, and nor did I do so in my paper – see Appendix.
It’s also not possible to leave out the effect of gravity on thermal gradients, as explained in my paper. And this is far more significant, because it raises the Earth’s surface to over 300K, but then water vapour reduces the “lapse rate” so the surface stays at around 288K.
Who’s next?
NickB
Talk about biased “reporting” !!!! You say “Dr. Michael Mann sued Tim Ball and the Frontier Center For Public Policy for libel” but you omit saying that Michael Mann lost that case because he failed to produce any evidence supporting any GH contention.
Now let’s leave out any more red herrings shall we?
Where are your answers, NickB, to the questions tempterrain failed to answer correctly?
Doug Cotton.
You think “……….. [microwave] radiation does not pass in a straight line through the plastic, like light does through glass” ??
Just on a point of information Doug: light doesn’t pass through glass in a straight line. If it did there wouldn’t be such a thing as a lens! There is no fundamental difference between the passage of microwaves through a dielectric and light through a lens. In fact its possible to make a dielectric lens for microwaves too. Its all predictable using Maxwell’s equations.
So you see now what I mean about not being qualified to hand out marks?
LOL … one good thing about Doug Cotton/PSI posts is that they encourage Climate Etc readers to verify for themselves that:
• In general there are more equations in just one Climate Etc post than in all the Doug Cotton/PSI manuscripts put together, and in particular the change of gravitational potential energy is explicitly accounted (in eq 3).
• The oft-cited, free-as-in-freedom reference “Making Sense of the Legendre Transform“, in particular the sections (page 7) titled “The route of physics: interpretation of the equilibrium condition” and (page 8) “Legendre Transform With Many Variables” clearly review why (in general) the thermodynamic equilibrium of any insulated system is isothermal … including columns of fluid in a gravitational gradient of course!
• For Climate Etc folks so minded, general-but-abstract thermodynamical arguments can always be verified by the concrete-and-particular numerical calculations, as detailed by the Frenkel and Smits textbook. In our modern computational era, pretty much any general theorem can be checked by explicit computational simulation, and textbooks like Frenkel and Smit detail exactly how to do this.
It’s mighty good that the above three paths all lead to the same conclusion: orthodox thermodynamics just plain works! And it’s mighty fun to verify all these things for one’s self as modern computers and the modern free literature permit and encourage!
And everyone, have fun learning new thermodynamical physics! Because the surest sign that rational skepticism has hardened into ideological denialism — and perhaps it’s the main reason why denialist posts are generically ill-tempered and abusive? — is simply this: genuine scientific calculations are FUN and denialist calculations AREN’T!
So check out all three paths to thermodynamical understanding, Doug Cotton/PSI researchers/Climate Etc readers.
And everyone, keep smiling!![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0044&s=1&c=20201002)
(1) Venus, Earth and other planets and moons with atmospheres verify the existence of thermal gradients caused by diffusion of kinetic energy at the molecular level. There is no other possible explanation for the fact that the surface temperatures and thermal gradients are as the hypothesis predicts. Probability analysis confirms the hypothesis with an extremely high degree of certainty.
(2) There is no problem considering which has the greater entropy, isothermal or isentropic conditions in a gravitational field. I defy anyone to prove that isothermal gas has greater entropy in a gravitational field. I don’t respond to “fan’s” generalisations which have no physical or mathematical proof at all. I have provided all the calculations necessary in the Appendix of my paper.
(3) Isothermal conditions would require creation of energy every time a molecule moved upwards, supposedly retaining kinetic energy whilst gaining potential energy.
(4) I have derived the thermal gradient from the assumption that there are isentropic conditions, not isothermal. I get the same quotient as is generally accepted by climatologists for the dry adiabatic lapse rate, and is certainly there in Wikipedia also, even though they derive it in a clumsy way.
(6) It is absolutely obvious that, if a cylinder of air is such that it is isothermal, then the air at the top has more (PE+KE) than the air at the bottom. This is very obviously not a state of equilibrium with greatest entropy. Such equilibrium with maximum entropy occurs only when (PE+KE) is the same at all levels.
(7) The thermal gradient has now been demonstrated in over 800 experiments with suitably insulated cylinders of air, water etc. There is of course more detail in the PROM paper with links to supporting documentation.
LOL … Doug Cotton, if you adopt for definiteness the Sackur–Tetrode entropy of an ideal monoatomic gas (or any other expression for the entropy), and follow the variational procedure previously specified here on Climate Etc …
… then you (and your PSI colleagues too!) will find that your preconceptions have been successfully defied!
Which is good, eh?
Please don’t forget to:
(1) vary the mass density, and
(2) vary the energy density, and
(3) account for the gravitational potential.
Because unless you respect all three of these elements, you’ll get wrong answers, eh?
Whereas if you do scrupulously respect these elements, then you’ll find orthodox thermodynamics just plain works!
Which is good, eh?
Conversely, to the extent that you (and your PSI colleagues too!) choose to reject the science of thermodynamics (for whatever reason), then Climate Etc readers gain a strikingly clear view of climate-change denialist cognition in action!
Which is good too, eh?
Yes, it is indeed amazing what you, “Fan”, and others like you think you can “prove” with computations – and think others can’t prove without extensive computations, whether based on sound logic or not.
Just start with an incorrect assumption that the Zeroth Law is valid itself in a gravitational field, then use it to “prove” the original old Clausius statement of the Second Law is valid in a gravitational field. Circular argument! The conclusion will be wrong if the original assumptions are wrong. (Just like the conclusion that we need back radiation to raise surface temperatures is wrong because the original assumption of an isothermal troposphere is wrong.) Why do you think physicists even needed to introduce entropy into the Second Law, if all they had to worry about was temperature? As you quite correctly said, we need to consider all kinetic energy (KE) and potential energy (PE), the latter including chemical energy which you thought was relevant, but is not for inert molecules making up nearly all the troposphere. There’s an analogy with Newtonian physics and Einstein’s “refinement” with the Theory of Relativity. The Clausius statement had to be refined because of the effect of force fields. Temperature comparisons are only valid in horizontal planes wherein PE = constant and thus does not affect entropy.
If you correctly understood what entropy is all about, then, as I have said, it is obvious, for air which is initially isothermal, that some of the air molecules in the top half of an insulated sealed cylinder (with more total energy per molecule) will have a propensity to move to the lower half, thus having the capacity to do work. Hence entropy increases when molecules thus move. And so some more do move downwards than upwards, and thus the lower half ends up warmer, because air molecules which move there gain KE at the expense of PE as they move between collisions. QED.
Similarly, imagine three equal sized volumes in a cylinder with physical dividers that can be slid out. Now, pump three times as much air as you normally would have into the central cylinder and create a vacuum in the other two sections above and below. Remove the partitions and what happens? Those molecules which move into the lower section lose PE and gain KE. Those that go into the top section gain PE at the expenses of their own KE. Temperature is a measure of mean KE and has nothing to do with density. So the top section is cooler than the bottom section. Elementary my dear Fan.
You still haven’t explained the temperature of the Venus poles, now have you? There’s no significant convection above those poles, yet there is a thermal gradient in the troposphere surprisingly close to -g/Cp. The poles can only be that hot if diffusion of KE can cause absorbed thermal energy from the Sun (KE) to appear to pass up the temperature gradient. Entropy considerations show that this is possible iff the absolute magnitude of that gradient were anywhere less than -g/Cp. Hence the vertical temperature gradient will be autonomously maintained by diffusion of KE, as explained in my paper. Diffusion, over the life of Venus, has also ensured horizontal isothermal conditions right around the globe, because of its slow rotation and relatively still atmosphere.
There simply is no other way to explain the temperatures of the Venus poles and the troposphere above them. Nor is there any other way to explain over 800 experiments by Graeff that measured a temperature gradient in well insulated sealed cylinders here on Earth. You have made no valid counter argument in response to any of my seven points. All you seem capable of doing is copying other people’s websites and computations without thinking for yourself. That’s precisely what people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo usually do. State your name and source of income!
——————
Evaluation of the above post
☒ cherry-picking,
☐ slogan-shouting,
☐ semantic quibbling,
☐ immorally short-sighted economics,
☐ amoral market-first reasoning,
☒ “outsider” physics,
☒ personalization,
☒ abuse,
☐ paranoia, and
☒ conspiracy theories.
Note Within the climate-change denier community, the incidence of the above traits is predicted to accelerate in the coming decade.
——————
Heck, the incidence of denialist-type posts is rising faster even than the eagerly-awaited and now-arrived new tranche of sea-levels, that now are pushing above linear trend-lines precisely as James Hansen’s thermodynamic theories predicted would would be observed!
Fan,
You could perhaps add categories for:
1) Falsely describing web posts as papers.
2) Excessive use of Upper Case and Bold Script
3) An incorrect use of the term “peer-review”
Peer-review normally implies review by someone who is scientifically qualified. Although I guess a case can be made for saying that if anything is written by a crackpot and reviewed by another crackpot that, too, is peer review!
Aren’t you good at copying.
Hi, Fan of *more* discourse, ) returning some discourse on
the 2nd law by a humble escapee from the hu-man-it-ees:
Praise be fer the Second Law of Thermo-dynamics,
Fer energy dispersal from the sun fer and to us,
Fer yew and me, life-giving energy,
Fer him and her, animals be-feathered or in fur,
Fer plants and so ter plant-eating animals,
Then spread ter pred-itors and canni-bals.
It’s called the food-chain and it dependfs
On sun, sea, e-vap-or-ation, rain, com-
Plex inter-relations, w/out which
We – jest – wouldn’t – be – here. Oh Gaia!
Second Law and entropy again …
The harnessing of energy ter drive
The wheels of industry, creating
Wealth, jobs, multi-ply-ing product-iv-ity…
In-creasing homo-sapien life-expect-ancy.
Com-plex inter- relation-ships of energy
Before it’s off ter space.
Amen ter the 2nd Law.
Beth.
I like the Second Amendment to the Second Law: A well-regulated milieu being necessary for the preservation of energy, the right of the heat to move shall not be infringed.
=============
Inheatrent rights, eh?
In Heat We Trust.
======
Better: In God-given rights we believe, in Heat we trust.
=========
Here’s ter the inheatrent right of enery ter move up, down sideways, anyways.And here’s an interesting chart and table on Modran
Downward LW Radiation at the Earth’s Surface.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/
Do not worry Beth Cooper! Because Doug Cotton is commenting on the NoTricksZone.
Prediction Ed Caryl’s various computational fails (that arise from not fully grasping the intricacies and limits of the computer program MODTRAN) will be cancelled by Doug Cotton’s various theoretical fails (that arise from not fully grasping the intricacies and limits of the Four Laws).
Sounds like good clean denialist fun, eh?![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0055&s=1&c=20201002)
Hey, Fan, sounds like a challenge for you.
Bring the “scientific evidence” to demonstrate that the Modtran results, which Beth cited, are incorrect, and that increasing CO2 concentrations will still cause warming even at higher water vapor concentrations (specific humidity).
Not “empty verbiage with smiley decorations”, Fan, but “scientific evidence”.
Let’s see if you’re up to the task.
Max
‘energy’ Sorry fer many typos …I’m typing with one hand due ter me injered left hand that collided with a steel door.
— captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | January 24, 2013 at 10:49 am |
gbaikie, To start, any atmosphere is storing heat. And it stores heat as kinetic
motion of individual molecules of gas.”
Why start there? The amount of heat the atmosphere is storing is miniscule with respect to the oceans. The atmosphere receives most of the little energy it does store for a brief period for the oceans. You don’t charge the oceans the same way you charge the atmosphere. Without the relative constant source of energy from the oceans there would be no stable lapse rate.
It is like charging a battery
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/01/battery-charger.html
If you start by considering the relative charge in and the maximum capacity of, each cell in the battery, you simplify the problem instead of chasing Skydragons. —
The reason started with heat storage of air was I commenting on the points
as I see them of what Doug’s paper was saying.
I am not sure I would describe the energy of our atmosphere as miniscule.
To continue the analogy of batteries. The batteries of ocean hold a “useful” charge for thousand of years. The atmosphere has enough battery power
for the daily commute.
The velocity of air is somewhere around 400 m/s. Let’s compromise and
say it’s more than 300 m/s.
KE is 1/2 mass times velocity squared.
Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
300 times 300 is 90000.
So 4.59 x 10^23 joules is about total energy of atmosphere,
but less than this is useful. A temperature difference
of say 20 C would be around what be “useful”.
Or average velocity difference of somewhere around 50 m/s
for around this “useful charge” or the charge which used daily.
So if it’s 350 times 350 it is 122500.
And so 6.2 x 10^23 minus 4.59 x 10^23 joules. Or
1.6 x 10^23 joules of useful or daily charge
This somewhere vaguely in the ballpark- it might be more
and probably less maybe 1/2 maybe 1/10.
But I don’t think 1 x 10^23 joules is miniscule
on a daily basis.
How charge of ocean is lost on daily basis?
One could say atmosphere is weather and ocean is
climate. And some people do say this.
Now, one could argue the 1 x 10^23 joules is miniscule.
Certainly possible.
The total energy of sunlight that intersect the cross section
of Earth, according to Wiki is:
“The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere.”
Or 174.0 x 10^15 watts per second.
So, 86400 second in 24 hrs. Being
15 million x 10^15 watts. 1.5 x 10^22 watts
This tells you, I was way off- or the velocity of
air molecules changes less than 50 m/s.
As at most only 1.5 x 10^22 joules could be
added in 24 hours.
And probably less the 1.5 x 10^21 joules.
Oh, a glaring error is forgot to 1/2 the atmospheric mass according
the formula.
And worse. God, I need more coffee.
“Or 174.0 x 10^15 watts per second.
So, 86400 second in 24 hrs. Being
15 million x 10^15 watts. 1.5 x 10^22 watts”
Times 174.
So 2.6 x 10^24 watts
So 2.6 x 10^24 joule max which could added
Which is more than 1 x 10^23 joules halved.
[I rounded from 1.6 x 10^23 joules.
So halving 1.6 is 8 x 10^22 joules.]
So with 50 m/s reduction compare:
8 x 10^22 joules amount, to all sunlight which
intersect and 100% converted to heat
in day of 2.6 x 10^24 joules.
So as thought before the exercise of erroneous math, it is
miniscule compared total energy of
the sun in a day.
Then there is the heat capacity of the oceans, on the order of 10^26 since there is that little latent heat of fusion issue. It would take a while to charge that battery which you could treat as one big cell or two or three separate cells.
When a climate model uses only the upper 50 to 100 meters as the total ocean battery, I believe that is mathurbation, since the charge time of the whole battery is roughly 1700 years plus or minus a millennium or two depending on high latitude mixing.
The horror. Wish there was edit.
Nope. I did add in the 174- it’s how I got
15 million.
“Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
300 times 300 is 90000.
So 4.59 x 10^23 joules is about total energy of atmosphere”
Should have been 2.29 x 10^23 joules.
And:
“So if it’s 350 times 350 it is 122500.
And so 6.2 x 10^23 minus 4.59 x 10^23 joules.”
Is 3.12 x 10^23 minus 2.29 x 10^23
is 8.3 x 10^22 joules.
Which is far too much.
So instead of 50 m/s, make it 10 m/s
So 310 m/s:
96100 times 2.55 x 10^18 is
2.45 x 10^23 minus 2.29 x 10^23
is 1.6 x 10^22 joules.
Which is still to high-
sunlight in day: 1.5 x 10^22 watts
So. it’s less than difference of 10 m/s
in average velocity of gas.
And/or the average velocity of atmospheric
gas could less than 300 m/s.
For instance if average was 250 m/s
or varied from 250 to 260 m/s
it would be significant less.
But I tend to think it’s not less
than 300 m/s and therefore
tend to think is varies less than 10 m/s.
In summary, before this math exercise
I had thought the amount of energy involve
was *apparently* miniscule to total
daily sunlight. Which I thought demonstrate
using loose approximation.
I just thought something that explains part of this
problem.
The tropics ocean doesn’t have large
variation in air temperature.
So something less than 1 m/s in velocity of atmospheric
gas molecules may be occurring in tropical
ocean area [and a lot of the earth’s atmosphere
is over the the tropical oceans].
So perhaps less than 1 m/s over ocean and
so some number closer to 10 m/s occurs over
smaller the surface area of land.
And clouds reduce the temperature difference.
And other things.
And essentially follows the idea that tropics regions
[mainly oceans] are providing the heat for planet Earth.
Regarding tropical ocean.
Another important battery is creation of water vapor.
It’s main battery in tropics.
It does two things. The creation H20 gas does good job
warming air.
Or a 30 C surface [say sand or concrete] doesn’t heat the atmospheric gases very well. But evaporated water make the air the same temperature as the water the gas evaporated from. So it may 10 C
[or more] to air temperature.
Now, if there is any kind of greenhouse effect caused greenhouse gas, the strongest affect should occur about 1 meter or less above the ocean,
mainly at night. Not adding to ocean temperature during daylight, but doing something to slow the ocean surface from losing heat.
When one a surface of water being heated, you have balance of gas molecules briefly leaving the surface and return to the surface. They exiting and entering within short period of time. A generally smaller percentage leaves the surface completely and staying in air for hours, days, centuries. So the closer to the surface more of the water gas molecules return to liquid surface, and the gas molecules higher return at slower rate [if at all].
So say 300 m/s second is 669 mph. And at 600 mph going distance of
say 4 inches, one talking about brief moment- though not nanoseconds.
But if more glowing H20 enter the surface as compared to those exiting,
one should add heat to surface [and keep in mind gas molecules do pass thru the water skin surface]. Plus the greenhouse theory radiant part.
Plus there more H20 gas just above surface. One can also add in exhaling CO2 from all the life in ocean which at night can’t make oxygen.
So saying less than a meter above the surface ocean is the best you could hope for in terms the greenhouse effect having to do with radiant energy “being trapped”.
And after sun goes down, one still has the molecules of water gas “leaping” in and out of the water, but instead of being net flow of H20 gas actually evaporating and has net flow of the gas condensing [a net addition of latent heat].
tempterrain
Almost exactly 5 years ago, you made the following statement on another blog (January 24, 2008):
Well, as we both know, GW did NOT “kick off again in earnest in 2009 onwards”, so I suppose “there will have to be some re-thinking”.
But I do not see any signs of “scientists (e.g. Hansen) doing any “rethinking” or being “the greatest sceptics”. Instead I see rationalization (“cover up”?) of the “standstill” in warming with a dire warning that “GW will kick off again in earnest”, with only the dates kicked down the road by 5 years.
How do you explain this lack of skepticism?
Max
Lack of empirial, statistical evidence for the alleged global warming “standstill”.
People like this I like to ask to keep an eye on the thermometers.
===========
Jan P Perlwitz
It appears that even the most ardent CAGW supporters (like James E. Hansen) have conceded that there is, indeed, a global warming “standstill”, as evidenced by all those thermometers out there (even the ones next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots).
I hope for your sake that you are not one of the few “deniers” still left around – it’s a lonely and dwindling group.
Max
Max, it’s all about the next few years now. The (C)AGW supporters need warming ASAP, and they need a lot, to compensate for the ‘standstill’. Time is on the side of real science, always.
manacker wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289055
Appeal to majority, the logical fallacy you apply here to score a cheap point, does not provide any valid scientific evidence.
Just show me the empirical, statistical evidence for the alleged global warming “standstill”, i.e., it would have to be shown by applying some statistical metric on the data that really something has changed in recent years, compared to the warming trend, which can be seen in the global tropospheric/surface temperature data over the whole of multiple decades and which is statistically significant. Just postulating that the evidence for the “standstill” would exist doesn’t do it.
Also, you just have misrepresented what Hansen says. He says global warming continues.
I don’t know what a “CAGW supporter” is. One of such labels.
Ah, JPP appears to recognize the centennial and millenial scale changes. May he soon understand they preceded man’s effect.
======================
kim wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289061
Strawman argument.
Oh, it’s double or nuthin’ time. Watch the play.
================
She’s got a brick house.
=======
And don’t be huffin’ on my outside thermometer. There are eyes in the skies.
=========
kim wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289069
Scientific conclusions can’t be drawn based on mere eyeballing, and a valid scientific argument can’t be made by using innuendo.
Eyeballs for microwaves, razor scythes sickle straw.
==========
Jan P Perlwitz
Let’s analyze your last post
You’ve got it all wrong. I “appeal” to the “majority” of the temperature records out there, i.e. the “majority” of the thermometers out there. This is an “appeal to evidence”.
This is (pardon the expression) total gibberish
The “empirical evidence” for an alleged global warming “standstill” is provided by the global temperature record, as cited. I am not claiming that this trend will continue for the next few decades (as some others are), simply that it exists NOW (for the past decade or so), as Hansen also concedes.
NO.
He says:
”The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade…”
Seems pretty clear to me, Jan. Re-read the Hansen paper if you still have doubts.
A “CAGW supporter” is one who supports the IPCC CAGW claim as outlined in detail in its AR4 report. I presume you fall into this category. I do not.
Hope this clears things up for you, Jan.
Max.
Jan’s reference to multiple decades suggests this is just another case of the warm versus warming confusion. It is still warm but not warming. GW can refer to either hence is ambiguous.
We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature.
David Wojick | January 27, 2013 at 7:28 am |
“Jan’s reference to multiple decades suggests this is just another case of the warm versus warming confusion. It is still warm but not warming. GW can refer to either hence is ambiguous.”
Let’s test that in context by using both.
Global warming. That’s syntactically correct.
Global warm. That’s syntactically incorrect.
I therefore dispute your claim of ambiguity.
Perhaps we can both agree that Jan P. Perwitz is in a state of denial. This is what happens when irrefutable data meets an immovable dogmatist.
David Springer wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289659
Ad hominem argument and fait accompli argument. With the first one you substitute the argument about the matter in question with one about the personality or background of the opposing speaker, with the second one you claim there was nothing to talk about anymore. Both are argumentative fallacies here, which serve the purpose to immunize against the burden of providing the scientific evidence for your assertion about a “global warming standstill” or a “global warming stop”.
And now tell me, please, what the “irrefutable data”, the empirical, statistical evidence supposedly was for the scientific validity of the assertion of a “global warming standstill” or a “global warming stop” in recent years. BTW: By using the word “irrefutable” – think about what it means – you have hung the bar very, very high for yourself. Then again, data by itself don’t show anything. They always are being interpreted within the context of a scientific theory.
David Springer, I am refering to concepts not sentences so syntax is irrelevant. There is a concept of GW as a long term trend. When someone says GW has not stopped because this is the warmest decade on record they are using that concept versus the concept of GW as what is going on short term. This is a simple case of what is called “talking past one another.” Thomas Kuhn pointed out 50 years ago that talking past is common in scientific debates. This is just one of several major instances in the climate debate.
You’ve been shown the evidence of the pause. Most so-called climate skeptics and an increasing number of so-called consensus scientists including now the luminary James Hansen too have acknowledged the so-called pause in global warming.
So, to your points. You appear to be in denial of the pause. This is not a personal attack but rather an apt, in my opinion, assessment of how your opinion of the pause stacks up against reality. On your second point that I’m shutting down further argument with you, that’s correct. I don’t care to argue with people who are unmoved by evidence. Write that down.
David,
Who is it you believe is conflating the lack of warming trend in the past 15 years with a cessation of anthropogenic forcing? For those not in denial of the empirical data some factor unexpected by the so-called consensus has negated anthropogenic forcing for the nonce. Pauses of 10 years were not unexpected but greater than 15 years is outside the 95% confidence box due to a belief that anthropogenic forcing was too large to be negated by natural variation for that long.
So the honest brokers on the consensus side are finally getting around to admitting something unaccounted-for in their hypothesis is going on. For people like me who’ve believed sensitivity was highly exagerrated all along because it was measuring the upswing of a natural cycle along with GHG forcing are being vindicated. I expect the pause to continue until the empirical measure of sensitivity falls to the neighborhood of 1.1C, the no feedback sensitivity. I’ve never bothered to argue with no-feedback sensitivity because it’s small enough to be beneficial up to and including the time when we run out of economically recoverable fossil fuel.
tempterrain
As I recall our long exchange started on a “Harmless Sky” blog with a post by David Whitehouse (on the “pause in warming”), followed by a rebuttal by Mark Lynas.
Interestingly, Whitehouse has just published an update:
http://www.thegwpf.org/temperature-standstill-continues-2012-scrapes-top-ten/
Thought you might be interested.
Max
Max, you write “How do you explain this lack of skepticism?”
If I were a betting man, I would give anyone odds that warmists like tempterrain will not join in this sort of discussion. Like our hostess, they are so convinced that CAGW is correct that they will ignore the proper science that is confirming over and over again, that CAGW is simply not happening. And, like Jan P Perlwitz they will find any old excuse as to why there is no requirement to change their minds.
Let us see if I am right, and whether any warmist, tempterrain, Steven Mosher, lolwot, oneuniverse, our hostess etc, will join in this discussion. I doubt it.
Jim Cripwell wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289063
I find it ironic that the request for proper empirical, statistical evidence for an assertion regarding a scientific question is being dismissed as “old excuse”, when you talk about “proper science” in the immediately preceding sentence. So much for “Skeptic” standards.
Suddenly you want to make it all about the crumbling science. What ho, sensitivity?
=========
Edim
I’d agree with you (and disagree with Jan P Perlwitz) that the next few years will “tell the tale” for the whole CAGW craze.
If warming resumes “with a vengeance” (as some CAGW supporters suggest), the craze will remain alive.
If, however, the current “standstill” in warming continues for another decade, it’s “GAME OVER”.
All the rationalizations in the world will no longer work to keep the scientific world (and the general populace) excited about anthropogenic global warming. Even sidetracks to “extreme weather”, “ocean acidification”, etc. will ring hollow.
The politicians may be the last to “get the word”, since some have invested heavily in the CAGW craze – but, politicians are expendable (and exchangeable).
Max
JCH
Whether or not (hidden) “background” warming is continuing is a moot point.
The metric used by IPCC in all its reports for past and projected future “global warming” has been the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (as reported by HadCRUT3).
This metric (as well as others) have shown a “standstill” in global warming over the past decade, exactly as Hansen has also described it.
That is the topic of this thread, JCH.
“Wishing it away”, “rationalizing it away” or simply “denying it” (as Jan P Perlwitz is doing) does not change things.
Get used to it.
It may become the new multi-decadal trend. Who knows?
Max
If warming “resumes with a vengeance” for several years anytime soon I shall be compelled to admit a mistake. I predicted the pause would appear just as it has done in the past at approximate 60-year intervals for as far back as we have an instrument record. If it repeated on schedule then empirically inferred sensitivity would be halved and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming instead becomes “it’s sure nice to have longer growing seasons, a more fertile atmosphere, and higher drought tolerance” anthropogenic global warming.
If we get a summertime ship passage through the Arctic Ocean and ability to harvest the more available natural resources therein all the better. But I don’t believe we’ll really need those resources after a couple more decades (or fewer) of progress in synthetic biology.
JCH
Hansen’ rationalization of why, (as he states) “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade”, is interesting background information, but, of course, does not change the observed fact that there is this standstill, which he acknowledges.
Max
Background global warming continues.
On the globe it cannot be the case that global warming is both flat and continuing to rise. IMO he is clearly stating global warming continues despite the surface air temperature, Gistemp, being flat for 10 years.
You can arrive at your usual twisted conclusions as you see fit.
JCH wrote: “Background global warming continues”
Of course it does. The relentless increase in OHC means that ocean temperatures continue to rise at 0.003 degC/decade.
Correction: that should be 0.03degC/decade
phatboy
0.03C versus 0.003C per decade?
Forget about it.
Neither one can be measured (and we barely have a decade of measurements since ARGO started).
Max
Lol. Oh so tiny. You’re right, how could something so tiny matter.
…/sarc off
JCH
“how could something so tiny matter?”
[It doesn’t.]
Max
phatboy
I think you were right the first time.
Since ARGO measurements started in 2003 the first estimate in 2008 showed slight upper ocean cooling; the corrected and extended estimate shows around 2 x10^22 Joules warming = around 0.02C (0-700m)
Over 10 years this equals 0.002C per year warming.
[I am not alarmed by this, no matter how much JCH tries.]
Max
phatboy
Did some more checking on that “corrected” ARGO data.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/argo-the-mystery-of-global-warmings-missing-heat/
The linear warming trend of the upper ocean since 2003 (after “correcting” the original ARGO data) was 0.0768×10^22 Joules per year.
This is equivalent to a warming rate of 0.008C per decade
Wowie! It’s gettin’ hot down there! Bet all those fishies are sufferin’.
(No wonder the OHC is reported in Joules rather than degrees C!)
Max
JimD, “Actually, Arrhenius could have predicted that the warming would occur a century ago if he knew how CO2 would grow, so it is coming to pass as it could have been foreseen in his day with even simple physics and gas data.”
I believe he did, in his unpublished correction, 1.6 (2.1 with water vapor) is pretty much right on time considering his starting conditions. Then there was still enough glacial area and snow fields for feedback back then. That snow and glacial ice thermal mass does play a role beyond albedo.
Shame his correction was never published.
capt. d., yes, the even more correct radiative transfer numbers and atmospheric data using his self-same theory give 3 degrees per doubling. He didn’t have those numbers, however. Good that you agree, however. It was a well established mechanism a century ago that is now coming true, so when “skeptics” say attributing things in hindsight can’t be trusted, it makes a difference when it was actually forecast by a theory that existed before any of it happened, doesn’t it. Scientific progress is based on theoretical predictions coming true.
JimD, “capt. d., yes, the even more correct radiative transfer numbers and atmospheric data using his self-same theory give 3 degrees per doubling.”
You mean the correct radiative transfer numbers. The Atmospheric data isn’t playing along. The rub JimD is that there is considerable “other” energy transfer in the system as well as radiative transfer.
Radiant energy is isotropic, homogeneous, non-polarized and incoherent. A simple up/down radiant model that does not consider advection or anistropic transfer by other than radiant means would tend to over estimate impact. I am not sure if that is the reason Arrhenius changed his estimate, but it could have been on of his consideration.
Where is Gates BTW, I thought we would be due for a new SSW update by now?
Isn’t physics phun?
capt.d., yet the Arrhenius methodology still stands as the one to disprove based on physics. For its simplicity it is remarkable how well it holds up, and that is only because the forcing change is so strong, it can be seen above the other noise.
JimD, “capt.d., yet the Arrhenius methodology still stands as the one to disprove based on physics.”
No it doesn’t. All that has to be done is to get people to drop the assumptions and get back to the physics. The data is forcing that right now, in case you haven’t noticed.
capt. d., the data isn’t forcing anything except to show that natural variability can mask the change for short periods. Physics gives the forcing change equivalent to a 0.5% solar increase already. Some might dispute that led to any warming even though it is 5 times the change in a typical sunspot cycle, which is itself measurable.
Jan P Perlwitz is quite simply in denial.
manacker wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289672
Apparently, “denial” means here to not accept assertions by “skeptics” in blind faith. So be it, then.
My approach as a scientist is to go where the evidence leads me. It’s the empirical, statistical evidence for your assertion, for which I am asking. Not for the x-th repetition of the same assertion that comes without proper scientific evidence.
Evidence in science is gathered in research, by applying proper scientific methodology, published in peer reviewed specialist journals of the field at some point and put under scrutiny by the scientific community. This is how it goes. This is usually a long, tedious process where you don’t just jump to conclusions based on limited data.
The evidence for the assertion made by “skeptics” about the “global warming standstill” or “global warming stop” seems to be quite weak, though. Or why is it that asking for the evidence triggers one reply after another by “skeptics” here, in which I get presented name calling, assessments of my state of mind and other logical fallacies. Just not the empirical, statistical evidence, for which I asked.
Jan P Perwitz
Best “empirical evidence” of temperature is provided by thermometers (even those placed next to AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots), not long-worded bloviations.
Max
Jan P Perwitz
Here’s what evidence of a global warming standstill over the past decade looks like.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/trend
Enjoy!
Max
manacker wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289687
Some colored lines without anything else are not sufficient as evidence in science.
Have you ever heard about statistical metrics like standard deviation, 2-sigma intervals or about Null-hypothesis in statistics and what can be concluded and what can’t from the rejection or the failure of rejection through statistical tests?
You are fooling yourself or you try to fool the audience with the noise in a limited data set. It is the case for any time series that you can make seemingly vanish a signal in it, if there is one over a longer time period in the data, by chosing a time interval short enough, which is dominated by the noise that masks the signal. Non-detectability of a signal in a limited data set does not allow the conclusion that a signal was absent, since the reason for the non-detection could just be that the data sample is too small. You can find many cases over the past 100 years where the statistical estimate of the trend is negative over 10 year intervals. It doesn’t allow any conclusion about the absence of a warming signal that can be distinguished from the noise using statistical metrics.
Your “evidence” is nothing else than flawed statistics that doesn’t provide any scientific basis for your assertion.
Jan P Perlwitz
Your last post simply confirms that you are still in denial regarding the “standstill” in the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” over the past decade
Sorry.
Max
There is a 350 year long stand-still in the summer temperatures that Dr. Perlwitz as a scientist was more than happy to fail to notice
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
so 16 year is only a minor irritant.
Jan P Perlwitz | January 27, 2013 at 11:16 am |
manacker: “Here’s what evidence of a global warming standstill over the past decade looks like:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/trend “
Perlwitz: Some colored lines without anything else are not sufficient as evidence in science.
Me: No true Scotsman fallacy.
Used to be monochrome scribbled field notes were evidence in science to say nothing of the researcher who published hand-drawn color plates. I guess times have changed. Karl Popper died and put Jan P. Perlwitz in charge of scientific epistemology. Isn’t that just precious?
Actually Max, Jan is (finally) making a well known argument, possibly several arguments lumped together. The chief one seems to be that the time interval in question is so short that noise is masking the trend. That is an empirical argument not a statistical one.
Is it fair to now characterize the science as not settled now that we have Hansen saying there’s a pause and Perlwitz denying it?
The ironic part in all this there are almost certainly more deniers of plain fact and first principles in the alarmist camp than anywhere else. Now we find out exactly how many more. Hansen is now scratched off my denier list but remains on the “less than fully engaged with reality” list.
The “skeptics” seem to have ruled out that the pause is due to natural variability like a negative PDO phase, so we have to deal with their new way of thinking about or ignoring natural variability now. It is a moving target. One decade they like it, next they don’t.
“The “skeptics” seem to have ruled out that the pause is due to natural variability like a negative PDO phase, so we have to deal with their new way of thinking about or ignoring natural variability now. It is a moving target. One decade they like it, next they don’t.”
I think we have been warming since 1850 and will probably continue warming beyond end of the century.
But the warming due to CO2 is indistinguishable. That claim of finding human fingerprints on global warming were in error.
I believe if we were doing real climate science, we might be able to detect such fingerprints. Instead we have had palm reading being passed off as science.
David Wojick | January 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
The too short time interval is almost his exact words so I guess that’s a fair restatement. If he’s consistent then he should concede that the 34-year trend in the satellite record now stands at ~0.13C/decade and every additional year of “pause” reduces it further. This amount of warming is not enough to be alarmed about. It must accelerate going forward or it’ll only be 1.3C warmer in the year 2100. I think everyone knows this and the alarmist case is falling apart fast. This isn’t the 1990’s anymore and mother nature is NOT cooperating with predictions of accelerating warming. The trend is decelerating and that’s a problem for the consensus.
Actually, Arrhenius could have predicted that the warming would occur a century ago if he knew how CO2 would grow, so it is coming to pass as it could have been foreseen in his day with even simple physics and gas data. He didn’t even require a temperature record or global climate models to make his prediction.
manacker wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289712
About what am I allegedly “in denial”? Your “standstill” here is just the fact that one can’t statistically detect a warming trend in the mentioned temperature anomaly over the short time period of the recent decade. Why would I be “in denial” about this? Your assertion is absurd, since this fact was part of my argument in the comment which you reference here. I said such a thing has happened many times before.
As much as the fact about the non-detectability of a warming trend on the short time period is true, it is by itself without consequence, scientifically. However, you assert a specific conclusion from this fact. You assert that the non-detectability of a warming trend within the limited data set is sufficient to conclude an absence of a warming trend. And THAT is scientifically flawed reasoning. It’s a non-sequitur. It is not sufficient, because you also would have to show that the statistical trend estimate, which gives you Zero- or negative warming over the recent time period is not just something spurious due to the very noisy character of the limited data, masking a signal that you may see when your data sample is larger.
David Springer wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289721
You are misrepresenting what James Hansen said. He explicitly stated that background global warming continues. He attributed the “apparent standstill” not of global warming, but of the 5-year running mean of the global surface temperature anomaly over the last decade, which is a statement about a technical fact and not the same as the whole process of global warming, mostly to natural variability on this time scale and some contribution to a saturation effect in the greenhouse gas forcing. The wording matters. You have to be aware that James Hansen’s understanding of what global warming is, is much broader than this was just all about some increase in the global surface temperature anomaly.
David Springer wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289726
Is it? The trend estimate for the lower tropospheric temperature anomaly derived from satellite data is 0.082 K/decade for RSS and 0.042 K/decade for UAH for the time period 1979 to the end of 1997, so it was apparently smaller over the first 19 years than the trend in both data sets over the whole 34 years. Using the same cherry picking method as you do and lying with statistics in the same way as you do, by not mentioning that none of the trend estimates over the smaller time periods was statistically significant, I could just claim the opposite, i.e., I could claim the trend was accelerating.
Also, using the same cherry picking approach as used by “skeptics” for the recent time period, based on which they claim a “global warming stop” or “pause” because of lacking statistical significance of a warming trend, I even could claim a “pause” in global warming from 1979 to at least the end of 1997.
Max:
You may recall that I too was involved in that long exchange. And I have a note of some other Peter Martin (aka tempterrain) comments. For example, on 14 January 2008 he said:
And on 7 April 2008 this:
I seem to remember however that you did take him up on the bet – I think the stake was $1,000. Has he paid up yet?
Robin
Oh, it’s double or nuthin’ time. Watch the play.
================
Robin
Nice to see you here.
Naw.
We did make the bet, based on the HadCRUT3 record for 1998 being exceeded in the three years 2010 through 2012 (and reduced the stake to $100) but TT has not yet coughed up.
The record was:
1998: 0.513
2008: 0.312
2009: 0.439
2010: 0.499
2011: 0.347
2012: 0.394
Max
Correction:
1998: 0.517 (instead of 0.513)
LOL … In the middle of a sea-level rise-rate lull, Hansen famously predicted (what no-one else foresaw!) acceleration of sea-level rise rate this decade … and suprise … the predicted acceleration has now show up.
If Hansen’s climate-change worldview is correct, then it is plausible that the present acceleration is permanent. In which case, climate-change denialists sure are gonna have “some `splainin tah do”, eh Edim?
eh fan, there’s no acceleration in the real world, only in the minds of the consensus.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/2vmenpv1.gif
And yes, there is a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/there-60-year-oscillation-global-mean-sea-level
Here the MEI and detrended global mean sea level.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel1/sl_mei.pdf
It’s all so interesting.
Fan
Yeah. And if not…
(Flip a coin, Fan.)
Max
Let’s talk about “standstills” and what they mean.
Mauna Loa tells us that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 366 ppmv to 303 ppmv from 1998 to today.
CDIAC data tell us that the global human CO2 emissions from 1998 through 2012 were around 430 GtCO2, roughly 31% of the TOTAL cumulated human CO2 emissions of 1380 GtCO2.
Using IPCC’s mean (2xCO2) ECS estimate of 3.2C, we should have seen 0.33C warming since 1998; using a (2xCO2) “transient temperature response” of 2.0C, we should have seen warming of 0.21C since 1998.
Yet, in actual fact, we have seen NO WARMING since 1998.
Now, without even getting into rhetorical discussions of what the future might hypothetically hold, what does this tell us?
Over 30% of ALL human CO2 emissions since pre-industrial time have ZERO impact on global warming? Howdat?
I have seen some feeble rationalizations for this apparent enigma, but no real explanations (except that natural factors are overwhelming the CO2 signal and 15 years is “too short a blip” to mean anything).
It is a real dilemma for IPCC and I am curious how (or if) they will handle it in the new AR5 report, once the dust settles.
Max
Saying all that CO2 had zero impact on global warming is not correct. The falling side of the AMDO in the past has been accompanied by global cooling in the instrument record. That’s why global cooling was becoming a concern by 1970. Temperature started falling in 1940 or so. The next 10 years get real interesting because it should reveal the actual underlying trend. Maybe we’ll see some global cooling or maybe not. Since 2010 there’s been quite rapid cooling on the order of negative 1C per decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend
None on the alarmist side want to talk about the past 3 years other than shrugging it off as back-to-back La Nina’s like they have some evidence that we can’t two more of those in the next several years without any big El Nino’s to counterbalance them. The next several years should be interesting.
None on the
David Springer wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289735
Wow! Looking at this strong and irrefutable evidence of this three-year trend (-1.318+/-2.985 (2 sigma)) K/decade, it looks like we are going to find ourselves in a full blown glacial, yes a glacial like 21000 years ago, not just a new Little Ice Age, within the next 50 years.
manacker wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289675
1. You use an exaggerated number to make your point appear more convincing. An increase of CO2 mixing ratio from 366 to 393 ppm is about 25% of the total increase from a preindustrial starting point of 280 ppm, according to my calculation. It matters what is in the atmosphere. Also, the last 25% have a smaller effect than the other 25% increments due to the logarithmic nature of the dependence of the forcing on the CO2 mixing ratio.
2. You apply a strawman argument, which is often applied by “skeptics”. The strawman argument is the assertion, according to which it was said (by the “IPCC”, or whoever represents the evil climate scientist) carbon dioxide (or greenhouse gases) was (were) the only factor influencing the observed temperature record, and that there was a linear relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and observed temperatures. No climate scientist says such a thing. The observed temperature record results from a combination of various time variable forcings, some positive, other negative, plus natural unforced variability.
Applying the approximation by Myhre et al. (1998)[1], a CO2 increase from 366 to 393 ppm translates into a forcing increase by CO2 of 0.38 W/m^2 since 1998. However, the forcing change from a solar minimum to a solar maximum is about 0.25 W/m^2. The solar maximum occured in about 2000, the solar minimum in about 2007. And there was a deeper and prolonged minimum compared to the previous solar cycles. Thus, over the first decade of the new century, the forcing increase by CO2 was counteracted by a decrease in the solar forcing to a large degree. Taking also into account the large contribution from natural unforced ENSO variability to the global temperature variability on this time scale, with a strong El Nino also occurring in 1998, and more neutral and La Nina conditions over the first decade of the new century, I don’t see anything in the recent temperature record, which is not reconcilable with the mainstream climate science understanding of the climate system, or anything that poses a “dilemma” for the next IPCC report.
A similar “global warming standstill” as asserted for the recent years could be constructed for the period from 1979 to the mid 1990ies, just by convenient cherry picking of the data:
http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-create-false-global-warming.html
There is a lot of wishful thinking going on in the heads of the “skeptics”. As for the “global cooling” announced by many “skeptics” as supposedly being right around the corner, I don’t see it happening. Global warming continues, at some times natural unforced variability will subtract from the observed temperature record, at other times it will add to it. There are also events possible that can’t be foreseen, which could affect the global temperature record. If there was a major volcanic eruption like Pinatubo, or a series of it in the next years, it certainly would have quite some global cooling effect for a number of years. But this wouln’t be a refutation of mainstream climate theory. We already can explain now what would happen in this case.
[1] Myhre G., E. J. Highwood, K. P. Shine, and F. Stordal, 1998, New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25(14), doi: 10.1029/98GL01908, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/98GL01908
Dr. Perlwitz
You have failed to explain the 350 years of zero trend in the English summer temperature.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
Until you do so you lack necessary credibility of a climate scientist.
Jan P Perlwitz
We all know the Myhre et al estimate of clear-sky, no feedback radiative forcing from 2xCO2. But what happened to the “feedbacks” from water vapor, clouds, etc., which (according to IPCC AR4) increase the 2xCO2 ECS to 3.2C and the transient temperature response to ~2C?
But this is all beside the point, Jan.
You are spending a lot of time rationalizing WHY there was a “standstill” in global warming (as measured by the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly”).
I know all that (Hansen has told us the same).
Apparently you now no longer deny that there is a current “standstill” and are simply giving me your ideas on WHY this is so.
Good.
Max
The Myhre result is not a clear sky calculation but takes clouds into account.
“However, the forcing change from a solar minimum to a solar maximum is about 0.25 W/m^2. The solar maximum occured in about 2000, the solar minimum in about 2007. And there was a deeper and prolonged minimum compared to the previous solar cycles. ”
but that works against the physics ie surface solar magnetism
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3077
The observations don’t hold
Pekka
Don’t know what you are referring to, but I was referring to the Myhre et al. study cited by IPCC, where:
dF (W/m^2) = 5.35*ln(C/C0), where C = CO2 concentration in ppmv
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
This is the “no feedback” value, without cloud or water vapor (or any other) feedback.
I understand that more recent work by Myhre has reduced this estimate by around 15%.
Max
Max,
The Myhre value that you give is a cloudy sky value. It doesn’t include any feedbacks but it takes clouds into account assuming that the cloudiness doesn’t change.
Pekka
Thanks for clarification – I see what you mean now. I should have written “no-feedback” forcing from CO2 (rather than “clear sky”).
Max
correction:
Mauna Loa tells us that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 366 ppmv to
303393 ppmv from 1998 to todayJim D | January 27, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
“The “skeptics” seem to have ruled out that the pause is due to natural variability like a negative PDO phase, so we have to deal with their new way of thinking about or ignoring natural variability now. It is a moving target. One decade they like it, next they don’t.”
Straw man. Many skeptics including myself believed that the rising side of the AMDO was being counted as anthropogenic and that when the falling side arrived this would show that positive feedback from water vapor is a myth and sensitivity is the 1.1C that modtrans predicts.
I go one step further and say even 1.1C is the theoretical maximum over dry land and where there’s water available to evaporate sensitivity at the surface where we live and breathe is much less. I predict the top of the clouds will be 100 meters higher per CO2 doubling and that cloud tops will be the same temperature as before. The saturated lapse rate will be reduced beneath the clouds and increased above them with little change in ocean surface temperature.
As of now the consensus estimate of ocean warming is total basin up by 0.02C per decade. This too must accelerate to be any concern. Trenberth was candid when he called it a travesty. Too bad candor like that seems to be confined to private conversations and that’s yet another travesty.
The no-feedback sensitivity requires the ocean not to warm, so it comes down to whether the ocean warms in this century or whether PDOs and things like growing OHC conspire to prevent it (doubtful IMO). Meanwhile the land will continue to warm, probably more than the no-feedback sensitivity because it has to maintain the radiative balance on its own, so we don’t get out of warming that way. Certainly it would get drier over land, though, if the oceans didn’t keep up.
Jim D
It works both ways.
Sure, many (if not most) skeptics accept that natural forcing (and variability) play a major role in shaping our climate.
This is true for the current “standstill” (or slight cooling), just as it was for past warming.
It is just not plausible that the natural forcing over a 250-year period prior to around 2000 was only 7% of the total forcing, and now it is completely overwhelming anthropogenic forcing, is it?
Max
By your 7% reference, are you referring to the percentage solar irradiance is of total anthropogenic radiative forcing?
It is very plausible that natural decadal fluctuations are 0.1 to 0.2 degrees, averaging to zero over longer time periods, while the CO2 trend is measured in degrees per century. Since trends from CO2 are currently also 0.15-0.2 degrees per decade, you can easily see how the natural fluctuations can hide them for a while, but not for long. This should not be hard to visualize, and I don’t see why people don’t understand. Perhaps someone needs to draw a picture.
JCH
per AR4 WGI
Total anthropogenic forcing (since pre-industrial time) = 1.6 W/m^2 ~ total forcing from CO2 (1.66 W/m^2)
Total natural forcing (solar) = 0.12 W.m^2
Max
The decadal variation for the 80’s to the 90’s was 1.4W/m2 in ISCCP-FD and something similar in ERBS. In CERES the change is 0.77W/m2. The time series is as well nonstaionary with decadal to millennial variability. This by no means adds to zero. I am afraid you are making up numbers Jim – with nil to less than nil credibility.
Uh, just a question, what were anthropogenic halocarbon emissions 250 years ago?
JCH
You ask what halocarbon emissions were 250 years ago.
I think you really know the answer to this silly question.
IPCC has estimated what the total anthropogenic forcing from various components (including halocarbons) was from 1750 to 2005.
Max
David Springer
You write:
Don’t know what “consensus” you are referring to, but here is how I understand the data that are out there.
Prior to ARGO in 2003 the data are so sparse, spotty and inaccurate that we can essentially ignore them. It is logical to assume that there was some ocean warming, but we are unable to quantify this meaningfully.
After ARGO was in operation, we first got information that the upper ocean was cooling slightly (until 2008), This was “corrected” to show very slight warming of 0.0785×10^22 Joules per year, which equates to 0.0008C warming per year, or 0.008C per decade (40% of the value you quoted).
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/argo-the-mystery-of-global-warmings-missing-heat/
Not really a big deal (if even it were actually measurable).
Max
Max,
Why do you continue to put correction in quotation marks? There’s no reasonable doubt on the fact that there was a clear error that has been corrected.
Do you still say that you haven’t seen the specifics of the correction?
Is your approach such that you carefully avoid learning the facts in order to perpetuate errors in your comments?
Pekka
Remove the quotation marks, if they bother you.
Max
Do you have any technical objections to the corrections?
Jan P Perlman
You write:
manacker wrote in http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-289805
So what? What is “distinct” supposed to mean? Using what methodology have you determined that the warming trend in the three data sets was “distinct”? Eyeballing?
I can produce a similar figure for the recent 16 year period, for which the alleged “global warming stop”, “pause”, or “standstill” is asserted by “skeptics” or even by Judith Curry. Here it is
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2013/trend
I could claim three data sets showed a “distinct” warming trend, and one was “flat”.
However, none of the trends is statistically significantly different from a Zero trend, applying a 2-sigma significance threshold. Neither the ones in your figure, nor the ones in mine. Not even when applying a 90%-significance threshold.
The lack of statistical significance for the recent 16-year period is used as reasoning for the assertion of the “global warming stop” or “pause”. Based on the same flawed reasoning to conclude an absence of a trend from the non-detectability of a trend in the limited data sample from 1997 to the end of 1994, I could claim a “global warming stop” or “pause” for that 16-year period.
The trick is to find a time period just short enough so that the trends are not statistically significant anymore, and ta ta, one can claim a “global warming stop” for the time period. Such a time period can always be found. There is always a recent time period for which this is true. Thus, if this reasoning was right one always could claim a recent “global warming stop” at any point in time, because of “lack of statistical significance”.
Jan P Perlwitz
You are beginning to sound like a crank.
First, you make an erroneous claim that there was no global warming between 1979 and the mid 1990s.
When I showed you that this claim was wrong, based on all the recognized indicators of globally and annually averaged land and sea surface and tropospheric temperature, you come with another curve from 1997 to today.
Duh!
I never said that there was no warming from 1997 to today, did I?
I have simply reiterated what Hansen has written abut a 10-year standstill in global warming.
Don’t keep moving the goalposts around, Jan, or lurkers here will conclude that you are just a crank and not interested in a serious discussion.
Max
Pingback: The Post-Normal Times , Archive » PNS is not an excuse to legitimize crank arguments
Judith you say ” It looks like the AMO may have peaked”. We have certainly hit the high note since 2002, but the two previous AMO high phases showed plateaus that lasted from ~1860-1900 (40 years) and 1935-1955 (20 years). So we should expect another 20-40 years of warm phase AMO, which means droughts in USA Mid- and South-West, more frequent North Atlantic hurricanes, more rain in the Sahel and possibly in India too. The AMO will also provide a warming nudge to global temperatures, and at the same time the AMO itself is showing a 150 year long warming trend.
Irrespective of all the controversy, ocean currents do give climatologists a fairly reliable tool to advise policy makers of what coming decades are likely to bring.
Pingback: Serious Topic- Environmentalism and Conservation - Page 7 - Defending The Truth Political Forum
Judith, you write “I predict we will see continuation of the ‘standstill’ in global average temperature for the next decade, with solar playing a role in this as well.”. This is excellent, producing falsifiable predictions is an important component of science. Can I ask under what conditions you would consider your prediction falsified (e.g. trend over a specified period for a specified dataset being above a specified threshold, perhaps for some scenarios of solar focing)?
It doesn’t look like you ever got an answer.
Very much like when I asked Jan Perlwitz to provide his criterion of falsifiability WRT the models that he comes here and other places to stump for.
Of course with Judith, it may simply have been an oversight that she failed to answer this question. Bottom of a long thread and all that. With Perlwitz, he goes out of his way to call you names and let you know that he is avoiding the question intentionally, while simultaneously dredging up a seven month old thread to chastise Judith for her silence …
I think it is merely a co-incident, but it would be hard to depict any further changes based on this piece of information.
Pingback: The basics of climate change research | Woodwell on the World
certainly like your website but you need to test the spelling on several of your posts.
Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it
very bothersome to tell the reality on the other hand I’ll surely come again again.
What i don’t understood is actually how you are no longer really a lot more smartly-appreciated than you may be
now. You are very intelligent. You know therefore considerably in the case of
this topic, made me in my opinion consider it from so many
various angles. Its like men and women are not involved unless it is one thing to
do with Woman gaga! Your personal stuffs great.
Always take care of it up!