by Judith Curry
. . . the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. – James Annan
Since the release of the AR5 SOD, there has been a flurry of blog posts on the topic of climate sensitivity. The triggers seem to have been Nic Lewis’ analysis (discussed here), plus a press release from the Norwegians (discussed here). Both find values of sensitivity to be significantly lower than the consensus values.
In response to this, we have been ‘reassured’ by RealClimate and SkepticalScience that nothing has really changed with regards to the consensus on sensitivity. Gavin Schmidt states:
In the meantime, the ‘meta-uncertainty’ across the methods remains stubbornly high with support for both relatively low numbers around 2ºC and higher ones around 4ºC, so that is likely to remain the consensus range.
The ‘consensus’ range has been 1.5 – 4.5C (centered on 3C) since the 1979 Charney Report. With all the many different ways of calculating these numbers (empirically and from simple models and general circulation models), and different results that have been obtained from these analyses, why hasn’t this range and central value budged in over 3 decades? Here are some reasons:
1. The ‘experts’ are convinced.. Zickfeld et al. (2010) conducted face-to-face interviews with 14 leading climate scientists, using formal methods of expert elicitation. The results were not surprising. Apparently the results of this expert elicitation have a substantial influence in the AR5 report. Before you start criticizing the formal expert elicitation process, it is WAY better (less biased) than a consensus building process (see my paper no consensus on consensus). You are of course allowed to criticize all of this in the context of how many, and which, experts were included in this process.
2. Anchoring devices. Pielke Jr reminded me of this paper by van der Sluijs et al. Anchoring devices in climate for policy: the case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Excerpt:
We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate-change field – namely, climate sensitivity – operates as an `anchoring device’ in `science for policy’. In international assessments of the climate issue, the consensus-estimate of 1.5°C to 4.5°C for climate sensitivity has remained unchanged for two decades. Nevertheless, during these years climate scientific knowledge and analysis have changed dramatically. We propose that the remarkable quantitative stability of the climate sensitivity range has helped to hold together a variety of different social worlds relating to climate change, by continually translating and adapting the meaning of the `stable’ range. But this emergent stability also reflects an implicit social contract among the various scientists and policy specialists involved, which allows `the same’ concept to accommodate tacitly different local meanings.
3. The ‘experts’ have taken into account the latest knowledge on external forcing and uncertainties, model uncertainties, methodological uncertainties, etc. in preparing their estimates. Oops, looks like they forgot to do this (see James Annan’s comments below)
Andy Revkin
Revkin has two recent posts on this topic:
- When publicity proceeds peer review in climate science
- A closer look at moderating views of climate sensitivity
Revkin has elicited some remarkable statements from IPCC authors regard climate sensitivity, as well as some startling comments from climate bloggers.
Reto Knutti
Revkin’s post on the Norwegian press release elicited the following statement from Reto Knutti, excerpts:
If you look at the Fig. 3a in our review (red lines at the top) you see that many previous estimates based on the observed warming/ocean heat uptake had a tendency to peak at values below 3°C (that review is from 2008). The Norwegian study is just another one of these studies looking at the global energy budget. The first ones go back more than a decade, so the idea is hardly new. The idea is always the same: if you assume a distribution for the observed warming, the ocean heat uptake, and the radiative forcing, then you can derive a distribution for climate sensitivity.
What is obvious is that including the data of the past few years pushes the estimates of climate sensitivity downward, because there was little warming over the past decade despite a larger greenhouse gas forcing. Also in some datasets the ocean warming in the top 700 meters is rather small, with very small uncertainties (Levitus GRL 2012), pushing the sensitivity down further. However, in my view one should be careful in over interpreting these results for several reasons:
a) the uncertainties in the assumed radiative forcings are still very large. Recently, Solomon et al. Science (2010, 2011) raised questions about the stratospheric water vapor and aerosol, and just days ago there was another paper arguing for a larger effect of black carbon (http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-01.shtml, a massive 280 pages…).
b) Results are sensitive to the data used, as shown by Libardoni and Forest DOI: 10.1029/2011GL049431 and others, and particularly sensitive to how the last decade of data is treated. Very different methods (detection attribution optimal fingerprint) have also shown that the last decade makes a difference (Gillett et al. 2011, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226).
c) The uncertainties in the ocean heat uptake may be underestimated by Levitus, and there are additional uncertainties regarding the role of deep ocean heat uptake (Meehl et al. 2011 Nature Climate Change).
Even though we have many of these studies (and I am responsible for a couple of them) I’m getting more and more nervous about them, because they are so sensitive to the climate model, the prior distributions, the forcing, the ocean data, the error model, etc. The reason for this, to a large extent, is that the data constraint is weak, so the outcome (posterior) is dominated by what you put in (prior).
James Annan
I found the statement by Knutti to be interesting and I think it made some good points. This post by James Annan made my jaw drop. Excerpts:
As I said to Andy Revkin (and he published on his blog), the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards (even the AR4 estimates typically ignored the post-2000 years) can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity, and that’s before we even consider the reduction in estimates of negative aerosol forcing, and additional forcing from black carbon (the latter being very new, is not included in any calculations AIUI). It’s increasingly difficult to reconcile a high climate sensitivity (say over 4C) with the observational evidence for the planetary energy balance over the industrial era.
Note for the avoidance of any doubt I am not quoting directly from the unquotable IPCC draft, but only repeating my own comment on it. However, those who have read the second draft of Chapter 12 will realise why I previously said I thought the report was improved :-) Of course there is no guarantee as to what will remain in the final report, which for all the talk of extensive reviews, is not even seen by the proletariat, let alone opened to their comments, prior to its final publication. The paper I refer to as a “small private opinion poll” is of course the Zickfeld et al PNAS paper. The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported “this is what we think, because we asked our pals”. It’s essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing “la la la I can’t hear you”.
Of course, this still leaves open the question of what the new evidence actually does mean for climate sensitivity. Irrespective of what one thinks about aerosol forcing, it would be hard to argue that the rate of net forcing increase and/or over-all radiative imbalance has actually dropped markedly in recent years, so any change in net heat uptake can only be reasonably attributed to a bit of natural variability or observational uncertainty.
But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.
There’s a nice example of this in Reto Knutti’s comment featured by Revkin. While he starts out be agreeing that estimates based on the energy balance have to be coming down, he then goes on to argue that now (after a decade or more of generating and using them) he doesn’t trust the calculations because these Bayesian estimates are all too sensitive to the prior choices. That seems to me to be precisely contradicted by all the available literature, It looks rather like the IPCC authors have invented this meme as some sort of talismanic mantra to defend themselves against having to actually deal with the recent literature.
For some context on why my jaw dropped, here are some posts by James Annan where he has been harshly critical of my criticisms of the consensus conclusions and the consensus building process. Looks like JA has been bitten by the uncertainty monster. The antidote is to reread my papers on the Uncertainty Monster and Reasoning About Climate Uncertainty.
Stoat
Comment from William Connolley in Revkin’s second post:
James also identifies a possible problem in the way IPCC subgroups can come to “own” a particular area, and find outside opinions — even those clearly from within Science rather than the wackosphere — unwelcome. I don’t know how serious that is: again, I’d be inclined to trust James Annan on this, but that’s all I’d be doing. Perhaps an investigative journalist might take an interest.
JC comment: This one made me laugh. Here is how ‘outside opinions’ have been treated by Stoat (search for ‘shark jumping’).
JC summary: Kudos to Revkin for stimulating this blogospheric discussion. Whether all this heralds a ‘game change’ in the ‘consensus’ remains to be seen.
The broader issue with climate sensitivity is this. The simplistic way in which this is defined and calculated makes the whole concept an artifact of the oversimplification. On short time scales (decade to centuries), there is no satisfactory way of sorting out forced climate variability from natural internal climate variability unless you have a really good climate model that can adequately handle the natural internal variability on the range of time scales from years to millennia. Empirical methods have yet to do this in any sensible way, IMO.
Further, it is misleading to think of sensitivity in terms of a pdf (see my previous post on this here). Talking about the probability of a climate sensitivity fat tail is meaningless in my opinion. What is meaningful is the possibility of a scenario of abrupt climate change. While abrupt climate change is regarded as a possibility based upon paleoclimatic evidence of previous events, climate models are incapable of producing such emergent phenomena. The concept of abrupt climate change does not figure into any estimate of equilibrium sensitivity that I am aware of.
Until we better understand natural internal climate variability, we simply don’t know how to infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing. The issue of how climate will change over the 21st century is highly uncertain, and we basically don’t know whether or not different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions will be (or not be) the primary driver on timescales of a century or less. Oversimplification and overconfidence on this topic have acted to the detriment of climate science. As scientists, we need to embrace the uncertainty, the complexity and the messy wickedness of the problem. We mislead policy makers with our oversimplifications and overconfidence.
Palatial coverage at the Bish’s. Andy Revkin’s all over it, and Gavin gives up catastrophes.
But they were promised. Where are the Wild Things?
=================
Thus Gavin thwacks the fat tail. But the fat tail has disrupted the world’s economy needlessly and there will be thwackback. A Phat Tale.
===================
Are you using my name in vain, perchance?
The catastrophes were as vain as a peacock’s tail, and as seductive.
=============
Consider me seduced ;-]
No, the question of whether AGW is a serious danger has never depended on the fat tail.
Heh, hastur, so why was that fat tail defended so surreptitiously and illegitimately? Tell me it wasn’t just for grins.
=============
Indeed, interestingly it is climate skeptics that have backpeddled here.
They used to claim climate sensitivity was less than 1 degree C per doubling of CO2. Ie climate feedbacks were net negative.
In the recent month we’ve seen climate skeptics admitting climate feedback is likely net positive, and sensitivity much higher than they’d previously acknowledged. With some climate skeptics even toying with sensitivity as high as 1.7C per doubling of CO2.
The consequences of this haven’t yet been fully absorbed by the climate skeptic community.
1) At 1.7C per doubling, CO2 is the dominant driver of global temperature over the 21st century.
2) At 1.7C per doubling, CO2 is very likely to have caused most of the warming since the mid-20th century. Ie the IPCC attribution statement was right all along.
3) At 1.7C per doubling, we can expect about twice as much warming as that under business as usual, as not only is CO2 itself going to more than double, but there are other greenhouse gases aside from CO2 that are increasing.
Of course it is likely that climate skeptics will simultaneously claim they always accepted something like 1.7C while still refusing to accept points #1 through #3.
lolwot
At a 2xCO2 ECS of 1.7C we can stop worrying about CAGW.
At a likely CO2 level of 600 ppmv by 2100, we would see around 1.0C warming from today. Peanuts.
And at the absolute maximum CO2 level we could ever reach from burning all the fossil fuels on Earth, we would reach 2.3C
This is no longer scary, lolwot. The “C” has been removed from IPCC’s “CAGW”.
Max
Heh, hastur, so why was that fat tail defended so surreptitiously and illegitimately? Tell me it wasn’t just for grins.
What makes you think it was defended “surreptitiously and illegitimately”? The fat tail existed because that’s what research into climate sensitivity indicated. That doesn’t mean scientists believed that such high values were likely, just that they didn’t have enough information to rule them out. Now we have more information, which may be able to do so.
“And at the absolute maximum CO2 level we could ever reach from burning all the fossil fuels on Earth, we would reach 2.3C”
How much more from methane, nitrous oxide, black carbon?
How much more from aerosol levels falling?
How much more from a warmer Earth emitting more greenhouse gases itself?
Even 2.3C puts Earth far warmer than it has been for a long time.
Anyhow, I don’t think it makes sense to claim that “climate skeptics” have backpedaled.” There are a lot of different skeptics. You need to identify one, show what he used to say, and show that he is saying that he believes sensitivity is now 1.7 – not that he’s happy that others have come down that far.
Yes lolwot.
Poor kim seems to accept this, yet is a CGC (catastrophic global cooling) alarmist.
Trust the ‘sceptics’ to simultaneously adopt mutually exclusive positions.
hastur could read Annan. Joshua could connect dots.
===================
Michael could review my defense of the term ‘lukewarming cooler’ @ the Blackboard. I suspect CO2 has some warming effect, but I’m quite sure natural processes can cool to catastrophe. No alarum, though. Just listen and prepare.
===============
lolwot: “How much more from methane, nitrous oxide, black carbon? How much more from aerosol levels falling? How much more from a warmer Earth emitting more greenhouse gases itself?”
You do realize that the first and third sentences are saying the same thing, right?
And you do realize that things like black carbon have been ignored for decades because of the obsession with CO2, right? Finally, we are now realizing that black carbon is a significant issue which affects human health as well as the climate. And it’s an issue that can be dealt with separately and without the enormous economic disruption of trying to halt the world’s CO2 production.
Last, aerosol level effects may well be exaggerated, just as CO2’s effect was: aerosols were how the models cancelled out “CO2” effects at inconvenient times. As the CO2 sensitivity is adjusted down, the aerosol level sensitivity may be as well.
As you know, many skeptics in these here parts are “lukewarmers”, who agree that CO2 has some effect, but not the effect that “the consensus” has been selling us for decades. You’re simply lumping a bunch of different classes of skeptics (of the consensus) together, then taking the positions of one group as the past, and the positions of another group as the present, then claiming your hypothesized monolithic group of “skeptics” has changed.
“As you know, many skeptics in these here parts are “lukewarmers”, who agree that CO2 has some effect, but not the effect that “the consensus” has been selling us for decades.”
They spin and weave. You’ll find climate skeptics can’t be pinned down on what they believe because they keep changing it.
The problem for them is as I stated a sensitivity of 1.7C would imply CO2 is the dominant driver of global temperature over the 21st century.
But a climate skeptic could never admit such a thing. It’s too IPCC. They want to minimize CO2 to a largely insignificant component of climate.
So while they’ll happily promote Nic Lewis’s 1.7C figure as an argument, they don’t actually want to believe it themselves.
They demand others believe it. They even cry to high hell that it’s being ignored by the IPCC. But they don’t want to believe it themselves.
That’s 21st climate skepticism.
kim does the red queen, again.
Annan thinks the most likely range for CS is 2.5-3. Similar to the IPCC.
kim concedes the possibility of some CO2 forcing, but has 100% certainty that it will be cancelled out by mysterious cooling mechanisms.
CGC alarmist!
Love the smell of ‘scepticism’ in the morning.
Michael could read Annan again, and he could avoid placing ‘will’ back in my mouth when ‘can’ just came out of it.
===================
away with your climate alarmism and quibbling kim.
Consider the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age. We are blessed if we did it and blessed if we didn’t. We can expect future blessings.
=======================
kim seems sensitive about his/her alarmism.
lolwot
Deliberating about what (you think) “skeptics think” is a waste of time and puts you on a “slippery slope”.
The skeptics concerned know full well “what they think”. You don’t
And there is absolutely no reason that “skeptics” of a premise, dogma or hypothesis have to “march in lock step” regarding their skepticism. .
I, personally, am probably what some would call a “lukewarmer”.
Unlike Jim Springer, for example, I am prepared to provisionally accept the concept that increasing human-induced GH gases will result in some increase in temperature, even though this has not yet been demonstrated by actual empirical evidence.
But I am not about to buy in on the AGW premise of IPCC, which is based on a mean ECS value of 3.2C (with a “fat tail”), which is in turn based on net positive feedback from clouds and a water vapor feedback based on essentially maintaining constant relative humidity with warming, all of which is solely based on model predictions and not on empirical evidence.
That’s when my “BS meter” goes into alarm mode.
And, based on the latest studies on ECS plus the failure of warming forecasts (such as Hansen 1988 or IPCC TAR and AR4) , it looks like my skepticism has been well placed.
Max
lolwot
CORRECTION: That’s Jim Cripwell (not Springer, of course)
Sorry, Jim and David.
lolwot | February 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm said: ” With some climate skeptics even toying with sensitivity as high as 1.7C per doubling of CO”
lolwot!!!! if one believes that CO2 increases the GLOBAL temp; that’s NOT a ”Skeptic” Same as: If one believes in Santa, cannot be referred as ”mature person” ”Believer” that: CO2 has anything to do with the overall global temp; calling him ”Skeptic”.is a very overloaded comment…
Mother Nature is currently making a statement. Look around the Northern Hemisphere right now. Mother Nature says that warm oceans are a necessary part of a well bounded cycle. Mother Nature uses warm oceans to get the moisture to rebuild the ice volume for the next cold cycle. Mother Nature uses the cold frozen oceans to cut off the moisture and allow the sun to reduce the ice volume for the next warm cycle. The sensitivity is to warm or frozen oceans. Mother Nature just uses CO2 to make the green things grow. Mother Nature uses water, in all its states, to control temperature. Mother Nature uses something that is abundant and not a fraction of a trace of something.
I do not know anyone who is a Climate Skeptic. We believe in Climate and we all, or most, recognize that Climate has warmed since the Little Ice Age. Just like it always has after a cold period.
I do know a lot of people who are Alarmist Skeptics. We do not believe that increased CO2 is going to do more harm than good.
One hopes that scientists always strive mightily to utilize only the most accurate data, methods, and reasoning. Does anyone think that this sort of behavior serves either science or society properly: in a July 2010 comment James Annan referred to one of the ‘Zickfeld 14’ climate scientists who had urged fellow scientists to exaggerate, er… lie, about their climate sensitivity estimates, in order to ‘encourage action’….
[emphasis added]
James Annan comment thread on his blog, July 1, 2010
There is an explicit, if unnamed, villain in this piece. Many implicit, one explicit. Unnamed, but well known.
======
Purportedly a ‘his’. We shall she, shan’t we?
============
What’s dot I tot I taw?
===============
Concerning the views of Annan. What he writes now is very well in line of the reasoning he presented in the 2009 paper with Hargreaves: On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. He has also been fairly outspoken. Thus what he says now is not that surprising.
Yes, he’s been screaming since ~2006, but Revkin couldn’t hear Japan from his back porch. Nor anyone much else.
=================
Yes, he did seek an alliance with Judy on such matters, but Judith rejected his overtures on the grounds that he wasn’t ‘important’ enough for her.
Drama critics, bah.
============
Pekka Pirilä
Concerning the views of Annan. What he writes now is very well in line of the reasoning he presented in the 2009 paper with Hargreaves: On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. He has also been fairly outspoken. Thus what he says now is not that surprising.
That’s a fair statement. Without actually using Bayes’ Theorem, Annan has incorporated the evidence of the last few years to move his personal probability distribution of the sensitivity toward 0. I put more trust in likelihood functions, where they can be justified by observations, than in posterior distributions. An interesting question is how many other climate scientists will review Annan’s article and adjust their beliefs in light of the recent evidence.
A frequent, though not universal, occurrence is for experts to dispute new evidence and keep their beliefs totally unchanged. Clearly, Annan is not doing that.
I left this comment at Dot Earth and will leave it here. Gerald North of Texas A&M has long had a sensitivity estimate of 2C, with a range of 1.75-2.25C, which is a good bit below the IPCC estimate. He remarked how the low-sensitivity folks were not eager to enter the fray realtive to those on the high-sensitivity side. Just another data point ….
Because lower sensitivity might result in less funding?
Rob Starkey | February 4, 2013 at 5:44 pm said: ”Because lower sensitivity might result in less funding?”
I like that comment. 1] So, which one they will chose? 2] if NO sensitivity… time to start reimbursing the taxpayer,, with modest interest, on the spoils…
Judith, you write “Until we better understand natural internal climate variability, we simply don’t know how to infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing.”
I could not agree with you more; this, to me, is the crux of the issue. As I put it, no-one has any idea what the climate sensitivity of CO2 is. And even more important, no-one has any idea of how accurately climate sensitivity has been estimated; estimated since it has NEVER been measured. If it had been measured we would know the accuracy.
Yet, the SPMs that the IPCC published in the AR4, contain phrases like >90% probability and >95% probability, and I cannot, for the life of me, find out the scientific basis for these claims. The basis ought to be in the AR4, but it does not seem to be. I have never heard of a scientific report where the conclusions were not based on what was in the report itself. Further, despite people like Alex Rawls pointing out some of the uncertainties, the SOD of the AR5 still contains these claims of high probabilities for what adding CO2 to the atmosphere does.
It seems to me that these wild claims of high probabilities in the SPMs ought to be based on some sort of knowledge for how accurately we know the value for climate sensitivity, yet they seem to be based on absolutely nothing at all, but no-one seems to want to discuss this issue.
Actually, there is ambiguity in Gavin’s phraseology around giving up catastrophes(nightmares). Perfectly intelligent people are interpreting what he says backwards.
=============
Sloppily, his antecedents blur.
==============
It is a tweet. Perhaps those interested in understanding his views, might consider a more comprehensive explanation. Perhaps those looking to confirm biases might attach great meaning to a tweet.
But yes, thank you for noting the ambiguous antecedent. It all depends on what “it” means, now doesn’t it? And ironically, not much actually depends on what it means.
Joshua,
Perhaps those interested in understanding his views, might consider a more comprehensive explanation.
What makes you think that people here are actually interested in understanding what Gavin is saying?
Heh, I’m sure he’s hunting for the ‘comprehensive explanation’ as we speak. What a nightmare he’s in.
===================
First, kim – I don’t speak as I type (or read). Interesting that apparently you do, though.
Second – unfortunately, your dot-connecting/truthdevining skilz are not as mad as I thought.. So will you integrate your error and re-calibrate?
Heh, Joshua bends backward at the knees to find a sharp point in a cliche. And avoids conversing.
=================
What a nightmare he’s in.
Thanks for proving my point.
Right, it’s a hazy, crazy, lazy summer afternoon daydream. I propose you pose the question to the G-Man heself. That’s a big red ‘S’ on his shirt, right?
===============
I’m not in anyway unclear about what Gavin is saying.
If you don’t understand then you ask him.
Andrew,
Gavin agrees:
> Heaven forbid they should ask me!
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/298833478835904512?uid=228166929&iid=am-85321533413600824281575268&nid=27+234
The eyes have it.
=============
“Sorry that a tweet did not come with footnotes for people”
Gavin posted that at Real Climate
Heh, Bob, he’s searching in the footnotes for the ‘comprehensive explanation’.
willard’s on first, Gavin’s lost the ball in the sun, and you’re our umpire?
=============
What’s fooled y’all wordsmiths is plain speech from a forked tonguester. Climate sensitivity is not negligible and not a nightmare. It’s a very inconvenient truth.
============
Lol! Same exact logic as your statement about “connecting dots” to devine Obama’s “Muslim sympathies,” eh?
Naw, silly, He means ‘climate sensitivity’ when he refers to ‘change in climate sensitivity’. Did you read it?
===============
Sorry, Joshua, you are giving little evidence of understanding what is going on here. Go with your gut, though.
=================
I don’t have your dot-connecting skills, (i.e., your depth of insight or your parapsychological gifts), kim.
Here, let me pen the pig for you.
========
kim’s dot-con bubble is aburstin
Bubbles a burstin’ a plenty. The Revolution will be Currently Televised.
=============
Here’s what I don’t think that it means. I don’t think that Gavin believes that less climate change equals a nightmare. I don’t think that he wants the climate to change drastically, to the point that it causes severe impacts to humans living today or in the future.
Although sure, the speculators may be correct – it is possible that he is a psychopath. If only I had your mad skilz at dot-connecting….
Why don’t you just read what he wrote, apply the antecedent he means, and deal with it? He’s giving up nightmares, which must be nightmarish for him and others.
============
Hey, you could go ask him yourself. You won’t be the first one. Nor yet, the very last, by a long shot.
=============
Josh,
The discussion may be about uncertainty – re sensitivity – but of one thing I am certain.
The climate will change no matter what you, me or Gavin Schmidt would like it to do.
The way I read it, is that a big change in climate sensitivity towards the low side is the nightmare Gavin is talking of. The nightmare of being totally wrong on the subject.
As I said, Bob, a lot of perfectly intelligent people read it that way. I don’t, for the reason that Joshua has laid out elsewhere, I have hope for his fundamental humanity.
================
Heaven forbids asking, but does anyway.
=================
I agree with Judith that equilibrium sensitivity is difficult to derive from the short record so far, especially recently, due to natural variability. The Norwegian study had 3.7 C sensitivity before including the last decade. I suspect that it is because the positive water vapor feedback in the equilibrium sensitivity needs the tropical oceans to warm, and this process is very delayed, when CO2 is the forcing, due to the amount of vapor shielding its effect there. The warming over the last 30 years also is affected by the PDO which is in a cold phase. Deriving sensitivities while the ocean warming is suppressed will also suppress the sensitivity. Only long-term enough studies will add sufficient tropical ocean warming for the sensitivity to be a realistic equilibrium one, but this is showing that the equilibrium will be slow to reach.
I would also note that paleoclimate gives sensitivities in excess of 4.5 C per doubling, but that is only because the Antarctic and Greenland will melt, and (darker) forest vegetation will spread north into the tundras, so we have to define time scales even for “equilibrium”.
Simple climate model.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/simple-climate-model-release-version-1-0/
Jim D
Paleoclimate can give you just about any 2xCO2 ECS you are hoping to find (sort of like reading tea leaves)
Fuggidaboudit. Let’s look at actual records – these point to the lower end of the range, albeit still with guess-timates for natural factors.
lolwot’s 1.7C is probably a good upper limit.
Max
“,,,,,,, especially recently, due to natural variability. ”
Presumably Jim in the good old days we didn’t have to worry about natural variability because temps were going up nicely and we were getting the result we wanted. I don’t think you do agree with JC, her point might be that climate scientists should ALWAYS have been worrying about natural variability not wait until something came along and bit them on the certainties..
“I agree with Judith that equilibrium sensitivity is difficult to derive from the short record so far, especially recently, due to natural variability.”
Have natural variability increased recently?
I would say the difficulty lies in feedbacks that take some time to materialize.
My point exactly. How can we define equilibrium sensitivity with a global warming distribution that is transient? Have they just extrapolated past warming, or are they allowing for the tropical oceans to catch up? I suspect the former is done, because it is easier to do.
Has natural variability increased recently?
No, but I suspect these statistical methods emphasize recent periods where more data is available at the expense of looking evenly at the longer record over which natural variability cancels out.
Jim, the consensus is that global warming started in the ~1960s and that more than 100% of the total warming since then is human (there would be global cooling without humans).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/files/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/global-surface-temperatures.PNG
Do you still accept that?
Edim, no anthropogenic warming has been increasing since the industrial age began, and has only in recent decades exceeded natural variability for any sustained periods.
Jim, the link (evidence)? Everything I’ve seen on the consensus attribution looks very similar to those two graphs. Are you skeptical of the consensus attribution and human influence?
Maybe I’ll feel better again on Blue Bayou.
===============
Edim, just because it can’t be seen above the background noise on those graphs doesn’t mean it wasn’t there earlier. This is what to expect with a growing process. It would be a very strange process that waited for CO2 to reach a threshold before its warming effect even started, wouldn’t it? Who ever proposed that?
Jim, don’t be silly. Human influence became significant in the ~60s, it didn’t reach a threshold. Humans emit now in a few years more than in the whole period of 1850 – 1950 (just quickly eyeballed it).
Yes, the human contribution doubles every 33 years. What was the question?
Where’s the beef?
“Until we better understand climate variability………” We have certainly paid dearly for all the years since 1988 trying to force numerous models to blame just one item, man-made CO2, for modern warming. Think how different the resource allocation would have been and how much closer we would be to understanding this subject had we treated climate science in a more traditional fashion. Is it time to reduce the number of climate modeling efforts in half and reapply those resources to observational research?
So far the “skeptics’ haven’t come up with a single model between them, even a simple one. What does it take to get them started? They tend to be the older types who don’t know how to do it themselves. Can’t they take an existing model and change the physics? I suspect a low-sensitivity model might have trouble producing warm enough summers due to the negative cloud feedback they are forced to put into it, but that is just my prediction.
Jim D, here is a simple climate model from the realist skeptical scientist.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Simple-climate-model-v1.0.xls
An excel spreadsheet??
Unfortunately Roy Spencer can’t be trusted
The problem(s) of CS are indeed large.
1) The irreducibility of the spread over the last 30yrs,which suggests that it is indeed irreducible .
2) The affixing of cardinal numbers to subjective opinions,of which some have been critical eg Zalapin and Ghil.
3) The geometric mean of the range of experiments is bounded by the Khinchin constant,which suggests that sensitivity is indeed low,and long tails will be improbable.
4) The spread (the range) of sensitivity ,is a constraint on future uncertainty being reduced,and even if there is increased information it will increase.
As far as I can tell, that is not a model. He puts sensitivity in as a variable you can choose.
lolwot, you say, ” Unfortunately Roy Spencer can’t be trusted”. I see, so we should trust Jones, Mann, Scheinder, Hansen, Gleick, Trenberth, the person in Annon’s piece who admitted to lying, or perhaps we should trust you. LOL.
Don’t think you get my point Bob. If you don’t trust the above people you mention you can’t trust Roy Spencer either.
That’s my point.
Jim D, you don’t have to create a model. Some models can already recreate the current warming sans forcing changes. Just apply aerosols liberally to tune from there. Also, not all paleo studies show 4.5C or greater but what difference does that make? Do you really believe climate sensitivity is a constant and not a variable?
Jim D
Roy Spencer has come up with a simple model (2 years ago!)
And, hey, the big “model in the sky” has been telling us a story since 1998 (or is it 2001?).
Max
“So far the “skeptics’ haven’t come up with a single model between them, even a simple one. What does it take to get them started? ”
I would say model are in simplest in terms a learning tool.
Or a means of exploration.
Or also system of validation of hypotheses.
At that point in time, they are not a way to predict the future and
they might not approach this for many decades.
So the practical use of models is for models to make short term
predictions which can within a reasonable period of time, be
checked against reality.
But climate models have different priorities then the above.
One purpose could be describe as PR- selling an idea.
As tools to sell a scary future, their value is if anyone or
most people can trust them coupled with enough scare
value that they get a good payoff.
So models should predict few years in future, and
instead 100 year prediction are preferred, and in complete
wacko mode are claimed to be easier and to be more
accurate [with numerous idiots blithely nodding their heads].
Of course it’s not uncommon to make short climate predictions-
farmers want them. And skeptics have made short terms
prediction. This idea we suppose entering a cooling period
in next couple decade is actually kind of widely accepted.
It such expectation cooling is due to looking at natural
variability.
But I think a more comprehensive model should done-
a global model. It should be done by skeptics or real
scientists. But it would require money, and skeptics
are not well funded. But perhaps something like
crowd sourcing. Or some kind contest with prizes-
a game model could work to help this occur.
Here is a game.
Start with earth which uniform temperature of 3 C.
Meaning entire surface is 3 C [no ice].
Assume the atmosphere is same composition- and
could start with same temperature as current values.
Another option is start with just skin temperature being
a uniform temperature- so only top foot of surface
starts at uniform temperature of 3 C. So same world
as present in all respects, expect the top 12 inches
has uniform temperature of 3 C.
What occurs in within 10 years?
I agree gbaikie that models are not appropriate for prediction but could assist in sorting out natural variability as distinct from anthropic influences on weather and climate.
The extension of meteorological modelling (good for 7 to 10 days) toward regional forecasting (hopefully good for up to 30 days) and applied over interlocking areas of the Earth’s surface and stratosphere, would be most useful for humanity in its quest to ameliorate the effects of sudden climate change.
@LOLWitless , models only express a hypothesis, models are not scientific experiments and therefore do not provide data. Models also do not replicate reality and therefore cannot be regarded as providing science with anything other than a narrative expressing an idea.
@Jim D | February 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
All models are parameterized to do exactly as you say.
Jim D”| February 4, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Reply
So far the “skeptics’ haven’t come up with a single model between them, even a simple one.”
I do have a simple model. See my website above. I don’t label myself as a sceptic because my model quite clearly shows there has been periods of anthrogenic global warming, but they stopped and were limited. Why were they limited? Because classical thermodynamics can’t answer that question, but Quantum can. We don’t know on wfat conditions CO2 could lose a photon of energy. So more research is necessary to justify my assumption.
However my model has the virtue that it can provide a credible narrative of global climate during the 20th and 21st centuries and the IPCC have never even tried to do thst.
Some people have come up with other offerings of what they call models. I call a GCM a model. “Skeptics” have not produced GCMs so that they can evaluate its seasonal and regional variations before going on to climate change. There is a qualifying level for a model, which is current climate.
Well sceptics could of course produce their own model but first let’s review the “do nots” of atmospheric modelling –
1. Do not model the “earth” as a combined land/ocean/gas “thingy”
2. Do not model the atmosphere as a single body or layer
3. Do not model the sun as a ¼ power constant source without diurnal cycle
4. Do not model conductive flux to and from the surface and atmosphere based on surface Tav
5. Do not model a static atmosphere without moving gases
6. Do not model a moving atmosphere without Gravity
If existing models contained any of the above, then your suggestion “Can’t they take an existing model and change the physics?” would be a very foolish suggestion would it not?
The first question to ask in atmospheric modelling is not what happens when we add more radiative gases to the atmosphere, but what is the role of radiative gases in the atmosphere? Lets model the atmosphere with and without radiative ability with moving gases and gravity –
http://tinypic.com/r/6zy1ky/6
The panel on the right shows convective stagnation shortly after the radiative ability is “switched off” Amazing! The atmosphere heats! This would of course mean –
– Those claiming a radiative GHE never modelled a moving atmosphere with depth and gravity.
– Without convective circulation below the tropopause our atmosphere will heat.
– radiative gases providing energy loss at altitude are critical for convective circulation below the tropopause.
– adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce its radiative cooling ability.
– radiative gases cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm
But of course you already knew this Jim. You knew before 2010. The actions of yourself, Nick Stokes, Joel Shore and Josh Halpern in the discussion of the M2010 paper provide clear evidence. Trashing a paper in another discipline just to defend the “Cause”? That would have to be a new low in science. For shame. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget.
Konrad makes an interesting point. It is a fact indeed that what is put out on the internet will not be forgotten and it would behoove everyone to always act with fairness and in good faith.
Peter,
I am well aware of the corollary to “Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget”. In light of information that has recently come to light I believe I am showing considerable restraint in my comments. They have known they were wrong for years. Pushing a failed hypothesis for financial and political profit is one thing. Trashing a scientific paper in another discipline to defend the “cause” is quite another. Sod restraint. It’s Whacking Day.
It’s not totally clear what would happen for the atmosphere in total absence of all radiative gases, i.e. with exactly zero emissivity/absorptivity. I have been arguing for the mostly isothermal atmosphere but others have argued that the diurnal and latitudinal variability could still maintain circulation over an altitude range comparable to the present troposphere. As I haven’t heard of any credible analysis of this case i consider the case open.
What’s, however, certain is that the Earth surface would be almost unaffected by the atmosphere. The surface temperature would be very close to that without any atmosphere. Earth would be different from the moon due to shorter day and different albedo, not because of the atmosphere.
Another thing that’s known fairly well is what the situation would be it the atmosphere would have a very weak nonzero emissivity/absorptivity. In that case the surface temperature would still be essentially the same as without any atmosphere, but the atmosphere would have the adiabatic lapse rate up to an altitude of about 4 km. At that altitude and above, the temperature would have a constant very low value as the surface is very cold and the tropopause about 40C colder.
“What’s, however, certain is that the Earth surface would be almost unaffected by the atmosphere. The surface temperature would be very close to that without any atmosphere.”
Pekka, how would the atmosphere lose the energy to space? Thermal resistance at the TOA would be infinite. This path would be closed. The surface could only lose the energy by radiating directly to space.
Edim,
You are right on what you write, but there’s more to it. I explain a little more.
The circulation that would persist is based on
– heating the atmosphere by the surface near the spot of maximum surface temperature. The mechanism is conduction in a very thin surface layer and convection above that.
– cooling the the atmosphere by conduction to the surface everywhere else.
– some circulation to distribute heat within the atmosphere
– conduction within the atmosphere wherever convection is not much stronger
Because conduction is so weak the whole energy flux of circulation is very weak. The Earth surface area is, however, very large and the horizontal distances also very large in comparison to the height of atmosphere excluding the altitudes of very small density. Therefore it’s not immediately clear what the stationary state would be when all these factors are taken into account.
It’s clear that the atmosphere would be relatively warm. The determining surface temperature is that of the hottest spot, because convection is so much stronger than conduction.
Pekka Pirilä:
“What’s, however, certain is that the Earth surface would be almost unaffected by the atmosphere. The surface temperature would be very close to that without any atmosphere. Earth would be different from the moon due to shorter day and different albedo, not because of the atmosphere.”
I don’t think Earth surface is much affected by the atmosphere.
Rather I think the surface is mostly affecting atmosphere.
So, I think Earth with 1/2 it’s atmosphere would have a significantly
hotter surface [skin temperature].
So with 1/2 of Earth’s atmosphere, one could easily cook eggs on a sidewalk.
And you get 1100 watts per square meter as compared to 1000 watts per square meter. But more difference would be total amount solar energy per day.
A 1/2 atmosphere would not have much affect upon the temperature ocean boils or evaporates. And ocean would receive a lot more solar energy. And ocean is average global temperature.
So ocean surface temperature in tropics because of increase in solar energy would be slightly warmer than our ocean temperature and temperate zone ocean should more significantly warmer.
Also seems as though there were less clouds. Could be more windy in terms wind speed, but probably not much higher in terms of strength of winds. And there would be smaller troposphere sphere.
Atmosphere mass “50% is below 5.6 km (18,000 ft)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and_mass
Average troposphere is 17 km. So instead with 1/2 atmosphere the troposphere would be average would be about 10 km or less.
Snow couldn’t form at as high elevation- ice caps would be lower in elevation. And some mountains could too high for snow.
Less air pressure and therefore lower vapor pressure [partial pressure].
So, “For example, air at sea level, and saturated with water vapor at 20 °C, has partial pressures of about 23 mbar of water, 780 mbar of nitrogen, 210 mbar of oxygen and 9 mbar of argon.”
Becomes: H2O 11.5 mbars partial pressure at 20 C.
So same temperature less water vapor in air.
This factor more than increased sunlight will cause oceans to get warmer at surface.
So higher average temperature of say, 5 C.
And inland significantly more deserts and colder nights and winters.
But should be wider tropical conditions- more than 1/2 surface tropical conditions.
gbaikie,
Without the present atmosphere and the GHE the hottest parts of the surface would be a hotter than they are now during the day, but during the night even those parts would be cold and their average temperature over 24 hours would be moderate. The exact values depend on the assumed albedo, which depends on the type of surface we would have. (What should we assume about water?)
Most of the Earth surface would be very cold.
Pekka,
The Knights of Consensus just got routed at the battle of Radiative Ridge at the Talkshop. Proxies are no shield to computer language analysis. Also at least three lukewarmer “sleepers” lost at WUWT.
Are you sure you want to play?
“gbaikie,
Without the present atmosphere and the GHE the hottest parts of the surface would be a hotter than they are now during the day, but during the night even those parts would be cold and their average temperature over 24 hours would be moderate. The exact values depend on the assumed albedo, which depends on the type of surface we would have. (What should we assume about water?)
Most of the Earth surface would be very cold.”
Well if Earth has no nitrogen, oxygen, or argon.
It could have atmosphere of H20 gas.
But without any atmosphere one would need no water.
So as you say it would be Moon like.
One problem with Earth being just like the Moon is
Earth has more volcanic and tectonic activity. The Moon hasn’t
had volcanic activity [other than minor out gassing- which is not
what I mean by volcanic activity] for over a billion years. And
not much over last 3 billion years.
So moon’s surface is ancient, and Earth surface is very
young.
This mean in terms of climate that Earth would not covered
with tens of meters of regolith- Earth would be mostly bare
rock. And with no water, drier than Mars. Mars has ice caps
of CO2 and H2O. And it’s very dry and cold place with 210 ppm
of H20 gas.
If Moon was mostly bare rock, it would warmer at night.
And if Moon had 24 hour day it would also be much warmer
in the night.
Also Earth has tilt which gives in seasons. And seasonal
tilt adds a bit warmth if one has a lot heat capacity- bare rock
would store more heat as compared to regolith.
This tilt effect is greater when you have ocean of water,
but with bare rock it should have a minor effect.
So daytime temperature should reach around the moon’s
surface temperature of 120 C. On moon if the sun is blocked
for two hour one lose about 100 K. Or lower from 120 C to
20 C.
Roughly, with bare rock, I would guess two hour after sun goes down
one should have surface temperature of around 20 C. And probably rest of nite it cool another 50 K.
So equator being 120 C in day and and -30 C at nite.
Going poleward it’s cooler.
So roughly 240 K to 400 K. And that’s 47 C average at equator
Or say around 30 C average global temperature- wider swinger
than earth, but significant part of swings in temperature is due
to the much hotter surface temperature. And we measuring different things- skin surface vs air temperature. Or Earth highest skin temperature is about 70 C with highest air temperature of about
50 C [323 K].
So with vacuum world swing is 140 C. But the skin temperature 77 C
hotter, or about half of the temperature swing.
With earth tropical ocean it’s about swing day/night of around 5 C and land or desert around 20 C degrees of swing in temperature.
So no doubt a vacuum vs atmosphere has large variation in temperature. But presence of Earth ocean is also large factor reducing
global variation in day vs night temperature.
Jim, how about the model of what happened the last 100 years since CO2 was at 280ppm. Even assuming that CO2 is 1005 responsible for the increase of the past 100 years CO2 is now 394ppm an increase of 41%. Temps have risen .6C. On a straightline that would mean the total rise for a doubling is just under 1.5C. With .6 already realized that means an increase of .9 more for the rest of the doubling. This does not even take into consideration a logarithmic approach which would make the first 41% more like 60% of the total warming for a doubling which would mean we could expect as little as .4C more warming for the next 166ppm of CO2. The nice thing about using what has happened in the past is it includes all forcings and feedbacks because they are built in automatically.
“Most of the Earth surface would be very cold.”
I didn’t include Bond albedo.
If mostly sold rock were snow white, what difference would make
in surface temperature during the day.
It surface were perfectly reflective it would probably have greater
effect. But the white paint or white sand or snow has reflective nature- it’s
scattering light.
Look at max temperature of painted cars:
Hood of black car: 160.0 F [71 C]
Hood of Pearl White car: 87.7 F [31 C]
http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/cartemp/index.htm
So if darkish lunar surface was 120 C what would the difference
be if color were white? It could be as low as say 60 C.
Or 60 K reduction in maximum day time temperature.
Nature terrain on Earth, does not have such dramatic cooling- salt flats
or White Sand, New Mexico aren’t noted as being very cool
in a summer sun:
“Daytime temperatures can range from below freezing in winter to triple digits in the summer. Average highs in July, August, and September are usually in the mid to upper 90s.”
http://www.ohranger.com/bonneville-salt-flats
If there is as much of 60 K daylight reduction- that by itself knocks average 24 hr temperature by 30 C. And would reduce the swing
in high and low temperature [reducing variation by 60 K].
But the question is how much would reduce the energy store in terms of
heat capacity. Salt flat or white sands in vacuum are not going store
much heat. But as black sand or regolith isn’t going store much either.
I haven’t gone into detail about how much heat is store, other say it should be significantly more than lunar regolith.
If lunar regolith at 120 C cools 100 K in 2 hours, the same lunar regolith which 60 C is not going to cool 100 K in 2 hours.
Heat is conducted depending temperature difference- the hotter the surface, results in more heat being conducted.
So difference should put in K temperature.
So 333 K [60 C] as compared to 393 K [120 C].
And if assume coolest is 240 K. The temperature difference 97 K compared to 153 K.
And Thermal Conductivity – k – W/(m.K) of rock is
Rock, solid: 2 – 7
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
So what kind of rock could have bigger effect than color of rock in terms amount energy absorbed.
Btw, sand, dry [in our atmosphere] 0.15 – 0.25.
So if you take extremes, low conductivity of rock, white reflective rocks,
the average global temperature could be below 0 C, perhaps as cool -20 C.
But we removed water- one should imagine snowy frozen wasteland. During the day it’s as hot [though in “normal natural conditions” much hotter] as on Earth. Open water evaporate and freezes, and once frozen continues to evaporate fairly rapidly [due it being a vacuum- more than anything to do with temperature.
Whereas a sealed pool of water could have average temperature well above 30 C near equator. Due to water capability to absorb solar energy and it’s high heat capacity which can store energy through the night.
“Most of the Earth surface would be very cold.”
More than half earth is below 40 degrees latitude
And more than 80% below 60 degree latitude.
About 20% of earth could be somewhat colder, as one
removing mechanisms that transport heat.
Ocean is the main transporter, and atmosphere also conveys
a considerable amount of heat poleward.
If you have a large cave in tropics and polar region
and seal both them. Would there would not be much difference in the
sealed caves if you removed the atmosphere and oceans?
In present conditions the polar cave will be colder than tropical cave, and this temperature difference [tropic vs polar] and I would say this difference will be more of variation as compared the effect of removing atmosphere and oceans.
And in the airless and waterless world, the tropical cave might be a
bit warmer, and polar cave a bit cooler.
But most of earth would about the same in terms of average temperature.
Say if you measure it by putting a sealed white box 10 feet beneath the ground.
Does anyone imagine difference would as much as 10 C +/- ?
How about 5 C +/- ?
Buried under sand or say, slab of concrete10′ thick – anywhere on land and any one spot on earth have greater than 10 C difference?
If so, where on earth and when [season] would one think there would be the greatest difference in temperature?
Jim, I want you to read the paper I am going to link and think about the following points.
If the oscillations are real then there is no way of knowing how much warming of the model projections are from the oscillations and how much from the forced response.
If the oscillations aren’t real there are errors in the physics of the models and, without knowing what these errors are, there is no way of knowing if the errors are amplified or dampened by the addition of forcing calculations. This makes simply eliminating the oscillation an unexceptable answer.
The models as they currently stand are useless for projections. They may have other uses although I am hard pressed to think of what they may be without knowing if the physics are in error or, if they are, where. So the comparison you are making is a model that is relied upon to make projections where the projections are useless or no model at all. I don’t see one being far superior to the other
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal.pdf
gbaikie | February 5, 2013 at 6:03 pm said: ”If mostly sold rock were snow white, what difference would make in surface temperature during the day”
”IF” grandpa had that thing… well if he did, he wouldn’t be grandpa, he would have being grandma; fortunately, he is and always will be grandpa.
2] Desert sands are not much different from white – is that kind of climate you prefer? What’s wrong with dark green colour surface, as a healthy forest; with regular rain AND, no dry hot winds coming from the desert…?
What we may be seeing is a real time view of the re-write of climate science history.
“We never actually believed in high climate sensitivity values, whatever are you speaking of? We’ve been nothing but consistent on this subject.”
The rowback is frothing the waves. What, me worry? It is a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
=====================
“We never actually believed in high values for S” etc etc.
Well, let’s have a look at the Believers’ Bible, AR4 WG1.
What do we find? We find this:
Since the TAR, the levels of scientific understanding and confidence in quantitative estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity have increased substantially. Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.</i?
And what is Annan's estimate again? Oh…
Revolution, not. Storm, meet teacup, etc, etc…
BBD | January 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
“The current best estimate for ECS to 2 x CO2 is ~3C.”
I do seem to recall someone endlessly quoting a different section of the IPCC report to argue that 3C was the ‘best estimate’.
harry
As far as many people are concerned, ~3C *is* the best estimate. There are problems with the paleo estimates that come in low. There are problems with the observational estimates that come in low. Unfortunately, ‘sceptics’ don’t follow the scientific argument closely enough to understand these problems. They just grab the lowest numbers going and start braying victory. Which is mistaken on two levels.
First, the problems mentioned above. Second, the policy implications, or rather the lack of them. It makes no policy difference if S is ~2.5C or ~3C.
Finally, it’s also a strawman to argue (as far too many ‘sceptics’ are now doing) that ‘the consensus’ endorsed a *higher* value for S than ~3C. It did not. And the evidence is right there, in black and white, in AR4 WG1.
3C is a lousy estimate for that skewed distribution.
mosher
The real issue remains unchanged: with S anywhere in the range ~2.5C – ~3C the policy implications are unchanged. It’s a bloody great ‘so what?’ Which *begs* the question: what are you doing here?
I calculate the sensitivity at 3C for doubling of CO2
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/00f.htm
That’s absurd. A record busting huge amount of CO2 was poured into the atmosphere between 1998 and 2013 and temperature fell a little in response. Are you nuts?
Each and every little plant is wondering why its share of the ‘record busting huge amount of CO2’ is so little, but each and every one of them is bursting with gratitude it’s not less.
================
You can’t be serious. Clear & concise confirmation of the Hansen’s number. Evidently you have not read the short expose to its final (and I do mean final) statement.
Ah, yes, Kim
plants do need other chemical elements such as S, P, O2 & F, as indeed I did state at the end of my short CO2 sensitivity analysis:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/00f.htm
not really. the forcing is log.. your talking about maybe .3 Watts. easily swamped by other factors.
vukcevic
You calculate sensitivity at 3C for doubling of CO2.
This is essentially the same as the mean value predicted by the models cited by IPCC of 3.2C
That’s nice.
Here are some other recent estimates.
Schlesinger et al (2012) estimate it at 1.45C to 2.01C, based on several past temperature records
Nic Lewis (2012 article, study not yet published) estimates it at 1.6C to 1.7C also using the past temperature record
van Hateren (2012) estimates 1.5C to 2.5C using reconstructed record of past millennium plus actual past record
Schmittner (2011) calculates 1.4C to 2.8C, using reconstructions of Last Glacial Maximum
Lindzen & Choi (2011) calculate it at around 0.6C to 1.0C, using CERES satellite data..
The average range of these recent studies is 1.3C to 2.0C, or about half of your calculation.
Max
Max
Yes there are all sort of numbers quoted, but as my Sp graph in the oof link shows my exquisite calculation is absolutely un-falsifiable.
vukcevic
Your graph is a beaut, but have you run it past girma?
(He makes some cool ones, too.)
Max
Max, do his say spoof at the end?
Max
CO2 INCREASE saved the globe from another LITTLE ICE AGE
Anyone can confirm the findings to be true, even old scaremongering Hansen could learn how to properly calculate his 3C sensitivity for CO2 doubling .
All of my graphs tell stories and as Steven rightly notices Sp graph even predicts correctly current global temperatures plateau to last at least another 6 years.
Data:
NOAA geomagnetic http://ngdc.noaa.gov/geomagmodels/IGRFWMM.jsp
use Vertical component (Bz), column 7 (note: use inverted y scale).
GISS temp: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt
Vukcevic, you think there’s a CO2 warming effect? I’m surprised.
Edim, dobro jutro
What I think is irrelevant, what matters is what is in the NOAA and the NASA data. I suggest everyone interested should carefully read above posts, and if unconvinced then reproduce the analysis as shown in the link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/00f.htm
Dobro jutro Vuk, I understand, I was just surprised. My take from all the data and theory of thermodynamics and heat transfer is that CO2 cannot warm, radiatively active gases cool the atmosphere, the bulk of the atmosphere insulates the surface.
Sensitivity suddenly pops up in three blogs – this one, WUWT and Dot Earth. It seems to be a big thing that it has turned out to be quite a bit lower than IPCC says. This seems to please lukewarmers but I am not one of them – I am a complete denier, and the importance of sensitivity to me is something of the order of discussing how many angels can fit through the eye of the needle. Nevertheless, most climate people follow it so let’s have a go at it. There is no warming now and there has not been any for the last 16 years while carbon dioxide kept increasing. No amount of talk about sensitivity can explain this. Your theory of greenhouse warming demands that increasing carbon dioxide must cause warming. For a scientist, sixteen years with no warming ought to be enough to tell him that the experiment has failed, that the attempt to cause warming by putting carbon dioxide in the air just does not work. When greenhouse warming comes up the climate scientists always cite the work or Arrhenius. You may not be aware of this but if you follow Arrhenius and calculate sensitivity you will get 1.1 degrees for doubling of CO2, not 3 degrees as IPCC tells us. The IPCC realized from the start that 1.1 degrees will not scare anyone so they decided to use the help of water vapor to jack up the Arrhenius heat. It goes like this. First, carbon dioxide warms the air. That warm air can now hold more water vapor. The greenhouse effect from that extra water vapor will then cause additional warming that gets added to the original warming from carbon dioxide. Their computers tell us that this can triple or raise even more the original warming from carbon dioxide. This is called positive water vapor feedback. And that is where all those dangerous predictions of warming come from. But this is all wrong as Miskolczi’s analysis of radiosonde measurements proves. He showed that atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation was constant for 61 years while at the same time carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. This substantial amount of carbon dioxide did not increase IR absorption by the atmosphere by one whit. And it is this absorption of radiant energy that is needed by the greenhouse gases to create their eponymous warming. No absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. And this settles the sensitivity issue: true sensitivity for doubling of carbon dioxide is exactly zero. It also tells us that water vapor feedback is negative, not positive, as IPCC claims. That being the case, all model predictions of dangerous warming ahead are false. And since many of them have been used to justify global warming laws and and regulations these laws and regulations have been passed under false premises. They have to be voided.
“There is no warming now and there has not been any for the last 16 years”
wrong.
Guess I should back that up. The idea that there’s been no warming for 16 years is a myth.
lolwot, get used to it, your jig is up.
If you want to be a liar Bob, go ahead..
Because only a liar can look at a graph like this and still claim the warming stopped 16 years ago.
Maybe you could avoid words like “liar.” Whatever else you have say may or may not have merit. Your assault on character offers no matter of fact to the discussion, is insulting and is simply not justifiable from the post it rejoins.
The new denier is lolwot.
Hard to believe isn’t it?
Write that down.
I love it so!
If disgustingly brazen false claims like “no warming for 16 years” are going to be made then the people making the claims should be rudely shouted down.
Sorry, but this kind of stuff loses your side credibility. Tamino may or may not be right, but there are others with other graphs and other conclusions. Calling someone liar because you found a source you like just tells the rest of us that you’re a partisan.
you are just a concern troll trying to shut down a threat.
I am calling people out and you don’t like it.
lolwot
Forget the sleight of hand work.
If you are going to talk about the past 16 years, show a plot that starts in 1998 (or 2001), not one that starts in 1976.
You’ll see that Hansen was correct to talk of a “10-year standstill” (which has actually lasted a bit longer than “10 years”.
Max
Sigh. Believers in AGW have been losing credibility for as long as I’ve been following things, and this is why. Most of us aren’t climate scientists or statisticians; we aren’t going to work through the math of the technical papers. Instead, we have to decide which set of sources to believe. Roy Spencer and Steve McIntyre? Hans von Storch and Judith Curry? Gavin Schmidt and Tamino? How are we supposed to know? Pick the blog that my friends like, or those who share my politics? Well, one way to know is to see which ones look like they are honest scientists, and which ones look like they’re in some kind of battle. And I don’t know of any other way to know.
There are loads of partisans on both sides. But people like me – and that is the vast majority of us out there who aren’t going to go through the papers ourselves – screen them all out. Sorry, but by fighting, you lose.
Most people on the AGW side still don’t understand why Climategate is such a big deal. All those investigations! Exonerated every time! Yeah – but they were shown to be partisans, shown beyond a doubt. And that’s enough.
“If you are going to talk about the past 16 years, show a plot that starts in 1998 (or 2001), not one that starts in 1976.”
The claim is that warming *stopped* 16 years ago, which is a statement both about the period prior to 1997 and after.
To test the claim it is necessary to graph the claimed pre-1997 period of warming so we can see if it really did stop 16 years ago. The answer is no it didn’t.
Such simple tests seem beyond climate skeptics.
And no drawing an OLS line from 1997 only gives you a trend since 1997. It doesn’t tell you if warming *stopped* in 1997, which requires a comparison with the prior claimed rate of warming.
lolwot,
the most recent segment of this graph looks pretty flat to me.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/window:60/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:360/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend/plot/none
Ah it’s the old politeness fallacy that Creationists use. Those creation scientists are so polite and Richard Dawkins is so mean, so creationism must be right.
Miker613 @ 5:52, this is something that amazes me. Some highly trained and competent rhetoricians here look at the field and fail to see the flow. Or something obstructs their vision, what that could be, I do not say.
==================
Do you seriously NOT understand the difference between a 30 year trend and a 15 year trend?
You keep putting up a 30-year trend line to prove the 15-year trend really is rising.
Everyone but you seems to know the difference.
It’s not a 30 year trend line. It’s the pre-1997 warming trend-line extrapolated to present.
If warming really had stopped in 1997, the data should fall below an extrapolation of the pre-1997 warming. But it doesn’t.
“Ah it’s the old politeness fallacy that Creationists use. Those creation scientists are so polite and Richard Dawkins is so mean, so creationism must be right.”
lolwot,
I read where K Hayhoe is a “Creationist”. Does that make her a denier too?
lolwot: You are confusing things. The claim is that it has not warmed in the last 16 years. You turn this into “it stopped warming 16 years ago” so that you can justify graphing back farther than 16 years in order to make an impression. Your confidence interval is similarly created to make a particular impression.
You’re not disproving what you think you are. But in any case, even Mann has admitted that there’s been a 10-year lapse in which there’s been no warming, and other anti-skeptics have begun to get nervous and hedge their bets, so you’re simply arguing that perhaps it’s only 11 years or 14 years, rather than 16, and your graph is irrelevant.
“Ah it’s the old politeness fallacy that Creationists use. Those creation scientists are so polite and Richard Dawkins is so mean, so creationism must be right.” You’re not listening. Many of us are not in a position to know who’s right. All we can see is, who sounds like they’re trying to do science, and who sounds like a politician?
Liar is a naughty word lolwot. Please don’t use it.
lolwot, repeat after me, “There is no warming now and there has not been any for the last 16 years”, and do it 1000 times.
It’s so bleeding obvious, its amazing how anyone even half numerate cannot understand it.
It really is the CAGW Alarmists who are the true “deniers”. And more an more people are beginning to realise it. The latest Australian Opinion Poll shows that Australian’s have lost interest in Climate Change. They list it as tenth most important on a list of ten issues they were asked about (and, therefore, prompted to rank). I guess the general public is smarter than the CAGW Alarmists (i.e. the real deniers)
“lolwot, repeat after me, “There is no warming now and there has not been any for the last 16 years”, and do it 1000 times.”
Why would I repeat a lie. Even the OLS trend over the last 16 years is positive and the uncertainty range covers substantial warming.
To claim there is no warming is idiot talk.
Lolwot proves miker613’s point beautifully!
Guess who I (and probably all other interested non-climate-experts lurking here) are going to believe?
Well the guy who constantly uses words like “liar”, “lies”, “idiot”, “disgustingly brazen false claims” and “shout them down” of course!!
/sarc
There is a field well fertilized for research. Articles, nay, books.
=============
No regrets Arno if it means quickening the roll-out of energy sources that are below OPEC’s cost of production. Synthetic biology will make them cheaper. $50/bbl on the hoof in New Mexico before Obama leaves office. Made with non-potable water on non-arable land. You can’t beat that with a stick. Don’t matter the motivation so long as it lowers the cost of fuel. No regrets.
David,
Please elaborate.
David Springer,
Jees. You got to be joking. You argue nuclear is not cost competitive and then go spruking synthetic biology. What a joke!
@Lang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates
Levelized cost of advanced nuclear put into service in 2017 is $113/mWh.
Same number for advanced combined cycle natural gas is $66.
Do the math.
Biomass, which in this case is almost literally burning sawdust and corn cobs to fire a boiler attached to a steam turbine, is $120/mWh, barely higher than nuclear.
To most people this is illuminating. To nuclear zealots it must be untrue.
Now watch the rationalizing by Lang begin. It’ll start out by non-existent portable reactors made by super advanced Chinese science which, judging by their position in the space race, are about 50 years behind the U.S. But they’re WAY ahead of us in nuclear science. Oh yes. Real soon now we’ll have those portable thorium reactors that make energy so cheap your monthly electricity bill will be about same as a latte at Starbucks.
Spare me, Lang.
John another,
Go here
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/
and here
http://joulefuels.com/
Check out the funding and the names on the board of directors. Check out the patents on the GM organisms and the world class geneticists in Massuchusetts. And most of all watch the recently commissioned first commercial fuel plant being built in New Mexico in partnership with Audi and the unsubsidized price of the fuel it produces.
Synthetic fuel from synthetic organisms is OPEC’s worst nightmare. OPEC’s second worst nightmare is coal liquifaction which comes in around $90/bbl. The cost of liquifaction sets the long-term price they can charge for a barrel of oil. If they go too much above that cost for too long then they’ll have to compete with it so they walk a tightrope of price manipulation, through blatant illegal collusion i.e. price fixing, to make sure that there’s not sufficient price motivation for anyone to invest the startup capital for large scale coal liquifaction. In reality that means they can raise the price well above $90 for short periods of time, bank the high profit margin, and lower the price when either demand falls off and/or the pain spurs active construction of a known cheaper alternative. Synfuel from nuclear energy doesn’t disturb their sleep.
David Springer,
Your misuse of units shows you haven’t a clue. There is a factor of a billion difference between a mill-watt and a mega-watt.
I also am fully aware of the LCOE projections of the various electricity generation technologies. The cost of electricity generated by gas is highly dependent of the cost of gas. The cost of nuclear power is hardly affected at all by a doubling in the cost of uranium.
However, I notice instead of addressing the issue of the cost of biofuel, you avoided it and talked about the cost of gas generation. That is disengenuous.
Biofuels are nowhere near to being cost competitive (for the quantities required) and never will be. Its impossible. This 8 minute video by Professor David Mackay, Chief Scientist to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, shows the problem very clearly. It just isn’t possible.
Some other reasons will be obvious to you if you consider these questions I posed to Dr Mark Diesendorf (a lon-time renewable energy proponent):
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-response-to-lang/#comment-152532
David Springer,
Sorry, I forgot to provide the link to the TED David MacKay video:
David Mackay: “A reality check on renewables”
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables.html
“Your misuse of units shows you haven’t a clue. There is a factor of a billion difference between a mill-watt and a mega-watt.”
Wow thanks Lang. I really thought nuclear power plants were rated in milliwatts until you corrected me. It wasn’t just a matter of careless capitalization and the assumption that context of a hundred dollars cost per unit of electricity excluded any potential confusion of milliwatt hours with megawatt hours.
Let me return the favor. There’s no hyphen in either millwatt or megawatt. The fact that you can’t spell them correctly proves you’re as clueless as I am. According to your logic, anyhow.
By the way, TED is not a reference for established science. It’s a venue for semi-famous people to express their opinions on what the future holds. I can match you zealot for zealot. Where the rubber meets the road is called commercial reality. The commercial reality is that burning corn cobs to produce steam for a turbine is almost equal in cost to using controlled fission to heat the boiler.
Drastically less expensive nuclear power is pie-in-the-sky. I’ll believe it when I see it. In the meantime Joule is building a commercial synthetic biology fuel plant. Let’s see what comes first – portable thorium reactors from China or biodiesel from New Mexico. I’d like to say we should then compare costs but there’d actually have to be a portable reactor producing electricity before we can figure out how much it costs to produce. I suspect we’ll never know because it will never actually materialize.
Regardless of the speculative nature of TED I began watching McKay’s diatribe but killed it almost immediately when he said that biofuel replacement of fossil fuel would require a land surface the size of the US devoted to it.
That’s for biofuel production using corn as a feedstock. That’s not what Joule is doing. Joule is producing tens of thousands of gallons per acre using non-arable land and non-potable water. At that rate US energy requirements can be met using a land area half the size of the state of Maine, or about 10% of the Texas panhandle.
Until you understand that fuels produced with synthetic biology is very different from using corn, beets, or sugar cane you’re not informed enough to even begin a discussion about it. And neither is McKay.
David Springer,
Your misuse of units was not a spelling mistake. It was a clear sign of lack of familiarity (i.e. ignorance) of the subject matter you are pontificating about. If you were familiar with the units, you would not have made such a mistake. It is a dead give away.
However, your spelling mistake “millwatt” is a spelling mistake.
And yes, I should not have included the “-“. I did it to make the point. Clearly a mistake when dealing with a algae biofuel zealot.
David Springer,
You really don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The biofuel productivity is best on the most fertile lands, they get less as the land, rainfall, etc get less fertile. You need more land area if you want to use land and crops that are less productive.
You are clearly a zealot without a clue and you shut off anything that doesn’t support your beliefs.
Try this:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/micro.pdf
ENGINEERING MICROORGANISMS FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION
Note the theoretical limit is 10% conversion efficiency of light to chemical bond energy or about the same as photovoltaic cells. The reaction speed is limited by CO2 availability not chemistry. Joule uses tanked CO2 obtained from industrial waste gases.
Each square meter of ground in an ideal location receives about 5kwh per day. That’s about 15% of the energy in a gallon of ethanol. An acre is roughly 15,000 square meters. So at 100% conversion efficiency that’s 2250 gallons of ethanol per acre per day or 820,000 gallons per year per acre.
Joule claims 20,000 per acre per year which is a conversion efficiency of 2.4%. This is reasonable especially with tanked CO2 but even with atmospheric CO2 it’s not unreasonable as it’s still well within theoretical bounds for green plants in standard atmosphere.
US gasoline consumption is 134B gallons annually. Let’s call it 200B for pure ethanol since ethanol only has 2/3 the energy density of gasoline.
That means we need about 10 million acres at Joules’ claimed yield per acre to replace all the gasoline. New Mexico is 77 million acres.
This is why I killed McKay’s TED conference speech inside the first 30 seconds. If he didn’t do the math on how much land is required for advanced biofuel production from synthetic organisms there’s nothing of value to follow. Garbage in, garbage out. I mocked ethanol production from corn since the word go. That’s a non-starter. Its only practical value was in spurring the production of flexible fuel engines in automobiles which are prerequisite to switching from mostly gasoline to mostly ethanol.
Electrical production isn’t really a problem in the US so I seldom spend much time on it. The problem is liquid fuels for the transportation sector not electricity to recharge your iPhone. The problem is both the high cost per BTU and importing it from countries that hate us, neither of which is a great concern for electricity unless you’re worried about CO2 production and I’m not concerned about CO2 production which I consider a huge net benefit to agriculture and, in the future, a handy source of carbon for the fabrication of durable goods.
David, I support your thoughts on non-food ethanol. There is an intermediary stage now in progress, which is cellulose ethanol. A commercial plant is being built by Poet/DSM, which should come into production, 20 million gallons per year, next year. Poet/DSM claim it is commercially viable without subsidies.
Jim,
Yeah, I’ve been following that and even did some experimentation a decade ago. Breaking down cellulose into carbohydrates that can be further reduced to sugars and then finally fermented and distilled into ethanol is a tough row to hoe.
Mechanical processing at the outset is required to pulverize the cellulosic material into fine particulates with a large surface area available to the biologic producers of the enzymes which break it down into carbs. In nature that’s going to be some wood-loving fungi such as mushrooms and brackets. These are very complex eukaryotes and difficult to modify. The natural ones are very slow growing and difficult to farm. The feedstock must be sterilized as well as pulverized. After that it’s pretty much the same as making moonshine from corn. Using beets or sugar cane skips the mashing step where enzymes from malted grain turn the carbs into sugars which can then be fermented into alcohol by yet another fungi yeast.
This then requires three distinct eukaryotes in a multi-stage process. Eukaryotes are far more complex than prokaryotes and thus far more difficult to genetically engineer. Combining all of them into a single step organism seems well beyond state of the art in genetic engineering. I think you’d be much better off just drying and pelletizing the cellulosic material and using a syngas generator to produce carbon monoxide and then fuel your internal combustion engine directly from the CO which requires very little modification to the engine – about the same as the modifications required to run it from natural gas or propane. CO is far more toxic to handle than natural gas and syngas generators, while they can be made portable, are big and messy as they produce copious amounts of wood ash.
Joule is doing it the only really practical way and that’s genetically engineering a comparatively simple prokaryote to excrete fuel in usable form directly from conversion of sunlight, CO2, and water. It may be a very long time before we develop any competence in genetic engineering of life more complex than bacteria. Fortunately we don’t need anything more complex than bacteria by the same principle that we don’t need anything more complex than a NAND gate to build a supercomputer.
Jim,
I wouldn’t really call cellulosic “intermediate” biofuel either. It’s basically the same old thing using a marginally more available feedstock that still requires arable land to produce. It’s not really a waste product as the feedstock is usually plowed under where it decomposes and fortifies the soil. This would somehow have to be replaced otherwise the soil would no longer support productive farming.
Joule’s feedstock is waste CO2 from industrial processes and with further improvements can be CO2 obtained directly from the air.
It’s my position that synthetic biology has such huge potential for transforming atmospheric CO2 into durable goods that we’re going to run into a problem where we’re removing too much of it. Fuels are carbon neutral in that whatever is removed from the atmosphere is replaced when the fuel is consumed a short time later. Durable goods remove the carbon for an indefinitely long time so when the day comes that you can grow a home by innoculating the ground where you want it with a microgram of bacteria pre-programmed with the specifications for the home that removes the carbon more or less permanently and the bacteria are essentially free and so too is the home. When homes are free everyone can afford a mansion. Unfortunately the supply of carbon in the atmosphere is vast but not unbounded and a limit can quickly be reached where there’s too little left for the rest of the biosphere.
David, you write “It’s not really a waste product as the feedstock is usually plowed under where it decomposes and fortifies the soil. This would somehow have to be replaced otherwise the soil would no longer support productive farming.”
I am no expert, so I can only go by the claims of people who are. Poet/DSM claim that the feedstock they use is not required to be recycled. It does not add anything to the soil. It is merely a breeding stock for the various organisms which turn it into CO2 and water.
lolwot
You are quibbling here.
There was the now famous article that proclaimed “no warming in past 16 years” based on MetOffice data.
They should have written “no warming in past 15 years“, (i.e. since the end of 1997) to be correct.
I’d say that there has definitely been “no warming since the end of 2000” (i.e. over the past 12 years)
Hansen has conceded that there has been a “10-year standstill” in the 5-year average temperatures.
However you slice it, lolwot, there is a current “pause” (or “standstill”) in the warming of the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (used by IPCC to measure “global warming”), despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 levels (Mauna Loa) reaching record levels. A dilemma for the supporters of the IPCC CAGW premise.
To deny this is simply sticking the head in the sand.
Max
“They should have written “no warming in past 15 years“, (i.e. since the end of 1997) to be correct.”
Even that’s wrong.
“I’d say that there has definitely been “no warming since the end of 2000″ (i.e. over the past 12 years)”
And that’s wrong too.
Lolwhut, with his hands firmly over his ears, shouting “LIAR!! WRONG!! LIARS!!”….so funny
maksiomovich | February 4, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
“3) The geometric mean of the range of experiments is bounded by the Khinchin constant,which suggests that sensitivity is indeed low,and long tails will be improbable.”
The long tails are artifacts of noise in the model. All the model have more or less sharp probability peaks under 3C. The sharp peaks are what to look at. This is deception by people who know that the peaks count and the rest is garbage.
lolwot | February 4, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
“Don’t think you get my point Bob. If you don’t trust the above people you mention you can’t trust Roy Spencer either. That’s my point.”
I’ve heard of guilt by association but never guilt by disassociation. Your point is ground breaking!
Roy Spencer: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”
given that statement, explain how you can trust Roy Spencer’s science.
Remember you are a climate skeptic so you must treat all such statements as Very Serious Matters.
lolwot | February 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Reply
“given that statement, explain how you can trust Roy Spencer’s science.”
Because Roy Spencer would rather poke himself in the eye with a sharp stick than break one of the ten commandments. In this case it would be the commandment to not bear false witness. I seen the dude swear to tell the truth to congress. To somebody like Spencer that oath means more than it does to the average bear.
That’s how.
Plus I checked on his climate claims myself and while not agreeing with everything most of it withstands close scrutiny. I more concerned about honest mistakes than I am deliberate deceit.
Funny haha and peculiar, how one looks at religious faith can generate vastly different attitudes about credibility. There is a yawning cultural crevass on this, and some have ropes and picks.
===========
David Springer
Plus I checked on his climate claims myself and while not agreeing with everything most of it withstands close scrutiny.
Rubbish. This is a three-part article and you need to read it all. See what happens when Spencer’s stuff is subjected to close scrutiny.
Oh lovely. More blog science from BBD.
I’m not even going to look at it. Give me a reference to a university level text on atmospheric physics or STFU.
Most of Spencer’s output is blog science David, but you lap it up. You appear to be more biased even than your heroes.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS461US461&q=roy+spencer
Spencer has a long list of publications in relevant journals. I never use articles on his blog as a reference. I wish you’d stop making things up out of thin air.
Springer
Strawman. None of which are relevant to the controversial claims he has made in recent years – on his blog and in his books, *not* in the reviewed literature. When he does try, he gets into all sorts of trouble. Let’s talk about Remote Sensing…
Here’s a couple of rebuttals to S&B11 and Lindzen & Choi (2011) to be going on with:
Dessler (2011)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml
Trenberth, Fasullo & Abraham (2011)
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf
Stop the time-wasting.
lolwot
It is not a matter of whether or not you “trust” Roy Spencer (and his simple model).
It’s just that you made the incorrect statement that no skeptic had come up with a model, even a simple one.
Roy Spencer is a skeptic.
He has come up with a simple model.
So your statement was false.
Sorry. No cigar.
Max
Correction
Sorry, lolwot it was Jim D who made that incorrect statement about models and skeptics, not you.
mea culpa.
Max
Spencer is suffering from confirmation bias induced by his belief system. He is probably sincere. Just wrong.
Spencer is undoubtedly sincere because his religion requires it and he’s a devout about his religion. He’s also probably right for the most part about the science. I’m not so sure about his religious beliefs but it’s within the realm of possibility he’s right about that too.
How can you possibly know if Spencer is correct if you *refuse* to read critiques of his methodology and tell anyone cautioning you that Spencer’s toy model is broken to ‘STFU’?
And can you struggle to be a bit less offensive please. You are dragging the tone down.
Two words:
Milikan effect.
Jim D wrote
“The Norwegian study had 3.7 C sensitivity before including the last decade.”
The study concerned (Skeie et al) actually estimates that climate sensitivity is most likely to be 1.7 C using data ending in 2010, or 2.0-2.1 C using data ending in 2000. See http://www.uib.no/People/ngfhd/EarthClim/Calendar/Oslo-2012/ECS_Olavsgard.pdf – slide 6, the peak of the PDF curves on panels a) and b) The estimates that the paper quotes, of 1.9 C and 3.7 K for the two cases, are means.
The mean is not a good central estimate for a highly skewed probability distribution, which that using data only up to 2000, in particular, is. The very long tail of that distribution reflects partly poor data constraints and partly the use of a uniform prior for climate sensitivity, which biases upwards the reported probability of high climate sensitivities.
zewig | February 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm | Reply
“The mean is not a good central estimate for a highly skewed probability distribution, which that using data only up to 2000, in particular, is. The very long tail of that distribution reflects partly poor data constraints and partly the use of a uniform prior for climate sensitivity, which biases upwards the reported probability of high climate sensitivities.”
Joshua
You mean: “
Using data only up toHiding the bothersome decline after 2000 gives results in agreement with IPCC AR4″Right. Sound familiar?
Max
Max –
It seems oddly inconsistent (dare I say “skeptical” not skeptical) to me to selectively decide which part of their work to cross out and substitute your own words, and which part to trumpet as a “last nail” “final stake” etc., etc….
It isn’t a matter of what “[I] believe” I quoted directly from the pdf.
Their findings are what they are – and that includes their statement of findings excluding the last 10 years. If you don’t trust the fact that they made that qualification, then it means that you should disregard their work more generally as well.
As someone who isn’t bright or knowledgeable enough to understand the science, I’d say that any conclusions made on analysis of long-term climate trends that looks dramatically different based on the inclusion or exclusion of only 10 years of data should be viewed as “information” – useful but certainly not dispositive..
Joshua. Short term extrapolation by both sides of the debate on AGW simply fails to cut the mustard as far as I am concerned. Informative yes disposive no and here, once more, I completely agree.
You mean to say using observaions from 1979 to 2000, Joshua. The CAGW theory was looking pretty good based on that data. Prior to 1979 when satellites began to measure lower troposphere temperature all over the globe we had no measure of global average temperature (GAT) only guesstimates based on fewer and fewer measurements using instruments not designed to measure decadal trends so small as a few milliKelvins per decade.
Unfortunately for the CAGW hypothesis the data from 1979 to 2012 is not nearly so supportive. GAT failed to rise from 2000 onward despite a huge accelerating increase in anthropogenic CO2 emission during that time. Indeed, since 2010 GAT has been falling off a cliff and if the current rate of cooling continues for another decade we’ll be in a world of hurt from global cooling as growing seasons grow shorter, late spring and early fall frosts take their tolls, and colder winters requiring more fuel with a rising price per BTU attached to it.
These are the facts, Joshua. Failing to acknowledge these facts makes you a denier. The new deniers are the warmists. Ain’t that a hoot? Probably not funny if you’re a warmists but those of who predicted what’s happening today are rolling in aisles laughing at CAGW ignoramuses and their gullible sycophants who never understood the science in the first place.
Dave Springer
These are the facts, Joshua. Failing to acknowledge these facts makes you a denier. The new deniers are the warmists. Ain’t that a hoot? Probably not funny if you’re a warmists but those of who predicted what’s happening today are rolling in aisles laughing at CAGW ignoramuses and their gullible sycophants who never understood the science in the first place.
This is evidently the new ‘sceptic’ meme. It is as wrong and as determinedly self-serving as the rest.
All that happened (back in 2006) was that Annan demonstrated that a fat tail (S > 4.5K) was *very unlikely*.
Many investigators – Annan among them – favour a value for S to 2 x CO2 in the range ~2.5 – 3K, which sits comfortably within the range given in AR4.
This has no policy impact. Nothing changes. Emit enough to push CO2 well beyond 550ppmv and you will get your catastrophe in due course. Hold CO2 at ~550ppmv and watch average NH land surface temperatures increase by >3K. Call that anything you like except a ‘victory’ for ‘sceptics’.
I must have chalked ‘last quarter of the last century’ a hundred times @ the blackboard, and bright as she was, Teach couldna see it.
=================
Dr. Curry, this kerfuffle is fascinating. Annan’s ‘defection’ would be more significant if he focused his objections less on hot tails, and more on the sharp 1.9 mode in his 2011 paper pointed out by my previous guest post.
You raise another important issue, ‘abrupt change’. This is surely possible theoretically, since weather and climate are nonlinear dynamic systems capable of abrupt onset of chaos (around some strange attractor). Chaos theory was discovered by Lorentz’ modeling of weather at MIT.
Abrupt is in the eye of the beholder. The slower it is, the more adaptation rather than mitigation is a better response (of course, since my research leads me to a lukewarmist conclusion).
But this still begs the meaning of abrupt on human time scales. I offer a practical definition. Anything less than one lifetime is ‘abrupt’ since habits and populations can be severely affected within living memories. By that definition, neither the MWP nor the LIA were abrupt, even though historically significant. There are at least two ‘certain’ abrupt events coming. Climate change is increasingly unlikely to be a third.
One is limitations on food calory production relative to population growth, by sometime around 2050 (plus or minus a couple of uncertain decades). There are many individual contributors including arable land, irrigation, fertilizer, genetic productivity, and pest evolution. The law of diminishing marginal returns is net playing against continued compound population growth. Perhaps of less concern since food is only a soft limit.
Second is peaking fossil energy, on which we have just learned many of your readers have strong opinions but a shaky understanding of underlying observational geophysics. Fossil energy is worrisome, since could be a hard limit. Hard means a big ouch, like Rapa Nui. Read Diamond’s Collapse.
Both themes are worthy extensions of AGW (since focused on anthropogenic consequences) and also your interest in uncertain science, its limitations, and its communication.
A previous guest post deconstructed alarmist AGW crop yields from a faulty paper. Most readers applauded, since consistent with their world view of no problems. We just deconstructed a single faulty paper on peak oil to get emotional reactions evocative of CAGW alarmists, except largely inverted by proponent/opponent since inconsistent with that same world view. Yet both just invoked fact observations in pursuit of uncertain truth.
I personally advocate expanding dialog here to the etc part of climate, etc.
Please keep this site scientifically rocking.
Highest Regards
The Gods walked.
=============
or did the foxtrot (slow, slow, quick-quick)
Quick, quick was the islanders running when one of the Gods stumbled.
=================
Quick, quick, like Bayestats bolting when fat tails flop.
====================
Rud, have a look at what happens when interglacial periods begin. Temperature shoots up like a rocket then hits a ceiling and bounces off of it. The ceiling temperature is the same every time.
Explain the ceiling and why you think the ceiling is not real. Climate is only chaotic in the noise. The magnitude of the noise is bounded and you can see the bounds reached again and again and again in ice cores.
If you think CO2 level is cause, not effect, you’ll need to explain what bounds CO2. Good luck with that because the supply of carbon in the earth and ocean is humongous.
I say CO2 simply follows ocean outgassing/absorption as it warms and cools and temperatures are bounded by planetary albedo i.e. how much land can potentially be locked under high albedo glaciers or alternatively how much can be exposed to present a lower albedo. Reach an albedo limit either way and warming/cooling reaches a limit with it.
Rudd and Judy
Re: “What is meaningful is the possibility of a scenario of abrupt climate change. While abrupt climate change is regarded as a possibility based upon paleoclimatic evidence of previous events, climate models are incapable of producing such emergent phenomena. ”
As Springer pointed out, far higher warming rates occur at the end of a glaciation. Similarly far faster and far more dangerous cooling occurs as we descend into a glaciation. Warming is constrained by T^4 outward black body radiation and exponential increase in latent heat by Claus Clapeyron.
The complete Greenland ice cores show very slow melting under 8C higher temperatures.
There were massive amounts of solar energy stored in buried biomass (aka coal) indicating very favorable growing conditions with higher temperatures and higher CO2.
Cooling has far greater consequences.
Natural variability and glaciation with much colder temperatures are proven major climatic problems from the geological record.
So where is the evidence of “abrupt” changes a problem with warming rather than cooling?
David L. Hagen | February 4, 2013 at 8:35 pm | Reply
“Similarly far faster and far more dangerous cooling occurs as we descend into a glaciation. Warming is constrained by T^4 outward black body radiation and exponential increase in latent heat by Claus Clapeyron.”
You’re a lot smarter than you look, Hagen. ;-)
Crop productivity among small-scale farmers in Zambia is constantly low mainly due to poor and unsustainable farming systems. As a solution, conservation farming (CF) is being advocated to scale up crop productivity. This study was undertaken to assess the rate of adoption and ascertain the impact of this practice on crop productivity among small-scale farmers in Kapiri Mposhi District. A structured questionnaire was administered to 252 farm householders randomly selected and data collected were analyzed using SPSS. About 91% of farmers are practicing the technology at different levels depending on the component adopted out of the six, namely minimum land tillage; laying out fixed planting basins; no burning of crop residues; planting and input application in basins; and rotation with nitrogen-fixing crops for soil fertility restitution, outlined by the Conservation Farming Unit
(CFU). Some respondents (10.3%) have adopted five to six components of the technology, 9.7% four and 40.5% practicing only the reduced tillage. Overall, the adoption rate between 2000 and 2008 stands at 98.9%. Increased maize yield after CF adoption was recorded among 65.7% of the respondents with a gain in yield amounting to 2 tons/ha on average,
which is three times more than the yield from conventional farming. It is, therefore, oncluded that CF constitutes currently one of the major keys to increasing crop yield and productivity in Zambia.
http://www.m.elewa.org/JAPS/2009/3.2/4.pdf
About 70% of global agricultural land is small holdings. The productivity gains through ‘conservation farming’ are more than sufficient to secure food supplies for 10 billion people. The techniques improve water conservation, retain soils, improve the nutrient status of foods, conserve downstream environments and sequester carbon. There are a whole lot of other techniques in conservation farming that achieve similar outcomes in broad scale western agriculture – perhaps with only 70 to 100% increases in productivity. About 15% of Australian farmers are practicing conservation agriculture – and that number is rapidly growing. See as well the ‘carbon farmers of America’.
The ‘hard limit’ of oil seems less hard and less of a limit – when there are many alternatives liquid fuels feasible at around the $100 a barrel mark. One need only look at the EIA liquid fuels projections for the US.
By all means – let’s talk about it but let’s see where the solutions are coming from and how we might facilitate progress, economic growth and societal resilience.
I got yer societal resilience right here… [rude gesture]
What’s the matter big dave – don’t like people feeding themsleves and having enough money to cope with natural disasters?
‘Energy innovation, resilience to extreme weather, and no regrets pollution reduction — each of these goals has its own diverse justifications:
• Support for energy innovation today comes from those concerned about the high (and rising) economic costs, not to mention the foreign entanglements created by America’s dependence on oil; the need for greater energy access in poor countries; diseases and deaths caused by air pollution, oil and gas drilling, and coal mining and waste; and the
potential for America to manufacture and export new energy technologies at a profit. All of these motivations play to America’s strengths, and each can assemble a strong coalition of support.
• Rich and poor countries alike are vulnerable to a wide range of complex socio-technical disasters, some climate change-related, some not. Domestically, Hurricane Katrina and the recent Mississippi flooding provide compelling rationale for improving resilience to extreme weather events, whether they are exacerbated by climate change or not. Internationally, US support to build disaster resilience in developing countries is strong and longstanding, and US foreign aid remains the highest in the world. When harnessed to build resilience to extreme weather and disasters, both domestic and international efforts will be more successful.
• And motivated by a clear desire to protect public health, the United States has long been a global leader in the development and deployment of pollution abatement technologies, from the creation of smokestack scrubbers to the invention of alternatives to ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A redoubling of such efforts can yield simultaneous progress to reduce climate forcings.’
Now I realise that you might object to the third – but that would be an atgumentum ad ignorantiam. A specialty of yours. Now I am a bit jaundiced by interactions with you and webby – with whom you share traits – but I am sure there are Americans with something other than sh_t for brains.
Zickfeld et al. (2010)
Hasn’t a lot been learned since then?
Reto Knutti: Even though we have many of these studies (and I am responsible for a couple of them) I’m getting more and more nervous about them, because they are so sensitive to the climate model, the prior distributions, the forcing, the ocean data, the error model, etc. The reason for this, to a large extent, is that the data constraint is weak, so the outcome (posterior) is dominated by what you put in (prior).
Is that generally agreed-upon by climate experts?
Well, Matt, it will be when it’s their best excuse.
=============
Matthew R Marler
Is that another way of saying “GIGO”?
(check several posts by Willis Eschenbach)
Max
manacker: Is that another way of saying “GIGO”?
No. The use of “GIGO” usually signals the end of thinking.
That the posterior distribution is dominated by the prior distribution instead of by the likelihood is an assertion that more research is needed. It could be interpreted as meaning that there is not enough information in the prior distributions to justify a policy recommendation of the “experts” so modeled. Somebody other than I may call the empirical evidence gathered by researchers “garbage”.
or does it mean “ass backward”?
“We mislead policy makers with our oversimplifications and overconfidence.”
To be more precise the credibility of the science was destroyed amongst all but those with a partisan agenda who find it convenient to pretend it’s still credible.
I love it when people give their opinion on what a number might be. Any time in my engineering education that we would write down any kind of a number we needed to be able to back that up to pass the course. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is simple physics. Climate sensitivity to water vapor which somehow could increase itself because CO2 goes up, that is NOT simple physics, more like voodoo.
Climate Sensitivity lottery, anyone? Very scientific (???).
The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t allow anything to be created out of nothing!
No that’s the first law you’re thinking of.
David you’re correct. My bad.
Climate sensitivity on a planar black body illuminated by an invariant continuous spectrum through a motionless inert gas plus the greenhouse gas in question absent a gravity well is simple. The more you vary from that ideal situation the less simple it becomes. In other words climate sensitivity in vitro is simple. In vivo not so much.
Pingback: GreenGeld | Jay Currie
The ‘sensitivity’ is defined as the average or the range of multi-model ensembles. Each of the members of the ensemble is a non-unique solution of a set of nonlinear equations. The ‘member’ is selected on the basis of ‘a posteriori’ solution behaviour. It looks plausible so it is in. So sensitivity is based on what seems plausible – think of a number – and not an any unique, deterministic solution to an equation.
‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Sounds mad I know – and certainly not made explicit in the way models are reported – which is why I persist in quoting people like James McWilliams and Tim Palmer.
‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision…
In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
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.’ (op. cit.)
Any change in a model can produce divergent solutions that are not predictable beforehand – it is the nature of the nonlinear Navier-Stokes equations – this extends to the range of uncertainty in climate data and to the number and breadth of couplings.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
We are not at the stage of having ‘systematically designed model families’ – thus the first hurdle for precision is not cleared. Solutions are literally chosen subjectively from many possible solutions and the range of solutions remains unknown. This goes directly to the a priori expectation of modellers as to the plausible sensitivity of the system. Subjectivity rather than a deterministic solution of an equation.
I have said this many times in many different ways – but a wider and deeper appreciation of dynamical complexity remains elusive. These models are most certainly chaotic in the sense of theoretical physics – as shown by Lorenz in the early 1960′s.
There may be some expectation that climate as well is nonlinear. Inputs and outputs are not proportional – change is abrupt and episodic – there are multiple equilibria (Rial et al 2004) and unpredictable tipping points (NAS, 2002). Where inputs and outputs are not proportional – the question of sensitivity becomes a problem of a different order entirely.
I should know by now that you need double spaces for paragraphs.
I thought you were copy-pasting the same comment over and over again, Chief.
Learning from your errors is clearly not one of your strengths, chief. But we love ya’ anyways.
This was clearly germane to the discussion of climate sensitivity and something of such fundamental import to the calculation of this elusive concept of sensitivity. The fact that it the bulk of the comment appeared in response to a question by Peter Lang recently is immaterial. As I said – I have said this many times in as many different ways as i can to get this fundamental new paradigm across. Tomas has indeed wondered why I bother arguing with fools and charlatans.
To quote again from Rial et al 2004 – it ‘is imperative that the Earth’s climate system research community embraces this nonlinear paradigm if we are to move forward in the assessment of the human influence on climate.’
It seems as imperative that a deeper understanding of this paradigm emerge in the broader community in order that public policy be based on science rather than the eschatological musings of the neo-millennialists. Isn’t that so?
Great post Chief. I first thought it was Arno Arrak’s work when I stumbled on it (I rarely read threads from the top through to the bottom as it takes too long) but I still give it a +1 along with Beth below.
It was so long and lacking paragraph breaks that it was difficult to not stumble when trying to step over it. I feel your pain.
> The fact that it the bulk of the comment appeared in response to a question by Peter Lang recently is immaterial.
Of course.
Chief Hydrologist | February 4, 2013 at 8:06 pm | Reply
“The ‘sensitivity’ is defined as the average or the range of multi-model ensembles”
No that’s how some find a value for it. It’s usually defined as the surface temperature response to a doubling in atmospheric CO2.
Jesus weeps – how the f_uck do you suppose they work that out.
They derive a value in various ways. Some by model, some by empirical observations, and some a mix of both. If you don’t understand what climate sensitivity is and various ways a value is assigned to it you probably shouldn’t be commenting on this thread unless it’s to ask questions of those who do understand.
Both model and empirical methods are discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
It would behoove you to gain at least an encyclopedic knowledge of the topic before you begin bloviating.
Hi big dave – stalking again I see and with your usual perspicacity. The way that sensitivty is derived is with these models that have at their core the nonlinear Navier-Stokes equations. Thise is where the range comes from that almost always quoted. If some sort of confimation is sought from the vagaries of the paleoclimatic record – it is something I tend to take with a great deal of salt.
‘Now imagine that you have never seen the device and that it is hidden in a box in a dark room. You have no knowledge of the hand that occasionally sets things in motion, and you are trying to figure out the system’s behavior on the basis of some old 78-rpm recordings of the muffled sounds made by the device. Plus, the recordings are badly scratched, so some of what was recorded is lost or garbled beyond recognition. If you can imagine this, you have some appreciation of the difficulties of paleoclimate research and of predicting the results of abrupt changes in the climate system.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=13
I will remind you again of the current limitations of opportunistic ensembles of AOS.
‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
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
I suspect that one should go deeper into the literature than wikipedia to gain any depth of understanding and to move beyond the simplistic.
There is little wonder that the “sensitivity” cannot be determined, because carbon dioxide has a net (albeit) minuscule cooling effect. Water vapour has a far great cooling effect, because it reduces the thermal gradient, and so the thermal plot intercepts the surface at a temperature which is about 30% lower than would be the case with a dry atmosphere.
In other words, the “dry” gradient (which is the quotient of the force of gravity and the mean specific heat) would yield a surface temperature of about 300K if the atmosphere were 80% pure nitrogen and 20% pure oxygen. But then water vapour reduces the temperature back to 288K and carbon dioxide reduces it by less than 1% of the reduction due to water vapour. Yes, inert gases do absorb incident Solar radiation in the UV and visible spectra, so the atmosphere warms to radiative balance, and the temperature at the base of the atmosphere determines (or “supports”) the surface temperature.
Surprised? It’s all in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” on the Principia Scientific International website in the PROM menu.
Doug Cotton | February 4, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Reply
“There is little wonder that the “sensitivity” cannot be determined, because carbon dioxide has a net (albeit) minuscule cooling effect. Water vapour has a far great cooling effect, because it reduces the thermal gradient, and so the thermal plot intercepts the surface at a temperature which is about 30% lower than would be the case with a dry atmosphere. ”
Utter dreck, Cotton. It’s both wetter and warmer during interglacial periods.
So what? Glacial cycles are thought to relate to variations in Earth’s eccentricity caused by gravitational force from Jupiter. This affects the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun, and thus the level of insolation received here. The effect of such on climate is obvious. Anything else I can help with from many thousands of hours of studying all this?
Without water the temperature of the Earth would be 67°C, the Water Cycle cools the Earth by 52°C.
Carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle, all natural rain is carbonic acid.
The thermal blanket keeping the Earth warm is the whole atmosphere which is mainly the real gases with volume weight and attraction nitrogen and oxygen under gravity, without which temperature would be -18°C.
There is no AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect of “greenhouse gases raising temps 33°C from -18°C to 15°C – if you can’t see that this is an illusion you’re not thinking.
Because, without the AGWSF’s main greenhouse gas water vapour the temps would be 67°C not -18°C.
Sensitivity? To an illusion..
Sheesh.
Cotton, I see your knowledge of orbital mechanics is no exception to the general rule of your scientific illiteracy. I’m not sure who you’re referring to when you say it is thought that TSI has anything to do with glacial cycles.
TSI remains unchanged in glacial cycles. The timing changes such that northern hemisphere recieves more insolation during the winter and less during the summer. Net annual insolation is unchanged. Warmer winters and cooler summers results in more snowfall during the winter and less melt during the summer allowing glaciers to advance. The high albedo of glaciers is a positive feedback that makes summers even cooler. The opposite effect happens in the southern hemisphere but because glaciers need land anchors and the northern hemisphere has twice the land mass as the southern hemisphere the northern hemisphere is the trigger.
This isn’t rocket science but it IS science. How is it your thousands of hours of study somehow missed it?
Myrrh | February 7, 2013 at 6:01 am |
“Without water the temperature of the Earth would be 67°C, the Water Cycle cools the Earth by 52°C.”
No, it would be in a permanent deep freeze. The ocean is essentially black soaking up all the energy from the sun. Rocks aren’t as dark so there’d be less surface heating. The atmosphere sans water vapor would add nothing substantial in the way of greenhouse warming.
The black of the ocean is countered by clouds forming until a balance is reached where if there are fewer clouds sunlight gets through to warm the water causing cloud formation to pick up then the increase in clouds blocks sunlight from reaching the ocean and it cools down. In effect a water world is thermostatically controlled by clouds. This is how the earth remained within a narrow temperature range suitable for life for billions of years despite a large range of major perterbations (e.g. super volcanoes, asteroid strikes, solar storms, super novae in the neighborhood) and a star that’s become 10% brighter during that time.
The only monkey wrench is when some perterbation gives snow/ice the upper hand, slowing the water cycle dramatically, which can cause long-lived snowball epsisodes which only end after millions of years of volcanoes belching snow-darkening soot and insulating CO2 gas to tip the scale back towards domination by liquid water instead of frozen water.
The whole enchilada revolves about the solid/liquid phase transition temperature of H2O. Solar power is not so great that it always remains unfrozen and not so little that it always remains frozen. Each state is a so-called great attractor where pseudo-stability can be found. The most recent 4 million years have been battle for dominance between the two. The arrangment of the continents has enough influence on ocean currents to allow or disallow enough heat from tropics to reach the poles to either melt or allow icecaps. No icecaps is the most stable state and accounts for about 90% of the earth’s history after the crust cooled and ocean formed.
Without water the earth would be like the moon with an average temperature near -23C (the measured unchanging temperature of lunar regolith 50 or more centimeters deep) and diurnal temperature change near 100C at the equator. Both are composed of the same minerals, after all, so would have substantially similar albedo and thermal characteristics if not for water. The earth’s wispy atmosphere would have little influence without water vapor in it. The faster rotation rate of the earth would moderate the more extreme (300C) diurnal temperature swings found on the lunar equator.
The moon is a handy reference for what the earth would be like without a global ocean.
David Springer | February 7, 2013 at 9:27 am |
Myrrh | February 7, 2013 at 6:01 am |
“Without water the temperature of the Earth would be 67°C, the Water Cycle cools the Earth by 52°C.”
No, it would be in a permanent deep freeze. The ocean is essentially black soaking up all the energy from the sun. Rocks aren’t as dark so there’d be less surface heating. The atmosphere sans water vapor would add nothing substantial in the way of greenhouse warming.
The deserts are in permanent deep freeze?
The minus 18°C figure AGWScienceFiction uses claiming the Earth would be this temperature without their “greenhouse gases”, mainly water and carbon dioxide, is the figure without the whole atmosphere – not without “AGWSF ir imbibing greenhouse gases”, but also without the real physics greenhouse gases of nitrogen and oxygen.
Traditionally the whole atmosphere was likened to a greenhouse around the Earth, and likenened to a thermal blanket around the Earth – AGWSF has misappropriated these figures to create the fiction of “33°C warming by their definition of greenhouse gases”.
I’m trying to point out what the sleight of hands are in this confidence trick the AGW Greenhouse Effect.
There really isn’t any point in you continuing to give me arguments from the fictional fisics they’ve created when I’m trying to show you how and why they are fictional, at least make some effort to follow what I’m trying to tell you..
AGWScienceFiction has given different meaning to “greenhouse” and “greenhouse gases” and “blanket” and so on, I am giving you what traditional physics teaches so you can see how they’ve manipulated this to create their fictional AGWSF Greenhouse Effect.
From traditional science – without our heavy fluid real gas ocean under gravity which is around 98% nitrogen and oxygen, the temp would be -18°C. Go and compare this with the Moon.
This is where the term “blanket” comes from, from traditional physics and it refers to the whole of the Earth’s atmosphere trapping heat/delaying the escape of heat from the Sun heated Earth. The Sun’s direct heat, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared, heats the land and water.
Compare with the Moon:
http://www.space.com/14725-moon-temperature-lunar-days-night.html
My bold. All the gases comprising our atmosphere are the real traditional greenhouse gases and real traditional blanket:
http://www.scienceterrific.com/atmosphere_function.php
So, in traditional physics, in the real world, what does a greenhouse do? It both heats and cools to give optimum growing conditions, hence our Earth’s atmosphere was likened to it.
The traditional Blanket of the whole atmosphere which is mainly the real gases nitrogen and oxygen under gravity keeping the real greenhouse warm, so what cools it?
Two things. Firstly convection of the real gas Air which when heated becomes lighter than air and rises taking away heat from the surface and as it rises heavier colder air above flows beneath to take its place; these are called winds, volumes of air on the move. This is our basic wind system from the equator to the poles, hot air rises at the equator and flows to the poles and the cold air at the poles sinks beneath, flowing back to the equator. Add Earth’s spin. (As above, so below – the ocean also gets heated at the equator and flows toward the poles, add Earth’s spin and land masses.
Magicians’ tricks are subtle if they’re any good.., and this fiction of the Greenhouse Effect is good, very clever tweaking of real physics by swapping properties around, playing with meanings, taking out whole processes and so on, if you don’t know real world physics basics and never hear the traditional physics explanations then their fictions sound quite plausible. Of course, applied scientists can spot the errors in their own fields, that there’s no gravity, etc., but might still take on trust something from a field they’re not familiar with. When you do know the real physics basics and can see how AGWSF has manipulated these you can see how utterly absurd their claims, but quite frankly, appalled as I am by their introduction into the education system, they are also very amusing because they’ve created a completely impossible world.
Anyway, the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect is a fiction as I’ve explained, which is why no empirical proof is ever fetched, because it doesn’t exist to be fetched, it’s an illusion.
David Springer, sure did. In detail. Both books show CO2 follows temp as a result of Henry’s law. That does not mean anthropogenic CO2 has no effect, because it was proven a greenhouse gas back in 1859. These are not all or nothing hypotheses. They are rates of change first differential hypotheses, or even second derivative rate of rate of change (acceleration, to alarmist) arguments. And all uncertain.
I find it useful given uncertainty to step back and look at the big picture, which is usually less uncertain than any details. When you do that, climate change becomes trivial compared to other issues that almost no one wants to confront because so profoundly disturbing. Certainly not the UN, or developing nations. Gaia absolutely does not care about our feelings on these matters. Just is.
Regards
Yes, yes, some “greenhouse effect” was claimed to have been “proven .. back in 1859 ” – but then the greenhouse effect conjecture was itself disproved back in 2003 such as in a peer-reviewed journal paper like Dr Hans Jelbring’s http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
Unfortunately back in 1859 physicists did not understand the ramifications of the maximum entropy thermodynamic equilibrium required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This was because they only had the, now outdated, Clausius statement which physicists now realise is only strictly correct for heat transfers in a horizontal plane, not for conduction, diffusion and convection in a vertical plane when subjected to the force of gravity.
It makes a big difference, because now we don’t need to invent any multiplication of energy by back radiation to explain that extra 33 degrees. In fact, gravity explains about 50 degrees, and then intra-atmospheric radiation by water vapour reduces the thermal gradient (AKA “wet adiabatic lapse rate”) so that the surface temperature for radiative equilibrium is lowered back to just that extra 33 degrees as is observed. Carbon dioxide may lower it another 0.1 degree, but we won’t worry too much..
Unfortunately Doug this physical theory of yours does not allow for exceptions and Saturn’s moon Titan is an exception. Nice try but no cigar.
You’d have to do better than that, David Springer. Moons are also affected by the gravity of the planet they are orbiting. Let’ see your argument that proves the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be wrong. Let’s see your personal explanation as to how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus. Let’s see your explanation as to how the Earth’s core gets just the right amount of energy to maintain its temperature and balance energy loss, such as through volcanoes and conduction processes. Let’s see you prove my physics wrong in any way. Go and read how others agree with me on the current Roy Spencer thread. Go and read Hans Jelbring’s peer-reviewed journal article.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
Rud, the so-called greenhouse effect works in a controlled environment such as a CO2 sensor i.e. literally in vitro. Nothing has been demonstrated in vivo and the correlative evidence is looking pretty damn shaky what with CO2 increasing some 20% since 1998 and no rise in GAT in response to it.
You are assuming that the increase is C02 was the only change. While C02 forcing has gone up by a couple 1/10ths of a watt, youd have to show that other forcings net to zero.
Also, one would have to assume that all of the effective delta GAT up to 1998 had already occurred (ie equilibrium). Since we know that CO2 forcing is like compound interest and that the climate feedbacks become more positive with time, it seems quite puzzling that GAT has stopped it’s ascent.
Throw in carbon black and ozone with associated feedback mechanisms and the uncertainty monster can swallow up CO2 into the noise.
…or do you believe Taminino’s ENSO regulator?
And the effect of gravity as it produces a thermal gradient has been established with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as over 800 experiments since the year 2002. All this is in my paper on Planetary Surface Temperatures on the Principia Scientific International website. Before you think you have any more objections, go and read the paper because, chances are, I’ve already answered them. Meanwhile I’ll await your proof that an isothermal gas in a gravitational field would represent a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported “this is what we think, because we asked our pals”.
We skeptics have won the climate war.
An insider is fighting for us.
Now it is acknowledged by an insider: ‘IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported “this is what we think, because we asked our pals”’
Science will get back its integrity, purity and truthfulness.
Congratulation skeptics: http://page.crystalcomments.com/6/26772.gif
Jumping to conclusions again Girma? The sensitivity battle may have been won for the moment (but only to the extent that neither side of the debate can put a handle on this issue) but the war rages on.
The war will “rage on” as long as the perceived vested interests of egotistical individuals over-ride their commitment to honesty, integrity and the common good. Maintain your supply lines.
+1 Chief Hydrologist (9.01 pm) ter economic growth, (crop growth
through conservation farming practices,) and societal resiliance,
grow – baby – grow.
Beth, friend of the forest.
Way back in my environmental science school – I would describe my religion as Sylvan Fundamentalist. We dance naked in the woodland in the Spring equinox. Now I am just hoping I don’t meet Dave Springer.
It was just an expression on my part and I didn’t think anyone in their right mind would actually do such a thing. That you actually did it doesn’t dispute my belief, if you get my drift, and I think you do.
Well big dave – really – which part of slyvan fundamentalist did you take seriously? I realise that you crack youself up – but that never translates into actual mirth for anyone else. For humour that is not just cackling to yourself in the corner like some mad crone you need to have human qualities that you sadly lack – so sad too bad.
I’ve got mad crone cackling all over him, and look, there’s a plum in my porridge.
===============
Chief, “We dance naked in the woodland in the Spring equinox.”
Tequila?
“Well big dave – really – which part of slyvan fundamentalist did you take seriously?”
Coming from a delicate flower such as yourself… pretty much all of it.
These days my local is the Grand Western. It is one of 2 places in the world where a man can swear, drink, spit and ride bulls at the same time. The other one is in Texas. So springer – behind the bull ring any time and I will show you who’s a pansy. Texas death match rules.
Back then – if I could get a girl to dance naked anywhere – it was a good day.
A greater chance of an interaction with Jerry Springer I’d say.
Or meet any leprechauns. … Be careful of yer toe)
Peter Davies, yer have to make a different award … I have the franchise fer plus ones. I’m sorry )
Damn! Well how about one of these? +!
Dr. Curry, with respect, as a GT alumnus I find your comment;
“Oversimplification and overconfidence on this topic (i.e. climate sensitivity) have acted to the detriment of climate science.”
Quite a bit refreshing. Having received a fine engineering education at GT (and elsewhere back in the 70/80’s) I was long ago humbled when my predictions of how my engineering creation would respond collided with reality.
Frankly, the whole field of climate science has had billions of dollars and decades to make its case. The engineering community put people on the moon and brought them back with far less time and money.
The case for “radiative forcing” is still missing……… And likely always will be.
I do like it when GT folks try to raise the bar. Take a long step back from climate science for a while and take a good hard look at the correlation between the theory and the real empirical results. You might benefit from a more distant perspective, (look at the forest, not the fleas on the pine needles).
Cheers, Kevin.
Judith is a credit to Climate Science and I appreciate your humility KevinK because that’s where the best science is practiced.
BTW lets be sure that “humility” is by no means to be interpreted as “humble” because high self esteem is the precursor to great performance and high ideals.
KevinK | February 4, 2013 at 10:32 pm | Reply
“The engineering community put people on the moon and brought them back with far less time and money.”
Damn skippy!
+1
Kevin,
As the brother and uncle of 2+ GT grads (one niece graduates this coming spring), I have great respect for the institution. And I particularly liked your comment re what engineers and scientists accomplished with the space program. We just don’t get the same for our tax dollars these days.
I spied rambling and wrecking from an electronic perch in Toronto.
============
My empirical analysis of the HADCRUT3 data from 1870 to 2011 gave me a climate sensitivity estimate of 1.55 deg C for doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm.
Folks, what is your estimate for this data?
sorry, you have to calculate NET forcings first.
Then you calculate the sensitivity.
Then you can calculate the sensitivity to doubling C02 in isolation.
By just doing it directly you are assuming that all other forcings net to zero.
That’s, well, wrong.
Mosher
You write that “By just doing it directly you are assuming that all other forcings net to zero. That’s, well, wrong.”
In fact you do not know the net impact of the other forcings so you do not know that it is not zero so you do not know it is wrong.
It also does not seem wrong to summarize the forcing in the actual system based upon observations. I agree that it is probably not completely accurate, but you can’t state that definitely can you?
Oh, please, he states everything definitely. It’s what he knows that is so.
==================
Correction: he’s capable of waffling on attribution. I’m grateful.
===============
Einstein said it best: ” If you cannot explain what you are doing to a 12-year-old, you do not know what you are doing.” He actually said a 12-year-old girl, but my genius sisters would not let me get away with this.
Good science is understandable, bad science causes good minds to say, “Hmmmm, did not follow that.” Anyone not following the AGW theory other than me???”
I have no trouble following AGW theory even though I do not accept it. There are numerous publications explaining it to 12 year olds. What part do you not understand?
But Einstein also said “If we knew what we were doing it would not be research.” The problem is that AGW research assumes and defends AGW rather than testing it.
“By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.”
When are the IPCC sdientists going to admit that they got it wrong? Or perhaps the politicians or economists that drove them into accepting an impossible task should publically apologise. Scientists should never let their agenda be set by such people
Hey, Alexander, lay off economists. The vast majority are probably dismayed by the CAGW bandwagon.
Many are beginning to connect the Green Bubble to the financial collapse, synergistic social manias.
============
Girma,
That is the spirit!!! Natural variability would put error bars on that, could you finish the calculation, Student’s T-Test would be fine???
You rock…
Rud Istvan,
Abrupt climate change has happened many times in the long ice core records. +- 5 C in ten years, more than once or twice. We never hear about this at Real Climate or Skeptical Science because they have no clue how it could have happened. I am sure, though, that YOU could explain it to us………….
Kevin K., you rock too…
Peter Davies,
What is your deal? How do you feel about the Scientific Method? Is it important to you???
Welcome to the blog MM. If you are interested you can look through the Denizens’s page to find a little bit more information about some of us here, me included.
To respond to your question – my approach to solving problems is firstly to make sure that there is indeed a problem to solve. In this respect Scientific Method (capitalised as you have) probably works well in testing hypothesis but does little to come up with the ideals and ideas which have any real impact on any field of endeavour.
I prefer intuitive and lateral thought as an originator of solutions rather than the basic rationality of thought that underpins scientific method as I understand it. Rational thought is perceived by me to be only linear in its logical basis.
This is off topic and if you like you (or anyone else, for that matter) may email me directly if there is anything else that you would like to discuss.
It looks rather like the IPCC authors have invented this meme as some sort of talismanic mantra to defend themselves against having to actually deal with the recent literature.
If this is true then it proves that science is self-correcting. Excellent news.
The only consensus we can expect from the Al (Jazeera) Gore-StoatCRUs of the world is their opinions about scientific skeptics–e.g.,
“…the beaten, disgraced, and perjured … [Skeptic]! the faithless, perjured, craft-loving … [Skeptic]!… –a blustering Charlatan! — such a Fellow! –a Scoundrel, with a degraded character! an Impostor! a despicable Imposter! a notorious Impostor! an hypocritical Impostor! a Wretch! a desparate Wretch! such a Wretch! a Robber! a mere Brigand! an atrocious Brigand! –a savage Adversary! –a Remorseless Ruffian! –a Criminal! such a Criminal! so infamous a Criminal! –that Traitor! that…[Skeptic]… Villain! a Fool! an imperial Robber! an infamous, bloody, execrable, audacious, atrocious, ferocious…” (Editor, ‘Cursing made Easy,’ The Times, 1815))
I doubt if that would pass Australia’s proposed “no-offence” anti-free speech laws, even with the (200-year-old) imprimature of The Times.
Stoat can still say skeptics “jumped the shark” in Australia but will the liberal fascistas continue to allow the Beatles to say “Mother Superior jumped the gun,” and, “bang, bang, shoot shoot?”
Well, some of them have the appalling “Imagine” as their anthem, they might be conflicted with knocking Beatles’ lyrics.
The carbon-hating Left gives Britania with its comparatively benign form of totalitarianism a bad rap compared to the Left’s Marxist ideal that has led many millions to poverty, despair and death. If not for the British breaking a secret China held for 5,000 years where would India be today? The Left should swoon apoplectic nirvana at the thought of 10 million people employed in India’s tea industry, many of whom still pick the leaves by hand on steep slopes where no machinery can operate.
Bang bang, shoot shoot foot,
Mother Alarum pumped gun.
Darjeeling tea leaves.
=============
Sensitivity to so-called GHGs? There is NONE that could ever be demonstrated. Just ask the 31,000+ signers of the Petition Project – degreed and practicing scientists all. How many more scientists is that who dismiss and reject the AGW bogeyman, versus those corrupt-politicians-no longer-scientists who believe in it (or say they do, to get gobs of taxpayer-funded research money)? A pretty large multiple thereof, methinks.
And Mr. Faustino – since any criticism of official behavior or actions will inevitably be considered to be “offence” speech, how long before tyranny firmly descends upon Australia? Not long, methinks. But I’d have to ask, isn’t it also an “offence” to call honest scientists liars?
And here in the US more and more of the CAGW scaremongers are calling for denying their arguments to be made a criminal offense (the American spelling of “offence”).
The Petition Project website can be accessed easily through Google.
That’s Senor Faustino to you :-) (no offence, mate!).
OK, Señor, except there is no letter “n” with the tilde on my keyboard, and I had to go get it from the character map for this post.
We mislead policy makers with our oversimplifications and overconfidence.
Thanks JC.
To stop sea level rise a fools errand.
As King Knut (aka Canute) pointed out a thousand years or so ago.
Girma –
So is chasing the CO2 bogeyman.
I’m awarding you +! fer adaptability, Peter Davies Well done!
BC
Gee thanks Beth! ……Hang on, the +! you have used belongs to me! But no matter, I don’t mind you using it – be my guest.
“What is obvious is that including the data of the past few years pushes the estimates of climate sensitivity downward, because there was little warming over the past decade despite a larger greenhouse gas forcing.”
What is obvious is that the consensus science is a fine example of ‘cargo cult’ science. I said years ago, I can’t wait for the estimates of climate sensitivity when it starts cooling.
+1 fer u also Senor Faustino fer showing musical discrimination.
‘Imagine’ by The Beatles is a terrible song (. Yesterday was so
much better.
BC 2013 Franchise fr Plus Ones. Email in Working Hours Only.
Hi Beth,
I see your knowledge of the Beatles is equivalent to your knowledge of climate science.
“Imagine” is not a Beatles song.
OK, a Beatle song.
What’s an s among friends?
Imagine is a John Lennon song recorded after the Beatles broke up.
‘Imagine’ is a John Lennon song, John Lennon is(was) a Beatle, therefore ‘Imagine’ is a Beatle’s song. Beth only missed the apostrophe, not surplussed an ‘s’.
==========
I personally thought Paul did better with wings although I found Ringo’s no no song amusing.
tim –
Joshua, I think people are only treating this discussion with the levity it deserves.
steven –
Levity? You think an issue of such importance should be treated with “levity?” What’s next – diminishing the importance of Al Gore’s income? Is there no limit to what you will look past?
I can’t get no chakra release.
================
I suppose if you think Al is important and are disappointed or delighted by his duplicity perhaps his income may matter to you. I don’t think he’s important so it pretty much falls into the beatles or ex beatle category for me in importance level.
Actually Imagine is a Yoko Ono song and she might sue your ass if you use any part of it without permission. And you wouldn’t be the first she sued over that either.
Wow – and you’ve deigned to lecture me on interpreting syntax and grammar:
Let’s look again at what Beth wrote, shall we?
Notice how you changed “the” to “a?” It’s always the cover-up that’s more revealing, kim. Beth made an error. You changed facts as a defense – apparently projecting gullibility onto others? Errors are perfectly acceptable and not an indication of character. I’ll let you fill in the rest.
Heh, I’ll define John Lennon as ‘The Beatle’ and my analysis stands. Say, I could write climate models.
============
Josh,
Impressive how you demonstrate your capability to push hair splitting on non-relevant topics to new boundries.
Nuthin’ gits passed u does it PD? )
Is there any experimental evidence of any net ~15 micron CO2 band IR emitted from the Earth’s surface?
Still overstated by a factor of 10 — or at least 7, if you wish to be technical.
This is a multiple choice – and right answers will get a +1 from Beth.
Let’s say CO2 doubles: How will “climate” change?
1. Climate is in stable equilibrium (fixed point); if so, mean temperature will just shift gradually to its new equilibrium value.
2. Climate is purely periodic; if so, mean temperature will (maybe) shift gradually to its new equilibrium value. But how will the period, amplitude
and phase of the limit cycle change?
3. And how about some “real stuff” now: chaotic + random?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Ghil_sensitivity_zps369d303d.jpg
http://casts.ntu.edu.tw/Talks_detail.php?talkID=2293&i=3
3. ?
Beth, now do I get a +1?
Chief, you write “Let’s say CO2 doubles: How will “climate” change? ”
You dont need three questions. The answer is simple. Any change that doubling CO2 makes to climate will be so small that it can NEVER be measured.
Maybe I should have added that if Anastassia is correct, doubling CO2 could cause so much growth in our forests that this could have a major impact on climate.
As I recall some partially credentialed physicist, hardly a climate specialist, once spoke of such trees.
No moss grows on a rolling ent, or maybe there’s some on the north.
===============
Jim Cripwell | February 5, 2013 at 9:21 am |
“Maybe I should have added that if Anastassia is correct, doubling CO2 could cause so much growth in our forests that this could have a major impact on climate.”
That’s got a good foundation in biology to be certain for at least some effect along those lines. Terrestrial life evolved around an ocean that outgasses CO2 as it warms and takes it up as it cools. For most of the earth’s history past the Cambrian explosion 500mya when life began to take up residence on land there have been no ice caps at all and far higher CO2 levels. The current cold, CO2-starved era began only 4 million years ago which is an eyeblink in evolutionary time at even the genus level. There hasn’t been a new family of life in 10 million years.
Therefore evolution best adapted life to the environment which persisted for the longest span of time. Following from that we find plants almost universally respond favorably to higher levels of CO2. Adaptation at the family level is very fast to conditions that have been experienced in the past. There’s a genetic memory of how to best cope in different conditions. Species are the result which are tweaked for shorter, more recent evironmental conditions. Sub-species are tweaked for even shorter periods of time. Plasticity is reduced with the tweakings with the result that sub-species and species come and go frequently. Families tend to persist for tens of millions of years and by the time you get to Phyla most of the present phyla have been around since the Cambrian explosion. Bacteria and Archaea may very well predate our solar system and are generally considered to go back at least 2.5 – 3.5 billion years on the earth. 3.5 billion years is barely time enough to form a thin crust over the molten rock. Maybe cool enough for liquid water but there are Archaea that don’t mind boiling hot water and no sunlight.
But I digress. The point is that in the story of life when more resources become available, in this case warm temperature and higher CO2, life will jump in to take maximum advantage of it and do it quickly. Crap starts growing on lava within decades. If an old growth forest burns down plants pre-adapted to the new conditions spring up before the ashes are cold.
David Springer @ 11.01, this is the kind of time-scale and perspective people need to take in assessing short-term changes, but almost always ignore. Life is tenacious, its form ever-changing.
I agree with you David. The timescale of Earth’s climate trajectory is extremely long.
Chief I have 3 questions for you.
1. What is man’s contribution to current Atmospheric CO2 (percentage)?
2. What would it be if we could increase it 10 fold?
3, What other way can the CO2 level be “doubled”?
There is no simple answer – what is known in that anthropogenic carbon flux to the atmosphere is about 4% of natural flux. Economic growth could see that grow to 8%, 16%, 32%,…, as economies grow this century. It is now part of the fast cycle of carbon in the environment and increasing. A priori – unless the outcome is known with certainty it seems imprudent to emit exponentially increasing amounts of carbon. Certainty – one way or the other – only arises from arguments founded on ignorance.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
Plants have many requirements for growth – CO2 is one of the easiest for plants to obtain. The number and size of stomota vary with CO2 – trading off carbon uptake against water loss. Water is the critial limit in land plants at most locations. This is a quaint little site called plant fossils of west virginia – but the information is standard. . – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html –
It is quite certain that warmth and wet go together – so the plant fecundity in warm times has something to do with warmth and wet but perhaps less to do with carbon being a limiting nutrient. Although there is never one inclusive explanation – rather a host of interacting factors.
‘Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced across some threshold, triggering a persistent transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause (Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, National Research Council, 2002).’
3 is the right answer of course – but the problem of abrupt shifts in climate is not simple and predictable. There are hints of mechanisms primarily involving thermohaline circulation – and ice and snow feedbacks.
CO2 might be one of these ’causes’ that lead to rapid and nonlinear shifts in climate.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/
I’d be concerned about the THC regardless of the probability of abrupt climate change.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n6/fig_tab/ncomms1901_F5.html
It has a tendency to change over time.
Thanks – I have bookmarked it. People look towards THC as a prime source of abrupt change.
The third graph in Ghil 2012,is that in random dynamical systems,the oscillations produce multiple equilibria even of opposite signs,which increases the range of uncertainty.
Hmm referencing CH link
http://s1114.beta.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_sensitivity_zps369d303d.jpg.html
Another +1 for Max for identifying the flaw in Ghil 2012.
I don’t like the idea of climate sensitivity whatever its value. It seems to me to be a coarse measure that says nothing about the effect on different parts of the world and on real people’s lives. Some parts of the world are warming, others are cooling. So if average temperatures go up 2 degrees, what does that actually mean for me in the UK? Will it be warmer or cooler? Will my sheep be ok? Simplistic maybe, but that’s the reality of this arcane argument for the majority of ordinary people like me. Back to occasional lurking!
RobB
So if average temperatures go up 2 degrees, what does that actually mean for me in the UK? Will it be warmer or cooler? Will my sheep be ok?
Hard questions! Marek Kohn wrote an accessible and non-alarmist book about this, which I recommend if you haven’t already read it.
“Hard questions!”
BBD,
There are no hard questions when you can always pretend to know the answers.
Andrew
You are trolling, as always. Why not contribute usefully or remain silent?
“Why not contribute usefully or remain silent?”
BBD, a smarter question would be ” Why not contribute usefully and remain silent?” ;)
But you aren’t the brightest bulb in the display now, are you.
Andrew
You are still trolling.
“You are still trolling.”
I disagree. I’m commenting my opinion. In fact, my first comment goes right to the heart of the matter.
Andrew
Your first question is essentially a denial of scientific knowledge. As such it only illustrates the nature of your bias. This is unlikely to be of interest to RobB, who is more reasonably concerned about the welfare of his sheep.
“Your first question is essentially a denial of scientific knowledge.”
No, my first question is an obvious reference to the behaviors of you and other Warmers. You have absolutely no knowledge of what is going to happen to RobB’s sheep. But you pretend like you do.
Andrew
BBD –
In reference to Kohn’s book, I would note that the Amazon description reads, in part:
“Our parks will be arid brown fields; private automobile use unheard of; water will be severely rationed; significant stretches of our beloved coastline will have been sacrificed to the sea. Some of our flora and fauna will have vanished; exotic animals and pests will flourish. Vast numbers of marginalised human migrants will be here. Surveillance and restriction of our movements will be taken for granted. Walking in what is left of ‘nature’ will be nearly impossible. Terrible summer fires in our upland areas will be commonplace.”
How do you this consider this ‘non-alarmist’?
Hier. B. too young.
==============
kch
Ah, the joys of selective quotation. You missed out the first sentence:
These islands will, compared with the parched Mediterranean lands, let alone a devastated Africa, be fairly benign places to live.
That said, the blurb is sensationalist compared to the book itself.
BBD cries ‘Wolf’. The beast turns out to be the neighbor’s shepherd.
=============
Andrew
No, my first question is an obvious reference to the behaviors of you and other Warmers. You have absolutely no knowledge of what is going to happen to RobB’s sheep. But you pretend like you do.
We know well enough that GHG forcing will warm the climate. So we have a good outline idea of what is likely to happen.
You believe with certainty that nothing will happen, which is why you describe everybody else as ‘warmers’. You are rejecting scientific knowledge and setting up your own, utterly baseless opinion as certain.
Hopefully you can see the profound illogicality in that.
No kim, BBD cries “troll”.
You must be the author of about 40% of comments on this thread, all of which are insubstantial and short. It’s a miracle you aren’t in moderation yet.
BBD –
Didn’t miss the first sentence at all – I just didn’t feel the need to quote the whole review.
That being said, the addition of that first sentence strenghtens my question: if what I quoted is a description of ‘fairly benign’, just exactly what would you consider ‘non-alarmist’?
I’ll take your word on the blurb as sensationalist, but if so, the author might think to get it toned down, if only to improve sales. The blurb screams ‘alarmist millenarian rant’ at me, and if I want to read apocalyptic fantasy I’ve already got a reasonable collection of science fiction…
kch
If you were actually interested in talking about the book, you could also google for reviews. Then you could get it out of the library and read it yourself.
Bye now.
Riverworld’s perty kewl.
=================
I’m fond a’ the barbed barrels.
=================
BBD, astonishing that you would think that such a book is helpful here. Isn’t it much more likely that a couple of degrees warming will not make all that much difference? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
To me, this is just another example of how people overplay their cards on this subject, and lose their audience. Most of us are going to disregard any such claim. We aren’t even going to read the book, sorry. It just sounds absurd.
My blogrosaryroll regularly remembers Saint J.
==============
BBD –
You’re missing the point. I’m not necessarily interested in talking about – or reading – the book, I’m interested in why *you* think it is ‘non-alarmist’, given the description at the site *you* sent RobB to.
The Guardian review you refer to merely reinforces my quick impression that the book is distinctly alarmist. Why do you harbour such a different view of the book? That’s the point I’m interested in.
If you actually want someone to read a book, you might try honestly answering honest questions. Otherwise, your behaviour looks very…well, almost trollish.
kch; miker613
You might need to refresh you memories about the difference between global average temperature and land surface temperature.
What are the projections for the NH land surface temperature increase concomitant with an increase in GAT of >2C?
kch
What you think about this book is irrelevant since you haven’t actually read it and I have. This strand of the discussion goes no further until you crack the covers.
Quiz in the AM. Childhood’s End.
============
BBD –
I am not saying, and have not said, that Kohn’s book is irrelevant. For all I know, it could very well be the great answer to life, the universe and everything…perfect and complete in all its prognostications.
What I have said is that it has the appearance of an alarmist screed, however charmingly well written. [As such, I have no more interest in reading it than I would have in reading The Watchtower. Your misdirections have only strengthened that resolve.]
What you have failed to answer (three times) is this: why did *you* characterize it as ‘non-alarmist’, and just exactly what would you call ‘alarmist’? I suspect you have given no answer because there is no answer – you know you overstated and dislike being caught at it.
I think miker613 is correct – you overplayed your cards, and in refusing to backtrack on (or even defend) what appears to be an obvious overstatement you’ve lost any credibility with this part of the audience.
Kim –
Fond of the classics, I see. Great reads, but I find Vinge or Stephenson more thought-provoking.
Heh, I struggled through ‘The Big U’, and couldn’t face any more of him, despite much recommendation.
=============
What I have said is that it has the appearance of an alarmist screed
Oh dear. The message isn’t getting through, is it?
Let’s try one last time. First read the book, then you can talk about what it is or is not, in your view. You are insistently claiming that the book is this or that, but at the moment, unless you are prepared to accept *my* description, you are a bit stuck.
How to win friends and influence people to read books.
==============
BBD-
Hmmm…I can’t really tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or just lack reading comprehension. Honest broker seems right out.
Only you have claimed anything about Kohn’s book, and you have stated that it is of a ‘non-alarmist’ nature. I have only referred to the descriptions you referenced, and have stated that they make the book seem alarmist indeed.
I have also only asked that you explain why you find the book ‘non-alarmist’, as well as to indicate just what you would find alarmist. All I wanted was for you to expand on, and possibly justify, your one-word description. You seem unwilling or unable to do so.
It’s really too bad. I thought I was asking a question, but it turns out I was feeding a troll…
Kim-
‘The Big U’ is the one of his I haven’t read, and as the author himself says it was a first novel written in a hurry I probably won’t bother. ‘The Diamond Age’ or ‘Anathem’ are worth a try, though.
And yeah, BBD is doing a good job of making me run screaming (perhaps unfairly) from Kohn’s book. Not to mention anything else he might recommend…
kch
How can I be the troll here? I attempted to answer another commenter’s question by suggesting a relevant book. All you are doing is claiming this book – which you have not actually read – is an alarmist screed, a work of SF etc.
RobB shouldn’t have any trouble working out who is acting in bad faith.
BBD-
Perhaps troll is the wrong word. How about alarmist shill?
All snark aside, this is getting nowhere. I can’t seem to find a way of getting you to defend your description; and there is no way you will convince me of anything as long as you continue misrepresenting, misdirecting and avoiding the question.
Before I go, though, I would like to recommend you read anything by Ayn Rand. She’s really very accessible and non-right wing. (Just don’t ask me to defend those descriptions.)
Damn yes – according to the classics the answer is 42. Now we just have to build a bigger and better computer to find out what the question is.
‘Marek Kohn is a British science writer on evolution, biology and society. His first two books were on drugs, their cultural history, and their politics. He is the author of seven books and hundreds of articles.[1] He holds an undergraduate degree in neurobiology from the University of Sussex, and a PhD from the University of Brighton. Kohn has been an academic fellow at both institutions, and his writing has appeared in New Statesman, The Independent, New Scientist, and Prospect.’
Neurobiology? This might work as long as he remembers to program in the 4th law of robotics – for God’s sake do not protect us from ourselves.
When the phytoplankton left they thanked the sun for all the UV, and man for all the carbon dioxide.
=================
kch
Still you don’t get it. As I’ve explained several times now, I’m not going to discuss a book with you that you haven’t read.We cannot do this and there’s no point in trying. RobB will either follow the suggestion up or not – despite your strenuous (and transparent) efforts to dissuade him with your mischaracterisations of a book that you haven’t read or even heard of until now.
What fascinates me about these exchanges is how much energy (and how little honesty) ‘sceptic’ commenters will put into attacking anything that they perceive as a threat. All this effort trying to sabotage a casual recommendation of a book… dearie me.
All this effort. Man, oh man, BBD, you’re a tough audience all by yourself.
=========
But kim, do not sell yourself short. I am *humbled* before your mighty productivity. What are we up to now? 50% of the thread? And still not a scintilla of actual content. That takes a certain talent all by itself, no?
Per asperum ad
Scintillate and titillate.
Rate me a titter?
============
BBD-
Is it psychological failing, overwhelming obtuseness or deliberate tactic that leads you to misrepresent everything I’ve said?
Let’s be clear.
I’ve never asked you to discuss the book with me. Let me repeat that: I did not, and will never ask you to discuss the book.
My only strenuous attempt has been to get you to explain the discrepancy between your description of the book and the descriptions found at the websites you directed RobB and myself to. This you seem unwilling or incapable of doing.
Also, I’m not attacking the book, as I really don’t perceive it as a threat. From the description it comes across as rank alarmism and no more worth spending my time and money on than, say, anything from the dragonslayers.
I have tried to give you a chance to offer cogent reasons to read the book, but instead you’ve decided to tell me lots about yourself and nothing about the book. Too bad. I hope you don’t work in publicity, because I think you’d suck at it.
And really, it was no effort – I think you did most of the heavy lifting by yourself.
kch
What a revealingly self-contradictory statement this is:
Also, I’m not attacking the book, as I really don’t perceive it as a threat. From the description it comes across as rank alarmism and no more worth spending my time and money on than, say, anything from the dragonslayers.
Shall we laugh? Yes, we shall.
If you really wanted answers then why not look for them? 30 seconds would find you this review, containing this paragraph:
The fact is, many regions are likely to become merely pleasantly warm. Life in the Yorkshire Dales 80 years hence sounds very nice indeed. Even these gentle temperature rises might be curbed further. A counter-intuitive aspect of climate change relates to the disruption of the heating effects of Atlantic currents, notably the Gulf Stream, which we currently enjoy. This could manifest itself during the 22nd century and the resulting cooling would offset general global temperature rises.
The truth is, you don’t want answers; you are simply attempting to discredit a book you haven’t even read. This is the na-na-na school of commentary.
All that effort. All that *fear*. All you need to add now is a great deal more subtlety.
BBD –
Why ever would you think that I didn’t look for other reviews or information? When possibly interested in a book, I always check around.
But please try to focus here. What I’m asking is why your quick description of the book is in such stark contrast to other descriptions, including the ones you referenced.
And speaking of such, the Independant review contains some sentences you might have missed:
“His account of London is sobering. The best guess is that the metropolis will become as much of a meteorological as a cultural hotspot, with summer temperatures regularly in the 40s. Parks will become largely denuded of grass and all remaining green space will be zealously conserved, while vigilant thermal surveillance satellites hunt down illegal air-conditioning plants.”
Still sounds pretty alarmist to me. But not to you? Why not?
The truth is, I have always wanted one answer, one that you have refused to entertain: was it mendacity, error or true belief that lead to your mischaracterization of Kohn’s book.
Sadly, in all of your strenuous efforts to avoid that question I have only been able to rule out error.
kch,
You may or may not be aware- BBD has been banned at least one other site for persistently trolling, FYI.
Andrew
Heh, BBD, your exemplary paragraph looks like a bunch of speculative bulloney. It was even hard to finish that paragraph.
====================
kch
It’s very clear that *anything* other than no effect whatsoever by 2100 is going to be ‘alarmist’ as far as you are concerned. Procrustean games are boring.
Perhaps instead of trying to evade the sense of the paragraph I quoted from the Indy review, you should just read it again a couple of times.
It backs up my original – and casual – remark about the generally non-alarmist tenor of the book. Since you are having problems, let me help with a little emphasis:
The fact is, many regions are likely to become merely pleasantly warm. Life in the Yorkshire Dales 80 years hence sounds very nice indeed. Even these gentle temperature rises might be curbed further.
See it this time?
Your trolling is getting very tedious now. Why not go and read a book?
BA
Some facts: I was banned from BH because it is a hardcore denier site where ‘dissentients afflicted with the malady of thought’ are not as welcome as advertised.
I don’t troll, here or anywhere else. You however, do. It is all that you do. I haven’t seen a substantive comment for you in as long as I can remember.
How many sites have banned you, BA?
The deal here is, BBD, that I like fiction written by fiction writers better than fiction written by non-fiction writers, and am pleased to sometimes be able to tell the difference. Your pleasures seem different.
=============
Enter kim; another yammering troll who hasn’t read the book.
kim –
I appreciate your quips – poetic and otherwise.
Regardless, while phytoplankton thrive in sunlight, increased UV can be a problem. It damages cellular DNA and worse, it can cause death by activating latent viral infections (thought to be carried by nearly all phytoplankton). One reason IMO, that phytoplankton make clouds is to help keep their viruses asleep and in a benign state which also blocks additional infections. (Each teaspoon of seawater contains ~ 1 million viruses.)
thanks
Oh, yes, Blue, I thought of that when I wrote it, and almost changed it to ‘light’, but left it in case UV has something to do with variable energy input to the system. Thanks for the critique, and your UV point was new knowledge to me.
======================
Plus, Blue, it’s very intriguing to consider the various feedbacks suggested by your speculation. Here be powerful mechanisms and hippogryphs.
=============
kim
The CLAW hypothesis is now considered defunct.
BBD-
At last! Between your reply to me and your reply to Manacker below you are finally starting to deal with my actual questions, not your beliefs about me.
Unfortunately, you seem to have resorted to the twin crutches of cherry-picking (to me) and authority (to Manacker).
WRT me, I really can’t accept that a single paragraph outweighs the rest of that review, other reviews and the Amazon description, all of which leave a rather different impression than your ‘generally non-alarmist tenor’. Particularly when that paragraph is speaking of the possible slight benefits to parts of England resulting from the shut-down of the Gulf Stream. Seems a little alarming to me.
WRT Manacker’s far more eloquent take on the review impressions, you finally get down to simply insisting that “… I’m *telling you straight* that the excerpts quoted from the reviews above give a reasonably accurate impression.” Fair enough, you are the one who has read the book. It does seems unfortunate that the reviews and Amazon description don’t agree with your interpretation (judging by the excerpts quoted by Manacker and myself).
Oh, and your first sentence is pretty much wrong from start to finish. I *am* concerned with GW and its causes and effects. I am also concerned, however, with the economic and political effects around this issue. I really would like to see dispassionate appraisals of all this. Alarmist advocacy from *either* side (both the hoaxers/conspiracy group and the we’re-all-gonna-die group) doesn’t cut it.
Last note – you got banned from BH? That must have taken work – even Zed still sneaks a comment in now and then. Do you see it as a lesson or a badge of honour?
BBD
The CLAW hypothesis is now considered defunct..
actually weak, not defunct. overplaying the hand in a science that sees
new things every day is running through a field of rakes. Dont overstate and then link to the evidence of your overstatement. Weak, very weak, but not defunct. hence the question mark in the title
steven mosher
Weak, defunct, whatever. Not on the table when it comes to significant feedbacks. Why do people nitpick so much?
Weak, defunct, whatever. From models asked a silly question, whatever.
==================
kch
I really would like to see dispassionate appraisals of all this.
No you wouldn’t. You’ve spent the last couple of days deploying clunky rhetoric in an attempt to deny the existence of a *non-alarmist* projection of C21st CC in the UK.
It isn’t going to work because arguing against the facts never does.
BBD-
My apologies for the clunky rhetoric. Hopefully you at least find it as amusing as I find your boundless talent at obfuscation and misdirection.
I mean, really, denying “…the existence of a *non-alarmist* projection of C21st CC in the UK”? I’ve done no such thing, and I would think anyone with basic reading comprehension skills should see that.
What I have done is to question your characterization of this particular “projection of C21st CC in the UK” as ‘non-alarmist’ when all of your references lead to reviews/descriptions giving a very different impression.
Your latest round is no improvement – the ‘facts’ you point to are merely cherry-picked excerpts from opinion pieces whose entirety leaves a distinctly alarmist odour. Hardly ‘facts’ at all.
I hate to do your work for you, but you could try using the ‘Make Wealth History’ review. That one, used as a counterweight to the Amazon description – and perhaps combined with some acknowledgement that you had over egged the pudding – might have led me to conclude the book was worth spending money on. Everything else you’ve pushed? Nah, just makes the book look like another ho-hum piece of alarmism of the Gore school of self-enrichment.
BBD –
Yes CLAW may be very weak. However, the authors of the article cited have this to say: “the essence of CLAW lives on”. This is because organic particulates in sea spray amount to nearly as much particulates as from all of fossil fuel burning.
Further, I wonder if the model that was used to predict CLAW’s minor role in warmer seas took into account that increased phytoplankton activity also must compensate for significantly increased viral activity. If not, then perhaps the model has under- estimated the response.
BBD,
Why are you nit picking me about being precise. You could just say.
Oh, steve, you are right, they said very weak.
That was my claim. It is a correct claim. Just agree and move on.
‘We estimate a maximum decrease of up to 15–18% in the droplet radius and a mean increase in cloud cover by around 2.5% over the southern oceans during SH summer in the simulation with ocean DMS compared to when the DMS emissions are switched off. The global annual mean top of the atmosphere DMS aerosol all sky radiative forcing is −2.03 W/m2, whereas, over the southern oceans during SH summer, the mean DMS aerosol radiative forcing reaches −9.32 W/m2.’ http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/klostersilvia/Thomas_et_al_ACP_2010.pdf
So this is quite a significant term in the global energy budget. The question is how much this changes and the most significant changes start in the eastern Pacific. Phytoplankton abundances change in ENSO with immense blooms in La Nina fuelling global abundance for fish, birds and marine mammals. It changes decadally with patterns of upwelling the type and abundance of phytoplankton.
A high-resolution study of calcareous phytoplankton in a box core from the Santa Barbara Basin (SBB) reveals floral assemblage fluctuations which can be related to climatic and paleoceanographic changes during the last half century (1940–1996). In particular, Gephyrocapsa oceanica production increased during El Nino periods, in response to high temperatures, silica depletion, and increased iron availability. Conversely, Helicosphaera carteri flux increases in conjunction with lower surface temperatures associated with La Nina episodes. Increasing abundances of Florisphaera profunda and Umbilicosphaera sibogae after 1970 reflect a warming trend and increased stratification within the basin associated with the warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Conversely, increased abundances of Coccolithus pelagicus and Calcidiscus leptoporus before 1970 mark the cold phase of PDO. These coccolithophore production rate data are consistent with instrumental records of surface and thermocline temperatures monitored since 1950. This is the first study to document the response of calcareous phytoplankton to surface water warming occurring in SBB since 1970.’
‘Calcareous phytoplankton response to the half century of interannual climatic variability in Santa Barbara Basin (California) – Bianca De Bernardi,1 Patrizia Ziveri,2,3 Elisabetta Erba,1 and Robert C. Thunell4
Increased phytoplankton abundance is a consequence of increased upwelling of cold and nutrient rich sub-surface water. The abundance feeds zooplankton and zooplankton fish and shrimp – with changes in abundance and species composition appearing all the way up the trophic chain. Anchovies instead of sardines, fat seal pups, whales chasing the anchovies in Monterrey Bay. Abundances of salmon in North American streams. Riches of fish, birds and mammals on the South American coast bordering the most productive ecosystem on the planet. All fuelled by nutrients rising from the abysmal depths.
So DMS emissions from plankton change due to upwelling and influences the energy budget of the Earth. We know upwelling in the eastern Pacific changes on interannual to millennial timescales – so it seems a small step to infer millennial changes in the Earth’s energy budget from this cause.
Millenial scale capability to 20% daily viral kill. This is a versatile mechanism.
===============
steven mosher
defunct: no longer in effect or use; not operating or functioning.
The CLAW hypothesis is defunct:
This is apparently not the case. Either the effect is non-existent or it is so weak as to fall below the threshold of detection. Phytoplankton do not help to regulate the Earth’s climate. So we can say that the CLAW hypothesis is defunct.
If you are going to nit-pick you need to be more precise with your definitions.
Plankton certainly does modulate cloud cover through DMS production on cell breakdown. There are many studies in the literature. The suggestion that this does not change much with warming does nothing to discount this process. The most important changes in plankton abundance arise from upwelling.
That’s why I called it a silly question, Robert; the science is as unexplored as the vasty deeps, and BBD slams his mind’s door shut, lethally injuring curiosity and making truth’s morbidity chronic.
=====================
That’s not what this is about. This is about the claim – now apparently falsified – that plankton plays a role in *regulating* the Earth’s climate.
Yikes! I only missed that slamming door because I saw it coming.
===============================
Rob B is correct
Changes in temperature are not the major issues of concern. The concerns are based on what MIGHT happen as a result of the changes in temperature and we have very unreliable information on that. A lesser rate of warming clearly greatly reduces the amount of threat.
BBD
If a book is written that uses models to forecast future conditions in the UK, but those same models have been demonstrated to not be able to even reasonably accurately predict future rainfall at any specific location, what good is the analysis in the book that describes different conditions based on changes in rainfall?
Kohn’s book should be shelved next to Avatar.
BBD
Let’s be honest about it.
Before buying ANY book the wise buyer/reader checks out the reviews: What’s its message?, what is it trying to do: amuse, inform, entertain, educate, “sell” a proposition?
There are lots of book reviews out there of Marek Kohn’s “Turned out Nice”, a sci-fi vision of how the UK will allegedly look after catastrophic AGW has ravaged it at the end of this century.
You know, the good old scare mongering stuff we’ve heard from green lobby groups, etc.: increased vector borne diseases, migrations of unpleasant animals as well as millions of “climate refugees” escaping torrid temperatures, etc. etc.
This review by Nicholas Lezard in The Guardian ends with: “And all this, or something like it, is going to happen. Don’t think it won’t. Buy this book for your children.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jul/07/turned-out-nice-marek-kohn-review
Peter Carty in The Independent categorizes it as “a fascinating forecast for the next 100 years”
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/turned-out-nice-by-marek-kohn-1984401.html
He add this warning:
“The scientific consensus is well rehearsed. It is easy to heat up the biosphere, but so far there is no practical technology for cooling it down. We are very likely at a tipping point, and prudence therefore dictates drastic reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 10 years.”
So this book is not for amusement or entertainment, but supposedly to educate us (and our children) on what “is going to happen” unless we make ” drastic reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 10 years.”
Once I’ve read a few of these reviews (plus a recommendation from BBD) my “BS meter” has hit the alarm peg.
And I know that I do not need to waste my money and my time on this pap
Sorry, BBD, NO SALE.
Max
Actually BBD gives great clues to the ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd’ that is the social mania of belief in a human-caused, climate-catastrophic future. He is so earnest about this blatantly alarmist piece of fiction. Its importance creates its own reality. Wait a minute, kim, are you spoofing yourself?
=======================
Yes Max, let’s be *honest* about it. Let’s have a jolly good laugh at the view from Planet Manacker:
There are lots of book reviews out there of Marek Kohn’s “Turned out Nice”, a sci-fi vision of how the UK will allegedly look after catastrophic AGW has ravaged it at the end of this century.
What it says in the reviews:
Peter Carty (Independent; same one you quote above):
The fact is, many regions are likely to become merely pleasantly warm. Life in the Yorkshire Dales 80 years hence sounds very nice indeed. Even these gentle temperature rises might be curbed further. A counter-intuitive aspect of climate change relates to the disruption of the heating effects of Atlantic currents, notably the Gulf Stream, which we currently enjoy. This could manifest itself during the 22nd century and the resulting cooling would offset general global temperature rises.
Nicholas Lezard (Guardian; same one you quote above):
The climate of the British Isles will be probably the mildest in Europe, and therefore the most desirable
Steven Yearley (Times Higher Education):
Inhabitants of these islands are sufficiently used to disappointing weather to have developed the expression “it’s turned out nice” as a pleasant form of greeting, optimistic and bland enough to be used even with strangers. The irony, as Kohn points out, is that in the coming century it looks likely to turn out relatively nice for these islands as a whole.
Yup, Kohn’s book is the bleakest, most terrifying post-apocalyptic dystopia imaginable, describing the horrors of life in the UK “after catastrophic AGW has ravaged it”…
BBD
Don’t act like a jerk.
You know full well that Kohn’s book is not describing a new “paradise”, which we will experience after AGW has had its effect over the coming century.
To be sure, he mentions that a warmer UK will be less unpleasant than the torrid conditions elsewhere in the world (resulting in “climate refugees” to the UK from these regions).
He mentions that certain ticks will also love the new, warmer climate (carrying along vector borne diseases to regions that currently do not experience them).
All in all, BBD, the net effect of AGW, as described by Kohn (according to the reviews I have read) is strongly negative (as is the IPCC vision of CAGW.
It is simply scare mongering BS, so not worth me wasting my time reading.
Max
Max, why don’t you just say that CO2 will have no noticeable effect on climate? Instead of all this dance of the seven veils stuff?
Because it is *very obvious* that this is what you believe…
No it isn’t Max. The reviews make that abundantly clear. You are just being dishonest again.
Besides, unlike any of the rest of you lot, I’ve actually read it, and I’m *telling you straight* that the excerpts quoted from the reviews above give a reasonably accurate impression. This book doesn’t present us with a vision of the UK “after catastrophic AGW has ravaged it”.
That’s just a particularly egregious strawman.
Nothing conclusive about UV and phytoplankton I’m afraid.
http://cmep.ca/jcullen/publications/1995/Smith_and_Cullen_1995_Rev_Geophys.pdf
David Springer –
Thanks.
From the paper you cite:
Damage at the molecular, cellular, population and community levels has been demonstrated (at least at the phytoplankton level). (my bold)
I am interested in the response of phytoplankton to potential damage from UV. Descending to depths is one response. Increased DMS emission is another possibility, which may turn out to be negligible according to recent model projections.
However, a warming ocean is claimed to be a key trigger for dramatically increased growth rate of viruses. Don’t know if the model takes that into account.
What parts are cooling?
OMG – it’s quite a lot of the Pacific Ocean . http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
We is all doomed. Doomed I says.
JCH
You ask “What parts are cooling?”
If you are referring to the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly”, then this indicator has shown “cooling” since the end of 2000 (12 years) and lack of warming since the end of 1997 (15 years).
If you are referring to individual locations or geographical regions, a few of these have been cooling for even longer while the majority have shown warming from around 1970 to 1998 or 2000.
Max
Since 1960.
I don’t think sheep would do very well swimming in the Pacific Ocean.
Yes Peter yer do.Here, catch …+1
Beth
My computer models say there should be rapid warming.
My data says warming is at best, very moderate.
Gradually, the fantasy of the models will yield to the reality of actual data.
And so it begins, the Great Climb Down, the cleansing of old quotes and blog posts in a desperate attempt to salvage a career, preserve a reputation.
We will always remember those who chugged the Kool Aide and lead humanity down the path of bizarre and financially ruinous climate fear Mongering.
It’s a good day when Andy Revkin speaks of ‘reality’ in the manner of a man from whose eyes scales have fallen, and when Gavin Schmidt admits to himself that his nightmares are just bad dreams.
=======================
Dang, I could have said it’s a good day when Gavin Schmidt wakes up to the mess he’s made of his bed in his nightmare, but it’s got streaks of badenfreude in the dawning rays, so I hope he’s gonna be OK.
=====================
Nostalgic? http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/climate-change-1002.html
The Portrait of Ronald Prinn.
======================
kim | February 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
Quiz in the AM. Childhood’s End.
Arthur C Clarke.
The face of Evil
Grins at utopic progress.
Kids gettin’ groan up.
=======
These three sentences lead to some profound implications.
First of, let’s be precise. Do you mean by “sensitivity” the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) that is a change in mean global temperatures (ΔTx2). resulting from a doubling of [CO2]?
IF the linearized model
ΔT_global = K1*S*Δ[CO2] + Sum_(i=2,n)[K(i)*OtherFactor(i)]
S.T. 1 = Sum_(i=1,n)[K(i)]
Has any validity AND that the first term dominants (1 ≥ K1 ≥ 0.5), (which seems to be implicit in CAGW carbon-dioxide control studies, reports, laws, taxes and regulations)
THEN finding better estimates of K1*S is worthwhile and therefore using science to define a pdf for values of K1*S (or just S if there are no OtherFactors) and further study to update and narrow that pdf over time is meaningful and worthwhile to a point. There is little point in knowing the pdf of S if the value of K1 is less than 0.1, so the product K1*S is what is meaningful.
But, if it is misleading to think of sensitivity in terms of a pdf
Then I think it follows either
a) the linearized term K1*S*Δ[CO2] has no physical meaning,
b) That the first term K1*S*Δ[CO2] is insignificant compared to other factors,
c) That any significant relationship ΔT_global = f([CO2]) cannot be linearized within the range of [CO2] experienced within the span of the last 200 years.
All three options undermine the theoretical linkage between [CO2] an Climate Change of any sort.
Would it be over simplifying to summarize your qualms about sensitivity pdfs as being too wedded to climate modeling, inappropriate prior distributions, and unrealistic assumptions of ignorance in priors? If so, I agree that pdfs from such work are misleading. But if the linearized model has usefulness (in a predictive, non-political sense) then by keeping closer to the data than the models and successively updating the pdf with new data each year in an evolving chain of prior’s, we ought to narrow and migrate the K1*S pdf. If science is going on, that ought to happen. If the pdf remains essentially unchanged after 30+ years and $billions of research it smacks of anchoring.
(continued to next post)
Prehaps what is happening is that the pdf of S is staying static, but the pdf of K1 is narrowing and moving closer toward zero.
(1:46 pm above asumed the linear model had usefulness. What if it doesn’t)
What is meaningful is the possibility of a scenario of abrupt climate change.
A theory of abrupt climate change means you discard all linearized models or admit that [CO2] is not a factor in any significant linear term involving an abrupt driver. This will only be meaningful if climate science returns to Square One and reexamine what drivers are important in a theory of abrupt climate change.
The danger is that work done and assumptions on linearized models will infect preconceptions about new non-linear models. In this case, we are not adding precision by including non-linear terms to a working linear model. If the non-linear model is necessary it is because the linear model is becoming untenable in the face of new data.
Collapse of the ice sheets is a viable “abrupt change scenario”, though not the only one. If [CO2] is a driver of that collapse, it certainly cannot be linear otherwise it could not be abrupt. No doubt that non-linear climate models can be created to support such scenarios… but then so can Hollywood disaster movies. What DATA do we have to base and calibrate non-linear models in preference to linear ones? It would be wrong to put [CO2] as the preconceived driver of such abrupt change. Is [CO2] the net driver or drivee in these scenarios? Hence, back to Square One and look at all driver candidates.
Do try to concentrate wee willie…big dave. The science is exceedingly difficult for some more than others it seems. There are a few passages from impeccable sources that I quote for the clarity of the passages. They express the core of this concept and the key computatonal implications. But by all means do read the papers.
Just for big Dave – here is the comment again with double spaces.
The ‘sensitivity’ is defined as the average or the range of multi-model ensembles. Each of the members of the ensemble is a non-unique solution of a set of nonlinear equations. The ‘member’ is selected on the basis of ‘a posteriori’ solution behaviour. It looks plausible so it is in. So sensitivity is based on what seems plausible – think of a number – and not an any unique, deterministic solution to an equation.
‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Sounds mad I know – and certainly not made explicit in the way models are reported – which is why I persist in quoting people like James McWilliams and Tim Palmer.
‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision…
In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
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.’ (op. cit.)
Any change in a model can produce divergent solutions that are not predictable beforehand – it is the nature of the nonlinear Navier-Stokes equations – this extends to the range of uncertainty in climate data and to the number and breadth of couplings.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
We are not at the stage of having ‘systematically designed model families’ – thus the first hurdle for precision is not cleared. Solutions are literally chosen subjectively from many possible solutions and the range of solutions remains unknown. This goes directly to the a priori expectation of modellers as to the plausible sensitivity of the system. Subjectivity rather than a deterministic solution of an equation.
I have said this many times in many different ways – but a wider and deeper appreciation of dynamical complexity remains elusive. These models are most certainly chaotic in the sense of theoretical physics – as shown by Lorenz in the early 1960′s.
There may be some expectation that climate as well is nonlinear. Inputs and outputs are not proportional – change is abrupt and episodic – there are multiple equilibria (Rial et al 2004) and unpredictable tipping points (NAS, 2002). Where inputs and outputs are not proportional – the question of sensitivity becomes a problem of a different order entirely.
I probably should have said I wasn’t going to read it even with paragraph breaks. But you probably enjoyed rewriting it so… no harm no foul.
You two should book smoke lodge time.
================
I got a bit sick of quibbling nitwits – and yes the hat suits suits you perfectly big dave. I chié dans votre chapeau.
I think it is probably a bit above your pay grade anyway. Why not go off and play with the kiddies instead?
“We will always remember those who chugged the Kool Aide and lead humanity down the path of bizarre and financially ruinous climate fear Mongering.”
My personal favorite is the inimitable, always right never wrong, there’s been no pause, and even if there has it’s just as terrible, lolwot. Of course, he’s not a climate scientist. I’m not even convinced he’s over 21. But he sure has been fun, and I’m sure will continue to be well into the coming period of cooling.
On a more serious note, it’s going to take a while yet for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scam to begin to seriously unwind at the street level (The NYT’s, NPR, lolwot’s house). I made the mistake of putting on NPR during lunch. The lead story seemed to be how badly the fish are doing off the coast of New England due to how warm it’s getting. Something like that anyway. I could barely listen.
Dr Curry:
What did you do to poor James Annan to make him so catty whenever your name comes up?
Methinks he protesteth.
============
Judith Curry:
”Until we better understand natural internal climate variability, we simply don’t know how to infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing. The issue of how climate will change over the 21st century is highly uncertain, and we basically don’t know whether or not different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions will be (or not be) the primary driver on timescales of a century or less. Oversimplification and overconfidence on this topic have acted to the detriment of climate science. As scientists, we need to embrace the uncertainty, the complexity and the messy wickedness of the problem. We mislead policy makers with our oversimplifications and overconfidence.”
Judith Curry, you have stated, too, that you are ‘willing to engage in the policy process, at the science-policy interface’. As I understand, you have an objective to make even politicians understand if a solution stated by scientists is working or not. Until now, even any one of scientists have not been able to express any proper evidence for the climate warming believed to be dominated by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. That is why even the IPCC scientists base their view of recent warming only on belief in the influence dominated by the athropogenic CO2 emissions. Thus, until now, the politicians have had only one way and this to follow the unreliable advice of scientists. Therefore it is important that even politicians can be made understand the real cause of climate warming.
Even in discussions of this forum, there are plenty of scientists who are grand experts in their own discipline, but the expertise of whom is infrequently enough to solve multiscientific problems like climate warming and extremes of weather are. And even IPCC scientists seem belong under this group. That is why there still is prevailing the ‘deep uncertainty’ for instance concerning the climate sensitivity.
On the basis of multi-disciplinary metallurgical problems I have learned that a working solution of any multi-disciplinary problem can often be made even laymen understand. In the comment of mine http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287036 I have stated:
”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.”
In addition, in the same comment I have stated:
”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 %.”
This should be easy enough to make even politicians as laymen understand. And there is no more any uncertainty of the insignificant influence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on global warming.
When synthetizing the data and other findings available in reality there seems to be one only working solution to the recent problems of climate warming and weather extremes. And that is to learn how to adapt ourselves to natural climate changes and weather events. Instead of the cuts of CO2 emissions, the resources available ought to be used for the adaptation to natural climate warming and weather extremes.
There have been ever deepening uncertainty on the anthropogenic climate warming assumed by UN politicians. According to the duty determined by UN, IPCC has tried to assess the scientific background of the climate warming believed to be anthropogenic. The reports related to the assessments are based on climate model simulations. The results prove only what kind of assumed parameters are needed for the believed antropogenic warming. Any finding in reality is not able to prove that the recent warming could be anthropogenic. Already in the Rio conference 1992 there was expressed no full evidence for the assumed anthropogenic warming. And thereafter – as well as before that – the findings in reality prove duly that the recent increase of CO2 in atmosphere follow warming and not vice versa (e.g. see my comment above).
A rather long way of stating- We really do not know how more atmospheric CO2 will impact the weather but what we do know is that preparing for bad weather is the best defense against whatever occurs. Nations need to build and maintain robust infrastructure to lessen damage to humans! That has almost nothing to do with AGW and is a no regrets path.
“Sensitivity” is just another way of trying to abandon the language of “global warming” while still pretending there’s still a problem to be solved. Renaming global warming to a concern about climate change and adding a few adjectives when that didn’t work — like disastrous and calamitous climate change — hasn’t worked out so well for the global alarmists. Neither has referring to weather as climate wierding.
But, we need to be more sensitive. Being sensitive means we need to look long and hard for the smallest nit in the natter–the invisible nuance–i.e., we must continue to ignore the failure of Western education and their miserable performance based on the all too easily measureable product that is coming out of the state-run dropout factories — and, rename the earnings of the productive so that now our paychecks are government revenues needed to invest in teasing out some unmeasurable human influence on a mythical 30 year average global temperature.
Meanwhile, most of humanity lives outside Western civilization in places like China, India, Brazil, Russia and in the Third world. They’re are getting a good chuckle at our expense when in reality they have much more to fear from the sacrifice of the foundational principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility in America.
I like Judith’s comment and opinion very much.
She’s sensible about sensibility.
And sensitive about sensitivity. Ain’t we all?
==========
Sensible about sensitivity too. I am sypathetic to those who are driven to by a desire save the world but my empathy makes we want to first solve their problems.
How charitable of you, Wag. Would that they could be so charitable to themselves.
===============
I wanted to type sensible about sensitivity of course.
Instead of worrying about polar bears dying from the heat the bus drivers at the San Diego Zoo throw slices of white bread. That’s what really caring is all about.
Bob Droege 5/10.28am, fer the record, because records are
important, I was incorrect, I should have said that John Lennon,
ex Beatle wrote ‘Imagine.’ -1 ter me… It’s still a lousy song,
though, saccharine and cliche.
.
Re Climate change, BD, I at least do not seek ter deny the
pause of 15/16 years, or the, er, implications of that …..
……… pause
Beth – prone – ter – error..
In my opinion you got the important part right. Yesterday is a better song than Imagine.
Beth me darlin’
Something about motes and logs comes to mind.
Cheers
Beth,
You are ok, just don’t go knockin Ringo.
Could the ephemeral pause be due to ENSO?
Anyone been to Spenser’s lately?
Both Yesterday and Imagine share the theme that today sucks, only Yesterday mourns for days gone by while Imagine is optimistically looking to the future. I like imagine better, but then Paul is my least favorite Beatle.
Yesterday – love was such an easy game to play – now I need a place to hideaway… Yesterday is a ballad of lost love. Poignant – quite traditional – beautifully executed as is the norm for early Beatles.
The pause is certainly associated with a cool Pacific in the 20 to 40 cool Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. But the IPO is best viewed as a standing wave on the underlying choatic dynamical system that is the Earth’s climate.
To view these decadal shifts in the instrumental record as the limits of natural variability would be misguided.
Right, who said that ENSO was the limit to natural variability. Saying all is good because we haven’t exceeded the limits of natural variability is a false hope. Knowing where climate has gone in the past is a cornerstone of the argument for mitigation.
We know natural variability has caused near complete melting of the ice caps and attendant sea level rise. So it would be wise to prevent the warming that would cause excessive sea level rise.
Bob – you were talking about the pause which is due to natura variability – the limits to which are far from the mere decadal variability we have seen in the instrumental record. It goes far beyond ENSO which is just one expression of a global system. A deterministically chaotic system subject to control variables – such as CO2 – multiple positive and negative feedbacks and multiple equilibria. The result is that climate shifts abruptly – inputs and outputs are not proportional – change is in principle deterministic but in practice indeterminate. There are risks at both far ends of the warming/cooling spectrum.
I am far from opposed to carbon mitigation – although the failure over decades suggest that another approach might be warranted. It is as well the politics of a pause that seems likely to last for another decade or three that concerns me. It looks very much like you have dug a hole – and the engineer in me insists that the first action is to stop digging. This might entail a reexamination of assumptions – and adoption of the dynamical paradigm for climate.
Chief,
I am not denying the dynamical nature of the climate system, nor its inherent chaotic nature.
The thing is, we are pushing it in one direction, and positive feedbacks are in play, negative ones not so evident. Unless you can provide evidence of negative feedback.
Humans are too good at pattern recognition, we tend to see patterns where none are there.
The climate system could be flat right now, building energy for the next “great climatic shift”
I am looking for natural variability in climate – and there there are many and varied mechanisms. Cloud is one – http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/ – cloud cover obviously changes with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation. Indeed – both ISCCP-FD and ERBS satellite data say that clouds were the major source of recent warming. CERES in this century shows cloud cover changes remarkedly consistent with ARGO data for the overlapping period. The other areas to keep an eye on are THC changes snow and ice cove feedbacks.
The system is exquisitely sensitive at regions of bifurcation – but not so otherwise. The response of the system to internally driven, abrupt and noninear change is not predictable. What seems evident is that the multi-decadal warrmer and cooler modes tend to persist for 30 to 40 years. But there is centennail to millennial variability as well. Beyond the next deacade or three there be dragon-kings. (http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290) I don’t think we know enough about the limits of natural variability to predict anything beyond that.
Better
Mid life crisis?
You might like this better dave
I’m more of a Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Got To Get You Into My Life, Day Tripper, and of course Strawberry Fields Forever.
I remember watching this live in 1964. My father called me “Beatle” because I had the same haircut which was pretty radical for the length at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHuRusAlw-Y
They were kind of innocent back then. Good times.
This goddam +1 franchise is keepin’ me busy, thinkin’ of lettin’ it go.
+1 fer this comment by Kim – the – non – pareil:
Each and every little plant is wondering why its share of the
record bursting huge amount of CO2 is so little, but each
and everyone of them is bursting with gratitude it’s not less.
The pollution soaked
Parbati’s little critter.
A bud in the worm.
==============
kch | February 5, 2013 at 9:49 am |
The numbering is mine.
“Our parks will be arid brown fields(1); private automobile use unheard of(2); water will be severely rationed(3); significant stretches of our beloved coastline will have been sacrificed to the sea(4). Some of our flora and fauna will have vanished(5); exotic animals and pests will flourish(6). Vast numbers of marginalised human migrants will be here(7). Surveillance and restriction of our movements will be taken for granted(8). Walking in what is left of ‘nature’ will be nearly impossible(9). Terrible summer fires in our upland areas will be commonplace.(10)”
Wow. Three more calamities than the bible says are coming.
Now I’m really askeert.
Yeah, but it’s a dry heat!
Yes, Steven, ‘Yesterday, Michelle ma belle, Hey Jude,
Clown on the hill, I am the walrus,) Hard day’s night,’
plus ones fer each of them.
(Signing off me franchise now, whoever wants it go fer it!)
BC
Number 9, number 9, number 9, number 9…
They may stop the funding
Place your bets
Are you channeling Herman Caine?
Speaking of books, hope y’vall read, ‘Do Not Feed the Trolls.’
I hear its short listed fer the Booker Prize.*
C.Booker that is :)
Leftists and liberals employed the rhetoric of ‘Holocaust denier’ to compare Wm Gray, a skeptical scientist, to a Nazi. In doing so Westerners heard clearly the Left’s consensus of opinion about the collectivists’ form of truth ‘finding,’ truth ‘making’ and ’truth’ control. The liberal fascism of the global warming Familia is our wake up call that the AGW insult dogs – Leftists in pinkshirts with Mao’sLittle Red Book – have taken over the Left’s war against individual liberty waged earlier by Germany’s National Socialist Workers Party in brownshirts.
Wag,
Just wondering if you have ever discussed politics with real Nazis? If so what do you make of their claim that Bolshevism and Capitalism are just two different facets of a Zionist / Jewish world conspiracy to achieve global domination? The very wealthy like the Rothchilds are disproportionately Jewish. Marx , Engels, Trotsky were Jewish.
They’d argue that Capitalists and Bolsheviks pretend to dislike each other but they are secretly working together to subjugate the Aryan race. Sometimes it’s not so secret like when Russia and the USA ally themselves in WW2. They’d argue that there are two Zionist states in the world: Israel and the USA. They argue that both Red Army and the US army use a star as their symbols. Lenin was a quarter Jewish. Stalin was secretly Jewish – both his wives were Jewish. The Jews promote racial mixing between Blacks and Aryans etc but are careful to keep their own race separate etc etc.
So, what do you reckon? How would you answer someone like that?
We should discuss politics with Anders Brevik, the Unibomber or Peter Martin? Not likely.
Why must we bury the AGW hypothesis, throw the money-changers out of their temples in Copenhagen and close down for good all of the margarita bars in Cancun where feckless UN-approved science authoritarians gather to vote on what is fact or fiction? Because there must no longer be a place reserved in Western science for those who only come to burn a witch or kick a Jew or hack off the limbs of the few so that the many will learn some terrible lesson we must all learn for our own good.
Wag, I’d have laughed at this not long ago. Another right wing loon forgetting to take his morning medication. I’m not laughing anymore. There’s some truth to what you say.
Sorry, poker, but Wag has it right – today’s left is the new fascism-Nazism, and the AGW agenda will surely cause another tens of millions of needless deaths if carried out in full – another Holocaust for sure. It’s already causing hunger and even starvation in poorer countries (the ethanol program driving up grain prices) and deaths from freezing in Europe when people can’t afford $100/MMBtu ($10/therm) natural gas and can’t burn coal during some of the coldest winters on record. These deaths are squarely at the hands of people who think like you.
More charity. pokerguy’s skeptical creds are impeccable, and he shows signs of remarkable political insight.
============
Motes and logs, yes, I’d give yr observation a plus one but I’m
no longer in that business, sweet chief. Consider moats and locks,
they can be anathema to science and the open society. Defensive
fear of the heretic, must lock down. What did Sun-Tsu say on seige warfare?
BC
Judith,
“The issue of how climate will change over the 21st century is highly uncertain”
Except for the lower estimates? When Prof Lindzen gives us his 1 degC, or lower, estimate for climate sensitivity I don’t remember seeing any comments from climate sceptics raising the ‘uncertainty’ objection. Or have I just missed all those?
“and we basically don’t know whether or not different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions will be (or not be) the primary driver on timescales of a century or less. ”
So, if we “basically don’t know”, does that mean it’s OK to go ahead on a business usual scenario?
Would emissions controls on GH gases only be justified if we ‘basically’ did know, with absolute certainty, and with no room for any doubt whatsoever, just what the effect would be otherwise?
yup their science is settled
What’s consensus sensitivity estimate down to today?
At the current rate of decline in GAT Lindzen’s estimate will be the consensus before Obama leaves office. He was just ahead of his time is all.
~3C most likely value. It’s in AR5 SOD ;-)
“~3C” sez BBD & IPCC (at least through AR4)
Looking more like ~half of that, based on latest data.
But, hey, even at 1.5C IPCC can still posit that “most of observed global warming since 1950 was caused by increased human GHGs”, where:
“most” = 67%% to 80%
“CO2” forcing = 75% of total GH forcing
‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
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.’ McWillims 2007
The attentive will note that I have quoted this a number of times. The repetition however would hardly amount to repetition of claims of sensitivity in as far as they arise from numerical models. The lack of understanding of model dynamics enables a false confidence to be placed in the results of these opportunistic ensembles. The false confidence isn’t something that practitioners share – but is entirely something that is constructed socially in a reinforcing group meme.
“At the current rate of decline in GAT Lindzen’s estimate will be the consensus before Obama leaves office. He was just ahead of his time is all.”
Doubtful. What you can expect is the long tail getting shorter. Slowly but surely. Lidezens off in his own tail and its harder to move the bulk of the distribution his way. mode will pretty much stay where it is.
MODTRAN pretty much perfectly agrees with Lindzen’s CO2 estimate.
Lindzen is still too high. MODTRAN is for a perfectly dry environment. Where there’s water available to evaporatively cool the surface the primary effect is the CO2 forcing causing the cloud deck to rise about 100 meters per doubling. The higher cloud tops have less atmosphere above them to hinder radiative cooling to space so they cool faster without getting warmer. This will become evident soon as observations of global average cloud height become available. In the meantime every year the so called pause continues the observation based sensitivity estimates fall. It’s all over but the crying Mosher. Get used to it. You joined the losing team.
HOLY COLD SPELL, BATMAN!
-0.01C per month for the past 3 years.
Will this madness never end?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend/detrend:-0.326
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!!111
Well Dave I will tell you that I used MODTRAN when it was still classified. YF23 threat analysis. Its an ok tool, but you really should use a LBL model. It will give you a good estimate of the forcing. NOT feedbacks.
The way I view it is as follows. To a first order we know the MODTRAN number.( or pick an excellent LBL model, modtran is quick and dirty, something you might run onboard a satillite ). That number wont change.
Last big update to the estimate was 1998, changed maybe 10%.
That leaves the question of feedbacks.
the balance of evidence is for positive feedbacks not negative. That’s why the lukewarmer number starts at the MODTRAN figure as the low end.
There’s no credible evidence for negative feedbacks outweighing positive.
Although I would be super happy to be wrong about that. Since I’m rational and open minded I can even tell you what kind of evidence it would take to change my mind.
‘Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.
Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Not sure what your problem is. Clearly in the Proceedings of The Royal Society – nothing is certain.
No douby wee willie or Joshua the … will accuse me of repeating myself. But in the extreme provocation of this tedious and inane argument being dragged out for an airing yet one more time – I will do it again.
‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.
The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’ http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
So if you read the report – there are any number of ways forward that might actually work. And you will find that most sceptics – unlike obvious maniacs like big dave – will not object to these measures. Only to the huge costs with uncertain and far distant benefts bit. So why don’t you pick up your soapbox – go away and come back with something original so I don’t have to repeat myself to the annoyance of big dave and wee willie. Not that I give a rat’s arse what they think – just my cut an paste finger is suffering repetitive strain. But OK? Is it a deal? I will stop calling you a pissant progressive. Maybe.
Would you please stop repeating yourself?
‘The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009 argues for a changed approach to international climate policy after the sustained failure of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The paper argues that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.” The paper calls for “human dignity” to serve as a necessary guiding principle of climate policy and outlines three central objectives consistent with this guiding principle: (1) ensuring energy access for all, (2) developing clean and scalable energy technologies that are ultimately cost competitive with fossil fuels absent subsidy, and (3) building resilience to climate change. It also argues for vigorous action to reduce non-CO2 climate forcings and pollutants such as black carbon and ozone. The result of three months of intensive work by a group of 14 authors from Asia, Europe, and North America, the paper was published in May 2010 by the MacKinder Programme at the London School of Economics and the Institute for Science, Innovation, and Society at the Saïd Business School, University of Oxford.’ It can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/HartwellPaper
If we got rid of the ideological carousel big dave – you would have nothing left but ad homs, links to Wikipedia and salacious fantasies about me (shudder). TT would not repeat the same inane argument day after day. Honesty and good cheer would prevail. All would be perfect in the best of all possible worlds.
‘If the protracted climate battles of the past two decades polarized the American people and their representatives in Washington, DC, they also created an opportunity for the unlikeminded to come together around the three-part framework described above. The climate wars will no doubt continue between extremes on both sides, but that should not delay a far-larger set of pragmatic Americans from embracing policies and measures that attract widespread agreement, are adjustable over time, incremental in their implementation, and provide positive feedbacks for further action. For too long, the national and international climate debate has been little more than that: a debate. There is much that people and nations can agree to disagree on, even as they agree to work together on practical actions. It is time to get started.’
It is time to move on past the unreconstructed ideologues of both sides of the climate war.
The Hartwell paper is my cup of tea. However I need to remind you that it was you who invited me to disrobe and roll around on the floor with you. Any salaciousness is entirely yours I’m afraid. Don’t get me wrong. I’m flattered that you’d like to have a romp with me, and I’m sure there are many other men who find your offer attractive, but that’s not my cup of tea. I think Willard and Mosher might be up for a threesome with you.
Is my face red – I thought a Taxas death match was more two fisted cowboy than camp. Although I suppose after Brokeback Mountain I shouldn’t be surprised. But you might have spared everyone – not least me – the graphical description.
Brokeback Mountain is in Wyoming not Texas.
Wyoming is a lot like the Australian outback only not as feminized.
We fight with guns here, by the way. That’s why we’re the superpower and you’re the… ah… dorks that are afraid of bad weather is the kindest way of putting it.
The flapping is all in your jaw with this chaos crap.
The earth’s climate has been locked in a narrow range of temperature suitable for life for BILLIONS OF YEARS. That’s the polar opposite of chaotic dufus.
But hey, keep on flappin’. The Pratt/Ellison probability calculus predicts that the more times you’re mistaken the more likely it becomes that you’ll be right. Wait long enough Ellison will get a clue.
So hi big dave – such a pleasure to see that you are still stalking me with your schoolgirl version of a pissing contest.
But what the hell – Texans as I explained are potentially OK – but the rest of the country is all hat and no cow. I am inclined to think that a ‘Texas death match’ is something that comes from Wyoming, Oklahoma or possibly California – and has nothing to do with Texas at all. Where did you say you come from? You want to pull a gun? What a laugh.
Though I hate to say it – the idea of a superpower with an economy in the toilet for a decade or so more, unable to control the deficit and spending and multi-trillion dollar debts spiralling out of control – and reduced to inviting China to Pacific Ocean defence exercises is laughable. Get used to treading a lot more softly in the world because no one is going to back down – least of all us. You would be surprised at our ability to project military strength and the depth of friendships we have in our region.
As I explained to webby recently – the larrikin and mateship are our most sacred ideals of nationhood. Forged in an unforgiving land and tempered on the battlefields of the 20th Century.
‘The myth of the digger and the larrikin hero is an important part of the Australian experience of pastoralism, the goldfields, bushranging, shearing and droving. In Settlers and Convicts, first published in 1847, Alexander Harris wrote of the relationship between male pastoral workers in the early days of the British colony:
… working together in the otherwise solitary bush; habits of mutual helpfulness arise, and these elicit gratitude, and that leads on to regard. Men under these circumstances often stand by one another through thick and thin; in fact it is a universal feeling that a man ought to be able to trust his own mate in anything.
Henry Lawson wrote in Shearers:
They tramp in mateship side by side –
The Protestant and Roman
They call no biped lord or sir
And touch their hat to no man!’
We stand by our mates. It is the Australian larrikin who in mateship has stood side by side with America in every godforsaken battlefield for close to a century. We have sealed our mateship in blood. If you want to call that nothing – then we can call it nothing too.
I can’t keep up with your stalking big dave
Probability –
‘Events A and B are independent events if the probability of Event B occurring is the same whether or not Event A occurs. Let’s take a simple example. A fair coin is tossed two times. The probability that a head comes up on the second toss is 1/2 regardless of whether or not a head came up on the first toss. The two events are (1) first toss is a head and (2) second toss is a head. So these events are independent…
When two events are independent, the probability of both occurring is the product of the probabilities of the individual events. More formally, if events A and B are independent, then the probability of both A and B occurring is:
P(A and B) = P(A) x P(B)
where P(A and B) is the probability of events A and B both occurring, P(A) is the probability of event A occurring, and P(B) is the probability of event B occurring.
If you flip a coin twice, what is the probability that it will come up heads both times? Event A is that the coin comes up heads on the first flip and Event B is that the coin comes up heads on the second flip. Since both P(A) and P(B) equal 1/2, the probability that both events occur is
1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4’ http://onlinestatbook.com/2/probability/basic.html
Seems simple enough even for the most dimwitted of tossers.
I think I might be in quite good company in a legion of scientists. I should think you are in the company of webby, blah blah and TT – so sad big dave.
The ‘conclusion that abrupt climate changes have occurred in the past is almost impossible to avoid. Their timing, however, is rather difficult to pin down, due to the inherent imprecision of geochemical dating methods (decay of radioactive elements such as carbon 14 or uranium series). Nonetheless, the analysis of annually banded records (ice cores, corals, tree-rings, or speleothems) has firmly established the rapid rate of these changes.
The ubiquitous character of certain events further confirms their importance: “the Younger Dryas and a large number of abrupt changes during the last ice age called Dansgaard/Oeschger events (23 abrupt changes into a climate of near-modern warmth and out again, during the last glacial period) have been corroborated in multiple ice cores from Greenland, Antarctica and tropical mountains, marine sediments from the North Atlantic Ocean, the tropical Atlantic, eastern Pacific, and Indian Oceans, and from various records on land. Other, smaller abrupt changes have been linked to societal disruptions. Evidence for some of these events are more regional in nature, and points to far less dramatic changes. However, these events did occur so rapidly and unexpectedly that human or natural systems had difficulty adapting to them – the second definition of abrupt climate change.” (source: NOAA Facts Sheet)
Thus, while we like to find evidence of large events in many distant locations, local changes can be instructive examples of abrupt climate change, if properly dated.’ http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/main.shtml
Global regime like changes in hydrology are immensely important. Here is a graph Tsonis’ Minoan paper – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=ENSO11000.gif – on which as well as the big dry that may have hastened the demise of the Minoans commencing about 1500 years ago – you can see the shift from La Nina to El Nino around 5000 years ago that initiated the drying of the Sahel and changed the course of human history.
At the very least an intensification of La Nina over the next several centuries seems possible as the world abruptly crosses the threshold of Bond Event Zero. So not only will the US be parched and likely quite cooler over a decade or three more – the centennial to millennial prospects for rain look only middlin’ to awful. The least of your problems perhaps. At the very least it emphasises the impact of decadal shifts in rainfall that real hydrologists need to plan for.
I love grand sweeping statements that mean nothing at all. Keep up the good work dufus.
Temp
In many “skeptics” eyes the argument is that we do not know that any warming will lead to “net harms” for the world overall or for their nation individually. This makes people highly reluctant to agree to higher taxes or significant changes in their chosen way of life. That does not mean that positive action cannot be taken however. There are many no regrets policies that can be taken and virtually all people would agree upon would lead to lesser future harm from an unpredictable climate.
Imo, many people have decided to rush ahead to implement “mitigation actions” that are expensive and cannot be shown to have a positive impact worthy of the expected cost. I am skeptical that implementation of mitigation actions are a wise use of limited resources. Over time we will have better information.
Temp, “Except for the lower estimates? When Prof Lindzen gives us his 1 degC, or lower, estimate for climate sensitivity I don’t remember seeing any comments from climate sceptics raising the ‘uncertainty’ objection. Or have I just missed all those?”
1 C is based on purely the radiant impact of a doubling of CO2, no assumptions of feedbacks. Anything higher requires assumptions that are frankly not proving themselves to be valid. If land use has an impact, it would be amplified by CO2 whether as an increase or decrease. So an estimate of 1C to 1.5C should be absolute normal. Anything over or under should require the proof.
tempterrain
“Uncertainty” about the future has always been a part of life.
When it comes to weather (and its integral or composite, climate) there has always been very great “uncertainty”.
The climate models of Hansen or IPCC have not reduced this “uncertainty”.
In fact, their failure to predict future climate is well demonstrated.
The current “lack of warming” has further increased the “uncertainty” of how future climate will look.
Recent studies show that there is great “uncertainty” on the postulated theoretical temperature impact of doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations, with latest estimates running around half the previous ones.
As a result, there is no sound basis for undertaking any actions intended to mitigate global warming when we are “uncertain” a) whether there is going to be any future warming at all, b) whether this warming will be beneficial for human society rather than harmful (which is more likely, based on history), c) whether there is anything we could do the stop this warming, even if we tried and d) what the unforeseen negative consequences of any actions we would undertake might be.
It’s a no-brainer, TT.
Max
Tenacious life, loves light and warmth and – what – ever-
Time fer a repeat folk:
Root Cellar.
Nothing would slep in that cell,
dank as a ditch. Bulbs broke out of boxes hunting for chinks in the dark,
Shoots dangled and drooped,
Lolling obscenely from mildewed crates,
Hanging down long yellow evil necks, like tropical snakes.
And what a congress of stinks!
Roots ripe as old bait,
Pulpy stems, rank, silo-rich,
Leaf mould, manure, lime, piled against slippery plaks.
Nothing would give up life:
Even the dirt kept breathing a small breath..
H/t ter the divine Theodore Roethke … Oh Gaia!
Repeating Beth? It is even betterer second time around.
A superbly chosen poem Beth. What else can we do but revisit these timeless works over and over again. It’s a damn miracle of word choices. “Even the dirt kept breathing a small breath.”
I’m not going ter edit ‘What the … who cares!
How to estimate climate sensitivity from first principles
A. If we start with 1 molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere, how many times does this have to double before we reach the current situation?
B. After we subtract the effects of H2O in warming the atmosphere, how much warming is actually due to CO2?
C. Divide B by A and you have your answer.
Current situation = 3.15 x 10^40 molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere. ≈ 2 ^ 134.
Earth is 33C warmer due to GHG, of which CO2 is 20% responsible = 6.6C warming in total from CO2.
Therefore, CO2 sensitivity
= 6.6C / 134 doublings
= 0.05C per doubling of CO2.
H/T ferdberple at WUWT. Some minor corrections to his numbers.
A bit tongue in cheek, but refute it if you can.
You are stating, in effect, that the addition of the second molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere increased the total surface temperature by .05 C. That would have been one real busy molecule. To the contrary, I suspect the net effect of that second molecule was virtually zero, as were the 3rd and 4th, 5th to 8th, 9th to 16th and so on for quite some time. A sufficient level of CO2 would have finally resulted in a measureable temperature increase at some point well beyond 2^some-small-number.
Methinks that refutes the argument.
John Tofflemire
Fred’s arithmetic is correct.
Your logic (that a single molecule of CO2 could NOT cause 0.05C warming) is also correct.
Whether or not 280 ppmv CO2 were responsible for 6.6C out of the theoretically estimated total “natural” GH warming of 33C is a moot point; the entire concept is pure theory in any case. And besides, CO2 concentration has “naturally” been several time this value in the past.
To paraphrase you: Methinks Fred’s calculation just shows how dicey the whole concept of a 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” is in the first place.
Max
Certainly his extending the log approximation back to one molecule is dicey, isn’t it?
“Earth is 33C warmer due to GHG, of which CO2 is 20% responsible”
That’s an educated guess and some might quibble that educated doesn’t belong.
Even the modestly informed are aware that CO2 absorption increases linearly at low concentrations. At around 100ppm it turns into a case of diminishing returns. At 400ppm current that’s two doublings, out of 134 doublings, where it’s outside the linear response domain. The first molecule does a f*ck of a lot more absorbing than the last, in other words.
The ignorance around here is appalling at times. Buy a clue Heyworth.
Here’s how it works in terms the proverbial 12-year old can understand.
Imagine infrared photons are apples on a tree and that CO2 molecules are people picking apples from the tree. With just a few pickers they can each work on a portion of the tree to that two pickers can pick twice as many apples as on picker and so forth. As you add more pickers you eventually get to a point where they crowd each other out. Imagine a hundred people all crowded around the same tree.
That’s exactly how CO2 absorption works and this has been well known since Tyndall discovered it experimentally 150 years ago.
100ppm in the atmospheric column above the earth is where it starts getting pretty crowded.
Calculated surface temperature vs. CO2 concentration via MODTRAN
http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/modtran.jpg
This is as good as any graph I found. It shows the 1.1C no-feedback warming going from 300ppm to 600ppm CO2. Note the changing response. For 10K total temperature boost from 0-300ppm the first 25ppm does half the work (5C increase) and by 100ppm the curve is well out of the linear increase domain.
You don’t seem to understand irony, David. I’m well aware that climate sensitivity is not really a constant. The point of the exercise was to illustrate, as Max Manacker picked up, “how dicey the whole concept of a 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity” is in the first place.” I like your apple picker analogy, btw. All that remains is to demonstrate it experimentally.
I understand irony. Do you understand Poe’s Law? There’s a lot of stupid around here. Use a smiley olr something so we can tell intentional stupid apart from parody.
Tyndall experimentally demonstrated the apple picker analogy 150 years ago. See his treatise Heat: A Mode of Motion. It’s on google books in its entirety. A good read made better the quaint language of science way back then and the ingenuity of the experimenters. For instance Tyndall fashioned a calorific ray detector (thermopile) so sensitive he had to read the analog indicator with a telescope because if he got any closer his body heat messed up the reading.
Well, I did mention something about tongue in cheek …
Alex,
A bit tongue in cheek, but refute it if you can.
The logarithmic formula was empirically determined by Arrhenius at the start of the 20th century. Its an approximation.
One analogy I’ve seen is painting a pane of glass. Each successive layer has a lesser effect on both the light being transmitted and the light being absorbed than the previous one and the relationship is therefore logarithmic.
If you follow the same logic you end up “proving” that the first molecule of paint on the glass will have a huge effect on both the transmission and absorption of light.
If you think about what’s happening, and you’re reasonably good mathematically, you’ll realise why the logarithmic formula works after a few layers but not a few molecules.
I’ll write it all out over the weekend if anyone is interested.
I suggest you study the linked graph above. CO2 absorption increases linearly in concentrations much below 100ppm. Tyndall, not Arseholiness, discovered it.
Black pigment added to white paint is a far better analogy, by the way. Not only does it better describe the case of diminishing returns (the first few molecules of pigment do the most darkening while added pigment never quite stops making it darker) but also how just a few ounces of black pigment change the temperature of a thousand pound car body sitting in the sun from luke warm to burning hot (illustrating how a tiny percentage of adulterant can have a large effect).
Write all that up. I’ll grade your work on Saturday and give you a cookie if it’s up to snuff.
Dave Springer,
Again the linear relationship is just an approximation. The atmosphere doesn’t know to switch from one mathematical function to another at 100ppmv.
The easiest way to think about it is that the first layer lets 95% through and absorbs 5%. Then the next layer lets 95% of the 95% through and absorbs 5% of the 95%. And so on as more layers are added. You can put these numbers in spreadsheet and create a graph. You’ll see that the plot will look linear to start with, then more logarithmic, then you’ll see a saturation region.
CO2 “knows” precisely it’s absorptive characteristics just like it “knows” its precise atomic weight. Whatever science teachers you had were abject failures in your case. Go back to school and come back when you know more.
Dave Springer,
The paint, pesumably in its can, in your analogy is still opaque whether its black or white. You need to use a model which is partially transparent to be able to understand what is happening.
Its often asked how a gas which is measured in ppm can have any significant impact on IR transparency and therefore the GH effect and cliamte. You could think about how a drop of dye in a tank full of water can give the whole water a tint which reduces its transparency at that particular wavelength. A GH gas acts on the atmosphere in exactly the same way, except of course it’s in the IR and outside of the visible spectrum.
David, you write “One doubling of CO2 at 300ppm produces 1.1C of warming in a perfectly controlled environment i.e. in vitro.”
In the real world, this number has NEVER been measured. You quote it with no +/-; a real no-no in physics. I dont believe we have any idea what the value of this number is
The land responds to forcing faster, especially dry areas, as they have a lower thermal inertia. The land is warming faster than the oceans for this reason. Given time the oceans will warm too, but it is land first just because of inertia. You notice a similar thing with summer, or noontime heat over land versus water. This has nothing to do with water vapor feedback, obviously.
Above was response to below Springer.
Yes, write it up. It is still hard to fathom that 134 doublings can produce 6.6 degrees of warming, yet a mere one doubling can produce 2, 3 or even more degrees. Although I take Dave Springer’s point about the increase being linear up to a point and logarithmic thereafter, I ask “why”?
Alex Heyworth perhaps it’s the good ol’ law of diminishing returns? One thing to remember, though, the stratosphere is not a closed system and entrophy should follow from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Thanks to David Springer I refreshed myself on these Laws)
One doubling of CO2 at 300ppm produces 1.1C of warming in a perfectly controlled environment i.e. in vitro.
The earth is far from perfectly controlled environment. In vivo it could be more or it could be less. The warmists would have you believe the 1.1C of warming under laboratory conditions initiates a cascade of secondary effects including what’s called “water vapor amplification” where a little bit of extra warm evaporates more water and owing to water vapor being a greenhouse gas it adds another 2C-3C of warming. This has never been demonstrated, there is no evidence at all that it exists, and all the available evidence says the basic heating effect of CO2 is 1.1C per doubling is all there is and that much warming only happens in very dry environments with increasingly less surface warming where water is available to evaporate. Evaporating water cools the surface, big time, and clouds don’t negate it. So where there is water to evaporate the surface doesn’t get warmer but instead the cloud deck rises about 100 meters per doubling and where there was once dry cool air above the clouds there’s now a warm cloud occupying that layer in the atmosphere instead. The cloud top, being 100 meters higher, has less atmosphere between it and outer space and thus it cools more efficiently from the higher altitude.
This has not been confirmed but it will be soon. We’re just beginning to collect data on global average cloud height. You’ll remember me as the first one to describe this. It’s elementary my dear Watson.
Confirming evidence for evporation negating the warming effect of CO2 is look at regional warming. The highest mean annual temperature ever recorded was from 1960 to 1966 in a salt desert close to the equator in Ethiopia. If water vapor amplification was real we should expect to see that record over an equatorial jungle instead of a desert. Evaporation and clouds negates CO2 warming. Also, northern hemisphere warming is greater than southern hemisphere. There’s twice as much land surface in the NH. Land surface is dryer than ocean surface. There’s more warming in winter than in summer. Winters are dryer because the air can’t hold as much water vapor and if it’s freezing snow doesn’t evaporate very well at all. Everything makes sense in light of evaporation negating surface heating by CO2. Everything. The grand mistake of the climate catastrophists was using an instrument network primarily located in industrialized NH locations and mistaking a natural warming trend beginning in the 1970-1980 timeframe with anthropogenic warming. The so-called pause is a category killer. It should not have happened while CO2 increased by another 20%. That’s just too much hypothetical forcing for a complete lack of warming response. Skeptics now own this space. Climate boffins are back peddling like crazy trying to figure out how to salvage their dignity and regain a measure of credibility. Ignorant sycophants of these boffins are the new deniers.
Modelling how clouds, of many different charateristics and associated feedbacks, affect global climate is horrendously difficult.
Anyone who thinks ” it’s elementary my dear Watson” hasn’t the slightest clue!
This got in the wrong place first time.
David, you write “One doubling of CO2 at 300ppm produces 1.1C of warming in a perfectly controlled environment i.e. in vitro.”
In the real world, this number has NEVER been measured. You quote it with no +/-; a real no-no in physics. I dont believe we have any idea what the value of this number is.
tempterrain –
Springer’s laser beam illuminates so many points so quickly that I am sure you can see a picture on the wall. And if it’s not also the writing on the wall spelling out an easing to CO2 alarmism, then please help out with substantive comments.
Do not take this: “Ignorant sycophants of these boffins are the new deniers.” as a challenge to self-identify.
Instead take it as a challenge to intelligently criticize such as this:
“If water vapor amplification was real we should expect to see [the high temperature] record over an equatorial jungle instead of a desert. Evaporation and clouds negates CO2 warming.”
Don’t satellites measure the temperature at the top of the jungle canopy? And isn’t the albedo of the canopy much lower than that of sand? So what the hell is going on, if not what Springer claims? Maybe it is obvious and I am too stupid to get it. Even so, I am not asking for to be cured of stupidity, just relieved of ignorance.
Thanks.
Consider the disparity in night-time temperature between desert (extremely cold) and rainforest (very warm).
BBD –
“Consider the disparity in night-time temperature between desert (extremely cold) and rain-forest (very warm).”
ok. Each morning jungle temps begin significantly higher than the desert temps. Despite the head-start in temps, lower albedo and amplifying effects of much higher humidity, jungle highs fall short of desert high temps.
now what? i still don’t get it. :(
Lots of factors as you suggest. Rainforest: high humidity and cloudiness (the rain in rainforest comes from?) means a mix of cloud albedo reflecting DSW (negative) and IR absorption and re-radiation below cloud deck from WV (positive). Hot days and nights but not as hot as deserts because cloud albedo modulates DSW.
Deserts are dry so *full* DSW flux to the surface = very high peak T. But no cloud/WV = cold night-time temperature.
BBD –
Thanks for your reply. I think you might have scored a bulls-eye but for hitting the wrong target.
Springer’s point which I wanted to discuss with tempterrain had entirely to do with RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES. (I am not yelling, but I don’t want you to miss out on this item because it is and always has been the target to aim for.)
Also, it is important to not confuse an increase in average temperature with an increase in record high temperatures else I may once again will have to explain that I am not yelling.
thanks.
BBD –
To clarify. what I am asking for is an explanation as to why Springer is mistaken in his claim that cooling from increased evaporation results in a reduced likelihood of record high temperatures. NOT CONFIRMATION AS TO WHY HE IS CORRECT. ok that time I was yelling. sorry.
you have the last word.
Why should you not expect record high temperatures in a desert under uninterrupted DSW (no cloud, no WV)? Bear in mind that rock and sand in the midday sun become hot enough to burn flesh. Have you ever been burned by a plant in the midday sun?
BBD –
You have wasted your opportunity for the last word because you put it in the form of a rhetorical question. You ought to know that many are afflicted with the inability to automatically accede to non-obvious truth.
It has already been established that deserts are hotter than jungles. The paradox to focus on is “humidity amplification of forcing at equal LATITUDES”. It seems to me that you agree with Springer. And if you cannot differentiate your claims from his, then the point of disagreement is inscrutable.
Deserts and rainforest at the same latitude? Do you know what a Hadley Cell is?
blueice2hotsea | February 7, 2013 at 4:49 pm said: ”It has already been established that deserts are hotter than jungles. The paradox to focus on is “humidity amplification of forcing at equal LATITUDES”
blueice, you sound as a dedicated person; so let me correct you regarding establishment of desert being warmer than rainforest, on same latitude / altitude: deserts are hotter at daytime / colder at night, than in the rainforest. BUT, if you take the temp for every minute in 24h = they have SAME temp – because the ”extra heat” at daytime is canceled by ”extra” coldness at night, in the desert. It means: you have the best proof that: shoncks collecting only the hottest minute in 24h, is meaningless!!!!
2] in the rainforest is ;;warmer” for you; but not for the rock, thermometer, or for the crocodile. I.e. sweating for cooling in rainforest is not efficient, so you feel hotter, because of your body produced heat, on the top of what’s in the air. b] your body produced heat of 12-14C, is not taken into account by you and by the ”researchers”. To know in detail, and have the most solid / undeniable evidences, please have a look at my post :http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/water-vapor/
BBD and stephenthedenier
I find that while I can often understand what each of you are saying, I mostly don’t understand what it has to with the topic at hand. Perhaps you two would be best to carry on with me.
bye,
bi2hs
BBD | February 7, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
“Deserts and rainforest at the same latitude? Do you know what a Hadley Cell is?”
World Geography another class you passed via social promotion?
There are both deserts and tropical rainforests located near the equator.
http://www.naturalhistoryonthenet.com/Continents/images/africaclimate.jpg
However with few exceptions it’s the rainforest that’s closer to the equator. Given that smack dab on the equator is where solar power peaks it only makes my argument stronger. Dullal, Ethiopia where the mean annual temp record was set is about 8 degrees north latitude and has annual rainfall of 1-3 inches. Shouldn’t a rainforest even closer to the equator be hotter if water vapor amplification were true? Ponder that, dummy.
BBD | February 7, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
P.S. you create a straw man with record high temperature
I specifically said record high mean annual temperature. Do you know the difference between record high daily temperature and record high mean annual temperature?
If you do know the difference then the straw man was intellectual dishonesty. If you don’t know the difference the straw man was intellectual deficiency. If you know the difference but simply failed to note which it was I wrote about then the straw man was sloth.
None of the three possibilities are flattering, to say the least. Let me know if I’ve constructed a false trichotomy there. LOL
One of the biggest differences between equatorial deserts and jungles is that the lapse rate in the desert is steep because it’s close to the dry adiabatic rate. So close to the ground it’s hotter than jungle and a few thousand feet up it’s colder. Whereas in the jungle the lapse rate is close to the wet (saturated) adiabatic rate which is just a little more than half the DALR. So the same solar energy gets spread out more evenly from surface where we live to several thousand feet AGL. The unsurprising result is that mean annual SURFACE temperature is higher in the desert. Average temperature of the air column is not different. Wet air simply spreads heat vertically much better. CO2 causing more evaporation should only cause cloud height to increase by 100 meters or so per doubling i.e. the 1.1C radiative increase on a dry surface becomes clouds forming higher by the distance the dry adiabat changes by 1.1C. Or maybe it should be the wet adiabat and it would be more like 170 meters higher.
The higher clouds have less atmosphere above them to hinder heat loss to space and more atmosphere below them to hinder radiative transport downwards.
Dry land is a different story and in higher latitudes with freezing winters it’s like desert dryness while the land is frozen. This is where CO2 warming would be significant. But guess what. All my friends at 45 north latitude don’t want colder winters. They don’t want to deal with it. Farmers like the cold even less. That leaves skiers and Norman Rockwell lovers basically that want colder winters. Phooey. They can move farther north. The vast majority and the economy do better with milder winters.
To understand politics, follow the money.
To understand climate, follow the water.
Write that down.
Because they are situatued at the descending side of the Hadley cell – as I said. Diversionary waffle.
Not if low cloud prevents enough DSW from reaching the surface – as I pointed out to bluesea above, and you have ignored.
Bluesea did that, not me. Again, *read* before posting one of your onanistic rants please.
As for the rest of you stuff, the GHE is balanced at the top of the atmosphere – all this wittering about evaporation and the troposphere is *irrelevant* and demonstrates only that you haven’t got the big picture straight yet.
Keep working on it.
“Because
theydeserts are situatued at the descending side of the Hadley cell – as I said. Diversionary waffle.”David Springer and BBD –
Turns out that Dollol, Ethiopia has an average humidity of 84.6. And it is below sea level, in a volcanic depression that is geothermally active with hot springs, CO2 emissions, etc. You get the idea. Dolloi isn’t a good place to demonstrate the paradox.
Given all above, Hadley Cells were a poor way to refute it. Especially given the paradoxes associated with the HC.
BBD –
More on Hadley Cells. (continuiing the paradox brain-storming)
According to The Encyclopedia of Global Warming Science and Technology, increased global temperatures should cause Hadley Cell expansion, which will also cause poleward expansion of deserts.
However, it is noted elsewhere that for the 30 millions years prior to permanent Antarctic glaciation: “the [Amazon] rainforest extended as far south as 45°“, nearly to the tip of South America. Was the Hadley Cell descending onto the Patagonian desert somewhere in the Southern Ocean?
Even looking back 3mya at +3°C (in the range of IPCC projections), we are told the desert southwest in the US was WET, WET, WET. So, maybe the world was hotter than present, but summertimes highs in that desert would have likely been been cooler.
And here’s a Wikipedia picture of the Amazon rainforest making its own clouds. hmmm. Shades of Makarieva!
blueice2hotsea | February 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm said: ”Even looking back 3mya at +3°C (in the range of IPCC projections), we are told the desert southwest in the US was WET, WET, WET. So, maybe the world was hotter than present”
,blueice2hotsea, here is your own proof: why the truth for you sound as ‘off topic” A] you’ve learned / memorized the propaganda crap as a song – any real proof doesn’t have place in it. B] ”southwest in the US was WET, WET, WET” 1]southwest of USA is NOT the world – 2:no need GLOBAL warmings, to get wet, or dry!
2] here is why US was WET, WET, WET: before Gibraltar straights and the English Chanel opened – there was no ‘Gulf-stream” Now, as soon as the surface water in the Mexican gulf warms up – GOES east,, as on a convayer-belt – no time to produce enough moisture in the air.
before the gulf-stream existed – lots more moisture was constantly produced in and around the gulf -> by the planet spinning eastwards – constantly moisture was flowing west / similar as moisture from Atlantic into Amazon basin does today.
therefore: if you close Gibraltar straights and the Chanel between France and England = Arizona… Texas and west would have become rainforest.
see how is different when you understand things – instead off memorizing as lyric and parroting what the propaganda says / including your / their constant ”maybes”
Thanks, Mr. Denier.
I was paradox brain-storming, unfortunately all by myself. The way it is supposed to work is that you try to best me by coming up with superior paradoxes, not by pointing out how weak mine are. Maybe next time.
bye
It’s no wonder that climate “scientists” are a laughing stock:
How many climate “scientists” does it take to have an argument? … just one … and about 30 years of new data.
What the difference between climate and weather? Climate science is an investment … we grumble about the weather ..,., but we are saving up to have a good laugh about climate “science” in our old age.
What did the actress say to the climate scientist? It looked so good … now its just so flaccid.
Failing to capitalize the M in the abbreviation for megawatt hour in the context of nuclear power plant output is not a sign of ignorance in the subject matter.
Your ignorance of synthetic biology is manifest in calling me an algae zealot however. Joule doesn’t use algae.
http://www.jouleunlimited.com/faq/isnt-joule-just-another-algae-fule-company
Algae are eukaryotes which most people know as green plants. Joule uses a photosynthetic bacteria which is as far removed from green plants as you are removed from mushrooms. Maybe farther in your case.
Algal fuels require harvesting, dewatering, trigliceride extraction, and chemical conversion of the triglicerides into the desired fuel. Joule’s bio-engineered bacteria directly excrete ethanol, diesel, and other chemicals. There is no harvest involved because the bacteria don’t contain the desired product they excrete it. Dewatering is all that’s required.
Let me know which parts of that you don’t understand.
Or to make a long story shorter let me know which parts you DO understand.
Lang, you seriously think the guy who invented this:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5936608?dq=patent+springer+dell+usa&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tmMSUbngN6XL2QWs24HYBQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg
doesn’t know the difference between milliwatts and megawatts? That’s absurd. But absurd appears to be your stock in trade, eh boy?
That was unnecessary. We all see your pathological wee-wee envy. You wear 9-narrow shoes, have a very tasteful engineered comb-over system, you made a fortune at Dell Computers, you like to drop nerd-celebrity names to impress Mosher and like to drive your big powerboat fast on a small lake.
It’s hard to believe you are a racist as well!
Actually I wear a 9-wide, haven’t had my jet boat in the water in 3 years, and if I needed a comb over (which I don’t) I keep my hair too short to do it.
But thanks for thinking about me Howard. You do that a lot?
And I’ve been married for over 30 years to a woman of a different race. No racist organization in the world would have me for a member. Just like Tom Jefferson in fact. Marriage outside one’s own race is an instant disqualifier.
So there.
Howard,
I don’t think David was trying to impress me. We know the same people. Worked in the same industry. Hell he made money on the stuff I did. And when it comes to gamers and graphics there isnt anything he could say to impress me. Been there done that, helped start the 3D revolution. That’s all history now. Think of it as two guys trading stories. Someday I’ll tell how Jobs hijacked the Ipod idea. Again, history, grateful to be a part of it but very few guys who worked in the area are stupid enough to take sole credit for a huge group effort. Lots of guys big and small, loud and quiet played roles. Some made Billions, other millions and some just made enough to pay the rent. Most would work for the love of it and did.
> That was unnecessary.
Perhaps, but it serves a function and satisfies a need.
Your answer to that feeds the function and castrates the need.
Did you like it when your dad did this to you, Howard?
Neither will Big Dave.
brightness manager. Cool.
Dell was my first experience with the patent game played by the big companies. It’s a sucky game. The vast majority of things that get patented are obvious upon defining the problem. In my past experience at small companies designing personal computer hardware and software you’d run into an solve three problems like that every day before lunch. You didn’t patent it you just did it and moved along to the next small challenge. In the portfolio race you spend a little time solving a problem then a lot of time (or money or both) pursuing a patent on it. The individual patents are only rarely scrutinized or contested. Instead they’re used in groups by lawyers working out cross licensiing deals and he who has the largest number of patents has the most leverage at the bargaining table. Intel and Microsoft would sometimes assign a few of their patents to a favored customer in order to help the customer sell products that might cause legal harrassment from some competitor of that customer’s. Texas Instruments and IBM were like patent terrorists extorting huge sums of money from lessers who wanted to make personal computers. It was a disgusting game but I played it. Had to in order for both me and the company to succeed.
Ya think federal regulators will let Microsoft come within an inch of buying Dell? Fifteen years ago that was unthinkable. It still is for me but Microsoft ain’t the monopoly it used to be but still there’s just something that makes me flinch about owning one of your customers and pretending they don’t receive favorable treatment.
re; brightness manager
Long flight back from China a guy sitting next to me worked for some big company doing imaging systems for infantry weapons. Battery power is at a premium and money is no object on the modern battlefied. So he was working on a new invention, the cold cathode electron beam flat panel, which could be manufactured with a few thousand pixel elements on a screen the size of a coin. They’re exceedingly bright with a wide viewing angle and also they require zero current (measured in either milliwatts or megawatts) for any pixel which isn’t lit and power proportional to the brightness of the pixel. So I figured hey, maybe some day they can make these big enough and cheap enough for commercial laptops so I figured out a way to selectively reduce the brightness of pixels on portions of the display screen that a user have the user’s attention at the moment. I only spent a few hours on that patent. Wrote up an abstract, presented it for approval at our weekly patent committee meeting (I was one of a dozen voting members on the committee). Patents presented by other committee members usually got a rubber stamp approval because we knew better than anyone else what could and couldn’t be patented. After that the Dell IP legal beagles found and assigned me a lawyer to work with at a big third party IP law firm in Dallas. A couple phone calls and emails later the lawyer turned my abstract and $10,000 in billable hours into what you see at that link. I never heard another word about it until the patent was granted a year or two later. That’s now most of them go. The US patent office is just another rubber stamp. The examiner looks at the application, sees it’s from a multi-billion dollar company with a Johnny Cochran of intellectual property representing it and decides he can, instead of scrutizing it, take a long lunch instead. Welcome to the IP world of big bidness. With bidness like that who needs banana Republics?
Oh dear. It just occured to me that “banana republic” might be considered a racist expression nowdays. Am I in even more trouble with the thought police now?
Peter Lang | February 6, 2013 at 7:36 am |
“You really don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The biofuel productivity is best on the most fertile lands”
This is pure unadulterated ignorance. Joule’s technology is soil free.
Sans soil.
Non-arable land.
Desert is ideal.
It’s aqua-culture and doesn’t even require potable water. Municipal wastewater is ideal but seawater with basic nutrients added to is fine. It’s also enclosed aquaculture so there’s not even a lot of unpotable water required since little is lost to evaporation.
Which bits of that do you not understand, Lang? At this point I can only assume willful ignorance because even a small child understands the difference between an aquarium and a corn field.
I see the threading is jacked again. Who’s the potty mouth THIS time?
Well, I know my link to a santana song got deleted. I can’t argue it was on topic so have no real problem with that. I can only assume since so much garbage was left behind that Judith is not a Santana fan.
Ha. She deleted the same youtube links of mine three times now. JCH asks which parts of the earth are warming/cooling and I responds with that old Wendy’s commercial where the customer asks what’s in the chicken nuggets and the kid behind the counter says chicken parts. The customer then asks “WHAT parts?” and the kid, after a discussion with his manager says “Different parts. Parts is parts.”
And then I cap it with a link to Forrest Gump saying “And that’s all I have to say about that”.
The woman has no sense of humor.
I found it amusing. I went to GISS to produce some comparisons but they have shut down the interactive portion of their web page.
David Springer,
Your charm offensive is very persuasive. Unfortunately, your beliefs are just plain silly.
The link you provided is to a proponent’s advocacy document. It is no more reliable or realistic than other renewable energy proponents’ spin documents. Furthermore, it says nothing about the cost of the fuels, let alone whether it would be possible to provide the quantities sufficient to supply the world’s transport fuel in say 2050.
Biofuels, algae and the rest are at the early stage of R&D.
http://biodieselmagazine.com/articles/8889/doe-announces-new-funding-for-cost-effective-algae-biofuels
That is “could”, perhaps, maybe, bla bla bla.
But they are not even close to being economically viable.
In other words, it’s another ‘pie in the sky idea’.
But since you’ve studied it, you clearly are biased. And you’ve no sense of balance or objectivity.
Did you say something about “zealot” in an earlier comment? If the shoe, fits …
Amazing. I stipulate the fact that Joule is not using either algae or arable land and you continue to rest your argument on biofuel production that uses algae or arable land.
Simply amazing. You’re very polite for a retard though! Have a nice life.
David Springer,
I notice your charm offensive continues (typical of many computer nerds).
However, you continue to make misleading, disingenuous statements. Why didn’t you deal with this:
[Repost with corrected formatting]
David Springer,
I notice your charm offensive continues (typical of many computer nerds).
However, you continue to make misleading, disingenuous statements. Why didn’t you deal with this:
I didn’t bother parsing and pointing out the silliness in your previous comment because it was so silly I saw no. It shows you have no understanding of the real world (outside the world of computer games, that is). But now I will mention some
You said:
Have you any concept of the costs of what you are suggesting? Have you any idea of the cost of getting water to desert areas ( sea water or municipal waste water)? Have you done any calculations of the area required to produce the quantity of transport fuels needed to replace fossil fuels globally, now, in 2050, in 2100?
You provided no references to anything authoritative to support your beliefs. As far as I am aware DOE, although providing token funding for research, hasn’t provided the cost of fuels or information on the quantities that are being produced now and could be produced globally by this technology, which you say is competitive (while at the same time arguing nuclear is not and never will be). If they have, please provide the link.
When you can provide something authoritative that shows this idea can produce a replacement for fossil at competitive cost, provide the quantities of fuel required and the area that would be required, and show the basis of these estimates, then I may take you a bit more seriously than i do now (but probably not seeing as you don’t even realise when you write mWh instead of MWh – repeatedly!).
Presumably Audi worked through the numbers before handing Joule $70 million in private funding to build the commercial scale plant in New Mexico.
Before you can pooh-pooh a proposed technology you should at least have a quick look at it. You have not done that and that is proven by your statement about biofuels and fertile land when Joule employs aquaculture.
How much does it cost to pipe water into the desert? I don’t know. It’s already there. Ever been to Palm Springs or Taos or Phoenix? They have water.
As I told you before Joule doesn’t use open raceways or ponds so they don’t need a lot of water since none is lost to evaporation. They use thin hollow panels made of plastic. It looks like a solar panel only green.
You might know those things if you’d taken 60 seconds of your time to learn about it. If you object to reading Joule’s own description of itself there’s wickedpedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_Unlimited
Joule Unlimited, formerly known as Joule Biotechnologies,[1] is a producer of alternative energy technologies based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The company developed a process to generate hydrocarbon-based fuel by combining non-fresh water, nutrients, cyanobacteria, carbon dioxide, and sunlight. The company planned to break ground in October 2011 on a facility to produce more than 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year (19,000 m3/km2·a).[2]
Helioculture uses photosynthetic organisms, but is otherwise distinct from the process that makes fuel from algae. Oils made from algae usually have to be refined into fuel following a batch process, but helioculture produces fuel directly – either ethanol or hydrocarbons – that do not need refining. The Helioculture process also does not produce biomass. This process is enabled by the discovery of unique genes coding for enzymatic mechanisms that enable the direct synthesis of both alkane, olefin, ethanol, and other key molecules.[3] Helioculture allows for brackish water or graywater, nonindustrial waste water from sources such as baths and washing machines,[4] to be used, while traditional biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol require fresh water.
Joule Unlimited claims that its product will be cost competitive with crude oil at $50 a barrel ($310/m3). The company also states that its product could supply all of the transportation fuel for the United States from an area the size of the Texas panhandle.[5]
Joule Unlimited has not revealed the name of the organism that it uses, although it has acknowledged that the company has modified the organism.[6] In September, 2010, Joule received a patent for genetically altered bacterium.[7]
Joule was founded by David Berry and Noubar Afeyan of Flagship VentureLabs. In addition to its founders, Joule’s Board of Directors includes Graham Allison, Stelios Papadopoulos, Ruben Vardanian, John Podesta, and CEO, Bill Sims.[8] Joule’s Scientific Advisory Board includes synthetic biologists George M. Church and Jim Collins.
David Springer,
That is not a valid answer to my questions about the costs of the fuels, quantities that are being supplied now, can be supplied in 2050 and 2100 as a proportion of total transport fuel demand, area required. Just saying that someone has invested their money is not a valid argument. Obama invested taxpayers money in solar plants that went broke. Many famous people invested in “Better Place’ electric vehicle network and it has had to pull out of Australia and USA. There are many failures for every successful idea. There are also many reason why companies invest in “green technologies’ to say they are saving the planet. The fact is, you haven’t been able to answer my questions, which means you can’t. Whish means the idea is another ‘pie-in-the-sky’ idea and you’ve been sucked in and can’t think critically.
You didn’t apply that approach before poo-poo-ing nuclear power which is the safest electricity generation technology, and by far the least cost way to reduce global GHG emissions by the amount being advocated by the CAGW crowd. Nuclear is also cost competitive with fossil fuels in many countries and arguably could/should be far cheaper than it is. Furthermore, it is the only realistic option for providing for the energy needs that are likely to be required for hundreds or thousand of years. It has also been proven over a period of nearly 60 years and produces about 14% of world electricity. You have been poo poo-ed nuclear, repeatedly, and yet you ask me to not poo poo the scheme you are advocating, despite your scheme having no runs on the board and you can’t even answer the most basic questions I’ve asked you. So why would I waste my time following your links. If I and others followed all the links from all the people advocating their ideas, I’d spend all our time refuting nonsense.
I am poo poo-ing your advocacy because you haven’t been able to answer the basic questions I asked you. When you actually address my questions, if you can, there may be something worth pursuing, but I now seriously doubt it.
The US Navy research is suggesting they can make 100,000 gallons per say of jet fuel from sea water on board their nuclear air craft carriers http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539765 . John Morgan has taken this a step further and estimated cost using current costs of electricity on land to make just fuel from sea water http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/. He calculates $2.50/L. However, this could be much cheaper with high temperature reactors that produce hydrogen. 100,000 gallons of jet fuel per day from a small nuclear reactor and seawater. Nuclear energy and sea water are both effectively unlimited. So what do you think of that idea? (Just testing to see how you poo poo the idea and how much research you do to check out the figures and the calculations. BTW, I can give you plenty more schemes to research and read up on if you are interested. Get the point?).
I provided the numbers you wanted here:
David Springer | February 6, 2013 at 8:40 am |
How many times does a person need to answer you before you acknowledge the answer?
If I answer you again it will be the third time. I’d rather just point out what an ass you are as it requires less space and is equally effective which is to say not at all.
And I know more about the nuclear options than you do. You’re a zealot. I’m not. I have no vested interest in any technology. I just know which ones hold the most promise and which hold the most hype. Nuclear energy options have been doggedly pursued for over 50 years. What you see is what is practical. There have been no breakthroughs that will enable massive improvements in cost effectiveness. What level of portability and safety can be achieved at any cost is contained within nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers. What level of cost-sensitive commerical power is contained within the 400-odd commercial reactors in operation around the world. There is nothing new in either science or engineering that will significantly alter what we have operating right now.
Genetic engineering on the other hand is an infant technology improving in cost-effectiveness at a rate reminiscent of Moore’s Law of semi-conductors. Why you remain willfully ignorant of both nuclear chemistry and biology is unknown to me. Perhaps you can explain.
$2.50/liter for synfuel made with energy from a nuclear reactor is $10/gallon.
A 300% improvment would make it competitive with $100/bbl oil.
I’m supposed to be excited by that?
Are you insane?
LOL
David Springer,
No you didn’t. Reread my question.
Once would do very nicely, thanks. But first you need to read and understand the question. Its actually very simple, and absolutely standard. But if you’ve never worked in the real world, perhaps no matter how times I ask it, you will never be able to understand it.
If you answer once, that will be once.
You don’t seem to take any notice no matter how many times I’ve pointed out you are an ass on many threads.
You think you do. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated you know next nothing. You don’t even recognise when you repeatedly talk of $/mWh instead of $/MWh. You know zip, other than what you read on your computer screen.
I see it the other way around.
Nor do I. I ma just interested in least cost energy. For many reasons I’ve explained on numerous threads. So, if we are required to reduce global GHG emissions, I want to be sure we do it the least cost way. That’s my agenda, and its been plain since the start, unless you are just a zealot and choose to misrepresent and twist what I say to put your own spin on it.
No you don’t you haven’t a clue. You know nothing about the subject. You just have opinions. And you can’t even back them up.
The rest of your comment is such nonsense and you are such a zealot you wouldn’t listen or understand even if I did explain. You are very opinionated, but ignorant. A typical arrogant, rude computer nerd.
David Springer,
I’ll make it easier for you. Using authoritative references such as DOE, not proponents advocacy documents, provide answers with references to support your answers for each of the following:
1. How much transport fuel is being produced now?
2. How long has the process been supplying transport fuels?
3. What quantities per year?
4. What is the cost of the fuel (and what is the basis of that cost, e.g. retail fuel delivered at the pump, wholesale, crude, etc)?
5. what subsidies are required / included in the cost?
6. How much land area is actually required (actual not theoretical) to produce that volume of fuel per year?
7. How much could be produced globally by 2050? What is the basis of that projection? Is that from an authoritative source?
I am asking these questions because I know the answer. There are no answers. It is another pie-in-the-sky idea. It’s about as silly as all the other renewable energy schemes. If you actually tried to answer these questions honestly, and used reliable, authoritative sources, you’d realise I am correct,
However, I recognise, there is no chance of that because you are waht you accuse me of being – a zealot.
It’s a private company Lang. You only have what they choose to tell you.
You have to look at the players to determine if they’re real or not.
The BoD is world class in finance, energy, and biotechnology. They were awarded patents on their modified bacteria. They are partnered with Audi. They’ve received over $100 million in venture capital. Fluor Corporation announced it won the contract to build the New Mexico plant for an undisclosed sum. Wall Street Journal gave them its #1 award in 2011 Technology Innovation (Energy) and #2 award in all categories.
If you choose to believe that the Wall Street Journal, Audi, Fluor, the US Patent Office, and venture capitalists chipping in $100 million were all suckered by pie-in-the-sky I guess that’s your opinion and there’s no more I can do to change it.
Your demand for authoritative sources is pretty humorous given you started out by pointing me to a TED conference presentation. Double standard much?
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120214005393/en/Fluor-Awarded-Biofuels-Demonstration-Plant-Joule-Unlimited
So Lang, who’s actually building a nuclear reactor powered synfuel production plant? Fluor is building the bioreactor site for Joule. Surely the US Navy has awarded someone a contract to synthesize jet-A aboard aircraft carriers, right? Surely the whole idea is advanced much farther than a few studies on paper, right? RIGHT?
ROFLMAO
David Springer,
LOL.
You’d believe anything that supports your beliefs. You haven’t a clue. But you are so opinionated and ignorant there is no point trying to explain anything to you. I’ll give up on that (with you, that is)
By the way, I wasn’t advocating the US Navy’s idea. I was making the point there are thousands or millions of ideas seeking funding. Some get some. Wind, solar, biomass, wave, tides, ocean thermal, geothermal, electric cars and many others have been seeking and getting some funding for ages. But to just blindly believe a proponents idea without doing any research to check it is just silly. And, clearly you haven’t. You’re gullible and an extreme zealot.
Also, BTW, you poo pooed the Navy research paper without even reading it or taking any notice of what I said. For example, the Navy research paper reckons the cost of nuclear is $1200 kW and this is claimed to be a current figure. Using their costs, John Morgan calculated $0.79/L (with caveats). However, that is using electrolysis to produce hydrogen. That is the largest component of the cost. With high temperature reactors it may be much cheaper. I am not advocating this Navy idea – I’m just pointing out how gullible you are to accept one idea out of the many out there and the many that have been floated for centuries and suddenly believe this one. That’s what gullible people do.
I don’t share your problem Lang, of being too stupid to separate the wheat from the chaff. Joule’s technology is where the smart money is heading. Mark my words, dummy.
You’ve got to hand it to Peter Lang, he’s equally, or almost equally, obnoxious to everyone , and not just those of us who might just think that CO2 and other GH gas emissions should be brought under control.
Its good to see that level of consistency and an unwillingness to discriminate between friend, if that’s the right word as far as Peter is concerned, and foe.
Amusing too that he seems to have got under Dave Springer’s skin :-)
” those of us who might just think that CO2 and other GH gas emissions should be brought under control.”
You’ve got to love the way progressives package their support for a government takeover of the energy economy. We don’t want to bring the world economy to a screeching halt by “decarbonizing” it, we just want to bring it under control.
But that is the heart of progressivism, bringing the stupid voters “under control” of the government.
I don’t find Lang obnoxious. He’s a blinder-wearing nuclear power cheerleader but not obnoxious. I am a good example of someone who is obnoxious to everyone, you illiterate toad.
Hey, I’m chirruping and irritating. Watch me fluff my feathers in pride! Why, yours ruffle too, how entrancing.
====================
Springer
Judith Curry: commenting policy on insults:
I’m waiting…
BBD –
Please calm down. You have not been unfairly singled out for moderation. Yes, both you and Springer can be abrasive and sometimes correct. One difference is that Springer is sometimes brilliant. I suspect that an occasional diamond in the bag of rocks helps pay for extended air-time.
Also, notice how DS doesn’t go much after willard or kim? When willard is teaching via Socratic method, you are teaching by autocratic method. When kim is holding up a mirror, you do not look in it. It’s also true that you have been the busiest stink-bomb on the site.
Time to pass the baton and raise the level of your game.
bi2hs
Gad, ya think I oughta pay attention to willard? I’d much rather just admire myself in the looking glass.
===========
I was moderated the same time BBD was. I just didn’t complain about it or mention it. Instead I just started writing comments that I knew Curry would read in the moderation queue and then snip because they were so far over the top. It was fun while it lasted. When God gives you lemons, make lemonade!
You and tempterrain aren’t commenters. You’re illiterate anonymous cowards with keyboards and internet connections.
Now if you want the real deal, try me: ‘ignorant, innumerate, illiterate anonymous coward’. These other ones just don’t try hard enough.
===================
David Springer | February 6, 2013 at 10:12 am said: ”The biofuel productivity is best on the most fertile lands”
David, if you can memorize this – you can do some good: in the sewage treatment plants has EVERYTHING what bio-fuel can be produced from… but is not glamorous, to produce fuel from there.
You are correct, on fertile land can produce more sugar, corn, other grains for fuel. BUT, all those products are already in the sewage treatment plants – much more of it than can ever be produced specifically for fuel. Now, go and tell the world; not to waste good land and plenty water + diesel for grains / sugar for bio-fuel, because is plenty of it already, new every day arriving for free, in the sewage treatment plants, Get the Sods to produce fuel, without subsidy and repossessing fertile land !
I didn’t write what you quoted. That was Peter Lang and he’s wrong because some biofuels are produced in aquaculture. No soil. No arable land required.
Not directly on point, but an excellent example of the ardor with which progressives attack even the attempt at critical analysis (particularly among their fellow progressives). Not to mention how reality for progressives is based on what they have been told by their peers, regardless of the evidence.
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/338656/what-happened-haymarket?pg=1
You can see this same phenomenon in the reaction to any heresy regarding CAGW, whether on sensitivity, the “pause” or uncertainty. Dissident opinion is not only not encouraged, it is attacked.
Worth another look:
Climate sensitivy probability distributions from different models published in AR4.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/box-10-2-figure-1-l.png
The most important graph appears first and shows there’s nothing but fat tails beyond 3C sensitivity. All studies except one have sharp probability peaks below 3C with the sharpest at 1.1C which is what you get from MODTRAN.
Water vapor amplification is a fabrication to make welcome warming into scary warming. Fat tails are noise in the models. The peaks are where the signal rises out of the noise in the model.
You can get any invalid “sensitivity” you wish if you start with invalid assumptions that the atmosphere would have been isothermal without WV and GHG Without WV the surface would have been around 300K, but water vapour reduced the gradient (as does carbon dioxide to a minuscule extent because it radiates in far fewer frequencies than WV) and so each has a cooling effect. That’s why the end result is about 288K.
But you won’t have a clue what I’m talking about, and why it is correct physics, until you read my paper. Possibly my comments on the current Roy Spencer thread will help if you want to take a shortcut.
No atmosphere heated from the bottom and cooled from the top will ever be isothermal. I tune out whenever it’s mentioned and discount the author as making special pleading for some case he cannot justify in the real world. It’s the equivalent of starting an argument saying “If pigs could fly…” Yeah well pigs can’t fly and neither can your argument if it needs that in it.
Dave Springer,
“discount the author as making special pleading for some case he cannot justify in the real world. ….”
They are known as thought experiments , Dave. We know the real atmosphere can never be isothermal because , as you say it cools from the top ( and the bottom too) and is heated from the bottom.
But its instructive to imagine what the atmosphere would be like if the GH effect didn’t exist. It helps us understand the real one better. I agree with Prof Roy Spencer that it would be isothermal, or at least much more isothermal than it is. Therefore, the fact that it is cooler at altitude shows the existence of the GH effect. That’s an important point to establish, and that’s why many climate deniers are at pains to say otherwise.
Fat tails are noise in the models.
####################
Wrong.
long tails are the consequence of having an estimate of a ratio. You also have long tails in observation estimates.
delta C over delta Watts. lots of uncertainity in that denominator means a wide ass pdf. Doesnt matter that its sensitivity or any other ratio estimation.
plus look at the third panel. The distribution of the models is more constrained that observational estimates, You got it backwards david.
No, it’s noise.
you have it backward david. the models are constrained from 2.1 to 4.4.
they do not cause the long tails and they dont constrain the PDF. They dont even move the mean. Basically, if you did the statistics and removed the models, the answer would not change. That is why hansen argues correctly that models do not inform our understanding of sensitivity.
Write that down. you were wrong. its easy to to see and even easier to calculate.
let see if I can make this easy for you.
You probably have a car with a display that says MPG. and as you drive it changes. It tells you you are getting 12mpg ( Mopar hemi here ) or 20MPG..
1. Note that you dont actuallly measure MPG. you measure miles and you measure gallons. MPG is a ratio. its “measured” but only by measuring two components. Speed of light is also never measured. You measure distance and time and compute or estimate the metric.
when i measure temperature and measure watts and look at the changes in those.. I’m measuring sensitivity in the same way i measure MPG.. not directly, but effectively.
2 MPG = miles/gallons. like sensitivity = delta C/ delta Watts.
write that down. you are measuring a ratio.
3. Your final measure is going to be effected by the error in numerator
and the error in the denominator.
4. Which is more accurate your estimate of miles travelled or your
estimate of gallons in the tank? how the hell does that sensor
in the gas tank work? what if my vehicle is tilted?
Which is more important? a tight estimate of the numerator or a tight estimate of the denominator. Do some examples. write them down
Big Snow Possible This Weekend It is being called Winter Storm Nemo. Obviously, it is caused by the production of CO2 by Americans. For polar bears’ sake hopefully all those NE climatists will show us by example how we all should live and abstain from turning on the furnaces to keep warm. Hopefully, they will celebrate every downed power line as a positive step toward their liberal Utopian dreamland. Godspeed.
There is nothing more satisfying than reading the same thing we skeptics have been writing for the last six years being written by the AGW camp:
But the point stands, that the IPCC’s sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.
The climate war on the science side is being won. However on the politics side it is another issue.
The main issue is the observed warming from 1970 to 2000 has a transient component of 0.12 deg C/decade. As a result, the secular warming is not the observed 0.2 deg C/decade, but only 0.08 deg C/decade.
This gives an IPCC trend multiplication factor of 0.2/0.08 = 2.5.
So the corrected climate sensitivity is 3/2.5 = 1.2 deg C.
Girma please learn how to do the calculation correctly.
How do you account when IPCC wrongly assumed a secular warming rate of 0.2 deg C when the actual warming rate is 0.08 deg C?
How do you modify IPCC’s estimate of climate sensitivity from 3 to correct this mistake?
1. They did not.
2. there estimate doesnt depend on that.
3. Even IF they had made the mistakes you claim, which they have not, that does not justify you doing the calculation wrong.
If you want to see how its done from observations there are any number of papers. Lets start with a simple question: define sensitivity and define sensitivity to a doubling of C02.
The warming from greenhouse gases is quite likely at most what Girma calculates. I would hesitate to project it through at all – because of the likelihood of abrupt climate several times this century. But projecting it uses climate models has the additional burden of nonlinear equations, uncertain inputs and a changing breadth of couplings.
Oh if either of you only knew what this means for the calculus of climate. The key concept is that there is no single deterministic solution.
I love Girma. He makes Steven Mosher modulate into Super-Clown mode.
Andrew
our question andrew is how to get you to modulate out of moron mode
What works for you personally and why don’t you ever do it?
In Nature uncertainty prevails, no good feeling over-sensitive
about it.Yesterday a dinosaur, tomorrow a feather rooster.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-solar-superstorm-is-coming-and-well-only-get-30minute-warning-8484058.html
What good is an inevitable catastrophe if we can’t blame it on human behavior and use it as an excuse to centralize more power in the government?
And besides, the sun is nothing compared to the awesome power of a few ppm of CO2 emitted by evil humans burning carbon based fuels. What’s the big deal?
They hide one eye; I’m pretty sure a Carrington would disturb food supplies. I suppose there are a range of possible Carringtons, and a range of potential catastrophes.
This isn’t so much physics as it is society.
===============
Kim,
Carringtons can be a real problem.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3665401856/ch0026256
Unless you have a J.R. Ewing handy.
Pute the blame on Meme, boys…
I tied a yellow ribbon ’round the old oak tree instead.
Compressing time to one of our years, from the age of the solar system the beginning of life on Earth has been in just the last few minutes with America being about 3 seconds old. Accordingly we’re incapable of understanding anything at all — we’re babies: creatures of a dynamical Sun-air-sea living model using computers to play numbers games to scare each other. Even so, this is exciting research. But, we really need to improve our credibility because our attribution skills are nutty. And for sure we are driven to keep modeling like crazy (on some else’s dime) like hysterical people building Towers of Babel despite the fact if there is any true substance to general circulation models (GCMs) –i.e., the mathematical models Western government scientists use only to indict humanity for living — it is well disguised.
“On short time scales (decade to centuries), there is no satisfactory way of sorting out forced climate variability from natural internal climate variability unless you have a really good climate model that can adequately handle the natural internal variability on the range of time scales from years to millennia.”
Is there a “Most brilliant and sensible statement ever made by a climate blogger” award? If not; there SHOULD to be! And then someone ought to I nominate Dr. Curry.
What the phytoplankton know, they ain’t sayin’.
=======================
It’s multifaceted. Duh! There are a lot of questions: what is the climate response to solar activity and no solar activity, changes in TSI, spectral variability, particle events, cosmic-ray variability, volcanic aerosols, the Antarctic ozone hole. The key problem is, we now admit the Little Ice Age existed. And, the Maunder Minimum existed too. And, we don’t know how any of these activities are related or just coincide with our observations and which may be effects or a part of an emerging pattern of paleoclimate change. Even NASA admits this.
We don’t need brilliance here. We need honor. We need fiscal responsibility. We need academic integrity. The truth does not stop government scientists from simply declaring that looking back over the past 10,000 years the Sun is responsible for Earth’s climate and of course, over the last 50 years it is just us that is causing global warming.
Academia feels honorable fascilitating Western governments’ view on the matter, irrespective of the conclusons we must draw using the scientific method and employing sense to tackle real problems. That’s where we are today and nothing is going to change in the future until Western civilization either runs out of money or starts trimming the budget, beginning with a state-run dysfunctional education system that no longer delivers the mail Monday through Friday.
Am I reading this correctly?
Privately: consensus climate science has recognized for more than a decade ECS 2xCO2 at 1.5 – 4.0 C
Publicly IPCC has stated: 3.0-5.0 early 2000s, 2.5-4.5 late 2000s?
Are these figures/ the comparison metric valid?
SUT
No. Here’s the relevant bit from AR4:
OK thanks
‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
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
We are repeatedly assaulted with the simplistic interpretation of these opportunistic ensembles. If we accept that – realistically – the ensemble statistics have no validity then no confidence can be placed in the results. Each of the ensemble members is one of many possible solutions – and the specific solution is chosen subjectively on the basis of a posteriori solution behaviour. The members are subjectively chosen and therefore the ensemble carries that subjectivity forward.
The paleoclimatic reconstructions have problems with the completeness of data – with the reproduction of couplings – and indeed with the same nonlinearity of the core equations in the case of models.
The very notion of linear sensitivity seems misplaced. From Rial et al 2004. ‘The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm. While this is widely accepted, there is a relatively poor understanding of the different types of nonlinearities, how they manifest under various conditions, and whether they reflect a climate system driven by astronomical forcings, by internal feedbacks, or by a combination of both.’
Sensitivity in a complex dynamical system is high at regions of shifts between equilibrium states but not otherwise and the science of predicting shifts is in it’s infancy.
Can we have some moderation on the cut’n’paste trolling please? It’s getting out of control.
What a whiner!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WAAAA
WAAAA
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
No, the relevant bits from AR4 are here:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0905/fig_tab/climate.2009.41_F1.html
The model with the least noise is the one with the probability spike that looks an upside down stilletto heel. The kind of shoe that Ellison probably likes to wear on special occasions. ;-)
This from the guy who cut and pasted from AR4?
I responded technically, in depth, with reference to the literature and quite without the usual qualities one would associate with trolling. Perhaps trolling is defined as demonstrating a view that is not in accordance with blah blah’s superficially dispassionate narrative? Altough I have noticed that it quite often descends into the accusatory and defamatory.
‘Although it has failed to produce its intended impact nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol has performed an important role. That role has been allegorical. Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values. Nor is that to be seen as a defect. Of course choices between competing values are not made by relying upon scientific knowledge alone. What is wrong is to pretend that they are.’ The wrong trousers – radically rethinking climate policy – Gwyn Prins & Steve Rayner
Blah blah has a superficial acquaintance with climate science – but without the science background needed to properly assess sources, to have a feel for intrinsic uncertainties and approximations or to compare and contrast sources. The result is the acquistiion of bits of science that appear to confirm the exisitng worldview and the construction of a narrative in the ‘culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative’ that is used to fight a cultural war. The risk is that science is lost in the clamour of duelling narratives.
The usual insulting diatribe from Ellison.
All did was answer this commenter’s specific question – by quoting the exact relevant section from AR4.
And just *look* at the response from you two. Comments here are an animal house because of the antics of a handful of people.
Let’s have some moderation please.
Them is fightin’ words big dave – but you’re too much of a pansy.
But we’re quite broadminded at the Great Western big dave – you can wear whatever you like.
I suppose it is because I called him blah blah. This from the guy who tosses around endearing terms like idiot, petulant liar, fool, moron, hideously bloated and truculent denialist scumbag, mentally aberrant conservative son of a diseased camel, morally deficient lizard brain, scion of a toad and a slime mould, repugnant eater of children and defiler of mothers, Republican voter, a wart on the rump of the body politic, viewer of Faux News, disgusting purveyor of ideas picked up in the intellectual dung heaps of civilisation, soiler of underpants, bent over superannuated hag of obsolete ideologies, putrid despoiler of humanities past, present and future. And that was just yesterday – all my troubles seemed so far away. Oh wait – that was another thread. My diseased and alcohol riddled brain pan conjures up this and other psychoses like a perpetual motion machine on steroids. Astonishing hypocrisy from blah blah. – a zillion.
Perhaps he objects to being characterised as a climate warrior telling himself stories superficially in the objective idiom of science. This seems to me to be fair analysis and a good call. But for someone who routinely uses the term denier to complain? Breathtaking hypocrisy. – a zillion.
As for the blah blah charm, wit and style? – a zillion is generous and leaves somewhere for big dave to go.
The new paradigm of chaos in climate has broad scientific support. Models are chaotic without a doubt. If these ideas are pitched at the level of the incomprehension of a few noisy bloviators – it sort of defeats the purpose of discourse. How could we ever promote understanding and thinking in the different ways required – at a system level rather than as one piffling little ‘forcing’ at a time.
It’s a zoo all right blah blah – but for you to complain about a lack of decorum in the denizens is a little to disingenuous.
Ellison
I’ll step over the rancid puddles above and just concentrate on the actual argument.
Your reasoning is partial, in both senses. Abrupt climate shifts do not occur with the absolute randomness you seem to imply. If a generalised forcing is gradually increased (eg WMGHGs) then the *nature of climate change* on the centennial scale will be constrained. The climate system will warm, perhaps in fits and starts, but it will warm. You greatly overstate the potential for decades of cooling. Absurdly so, for someone whose argument is predicated on the *unpredictably chaotic* nature of climate change.
So your reasoning is contradictory as well as partial in both senses.
Add in a carious, deranged delivery (see above) and insistent, tedious repetition and the results aren’t pretty.
Dear blah blah – Not amused? I am. I suppose I will take the vicious invective – and so close to the surface too – in equanimity.
But the objective is to cite some actual science in support of these wild and unlikely claims you are making. We know that these decadal modes last for 20 to 40 years – we are in a cool mode – ergo La Niña is set to intensify for another 10 to 30 years.
Verdon and Franks (2006) – for instance – used ‘proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the PDO and ENSO. During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.’ Verdon, D. and Franks, S. (2006), Long-term behaviour of ENSO: Interactions with the PDO over the past 400 years inferred from paleoclimate records, Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2005GL025052.
See this is where we start to introduce some science and not just tell ourselves silly stories.
Climate shifts aren’t random in any sense – they result from spontaneous internal reorganisation of the complex climate system. They are emergent properties of a deterministically chaotic system. This is entirely a different behaviour to stochasticity.
‘The global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits a wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical, biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial.’ A UNIFIED MODELING APPROACH TO CLIMATE SYSTEM PREDICTION (2009) Hurrell et al
There are all sorts of resources across the web on abrupt climate change over almost 2 decades now. The NAS publication in 2002 – Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises – contains what is still a good summary and the title moreover suggests – well – inevitable surprises.
Really beyond the next decade or three nothing is much predictable. Nothing is constrained – the models are most assuredly chaotic and so are useless for this – and the vagaries of data and attribution leave much to be desired. This is where we start to assess the quality and reliability of the data. You see how it works?
The future of natural variability is most uncertain – one thing seems certain is that the pattern will not be that of the 20th century.
‘Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.
Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.’ Slingo and Palmer 2011 Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction
Nothing is certain but you dear blah blah – and it stems not from science but from a telling yourself a story and believing every word of it. I know this is repeated – but it is from one in particular of the most respected climate scientists in the world. So in utter disbelief I keep asking myself – who do I believe? A nasty little troll like blah blah or the leading scientists in the field. It is in fact a simple question to answer but actual quotes reveal the great divide between science and the narratives of climate warriors.
Chief Hydrologist | February 7, 2013 at 8:06 pm |
“Them is fightin’ words big dave – but you’re too much of a pansy.”
You’d want to kill or be killed over a pair of high heels? I heard of one hood rat killing another hood rat for a pair of sneakers but I must say this comes as a bit of a surprise. Because I like you so much I promise I’ll never again talk about your footwear. Happy now?
Ellison
My screen name is BBD. ‘Blah blah [duh]’ is a calculated insult. Our host has made the commenting policy on insults very clear:
I will keep on complaining until you desist or are put into moderation.
***
No, this is where you start ignoring the radiative forcing from CO2 and your argument falls apart. Repeating partial, contradictory nonsense (see my previous comment) doesn’t make it true. It’s just tedious.
Dear blah blah,
The sobriquet pales when compared to your vicious invective – rancid, carious, deranged and many, many more. Please feel free to continue – subject to moderation of course.
Radiative forcing from greenhouse gases is only one of many factors. We are in cool mode –and these decadal modes tend to last for 20 to 40 years. ‘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 Now I realize that I have quoted Josh Willis form the NASA site before – but this is one of the critical Earth systems for many reasons – perhaps least for the changes in global surface temperature trajectory associated with the decadal climate shifts.
‘One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s [Graham, 1994]. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern. The shift was accompanied by sea-surface temperature (SST) cooling in the central Pacific and warming off the coast of western North America [Miller et al., 1994]. The shift brought sweeping long-range changes in the climate of northern hemisphere. Incidentally, after ‘‘the dust settled,’’ a new long era of frequent El Niño superimposed on a sharp global temperature increase begun. While several possible triggers for the shift have been suggested and investigated [Graham, 1994; Miller et al., 1994; Graham et al., 1994], the actual physical mechanism that led to this shift is not known. Understanding the dynamics of such phenomena is essential for our ability to make useful prediction of climate change. A major obstacle to this understanding is the extreme complexity of the climate system, which makes it difficult to disentangle causal connections leading to the observed climate behavior. Here we present a novel approach, which reveals an important new mechanism in climate dynamics and explains several aspects of the observed climate variability in the late 20th century.’ Tsonis and Swanson (2007) A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts.
The mechanism involves cloud changes in these major internally driven reorganizations atmospheric and ocean circulation.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1
If true – and there is more than one source of evidence – greenhouse gases have been a minor effect in the satellite error. Which is the period of ost of the recent warming. Just one of the vagaries and uncertainties. In the bigger picture – the effect of AGG is an order of magnitude less than potential change in albedo.
There are two essential concepts. The first is dynamical complexity. ‘The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm. ‘ Rial et al 2004 – op. cit. The second is that the limits of natural variability are unknown.
When everything is placed in context – it argues for uncertainty rather than certainty. It is the wider context that you have not understood – and you seem limited to repeating a few simple memes. Tedious is not the word for it but groupthink in the way that Gwyn Prins & Steve Rayner in the quote above and many others have identified may be.
But it is steadily increasing, and unless we ignore the RTEs it *must* be causing energy to accumulate in the climate system. Do you dispute the RTEs?
If not, why always wrench the focus round to natural variability?
They used to. But RF from GHGs is increasing and energy is accumulating in the climate system (OHC 1970 – present). Why will this have no effect on the duration of the cool mode? And future ones?
Without addressing these questions, you insist on the continuation of past behaviour. Then you reject any predictive power in modelled investigation of forced climate change. Does not compute ;-)
‘This paper gives an update on the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget (ERB) using the latest altitude-corrected Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)/Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) Nonscanner Wide Field of View (WFOV) instrument Edition3 dataset. The effects of the altitude correction are to modify the original reported decadal changes in tropical mean (20°N to 20°S) longwave (LW), shortwave (SW), and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s from 3.1, -2.4, and -0.7 to 1.6, -3.0, and 1.4 W m^2, respectively. In addition, a small SW instrument drift over the 15-yr period was
discovered during the validation of the WFOV Edition3 dataset. A correction was developed and applied to the Edition3 dataset at the data user level to produce the WFOV Edition3_Rev1 dataset. 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 m^2, 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 1.5Wm_2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s.’ Wong et al (2006) Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data
If the satellite evidence is correct – all of the recent warming seems quite likely to be natural. I think it is quite likely to be as correct as the ocean record – and quite as frequently corrected. There is not merely the satellite evidence but much else besides.
Here for instance is ICOADS observations of cloud in the north-east Pacific from Clement et al 2009 – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Clementetal2009.png
The shift to the cool mode happened on schedule after 1998 – and you have absolutely no evidence that the drivers of these shifts are influenced at all by something that is a minor part of the system. There is very little to suggest that anyone understands much about the dynamics of the Pacific wide system and the global teleconnections.
Here’s the CERES record – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Loeb2011-Fig2.png – I have given the reference in the week in review.
It shows large interannular changes – and hints at a trend in SW mostly seen in the tropics. There is far too much so-called noise to distinguish the so-called signal and the noise changes abruptly and significantly with these decadal climate shifts. There is simply not enough known to predict the limits of any future shift. You factor in the simplest notion – but of course there are many fundamental unknowns.
Models are rejected for another reason. They are undoubtedly chaotic. Given uncertainties in inputs and coupling and the nature of the governing equations there is no single deterministic solution and the limits of ‘irreducible imprecision’ remain unknown.
Another aspect of the incoherence in your argument was pointed out by R. Gates. You have the cloud/OHC relationship inverted.
Also, if you bother to look at Levitus et al. (2012) as I have repeatedly urged in the past, you would see that OHC is increasing in all major basins simultaneously (SI, figs S1 and S2). Global cloud cover cannot explain this. None of what you say really stacks up. It is partial reasoning, in both senses. You do understand what I mean by this, don’t you?
You have a very large, self-induced blind spot. The space cadet, I’m afraid, is in the mirror.
What is new is ‘the consensus on global warming’ admits that AGW True Believers simply assume global warming is manmade. There are no peer-reviewed studies that rule out ‘natural, internal climate cycles’ — i.e.,‘natural, internal variability’ – as the real cause of 20th century warming.
What is not admitted is that while natural variability is obscurring the human signal they believe exists, the signal they seek desparately can’t be detected despite the fact the record has been jived.
Adopting a Bayesian analysis in no way increases the precision of current information. We know that all of the information, past and present, upon which any analysis must rest has been corrupted. Whereas perhaps only some of the corruption is result of demonstrable fraud and incompetence, the ubiquitous UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect is pervasive across the land-based temperature record (which itself is telling of a wilful and purposeful deception on the part of the climatist community).
A Bayesian analysis cannot make bad data relevant. God-in-garbage-out–GIGO –i.e., you can’t turn a pig’s ear into Flammkuchen. And, the most recent and most accurate data we have ever had – based on information gathered using satellites – shows that the oceans have been cooling for more than a decade.
While you can rule out the sun, oceans and volcanoes which would be the main natural suspects, I guess you are saying we can’t rule out some as yet unknown source of natural variation, therefore it can’t be CO2. Is that capturing your logic?
Not at all. It’s a fact not logic that it’s natural variation that cannot be the eliminated as the source of all climate change. NASA admits that.
A human signal cannot be teased out of the data. Accordingly, given the corruption of data by the UHI effect, only an insane person would look for a human signal in uncorrupted data. That would be a waste of time, right?
The logic is, it’s even a greater waste of time to look for a human signal in corrupted data. In a sane world, everyone would agree with that. And, that is why global waming alarmism is called a mass mania. Western civilization is as nutty as the pre-WWII Germany population. It happens. Societies die and usually it is rotting from within from the head down.
“You can dive off the boat now and swim” announced Wagathon.
“But what about sharks?” someone asks, “I am sure I heard some scientists saying this is perfect conditions for sharks”.
“Can you see any sharks?” Wagathon asks.
“Well no, I can’t, but I can’t see much because the water is very murky today” replies the worried one.
“Well if you cannot tease a shark signal from the data there is logically no risk of sharks and you are just being an alarmist” replied Wagathon.
Look to the Dolphins. They look to you.
========
I remember being impressed, 6 months to a year ago, with a graph drawn by someone, who is not normally on my side of the argument, showing the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature anomaly over the last 100 or so years.
Unfortunately I can’t remember who it was and I can’t find it again.
Any suggestions? Thanks.
tempterrain
Is this the CO2 temperature correlation you are talking about? (I posted this a couple of years ago but have just updated it to include most recent years.)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8384/8455300487_526ee69f96_b.jpg
As you can see, there is no apparent correlation between the “theoretical GH warming from CO2” (at equilibrium per IPCC) and the “observed actual temperature”.
Max
I don’t know the exact posts, but DocMartyn and Girma have both posted those scatter plots showing the correlation and sensitivity near 2 C per doubling.
Jim D
Over the 160+ year total period the actually observed warming is a bit less than half the theoretical warming at equilibrium per IPCC.
But there is no apparent CO2 temperature correlation when then overall record is broken down into statistically significant 30-year periods.
Max
Yes maybe by DocMartyn. I’ll have another look. Thanks.
I’ve found it now.
http://s179.beta.photobucket.com/user/DocMartyn/media/LNCO2vstemp.jpg.html
Doc Martyn has shown empirical evidence for CS being 2.2 degC as measured on a year to year basis. So if we allow for thermal inertia, the Earth takes a time to reach equilibrium, then this is quite consistent with the IPCC’s figure of 3 deg C
This is quite long term and the temperature increase can by no means be all attributed to greenhouse gases. So about 0.5 degrees C seems reasonable. Nothing to worry about then? Actually no – because there will be several climate shifts this century.
This is how to calculate sensitivity:
Radiation levels adjust automatically so as to be in balance in so far as net radiative flux at TOA. Measurements of net radiative balance do not disprove this basic fact of physics. Such measurements rarely show a difference of more than 0.5% – and even that could be just error in measurement.
Hence, the overall level of the plot of temperature against altitude in the troposphere will adjust up and down in parallel positions. The gradient is determined by (a) the acceleration due to gravity (b) the mean specific heat and, when water vapour and radiating molecules are added, (c) by intra-atmospheric radiation, which transfers heat always from warmer layers to cooler ones, which are generally above in the troposphere. Hence this radiation has a propensity to reduce the slope. It is well known that the wet adiabatic lapse rate is only about two thirds that of the dry one.
But, for radiative balance, the area under the corresponding plot of outward radiative intensity has to remain constant. Hence that plot, and so also the plot of temperature against altitude must both rotate (swivel) around some intermediate point between the surface and the tropopause.
Hence, when the gradient (AKA lapse rate) is less steep, the equilibrium surface temperature will be cooler. We see this in moist Equatorial areas where, for example, Singapore daily maximums never go above about 33C. But in dry tropical deserts, when the sun is also directly overhead in summer, we can get maximums in the mid 40’s.
Water vapour cools. Thus there is no positive feedback upon which the IPCC stakes their claim that any carbon dioxide warming will be magnified. But carbon dioxide also reduces the gradient by a minuscule amount, due to (c) above, maybe reducing surface temperatures by about 0.1C.
Judith
Willis Eschenbach has just published what looks like the culmination of his magnus opus on sensitivity at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/07/emergent-climate-phenomena/#more-79055
well worth a read
Indeed –
My favorite part:
Epic.
A drive-by sneer from the ever genial Joshua. What a surprise.
Looks like Willis is using the Creationist Method rather than the Scientific Method
“Lets start by assuming climate sensitivity is low! Now how can we support that?”
Joshua
Instead of simply nit-picking one sentence of Willis’ essay on emergent climate phenomena, why don’t you try refuting the message?
(Might be a bit harder for you, Josh.)
Max
lolwot
The “null” hypothesis is that (2xCO2) climate sensitivity is “null” (= zero). That’s “low”, isn’t it?
Max
lowlot, three words come to mind – pot, kettle and black.
I’d accuse so-called amateur scientists like Willis Eschenbach and Nic Lewis of not being particularly interested in knowing what climate sensitivity is. Some years ago they both decided to bat for the team that wants to oppose GH gas emission control. Why would they do that? Mere scientific curiosity? I don’t think so. They have no credentials to suggest they approached the problem in a dispassionate way. So they have to say climate sensitivity is low , don’t they?
Or do they? I suppose they could say that it’s possibly quite high, but its all too uncertain etc etc. But, if they took that line, Judith might think they’re encroaching on her patch!
Max,
A “null hypothesis” is more a question of choice than definition.
Unless you choose to deny that CO2 is a GH gas there is no reason to assume zero.
tempterrain
The “null” hypothesis on AGW is what it is. “Null” = zero
It’s up to “believers” in AGW or CAGW to cite the empirical evidence that falsifies the “null hypothesis” (Popper).
Pretty simple, actually.
Max
tempterrain
Instead of giving us your analysis of “why” Willis Eschenbach (or Nic Lewis) are committed to a low (2xCO2) climate sensitivity, why don’t you rebut Willis’ paper. Should be easy for you (as a REAL physicist) .
Max
Max,
The “null” hypothesis on AGW is what it is. “Null” = zero”
Do you use this sort of “logic”, if that’s the right word for it, in real life? When crossing the street is the “null hypothesis” that nothing will happen so you just step out regardless? You’d have unprotected sex with any stranger who might take your fancy as the “null hypothesis” is………. etc etc ?
The null hypothesis is that which is not to be proven.
No one is out to prove that CAGW never happened in the past. CAGW is that which is to be proven.
Thanks for playing.
tempterrain
Stepping out into a busy street without looking has been shown by repeated empirical evidence and accident statistics to be life threatening.
There is no empirical evidence to corroborate the hypothesis that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause an increase in global temperature.
Big difference.
Max
“There is no empirical evidence to corroborate the hypothesis that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause an increase in global temperature.”
Well actually there is:
http://s179.beta.photobucket.com/user/DocMartyn/media/LNCO2vstemp.jpg.html
up Loved the dolphin poetry – and encourage thinking about emergent phenomena. But this is how ENSO really works.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUoFKzAkUApv5X8u_BbclY7w
or
http://people.duke.edu/~ts24/ENSO/
Whichever is easy for you.
The thermal evolution of ENSO is best understood in terms of upwelling in the Humboldt Current off South Ameica . This region of upwelling propagates across the central Pacific driven by winds and Coriolis forces enhancing Walker Circulation – which with Hadley Circulation establishes the dominant trade winds in the north and south sub equatorial regions. Trade winds, south-easterly in the Southern Hemisphere and north-easterly in the Northern Hemisphere , pile up warm surface water against Australia and Indonesia. Water vapour rises in the western Pacific creating low pressure cells that strengthen the trade winds piling up yet more warm water in the western Pacific. Cool, subsurface water rises in the eastern Pacific and spreads westward. At some point the trade winds falter and warm water spreads out westward across the Pacific.
“… upwelling in the Humboldt Current off South America”
Any reasonable idea of what causes this ?
Hi Ian – it is the result of winds and the rotation of the Earth pushing surface water away from the coast of Peru and from the equatorial region in the Pacific. See the north and south Pacific gyres in the beginning of the animation. This enhances Walker circulation in a La Nina. The east-west asymetry overshoots and the warm water flows eastward across the Pacific suppressing upwelling in an El Nino. It is a Pacific wide wave as water piles up in the west and then flows eastward. The changes in frequency of ENSO events and the multi-decadal PDO is related to more or less cold water entering the gryres as storms spin off the polar vortices more or less into lower latitudes.
Dolphinlegs | February 7, 2013 at 6:31 pm | Reply
“well worth a read”
Nothing he’s ever written in the past was well worth reading. Why should this time be any different?
Hmm, Willis has convection – I wonder how he gets that without gravity..
Oh look, he has “convection cells” replacing the processes of real gases and gravity:
“local circulation cells spring up everywhere. These cells transport water vapor upwards to the local lifting condensation level. At that level, the water vapor condenses into clouds as shown in Figure 3”.
Chief and DS,
OMG are youse sellin’ tickets fer the Great Western
Battle of the Giants? )
Hope they leave their guns at home! ;)
Barn yard chicken fight, peckers at paces methinks!
Not even. A schoolgirl pissing contest. As for big dave – I chié dans son chapeau. But hell – if he turns up at the Great Western you don’t find an Aussie larrikin backing down.
I have been wanting to segue from sensivity to Deborah Conway’s new album – stories of ghosts – that I have been listening to all week. How about – the writings on the wall for linear sensitivity? The song can be found here – http://www.deborahconway.com/
She smiled at me once at the North Gong Hotel – touring her string of pearls album. That was in 1991. Wow.
Found out today that Abigail Washburn will be at the Bulli Heritage Hotel March 7. Wonder if I can swing it?
Max earlier asked the question: “Instead of giving us your analysis of “why” Willis Eschenbach (or Nic Lewis) are committed to a low (2xCO2) climate sensitivity, why don’t you rebut Willis’ paper.”
First of all I’d make the point that the term “paper’ normally implies something published in a scientific journal, peer reviewed and subject to the normal scientific process. That’s the normal scientific process.
On the climate question we have several individuals, the names Willis Eschenbach, Nic Lewis, and Christopher Monckton spring to mind, who now claim to be self taught amateur scientists writing up their works as ‘papers’ on such blogs as Wattsupwiththat.
So how to treat them? I’d argue that it does depend on their motivations. Scientists like Faraday, in the 19th century were largely self taught, so there’s nothing wrong with that per se. Faraday, however didn’t have any choice. At the time, entrance to university courses was limited to those from the upper echelons of English society. Faraday was from much humbler origins.
Did Eschenbach et al have similar handicaps? Was their decision to learn more about climate science in a self taught fashion made from economic necessity or choice? Did they isolate themselves from mainstream scientific thinking because they didn’t wish to end up thinking the same? Was their decision to learn just enough about climate science to be able to write these so-called ‘papers’ prompted by scientific curiousity or a pre-conceived desire to to do what they could to undermine the mainstream scientific case on the need for GH gas emissions control?
Are they prepared to answer these kind of questions? If not, their writings have to be considered to be the result of an initial prejudice on their part and don’t deserve any further comment. In no way can they be considered to be modern day Michael Faradays.
Are you out of your frickin gourd comparing Eschenbach to Faraday?
You might as well compare a peacock and an elephant. Both have feet.
Faraday was an experimentalist and prolific inventor. Eschenbach is a prolific blowhard.
‘In this commentary, I will discuss the question “If somebody were to discover that climate variations in the past were stronger than previously thought, what would be the implications for estimates of climate sensitivity?” Pick your favorite time period – Little ice age, Medieval Warm Period, Last Glacial Maximum or Cretaceous – the issues are the same. In considering this question, it is important to keep in mind that the predictions summarized in the IPCC reports are not the result of some kind of statistical fit to past data. Thus, a revision in our picture of past climate variability does not translate in any direct way into a change in the IPCC forecasts. These forecasts are based on comprehensive simulations incorporating the best available representations of basic physical processes. Of course, data on past climates can be very useful in improving these representations. In addition, past data can be used to provide independent estimates of climate sensitivity, which provide a reality check on the models. Nonetheless, the path from data to change in forecast is a subtle one.’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/natural-variability-and-climate-sensitivity/
Right at the heart of the climate establishment – but not in the literature – is the inexplicable denial of the computational reality of the climate models. The models are chaotic without a doubt. That much is clear from uncertainty in data and couplings combined with the nature of the Navier-Stokes equations. ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full The reason for this astonishing gap between what is known in the scientific and public realms can only be speculated on.
Willis talks about sensitivity in terms of emergent properties – a property of self-organising systems. Neither high nor low – but variable in space and time. It becomes an idea that has all meanings and therefore ceases to have much meaning at all. Yet they pretend that it is something meaningful and something that can be calculated by models. Willis is correct in essence – climate is self-organising – although there is a lot to be discovered about how dynamical complexity works in climate.
How many days has it been since you stopped babbling long enough to get a good night’s sleep?
Hi big dave – see this doesn’t qualify as a substantive comment. There is really nothing I can do with it but respond again that you are a dumbarse with absolutely zero credibility and a penchant for self aggrandisement and making sweeping but stunningly meaningless comment. The emptyness of your comments – sans science, sans common sense, sans common civility – is something that constantly amazes. You jump in with personal and idiosycratic trash talk or idiotic ideas that fail to pass any test of sanity, reason or scholarship.
Not sure why you bother – other than the obvious turd on legs bit.
You even babble in response to non-substantive comments. Amazing.
So you fail again to pass test of sanity, reason or scholarship. So sad.
Can someone please tell me what the abbreviation “pdf” means in climatology ? (You can imagine what a google search produces, sigh). Thanks.
probability distribution function
And just to give you a practical example: Judith has stated that, in her opinion, climate sensitivity lies in the range of 1-6 degC to a 66% level of probability.
Which means that there is approximately a 17% chance of it being lower than 1 degC and a 17% chance of it being higher. Though she has quibbled about my interpretation of this, but, at the same time declined to offer corrected figures.
She’s also consistently declined to supply percentages for 1-2 degC , 3-4 degC etc Except, of course, we know they must add up to 66%.
Judith’s claimed justification is related to her dislike of Bayesian stats which IMO is ‘bollocks’! The more likely reason is related to her desire to convey the message that levels of climate change are too uncertain to be bothered about. She therefore wishes to present a wider range of CS than would be considered likely by most climate scientists , but she sees the problem that a wide rage opens up the real possibility of genuine catastrophic levels of change which would put her in the warmist of warmist camps. Not exactly what is expected from a member of the Republican climate change team!
Should be ” …….and a 17% chance of it being higher than 6 degC”
Oh dear, more mindless blather from the self-opiniated Judith-misinterpreter on the Democrat FUD team.
You forgot self serving twaddle from a pissant progressive.
Judith,
I’d just challenge you, once again, to answer my point properly. Erica and Chief don’t seem to be able to do any better than undulge in name calling.
Sensitivity can only be understood in terms of emergent properties – a property of self-organising systems. Neither high nor low – but variable in space and time. It becomes an idea that has all meanings and therefore ceases to have much meaning at all. It is not something meaningful or something that can be calculated by models.
The answer is that it is a pointless and stupid question – that hasn’t changed since last the last time of the trillion times you asked it.
“…..last time of the trillion times you asked it.
Look Chief, if I’ve told you once I’ve told you a million times. Don’t exaggerate! :-)
There may be stupid answers but stupid questions? That’s what is claimed when very ‘un-stupid’ questions have obvious but embarrassingly simple answers.
The question was stupid the first time and has grown increasingly tedious and smary since.
The answer may be 42 – but what should the real question be? You may have to build a climate machine to find out. Why don’t you drop back in with progress reports now and then.
He actually imagines he has a “point” … astounding.
And likes suggesting political motivation in others, but calls it name-calling when applied to himself (where is it overwhelmingly obvious,)
lolwot | February 8, 2013 at 7:46 am |
Looks like
WillisHansen is using the Creationist Method rather than the Scientific Method“Lets start by assuming
climate sensitivity is lowburning coal and petroleum is bad! Now how can we support that?”Fixed that for ya!
Dave Springer,
So you’re saying its a leftist hoax or conspiracy to destabilise the capitalist system?
Its an argument often heard but where’s the substance? As far as I know there was never been any opposition, from any part of the political spectrum, to the burning of coal, or any other fossil fuel, solely because of its CO2 emissions before scientific evidence that CO2 build up was a problem. There may have been some objections to other hazards of coal burning such as particulate emission, or acid rain, but that’s not the same thing. But if you know any different please show me why you think that to be the case.
And no-one is saying, even now, that burning coal and fossil fuels has to be immediately stopped. But it does make sense to look at less polluting forms of energy, and it does make sense to capture any emissions before release, and it does make sense to tilt the economic balance to achieve a desired result of lower levels of CO2 emissions.
Shucks, now it’s the tired old “conspiracy” strawman being dragged out for another performance by the alarmist camp.
One more time then – one does not need a “conspiracy” to explain an organization acting its own interests.
* it’s government that stands to massively benefit from climate alarmism
* it’s government that is funding and promoting alarmist climate science
See the connection ?
Why should it have to be government which benefits? Probably no-one will benefit except maybe those who come up with the best technical solution. But isn’t that called capitalism?
It would seem that you are making these comments solely because your political viewpoint doesn’t have any solution for such a problem as climate change caused by widescale human emissions of a GH gas. Therefore the only recourse is to argue that the problems can’t exist.
If I’ve got this wrong, and you can bring yourself to accept there may be a GH gas emission problem, even just for the sake of argument, what would be the ‘libertarian’ solution to it?
tempterrain-
Governments benefit enormously from any type of alarmism (climactic, financial, security, health, whatever) that strikes the public fancy, as alarmism gives the impetus to further expand state power over the individual. The public cries “Save us! Save us!” and the politicians reply “Certainly! We’ll just need some more money and, well, maybe a little more of your freedom. But trust us, it’s for your own good.”
Punksta is right – institutions (like government, the military, universities, etc) will always act in their own perceived interest first, and for their ostensible purpose after.
Who else benefits? Well, when governments are involved, the major benefits will go to their cronies – the political backers, childhood friends, the relatives, the ones with the best lobbyists. It’s currently known as ‘crony capitalism’, and it bears little resemblance to capitalism. It goes on under all kinds of governmental systems. With great power comes great opportunity to hand out great whacks of other peoples money…
As for a libertarian solution, I cannot speak for others (of course), but I will say that I do feel there is a ghg problem. There are also economic and political issues, particularly in the policy responses of the left to any ghg problem. My thinking is that allowing a great expansion of nuclear power is the best option on the table at the moment while we continue to study the whole issue and further quantify the problem. We don’t yet know enough to do anything but a ‘regrets option’.
So there you have it – my libertarian two cents, to read or ignore at your leisure.
kch,
Thank you for attempting to identify a possible libertarian solution to the problem of climate change. The suggestion you’ve offered, an expansion of the nuclear power industry, is exactly the same one offered by such climate scientist as James Hansen.
So why is he such a hate figure for many on the political right?
tempterrain-
‘So why is he such a hate figure for many on the political right?’
No idea. You’d have to ask someone on the right – as a libertarian I have only slightly more in common with the conservatives than I do with the liberals.
My problem is with Hansen the activist, not with Hansen the scientist. Hansen the activist I dislike for his overblown rhetoric and public actions, all of which seem calculated to rush the public into taking action, any action, well before the extent and magnitude of the problem (not to mention the effects of the proposed solutions) are known.
Note that it is dislike, not hate, for me. I suspect that that is the actual feeling most on the ‘right’ would actually express.
I would also like to point out that while Hansen and myself both seem to agree on nuclear power, the greatest opposition to that is coming from the political left – his side. If nothing else, this should emphasize that the climate wars are far more complex than the political left/right split you are framing here.
tempterrain
To underscore what kch has written about governments (i.e. politicians or the ruling class) benefitting from alarmism, H.L. Mencken said it best many years ago:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. “
Max
kch,
If the left right split was just on the question of how achieve GH gas emission reductions then I would have to side with the political right some of the time. However, it’s not about ‘how’, as you well know. The primary tactic we see from those of rightish opinion is to question/undermine the scientific evidence and argue that yet more ‘proof’ is needed.
Nuclear power? Yes you’d like that, but don’t ask us to support the the use of nuclear too publicly, you say, to reduce GH gas emissions. We don’t really care about them anyway and prefer to blame leftists for opposition to that idea.
tempterrain-
“However, it’s not about ‘how’, as you well know.”
Actually, when it comes to the political/policy battles, I think it is mostly about ‘how’. This is where competing visions of governance are truly important. The fights over the policy prescriptions drift back to colour the science, not the other way around.
“The primary tactic we see from those of rightish opinion is to question/undermine the scientific evidence and argue that yet more ‘proof’ is needed.”
To which I could counter that the primary tactic we see from those of leftish opinion is to ultimately abandon science and argue from emotion – constructing ‘scary scenarios’ and pleading ‘for the grandchildren’.
As for the second paragraph, I’m not clear on what you are saying. Are you saying that the left – where most of the greens seem to reside – isn’t the major opposition to nuclear power? Who are you accusing of what here?
(reposting this – for some reason my earlier reply didn’t make it. If it now appears as a double-post, my apologies)
tempterrain
You seem to doubt that a totalitarian government could be voted in democratically.
The National Socialists were voted into power democratically in Germany in 1933 – a few years later they had established full totalitarian control, eliminating democracy.
For a chilling novel describing how this could also have happened in the USA read the 1930s “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis.
Democratic systems of government seem “natural” to us today, so that we start believing that it is inevitable that they will last forever.
The danger is that a central government continuously wants to grow and increase its power (by increasing taxes, controls, services and regulations on its citizens). Often this is done “for the common good of the people”, as imagined by the ruling politicians and bureaucrats, who are mistakenly convinced that they “know better” what’s good for the people than the people themselves do.
It is up to the voting public in a representative democracy to make sure (through their representatives or by direct plebiscite) that the power of the government is kept in check, IOW that it only provides those services and regulations or levies those taxes that the public wants – and no more.
That’s what representative democracy is all about.
Max
“seem to doubt that a totalitarian government could be voted in democratically.”
Today’s welfare states are clearly totalitarian – high levels of taxation, coercive wealth redistribution, regulation, state ownership & control – and many if not all have been created via democracy.
Why should it have to be government which benefits?
Nothing fancier than the blindingly obvious reason – because this will justify more taxes, more bureaucracy, more state controls – a generally more totalitarian society. Music to ears those with totalitarian/left leanings of course, and which is of course the primary driving force in promoting alarmism.
Your fabricated need to imagine that only you totalitarians can envisage a greenhouse problem, is laughable.
But suppose we made Governments even more democratic than they are now. Wouldn’t that overcome the ‘promoting totalitarianism’ argument?
Hoo boy, you haven’t been around very long, have you?
Long enough to know what questions to ask!
There was a media report in Australia last year that sought to curtail – or indeed ban as misinformation – global warming in the media and on blogs read by more than 16 people a day.
The real Australian response – http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/finkelstein-yes-please-just-try-it/
Sank without a trace but tt supported it at the time. Yeah – right – more democracy.
.. suppose we made Governments even more democratic than they are now. Wouldn’t that overcome the ‘promoting totalitarianism’ argument?
There is no reason to think it would. Indeed democracy has fostered the creeping totalitarianism we know today as the welfare state – more taxes, more regulation, state ownership, bureaucracies and agencies.
Indeed democracy has fostered the creeping totalitarianism we know today as the welfare state – more taxes, more regulation, state ownership, bureaucracies and agencies.
What are you proposing instead? A government vacuum?
Nature abhors a vacuum. Just because you’re not natural doesn’t mean the rest of us are.
Not a vaccuum, no. Just a much reduced density. Strong constitutional limits on what governments/majorities are allowed to do to people/minorities, to protect people/minorities from abuse by government/majorities.
Just a much reduced density.
Sounds good. Reduced to 90% of before, or 10%, or 1%, or 0.1%?
Toss a coin.
10% of what we have now sounds about right. Law and order and a few other items.
But you toss coins if that’s your preferred approach.
Erica,
“……..democracy has fostered the creeping totalitarianism ”
So in your view democracy = totalitarianism?
Eh?? Let’s get some terms straight here.
You’re using “fostered” to mean “is the same same as “. It isn’t.
* Democracy
is broadly a system where people elect the government. The opposite is dictatorship, where they don’t..
* Totalitarianism
is where government exercises total (broadly, a high degree) of control over people. The opposite is classical liberalism (libertarianism), where people are largely free to control their lives themselves.
There are thus four possible combinations of these attributes:-
1. Totalitarian dictatorship
2. Libertarian dictatorship
3. Totalitarian democracy
4. Libertarian democracy
The West is obviously type 3. And increasingly totalitarian(more taxes, controls etc) over the last century or so, all implemented under a franchise system.
Erica,
Your use of the term “Totalitarian democracy” is somewhat worrying.
You can argue for libertaranism, socialism, conservatism … whatever you like. But unless any of these are brought about democratic means what you’ll end up with will be a form of fascism.
Democracy is more important than any “ism”.
Your use of the term “Totalitarian democracy” is somewhat worrying.
OK then, what term would you prefer for a totalitarian system brought in by means of democracy?
You can argue for libertaranism, socialism, conservatism … [] But unless any of these are brought about democratic means what you’ll end up with will be a form of fascism.
Fascism is just another word for totalitarianism, often the dictatorship type.
Democracy is more important than any “ism”.
?? – it is itself an -ism
More or less amounts to : tyranny of the majority.
( ism – noun, a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
Synonyms : doctrine – theory )
Since it can be voted out, it cannot be a totalitarian form of government. If your neighbors do not agree with your notions about the size of government, move. If they will let you.
Since it can be voted out, it cannot be a totalitarian form of government.
No, a government that cannot be voted out is a dictatorship.
Nothing to do with whether its policies are total- or liber -tarian.
Erica and tempterrain
Being Swiss I may see your debate from a slightly different angle.
I’d agree with you, Erica, that there is a real danger of “creeping totalitarianism” in our modern representative democratic societies.
Nobody wants to return to the lawless “Wild West” days, BUT the bigger and more powerful that a central government gets, the less personal freedom is left at the individual level.
Switzerland has this problem of “creeping totalitarianism”, just as many other representative democracies do (including, of course, the USA).
It takes a lot of effort to fight creeping centralization of power – Switzerland does this by retaining decision-making (and the flow of tax revenues) at the local (rather than central) level as much as possible and ensuring that government initiatives are voted on by the populace before being either implemented or discarded.
It’s also why the Swiss population has resisted government efforts (mostly from the left) to join the EU and thereby give up a piece of local sovereignty to a central power.
No system is perfect, but that one seems to work here.
But I would agree that the basic problem in all representative democracies today is “creeping totalitarianism” from increased centralization of power, and that it requires a concerted effort from the citizens to stop this (or at least slow it down).
Max
In the USA, the government is me and my neighbors. We voted for it. My neighbors and me like to stick our noses in our business. That is not totalitarian; it’s being neighborly. I refuse to vote for less neighborliness.
erica-
You need to rethink this. The base problem is that a dictatorship is, more or less, a subcategory of totalitarianism. As a result, your first combination is really a tautology and the other three are combinations of two different types of governance, hence contradictory.
This is not to say that tempterrain is completely right. As you point out, democracy can be defined as the tyranny of the majority – and when the majority changes its mind, subgroups suffer. His faith in it is touching, but misplaced: it can lead to both good and bad.
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful, good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean: more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero
JCH
You describe how individual voters in the USA (the second oldest living democracy in the world) are simply being neighborly by involving themselves in the political process.
The same holds for Switzerland (the oldest living democracy in the world), as I described it.
But I believe the discussion between Erica and tempterrain covers the subject of “creeping totalitarianism” that results from an ever more powerful central government; and I’d agree with you that it is only the individual voters who can keep this process from eroding their individual freedom.
Max
JCH
Neighborliness has nothing to do with government. Your neighbors you interact with consensually. Government, by contrast, is all about coercion.
TCH
The base problem is that a dictatorship is, more or less, a subcategory of totalitarianism.
No, that is quite wrong.
Dictatorship is about the lack of voting.
Totalitarianism is about how invasive government is, high taxes etc.
They are often combined, but need not be.
Ah, Erica, but democratic totalitarianism will perfect the new man, doncha know.
==========
You’ve never met my neighbors. Coercive doesn’t even begin to describe them. Texas is a thug nanny state.
Erica –
Hmmm. I’m glad I threw the ‘more or less’ in there – it’s going to give me some dignity in retreating a little bit.
You are correct that one is not a subcategory of the other, but I will maintain that totalitarianism and dictatorship are systems that converge on each other as they approach perfection. Both, in the end, squelch individual freedom in favour of state control. A truly totalitarian state really requires dictatorial rule to determine the state interest, while a dictatorship naturally gravitates towards totalitarianism in the interest of protecting the dictator (who is the state). Because of this, they do tend to be used synonymously.
I’m more comfortable with the terms ‘statist’ and ‘individualist’ for broad descriptions of political systems. Totalitarianisms and dictatorships are to me just two examples of statists, while libertarians are individualists. Ideally, democracies tend towards individualism but can be far too easily dragged towards statism.
Also, I don’t see dictatorship as being about the lack of voting, to me it’s about the control of the state by an individual or small oligarchy; and totalitarianism is not about the invasiveness of the state, it’s about total state control of the individuals actions.
In the end, I’d bet that my discomfort with your combinations is a result of using different definitions – I still see #1 as at least a redundancy, if not strictly a tautology, #2 and #3 as inherently self-contradictory, and #4 as an unrealizable ideal.
I’d also bet that we agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on.
Erica,
You’ve probably never lived in a genuinely totalitarian country. You wouldn’t be free to come and go as you please. You wouldn’t be allowed to change jobs without the State’s permission or even move from where you lived. Blogging as you do would be a crime. You certainly wouldn’t be allowed to leave the country as you wished either. Totalitarianism means the state controls everything – totally. You might not like everything your democratic government does, or agree with every policy. But so what? No one does.
Is it possible that such a government could be elected democratically? I’d say not. In any case it hasn’t ever happened. Democracy may not be perfect , there a well known quote by Churchill on that point which I’m sure you’ll know, but everything else is much worse.
tempterrain,
“Is it possible that such a government could be elected democratically? I’d say not. In any case it hasn’t ever happened.”
Tell that to the Egyptians, the Afghans, the Palestinians, the Russians…and that’s just the last couple years. A few years back, Nicaragua, before that most African countries after de-colonization…it happens all the time. Sometimes over night, as with the ill served Palestinians, sometimes after a period of years, as in Russia (which may not be quite there yet, but is soooo close).
Europe is the frog in the pot, reaching out to turn up the heat under the pot it’s sitting in, blissfully unaware of the fact that it is on its way to becoming soup. And the U.S. is being pushed to follow them into the pot.
One man, one vote, one time.
Gary M-
Don’t forget the Italian election of 1924, which legitimized the fascists (and for whom the very word ‘totalitarianism’ was coined). Mussolini’s general program was very clear by that point, yet the populace still allowed themselves to be buffaloed into giving up their freedom in return for a promise of stability.
Never underestimate what a fearful population will sacrifice on the altar of comfort.
I’m toying with, and tuning, a Government Fiat.
==========
tempterrain
[This ended up in the wrong spot, so am re-posting]
You seem to doubt that a totalitarian government could be voted in democratically.
The National Socialists were voted into power democratically in Germany in 1933 – a few years later they had established full totalitarian control, eliminating democracy.
For a chilling novel describing how this could also have happened in the USA read the 1930s “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis.
Democratic systems of government seem “natural” to us today, so that we start believing that it is inevitable that they will last forever.
The danger is that a central government continuously wants to grow and increase its power (by increasing taxes, controls, services and regulations on its citizens). Often this is done “for the common good of the people”, as imagined by the ruling politicians and bureaucrats, who are mistakenly convinced that they “know better” what’s good for the people than the people themselves do.
It is up to the voting public in a representative democracy to make sure (through their representatives or by direct plebiscite) that the power of the government is kept in check, IOW that it only provides those services and regulations or levies those taxes that the public wants – and no more.
That’s what representative democracy is all about.
Max
The problems you’ve mentioned in Africa, Italy and Germany were due to democracy being curtailed after elections. Yes it’s possible that democracy can produce a bad leader, even though he or she may have seemed plausible at the time, but, of course there does need to be a mechanism in place, a constitution, to ensure that democracy can continue and mistakes can be subsequently corrected. That’s essential.
This “democracy = mob rule” argument increasingly coming out of America is quite a disturbing current IMO. If those in the Tea Party, and others on the political right there, feel they just don’t have the numbers to win any election against what they disparagingly term “the 47%ers” , where will it lead?
You’ve probably never lived in a genuinely totalitarian country
Most of us on this list do. We all pay more tax and are subject to more state controls than our ancestors did.
Oh, and forgot to add – the totalitarian welfare/nanny states most of us on this live in, were put there by democracy.
But sure, this is a substandard form/degree of totalitarianism relative to the mass murder byf regimes in the USSR, China and Nazi Germany.
Here’s one prepared earlier.
‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.
The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’ http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
Your welcome.
damn wordpress. Chief Hydrologist is a comfortable old sockpuppet – everyone knows my name – but the null hypothesis in using only my name was correct. There was no change in the civility index. So I will happily slip back into my old sockpuppet – wordpress allowing.
Chief
The text you quoted of the “new UNFCC framework” tells it all.
“sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action” (which will) “lead to accelerated decarbonization”?
Yikes!
Who’s paying for the UN bureaucrats that are going to drive this “sustained effort”?
And why?
Max
I think you are reading too much into a few words. And there was in fact no mention of the UN in the new framework.
BBD | February 8, 2013 at 7:56 am |
“Anyone that persists in insulting other commenters will be put in moderation”
I consider your output to be more like cow pies than comments. Hence the policy may not apply in your case. I could be wrong but that’s not for me to decide.
Judges, can we have a ruling?
BBD must surely be worthy of a place in the Guiness book of records for his breathtaking uncivilty and conceit, in terms of both intensity and frequency.
Perhaps a career in porn or sado-masochism could best exploit his native skills. Snuff movies?
Actually – I think he used to be a dentist.
I just knew inflicting pain would be involved somehow.
Hey! No dentist jokes. I had to find a way to make a living after they outlawed waterboarding.
See what I mean? I got no chance against this.
==============
David Springer,
I see you are rude and insulting to many other commenters, not just me. Typical computer nerd.
I see you are rude and insulting
Eyes closed, let me guess who just said that…
Hey, I got it right.
Dear Blah Blah Duh
In regard to your blathering rationalizations of why Dullal holds the record for highest mean annual temperature I direct you a climate textbook:
http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/climate_systems/tropical_desert.html
Let me know which part of that you don’t understand.
For most people, the simple fact that tropical deserts have the highest mean annual temperature of any climate type is very strong evidence that cloud feedback is negative, not positive. Temperature characteristics of different climate types should be known by anyone who has taken and passed an introductory course in physical geography.
I’ve yet to see any physical evidence that cloud feedback is positive. If someone could provide it I would be mighty obliged. Just don’t give me links to blog science. I will accept encyclopedic references so long as they contain citations to more authoritative sources. I prefer references to college level textbooks. I shouldn’t have to belabor common geographical facts like tropical deserts having higher mean annual temperatures than tropical rainforests as that’s introductory level geography. Yet BBD tried to argue otherwise. How am I supposed to react in the face of such ignorance? I try to be gently corrective but after being rebuffed by any one ignoramus so many times it becomes obvious that normal pedagogy won’t work. BBD seems quite impervious to fact so really all that’s left is to have some fun at his expense and hope aspirants to similar displays of ignorance might be warned off by it. Of course anonymity makes that less likely because the ignorant anonymous ass can easily abandon the humiliated alias.
Springer
This is a simply a lie.
You are unbelievable. Truly something else.
climate4you shows a negative correlation between global cloud cover and surface temperature.This argues against a negative feedback, and either for a positive feedback, or, less likely, it is cloud cover that is driving global temperature.
Nice. I give you a citation from a standard college textbook on physical geography and you respond with some vague reference to “climate4you”, whatever the f*ck that is. Unfvckingbelievable.
Yes, probably doesn’t matter that their correlation graphs are referenced, does it?
Jim D
You say it’s “less likely that cloud cover is driving global temperature”.
How so?
I’d say (based on the Earthshine data) that it is very likely exactly what is happening.
As far as observed “negative net overall cloud feedback with warming” (on relatively short time scales over the tropics) see Spencer & Braswell.
Wynant et al. showed a similar negative overall feedback with warming over all latitudes, based on model simulations using superparameterization to better simulate cloud behavior.
There is absolutely no reason the two concepts cannot coexist.
Max
Read your own link. It says exactly what I said: deserts are dry because they mainly occur on the descending side of the Hadley cells. The lack of cloud and WV maximises DSW flux to the surface etc etc.
It’s ironic: you both lie about what I actually said and at the same time provide a reference that supports what I said in considerable detail.
What a hopeless mess you are.
Dry climates have a higher mean annual temperature than wet cllimates when insolation is the same at top of atmosphere. It doesn’t matter why they are dry. What matters is that the higher mean annual temperature occurs where there are fewer clouds. This is empirical fact. Do you still deny it?
I never even questioned it. You are either confused (re-read the original thread) or deranged. Either way, it’s your problem. Please sort out the mess if you are able.
I think we can agree that warmer climates are less cloudy then, can’t we? Some negative feedback people think the opposite.
Jim D
You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that increased clouds => cooling.
With the albedo effect of clouds averaging -48 W/m^2 (compared to 2xCO2 forcing of +3.7 W/m^2 according to IPCC), it is clear that a relatively small increase in cloud cover could have a major impact on temperature. It is also quite plausible that clouds act as a significant climate forcing through a mechanism, which is not yet well understood (as IPCC concedes)
We know from ISCCP observations (Pallé et al.) that the global monthly mean cloud cover decreased by around 4.5% between 1985 and 2000. As a result the Earth’s global albedo decreased by the equivalent of around –5 W/m^2, i.e. decrease of reflected SW radiation (= heating of our planet). Over the period 2000 to 2004 the cloud cover recovered by around 2.5%, with an increase in reflected SW radiation of around +3 W/m^2 (= cooling).
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2006_EOS.pdf
These periods coincide well with a period of rapid global atmospheric warming (1985-2000) followed by a period of slight cooling (after 2000), as measured both at the surface and in the troposphere.
But, hey, all you have to do is go outside on a partly cloudy day and see what happens when a cloud blocks out the incoming sunshine.
[At night, there is a smaller reverse effect: it cools off more rapidly on clear nights than on cloudy nights.]
But I do not know anyone that believes that increased clouds cause warming. Do you know anyone?
Max
Dave Springer,
More name calling? Is that the best you can do?
BBD made a valid point saying “It makes no policy difference if S is ~2.5C or ~3C”
I’d extend that slightly. It makes no policy difference if there is a significant possibility that S will exceed 2.5 degC.
Is anyone saying that there isn’t a significant possibility that it might? Is there a ‘significant possibility’ that we might actually discuss just what the term ‘significant possibility’ might be interpreted to mean in an intelligent fashion?
No, the best I can do is direct the ignorant to the textbook information. If that’s rejected time after time then I resort to name calling. If I can’t educate from the podium then I might as well entertain from it instead. I take my comedic style from Don Rickles. If you don’t like it skip over it.
I am afraid the best you can do – springer – is facile and specious argument based on wikipedia entries usually. Your pretensions to pedagoguery is about right in the strict dictionary sense – ‘a petty instructiveness; a dogmatic and narrow-minded method of dealing with things’. Your comedic style is more the witches from Macbeth and you amuse only yourself. I suppose that’s enough for you.
Eye of willard, twig of moshe.
===========
tempterrain writes “I’d extend that slightly. It makes no policy difference if there is a significant possibility that S will exceed 2.5 degC.
Is anyone saying that there isn’t a significant possibility that it might? ”
I dont know if I qualify as “:anyone”, but if I do, then I say there is “no significant possibility that it might”. There is no measurement of climate sensitivity; all we have are hypothetical, meaningless estimations. Until we have an actual measurement, and therefore a measure of accuracy, no-one has the slightest idea what the climate sensitivity of CO2 is. And until we have a measurement, there is no significant probability that S will exceed 2.5 C. Such little empirical data as we have, and it is not very much, gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atmopshbere from current levels, is indistinguishabled from zero.
But then, I probably dont qualify as “anyone”; certainly not anyone who matters.
“I dont know if I qualify as “:anyone”, but if I do….”
No, you don’t.
tempterrain, you write “No, you don’t.”
That is what I suspected. I am glad to know that, for once, you agree I am right.
Paleoclimate shows it is far from zero.
Jim D you write “Paleoclimate shows it is far from zero.”
I object to the word “shows”. The word Hansen used was “infers”. There is an enormous difference in meaning between these two words.
Let me rephrase, paleoclimate implies that a person would be stupid to assume a climate sensitivity of zero.
Paleoclimate shows that climate shifts from warming to cooling at the highest CO2 levels, and from cooling to warming at the lowest CO2 levels.
Clever little beastie, that paleoclimate; it can change its spots.
==============
Edim is still confused by the Ice Ages. I was referring to the clear signal in the last 50 million years.
Edim forgets orbital forcing. And like several others (Springer included) forgets that if the climate system were dominated by negative feedbacks (including strongly net negative cloud feedback) then deglaciation under orbital forcing would be impossible. Deglaciation under orbital forcing is an unambiguous demonstration that the climate system is in fact dominated by *positive* feedbacks. How else does a spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TSI trigger the massive climate shift from glacial to interglacial? How else?
kim also can’t tell his Pleistocene from his Eocene :-)
Jim, I’m not confused by the Ice Ages. I just say that if you accept the CO2/temperature correlation (at any timescale), then you also accept that climate shifts from warming to cooling at the highest CO2 concentrations and vice versa. We can observe it now and see if it’s true.
BBD, I don’t forget anything. You’re arguing from ignorance and that’s a well known logical fallacy.
Then you are arguing from assertion ;-)
No, but seriously, what you said is simplistic nonsense. Try again. After reading a paleoclimate text or two.
BBD, yes it’s rather simple, but not simplistic and not nonsense. AGW, on the other hand seems like simplistic nonsense to me.
Jim D. writes “Let me rephrase, paleoclimate implies that a person would be stupid to assume a climate sensitivity of zero.”
I object to this as well. I am no expert on the subject, but so far as I am aware, it is difficult getting accurate time measurements in paleo data. My understanding is that while CO2 and temperature are correlated in the paleo data, the rise of CO2 comes some 800 years after the rise in temperature. In other words, first temperature rises, and then CO2 rises, not the other way round; possibly caused by CO2 outgassing from warming oceans.
So, I dont think the paleo data can ever “show” anything. If the modern data, where we have good information on both time and temperature, shows no CO2 signal, then I prefer to believe the modern data; which means, to me, I am not stupid.
And, once again, you put words in my mouth and misquote me. I do not claim that CS is zero; merely that it’s value is indistinguishable from zero.
Edim, the Eocene was an iceless hothouse peak correlated with a CO2 value over 1000 ppm. The CO2 decline since then came with cooling temperatures and glaciers consistent with high sensitivities. Not enough “skeptics” have looked at this, and tried to explain it in their own way, but it is silly to just ignore such evidence. It is almost like they don’t want to acknowledge it as such. Looks like bias to me, but it could simply be ignorance.
Jim D
Yes, every time I raise this point it gets… ignored. But I will carry on doing it all the same because ‘sceptics’ cannot explain it ;-)
Is the glass half warm or half cold?
=================
BBD, your point is a logical falacy, the so-called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Edim dear, you are stuck.
Let’s try again. CO2 and CH4 are *feedbacks* to orbital forcing during deglaciation. Nor are they solely responsible by any means for the totality of deglaciation. They are a part of the phenomenon.
CO2 is low during glacials. It increases during deglaciation and remains ~100ppmv higher during interglacials than glacials. It helps stabilise integlacial climate and prolong the interglacial. But eventually, after many thousands of years, orbital dynamics decrease high latitude NH summer insolation and the great NH ice sheets begin to re-grow. Ice albedo feedback (strongly positive) is engaged and *overwhelms* the interglacial climate, GHGs and all, and the slide back into full glaciation gets underway.
This ‘CO2/temperature correlation’ is just another hideously mangled ‘sceptic’ meme. There is no contradiction, only a profound lack of understanding of the actual processes at work.
Jim Cripwell, check what happened since the Eocene. A CO2 change much larger than in the Ice Ages occurred in the last 50 million years, and that ramp down has gone with cooling consistent with high sensitivity. The Ice Age changes were smaller and not forced by CO2 as we know from Milankovitch, so the CO2 was a response. This often has confused people, especially here. I see it explained a few times a year.
BBD, the solution is in front of you: Gaia, on her knees, begging for air.
================================
Nice story BBD, but it’s just a story and it’s getting boring. I have heard it already 1000s of times and I am not convinced at all.
kim
Did I ever mention that you are chirruping, irritating troll?
Then you are too stupid to understand it Edim, and shouldn’t be commenting on a climate blog.
Jim D. you write “and that ramp down has gone with cooling consistent with high sensitivity.”
Here we go again with the weasel words. Whatever it is may well be “consistent” with something or other, but this means very little. It could be “consistent” with a lot of other things as well. I try and use scientific words, in the sense they are supposed to be used.
That’s Edim and Cripwell engaged in denial. This is an accurate description of what has just happened here, not name calling.
It is necessary to be clear about what is happening. Necessary.
I disagree BBD, it’s the other way around. But, let nature’s phenomena decide.
I know I’ve mentioned to you before that you need to go on ‘A Tour of the Whole Island of Great Skepticism’.
=========================
kim
I’ve been on the tour kim. I’ve spend far, far too much time listening to, and researching sceptic claims. I was – once – a lukewarmer, if you recall.
The problem is that the sceptic case is virtually non-existent. The absolute most that can be said is that it’s possible that the role of natural variability amplifying warming post-1975 has been *slightly* under-stated, but on a century scale this means nothing. If S is ~2.5 – ~3C as seems compellingly likely, then we are in a spot of bother.
Thanks for being frank, BBD. You, like Pekka, have been infected by the fear and guilt associated with catastrophic projections.
Paleontology shows that a warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. Maybe you should lie back and think of Gaia.
=================
Abrupt climate change causes mass extinctions. Do some checking, by all means.
Yep, this is one of our fundamental disagreements. Your belief in our power to cause abrupt climate change is stronger than mine.
What little power we do have will either delay the onset of the next Ice Age, or ameliorate its depth, or both. The more power we have the more we can effect either or both.
Consequently, I’m quite conflicted about the whole mess. I wish climate sensitivity were just high enough that the amount we have to contribute will navigate the Scylla and Charybdis of catastrophically abrupt change, and near term reglaciation.
Have we the wisdom? Well, we wonder.
==============
Jim Cripwell, you like to play with words. Let’s see if you agree with some statements.
(a) The last 50 million years of temperature change and CO2 change are evidence consistent with AGW with high sensitivity.
(b) So far no other theory has been put forwards to explain the cooling since 50 million years ago.
Jim D. You write “Jim D | February 9, 2013 at 11:40 am |
Jim Cripwell, you like to play with words. Let’s see if you agree with some statements.
(a) The last 50 million years of temperature change and CO2 change are evidence consistent with AGW with high sensitivity.
(b) So far no other theory has been put forwards to explain the cooling since 50 million years ago.”
Taking these one at a time.
(a). I have no ideas what this means scientificly. It may be consistent, but so what? It may also be consistent with all sorts of other things you dont mention. “Consistent” is a scientificly meaningless weasel word.The statement has no scientific meaning, so I suspect it is correct, but it does not add anything to our scientific understanding of how the atmosphere works..
(b) CAGW is not a theory; it is a hypothesis. There is no empirical data to give that hypothesis enough support to warrant it being called a theory. There is an alternative hypothesis, which was put forward by Henrik Svensmark, that cloud concentration, moderated by galactic cosmic rays, could be responsible for all observed paleo evidence. There is also correlation, but no causation, that other magnetic effects of the sun affect global climate. There are also many other climatic effects for which we do not know the cause; e.g. sudden stratospheric warming, which we are now experiencing, and which might be affecting what is currently happening with global weather.
Jim Cripwell, you are weaseling out of answering. You say that evidence of something is not allowed to be consistent with a theory, like evidence of the earth’s orbital period and distance is not allowed to be consistent with Kepler’s laws of motion. How would you phrase that statement? You are making up a language that enables your own denialisticness, and it doesn’t help discussion by setting up your word obstacles and walling yourself in with them.
…and do you trust Svensmark’s idea with the evidence yet. I could say that the sun is weaker than it has been for a while in this cycle, yet global cloud cover is lower, which is evidence that the Svensmark theory is wrong, while this evidence consistent with AGW and positive cloud feedback. Which theory do you think is more consistent with the way cloud cover is going? Consistency is a very good way of separating competing theories, isn’t it?
JIm D, you write “Jim Cripwell, you are weaseling out of answering”
I am doing no such thing. Your statement is pedanticly correct, but meaningless. If there are lots of other things which are consistent with the same information, the fact that the one you choose happens to be consistent, says nothing scientific about what is causing the observed happenings.
Jim D. you write “…and do you trust Svensmark’s idea with the evidence yet.”
Of course not. All Svensmark has is a hypothesis. That is all you asked for. I agree you asked for a theory, but since CAGW is only a hypothesis, I feel another hypothesis is all that is required. We need a lot of empirical data before it becomes anything else. You mention timing. There has been insufficient time to test Henrik’s hypothesis. It seems strange that you talk about paleo data, and then claim therre has been enough time to test Svensmark’s hypothesis, when the time has been miniscule on a paleo scale.
During the LIA and the Maunder minimum, sunspots “disappeared” around 1645. (I put “disappeared” in quotation marks, as the word is used to mean two different things in this context). Livingston, Penn and Svalgaard have shown that sunspots are “disappearing” now, during SC24; disappearing in the sense that they claim there are fewer than there ought to be. If L&P are correct, sun spots will “disaappear” in the Maunder minimum sense, around 2020, or a little later. The lowest temperatures of the LIA were registered around 1685. We cannot expect to test Svensmark’s hypothesis until somewhere around 2050 or so. I wont be around at that time to find out. We will need to be toward the greatest extent of the Eddy minimum before we can trust and test Svensmark. Unless we get some other form of empirical data in the meanwhile.
Jim Cripwell
You are probably right that “testing Svensmark” with physical observations in our climate system would most likely take at least until 2050.
But the experimental work under controlled conditions at CERN may give us an answer more quickly, if reproducible experimentation simulating climate conditions can validate the hypothesis.
So far, the only thing CERN has been able to validate is that there is a cloud nucleation mechanism with cosmic rays when certain naturally occurring aerosols are present, but it is too early to say how and to what extent this would work in our climate system.
Max
PS Although there are still many uncertainties regarding the extent of natural forcing and variability, we are de facto performing a test of the CAGW hypothesis today. If the slight cooling trend continues for another few more years (say to a total of 20+ years) despite unabated human GHG emissions, we will have falsified the CAGW hypothesis of IPCC.
tempterrain
More and more, it is becoming apparent that (2xCO2) equilibrium climate sensitivity lies within the range of 1.2C to 2.0C, according to latest studies, which are based on analyses of the actual temperature record, rather than simply model simulations.
This means that it is virtually certain that we will not see warming from human CO2 exceeding 2.5C by 2100.
In fact, with total CO2 constrained to less than 1000 ppmv due to total availability of fossil fuels (WEC 2010), it is very unlikely that we will EVER see 2.5 degC warming
So you can add me to the list of people “saying that there isn’t a significant possibility that it might exceed 2.5 degC.”
Max
Actually every degree of C we can cut from sensitivity estimates is worth Trillions. So, merely asserting that there is no difference between 2.5 and 3 wont do, when some of the experts studying the matter say differently.
Let’s get this straight before BBD forgets about it.
BBD is in full agreement with both me and standard physical geography textbooks that dry climates without clouds have higher mean annual temperatures than wet climates with clouds when both are at substantially the same latitude.
Watch the back peddling. Everyone here knows he can’t both agree with this and continue to claim that clouds have positive temperature feedback.
LOL – this is entertaining.
Stick to one thread or you will be talking to yourself from now on.
Why are rainforests warm at night, Springer?
Why are deserts cold at night?
Why would that be?
Clouds limit heat gain during the day and limit heat loss during the night.
The net effect on mean temperature is that the cloudy climate is cooler. More energy is blocked during the day than is retained at night.
It’s not rocket science. Standard introductory concepts discussed in Physical Geography 101.
BBD
Why are deserts much hotter than rain forests during the day?
Max
You are always going on about references. Please back up your claim that cloud feedback nets strongly negative with at least three published studies in mainstream, reviewed journals.
Thanks in advance.
Who said strongly negative? Not me.
It only needs to be neutral to put the kabosh on water vapor amplification.
It’s at least slightly negative which is why tropical desert climates have the highest mean annual temperature of all climate types.
reference below
http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/climate_systems/tropical_desert.html
Kibosh has a much sharper blade.
=====
Aah! Who’s backpeddaling now? Do you remember our previous conversations Dave? The ones where I said that cloud feedback was either weakly negative, neutral or weakly positive? Those conversations?
Shall we go back and look at them, Dave?
Ah! I see what you’ve done now.
You don’t understand the difference between water vapour amplification of the GHE and clouds… Oho! You have make a prat of yourself again Dave! Big time.
And it wonders why it gets moderated lol.
Erica
What do you have to say to Springer about this?
I say : careful not to crank it up by a factor of a 1000 or so, or you’ll be bracketed with BBD.
Studies pointing to net negative cloud feedback (all published after IPCC AR4):
– Spencer & Braswell (2007) show net negative cloud feedback based on CERES satellite observations
– Wyant et al. (2007) show net negative cloud feedback with warming using model simulations with superparameterization for clouds.
– Lindzen & Choi (2009/2011) show a low overall climate sensitivity (overall negative feedback) based on CERES satellite observations
Hope this helps.
Max
BBD
I’m sure you know this, but IPCC AR4 WGI (Ch. 8) estimates that with all feedbacks except cloud feedback, the 2xCO2 ECS would be around 1.9C
Cloud feedback is predicted to be positive, adding 1.3C, so the mean 2xCO2 ECS is predicted to be 3.2C
Obviously if cloud feedback is only slightly negative this would result in an ECS of say 1.9C – 0.4C or roughly 1.5C.
And, since IPCC assumed essentially constant relative humidity with warming to arrive at the water vapor feedback and it appears that RH decreases with warming (Minschwaner + Dessler 2005, NOAA radiosonde and satellite humidity records), the water vapor feedback is very likely too high by around 0.3C to 0.6C, bringing the overall adjusted ECS to roughly 0.9C to 1.2C.
And latest analyses of the actual record are showing the same much lower 2xCO2 ECS estimates.
It’s not looking good for strongly positive WV and cloud feedbacks (as predicted by the IPCC AR4 models), BBD.
Max
Max,
Its possible that you are correct and that CS will come out at the lower end of the IPCC range. Somewhere around the 1.5 degC figure.
But you must have read enough posts by Judith to explain how uncertain any particular calculation or measurement might be. Let me know if you’ve missed them all and I’ll post up some links.
But, what if it comes out at the upper end? 4.5 degC
There seems no reason to be over-optimistic or over-pessimistic. Why not just assume a mid range figure? ~ 3 degC
It’s what we all, including climate ‘sceptics’, do in everday life on other issues when faced with conflicting information.
manacker
You should talk to the Hydrologist. He thinks most of the warming is caused by reduced cloud cover over the last few decades. What to think?
BBD | February 9, 2013 at 10:01 am |
“Edim forgets orbital forcing. And like several others (Springer included)
How many times must I remind you that orbital mechanics does not change total power the earth receives from the sun over the course of a year?
It changes the seasonal distribution of the same amount of power. Specifically when orbital mechanics line up such that northern hemisphere winters get more sunlight and summer gets an equal but opposite reduction this encourages glacial advance. The warmer winter has more snowfall and the cooler summer is less able to melt it completely.
This is, once again, standard physical geography. You are ineducable it seems. A shopkeeper with delusions of literacy in natural sciences.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
You serve a valuable purpose, BBD, in illustrating the lack of basic knowledge in natural sciences that warmists all share. If you didn’t exist I’d have to invent you.
I never said that it did. Go and look for the non-existent statement. Your incessant and blatant recourse to strawman tactics is a bore, Springer.
Okay, so now you suddenly agree that total energy received from the sun during the year does not change with the Milankovitch cycle and hence is not a factor in the glacial/interglacial transitions.
Great. That’s correct.
Yet you continue to say that orbital forcing causing glacial/interglacial transitions is proof of high climate sensitivity.
How so?
So in the Milankovitch cycle we have ZERO change in global average forcing and several degrees of temperature change. This results in a division by zero when calculating sensitivity. Division by zero is undefined. Thus your claim that orbital forcing proves a high sensitivity is also undefined.
Thanks for playing. Hopefully people are learning from your mistakes.
Springer
No, I’ve *always* said this. Strawman. Again. See above.
Actually Dave, it’s rubbish.
Let’s walk through the process as it is now understood (Shakun et al. 2010):
– NH summer insolation increases from ~ 21.5ka
– By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase forces sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC
– NH *cools* as equatorial -> poleward heat transport stops
– With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must
– Deep water warming in SH causes release of carbon from ocean sediments. This strongly positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming
– NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback
– Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins
This is how a spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TSI entrains *strongly positive* feedbacks which combine with enough strength to propel the climate system out of a glacial into an interglacial.
Climate systems dominated by strongly positive feedbacks are, by definition, sensitive.
Thanks for playing. Hopefully people are learning from your mistakes.
;-)
And I remember laughing long and loud at the utterly indescribable mess you made of Milankovitch here.
You are delusional, Dave.
Albedo is a forcing. This works by changing mean albedo.
Ice albedo is a feedback.
OK, yes, it is both. Orbital cycles change the mean albedo which affects forcing because it affects the energy balance, then albedo also amplifies its own change in the case of Milankovitch cycles.
Jim D
Ice albedo is a feedback. The forcing is seasonally and spatially altered TSI. Both GHGs and ice albedo change are feedbacks to the initial orbital forcing.
No Jim, albedo is not a forcing. Forcing is the amount of illumination on the surface. A black surface recieves the same amount of illumination as a white surface.
Albedo isn’t even the cause of glacial/interglacial cycles. The cause is warmer winters and cooler summers in the northern hemisphere. This results in more winter snowfall and less summer melt. Glaciers require land anchors and the northern hemisphere has twice the land surface of the southern hemisphere. At the same time the winters become warmer and summers cooler in the NH the opposite is happening in the SH. It would cancel out for global average if not for the huge disparity in land anchors for glaciers between the two hemispheres.
Change in albedo is a feedback. It’s a positive feedback and is why there are two great attractors in the climate system – all frozen or all unfrozen. Once either state is attained it becomes difficult to change to the other one. In the earth’s entire history it’s all unfrozen 90% of the time. Liquid oceans are the dominant climate state overall. In the most recent 4 million years we’ve had the opposite situation where glaciers dominate 90% of the time. One perfect storm, say a deep solar minimum, Milankovitch cycle in the glacial phase, continents arranged as they are today, and a supervolcano eruption all at the same time would probably trigger another snowball earth episode which has happened a few times in the past few billion years. These are rare episodes because the odds of them all happening at the same time are slim.
OK, now I would phrase it more specifically. Direct albedo effects due to orbital parameter changes are themselves a forcing. Orbital effects themselves are not a forcing because they don’t impact the net solar input or long-term energy balance by themselves. It is only earth’s geography that turns these effects into an initial albedo change, and this is how the forcing first appears. I don’t call it orbital forcing because that doesn’t always translate into an albedo effect or a direct solar irradiance effect.
Jim D
I understand what you are saying, but ice albedo is classed as a feedback to orbital forcing. It’s niggling sometimes, I agree. Just as the confusion engendered by CO2 being treated as a feedback to ice sheet melt during deglaciation and a forcing in modern climate because it is introduced artificially and externally into the climate system by human activity. Proper does me head in, sometimes.
BBD, yes, I know your view is the accepted interpretation. I am trying to represent forcing as more limited. My argument is that the energy balance has only two terms, solar-in and longwave-out, so forcings have to affect one of these directly. Solar-in is impacted by solar irradiance and albedo (which can be geographic changes such as net seasonal ice effect, vegetation, water area, or atmospheric changes like aerosols and volcanoes). Longwave-out is mostly affected by GHG amounts. Ice albedo can also be a feedback, and in the end this feedback dominates over the initial small ice changes due to orbital changes making them hard to separate.
“How many times must I remind you that orbital mechanics does not change total power the earth receives from the sun over the course of a year?”
Is that really true? Glacial cycles in the past have been observed on a 41kyr timescale which corresponds to the variation of the Earth’s axial tilt. Winters would be warmer and summers cooler with a smaller angle of tilt. So, on the face of it it would appear that one would cancel out the other. But if the winters were still cold enough to freeze the polar regions (it wouldn’t matter whether the temperature was -20degC or -22degC for example) a cooler summer would thaw less of it and the ice cap would expand. That would change the Earth’s albedo , reflecting more solar energy back into space.
That’s one theory. Yes , I know, its just a theory and we don’t have any empirical evidence to support that. So far, no-one has been able to do controlled experiments in a double blind way to confirm that.
However, the present period is more like 100kyrs. This time period does correspond to the angle of the Earth’s orbit relative to the sun and also its eccentricity of orbit. It is hard to see how a change of eccentricity can have a large enough effect. One theory is that there is a certain position in the Earth’s orbital plane which lines up with the orbit of a dust cloud which would make the Earth cooler. I’m not sure that this theory fits in with a 100kr year period though. Wouldn’t it have to be 200 kyr? The Earth’s orbit would pass through the dust cloud twice in its cycle.
Its fair to say that the causes of ice ages aren’t well enough understood. But it should be noted that a small change in forcing, for whatever reason, can cause a large change in temperature. This indicates there are positive feedbacks at work.
The solar irradiance averaged over the earth averaged over the year doesn’t change with orbital variability. The thing that changes is its distribution, favoring longer northern winters for example. Eccentricity can help that by lengthening the time earth spends further away allowing more time for ice to build up.
JIm D,
Yes I would agree. But the “total power the earth receives from the sun” would still be less, if the higher albedo from a increased area polar icecap were taken into account.
http://web.bryant.edu/~dlm1/cies/topics/climatechange/milankovitch/milankovitch.htm
Yes, I know Dave. If you actually read what I said instead of making up a strawman version you can have a fake argument with, you will notice that I never said otherwise.
You are delusional, Dave.
Here are the original comments again, so you can read them again Dave:
And:
See Dave? I was correct all along. Now where does that leave you?
Did you notice the bit about an unambiguous demonstration of positive feedbacks? Or were you so busy fabricating what I did not say that you missed the import of what I DID say?
Or are you just trying to steamroller over that? Is that what you are doing Dave?
Deglaciation is caused by colder winters and warmer summers in the northern hemisphere. Negative feedback from clouds does not make deglaciation impossible. There is no logic to support that position. You are wrong.
Misrepresentation, yet again.
What I actually said – and have always said – is that if the net of *all* feedbacks in the climate system is negative, then a mere seasonal and spatial reorganisation of TSI under orbital forcing would not be capable of terminating glacials.
As far as clouds are concerned, we can simply say that if the net of *cloud feedbacks* is strongly negative (as many ‘sceptics’ claim) it would strongly inhibit the process of deglaciation, if not prevent it altogether.
This obviously doesn’t happen, so the evidence suggests that the net of cloud feedbacks is either *weakly* negative, weakly positive or neutral.
I don’t know how many times we’ve been through this now, but it’s more than enough.
The more Springer argues with BBD, the more sane he appears.
The science of climate forcings and feedbacks is in it’s infancy. It’s a complex problem and we need super computer nerd Springer to get off his lazy east Texas barbeque arse and create a new patent for a uber-super-dooper computer to work out a global coupled multi-phase model of oceans, atmosphere, gases and aerosols. We won’t make him figure out how to simulate the biosphere interactions just yet.
The glacial cycle forcings are asymmetrically powerful and produce asymmetrically powerful positive and negative feedbacks, depending on the phase of the Milankovich cycle. This is completely different from the effects of small changes to well mixed GHGs like CO2 and CH4.
Now, the current failed theory of Global Warming put forth by the armchair alarmists is that the glacial cycles are ruled by 100-ppm swings in CO2 and 300-ppb swings in CH4. Apparently, these are the phantom phat-tails wagging the orbital mechanical dog that is actually responsible for glaciation.
Meanwhile, here in the 21st century, the transient climate response due to CO2 is rolled up with the ozone forcing and the black carbon forcing and the deforestation forcing and the irrigated agriculture forcing, etc, etc, etc and it’s creeping down below 2-deg C. Now the alarmist are looking to the sun and ENSO to save them. This is when a circle-jerk turns into a circular firing squad.
Howard | February 9, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
“The more Springer argues with BBD, the more sane he appears.”
I really don’t want anyone to think I’m sane. The goal is for you to find yourself in agreement with me causing you to question your own sanity. Mind phucking, in other words.
Dave Springer,
What’s somewhat worrying, is not so much what you say, it’s the certainty with which you assert it. You don’t use phrases like “the most likely explanation” or “one possible theory”. You make a series of largely unrefenced assertions.
There are lots of pieces which don’t quite fit together to give us a complete picture of why glacial cycles occur, but it seems that you think they do. Do they really, or have you just hammered them together as you think fit?
CO2 simply follows ocean temperature. A warming ocean outgasses and a cooling ocean ingasses. You have cause & effect bass ackwards. No surprise there.
Glacial epics end because (as I’ve pointed out many times) colder winters and warmer summers result in less snow accumulation in the winter and more melt in the summer. Cloud feedback is not a factor. Albedo is a large factor in the melt primarily because the ocean surface expands rapidly. Glaciers evidently take a lot longer to grow than to disintegrate. The glacial maxima builds slowly. The change from maxima to minima happens rapidly.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
Note also the hard floor and ceiling on temperature at the minima and maxima. This is the limit imposed by albedo which can only change so much with the current arrangement of the continents. Once as much land as is possible is covered/uncovered the albedo feedback halts and with it temperature rise/fall halts too. It’s also important to note that the ocean is much darker than land and its surface area expands and shrinks in opposition to glacial advance and retreat. Glaciers build over land slowly and slowly expose more land as water becomes locked up in ice. On the other hand they melt fast when a rising ocean hits their boundary and turns landlocked ice directly into dark ocean surface with no intermediate state of ice-free land surface.
Same old climate illiterate tripe. Read some texbooks. Deepen and improve your understanding.
BBD
Try to think outside the box of your paradigm.
When you think “clouds”, think outside the box of “feedbacks”.
Remember, the first step in thinking outside the box is to realize that there is no box.
Max
Are you telling me that you are out of your box, Max?
Tut, tut.
;-)
Clouds change in response to changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation- part of the natural variability of the system. It seems associated with sea surface temperature – which is influenced by upwelling. Something that is driven by the polar vortices and planetary spin.
Insolation does change with orbital eccentricities – there would otherwise be no threshold for bifurcation between states. But there are many factors involved – the closing of the Ithmus of Panama or tectonic uplift in the Himalayas perhaps implicated in Quaternary glaciation/deglaciation cycles. I have an idea as well that these are not always negative or always positive feedbacks. There are multiple negative and positive feedbacks. Warmth causing a slowdown in THC for instance. Dessication in cold periods limiting plant growth with dust storms circling the planet. There is no one cause – but depends on how the system responds to small changes.
Insolation changes? Of course it does – but is by no means the whole story.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=837
You’re just still mad at the spanking I gave you with a chapter from Physical Geography 101 stating that tropical deserts have the highest mean annual temperature of any climate type. It’s impossible to argue that clouds raise surface temperature in light of that, eh shopkeeper? I’d might be mad too if I was humiliated by a correction from an introductory science text too but I can’t say for sure because it never happened to me.
BBD
I’ve long ago realized that I am not in a box.
It’s a first step.
Max
We’re all in little subjective boxes Max. Let’s not get above ourselves ;-) (sorry).
Max seems to like his paradigms too. Especially his shifting paradigms. He now says he’d like to shift them all outside the box , even though it doesn’t exist. If it would help, I could send him a small one in the post.
BBD | February 9, 2013 at 9:35 am |
Another aspect of the incoherence in your argument was pointed out by R. Gates. You have the cloud/OHC relationship inverted.
BBD | February 9, 2013 at 9:40 am |
Also, if you bother to look at Levitus et al. (2012) as I have repeatedly urged in the past, you would see that OHC is increasing in all major basins simultaneously (SI, figs S1 and S2). Global cloud cover cannot explain this. None of what you say really stacks up. It is partial reasoning, in both senses. You do understand what I mean by this, don’t you?
You have a very large, self-induced blind spot. The space cadet, I’m afraid, is in the mirror.
Blah blah,
This is another example of narrative in the climate war.
I think you will find that gatesy was arguing that OHC decreased in El Nino and increased in La Nina as heat cycled between ocean and atmosphere. But you will find that OHC follows the net radiant flux at TOA quite closely.
This from the Wong et al study for instance where the OHC is resolved annually rather than with the 5 years averages of Levitus. This was one of gatesy’s problems – he didn’t understand how Levitus derived his numbers.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Wong2006figure7.gif
It shows ocean warming though the 90’s to 1998 and then some cooling. This shows the consistency of the Wong et al TOA record with OHC – as noted by IPCC s 3.4.4.1. For ERBS in the 80’s and 90’s we have 07W/m2 LW, -2.W/m2 SW and 1.4W/m2 net. A warming net anomaly trend in the 80’s and 90’s – but cooling in IR and all the warming in SW as result of cloud changes.
But I have been interested in changes in sea surface temperature and cloud change and especially how these decadal changes in sea surface temperature influenced cloud formation. See here for a long winded post.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/
Changes in global cloud negatively correlated with SST is one of the obvious answers. It is in fact used as an ENSO diagnostic.
‘El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on interannual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). These observations have been collected and published in ICOADS for many years.’ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
My interest in these systems started more than 2 decades ago on reading a 1988 paper on multi-decadal rainfall regimes in Australia. These are systems that change hydrology across the globe on decadal and longer timeframes. It is nonsense to think that cloud changes are not part of these shifts in large scale ocean and atmospheric patterns.
There was a study last year using salt content in the Law Dome ice core to produce a 1000 year high resolution ENSO proxy. It shows 2 dry periods in Australia – the past 150 years and around the medieval optimum separated by a long period of La Nina dominance. A similar thing is shown in the 11,000 ENSO proxy from Moys 2002 – along with the drying of the Sahel and the demise of the Minoan civilisation. It is an example of a nonstationary system with influences on global hydrology and surface temperature whose limits of variability we barely understand.
Or net radiative flux at TOA is influenced by variability in OHC. Which I believe is the standard position?
What do you make of the increase in OHC 0 – 1500m from 2005 – 2010?
Reference.
Do we have cloud data that fits with this?
dS/dt = Energy in – Energy out …by the 1st law of thermodynamics.
I suppose you are capable of understanding simple 1st order differential equations? dS/dt is the change in energy stored in the global system as a result of an energy imbalance at TOA – which I believe is the standard explanation.
The equation is a complete description of the global energy budget – simple aye. You can use ARGO to determine whether dS/dt is positive or negative and SORCE TSI and CERES trends to look at why.
Here is one from Norman Loeb –
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES_MODIS-1.gif
Here’s the data for SW, LW and Net – with trend lines – from Trenberth and Spencer – part of a discussion.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif
Net is warming up by convention.
Here is the data on radiant flux form Loeb – the reference is provided in the name.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Loeb2011-Fig2.png
The change in SW in these short periods is almost all cloud.
Yes we have cloud data that fits with the ocean heat content – as it must. This data is pretty good too.
Actully – same figure with the reference in the name – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png
I can see why you didn’t link to any actual references but only presented deracinated figures. I remember checking Wong et al. (2006) only to discover that it doesn’t support your claim that OHC is modulated by cloud cover. Nor does your first reference Loeb et al. 2012). Do the rest? You can show me, with direct quotes.
You *assert* that it’s all clouds and wave away CO2 forcing as the driver of the increase in OHC in all major basins since the 1970s (Levitus et al. 2012). I can find *nobody* who agrees with this. What published studies actually support your hypothesis? I would like to see concrete evidence that you aren’t simply a lone voice loudly crying ‘anything but CO2’ in the blog wilderness.
And as a side note, the clipped figures you show *don’t* match the trend in OHC 0 – 1500m.
Curiouser and curiouser.
‘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
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system. ‘ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html
There are a dozen studies on clouds and I have referenced – as well as NASA and the IPCC. The ERBS data is from Wong et al in both cases.
The later data is from CERES. Loeb et al show changes in cloud and SW on the same graph as well as SW, LW and net in both the tropics and globally. It shows less reflected SW over the period. The trend is consistent with the warming in ARGO over the period – as it must be. Warming in SW and not much change in LW.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=vonSchuckmann-OHC.gif
No one is waving away CO2. That’s all in your fervid imagination. But the data is what it is.
The question was that – if surface temp are not increasing how does that continue to cause an increase in ocean temp. The answer is that ocean temps are still not equilibriated with the previous increase in atmospheric temp. The ocean lag effect.
I don’t believe it – the Wong fig 7 shows shows quite a quick response from the ocean – bbut I am sure you’re welcome.
Loeb 2012 shows that ENSO is responsible for the interannual variability, but not the increase in OHC over the last few decades. It doesn’t say what you appear to think it does.
All these studies really do is show that ENSO is responsible for most of the interannual variability. I think you have grossly over-stated your case.
Where are the references that attribute the increase in OHC since the 1970s to cloud cover change?
Let’s see something that *actually corroborates* your claim. And please, no more repetition. Assume that I am familiar with your favourite snippets.
This is needs correcting, sorry:
“I can see why you didn’t link to any actual references but only presented deracinated figures. I remember checking Wong et al. (2006) only to discover that it doesn’t support your claim that OHC trend is modulated by cloud cover. Nor does your first reference Loeb et al. 2012). Do the rest? You can show me, with direct quotes. “
Loeb et al use CERES and MODIS. Although ENSO as an impact on cloud – and Loeb has a different take on this than most – the net impact is quite obscure and different for different regions. This can be expected from a system that has global effects. So it is best to look at the global – or tropical – radiant flux and not make too much of one single phenomenon. These ocean and atmospheric phenomenon are of course linked in what Wyatt et al 2012 have called a ‘stadium-wave’.
But we are looking at changes in TOA flux that are primarily the result of cloud changes rather than some nominal link to ENSO. I have quoted both the ISCCP-FD and the quite equivocal IPCC and if you are familiar with these – why do you then again ask for quotes again?
From Wong et a. ‘The interannual variability of the net flux anomalies in Fig. 7 from the ERBS Nonscanner WFOV and CERES Scanner agree very well with the interannual variability of the ocean heat storage data. The agreement is within the ocean heat storage sampling uncertainties, with 1-sigma difference in the anomalies of 0.4 W m2. The two times series are in phase with each other, consistent with the constraint of planetary energy balance.’
Althoug this period of overlapping ocean heat and ERBS data is from 1993 to 2003 – it shows how ocean heat content is constrained by the planetary energy budget as it must be. The NASA and IPCC quotes covers the whole period of the ISCCP-FD and ERBS records. Most of the period since warming resumed in the late 1970’s.
‘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.’
If you don’t want this repeated – why do you keep asking for quotes?
The CERES data speaks for itself – a decrease in reflected SW with negligible change in IR out to give a net warming – as it must. A positive net trend in radiant flux at TOA is defined as planetary warming.
As for cloud – Loeb even provides the MODIS cloud and CERES data graphed one below the other.
There is no speaking rationally to you – it becomes a bizarre and pointless ritual involving the inability to process anomalous information. It is the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets – stories told superfically in the objective idiom of science but nor amenable to critical thinking that is the true hallmatk of science.
You are still talking about interannual OHC variability not the increase in OHC since ~1970. Wibbles not the long term trend. The long term trend is attributed to increasing GHG forcing (eg Levitus et al. 2012 and standard position).
You seem to be saying that it’s mostly natural variability, but alongside the decades of increasing OHC, why was the last decade the warmest for… a very long time? It’s a bit of a stretch to argue that this mysterious change in climate just happened to come along exactly when theory predicted AGW would start to kick in.
The changes in cloudiness could be positive feedback to anthropogenic forcing:
No – the discussion revolves around the two periods of satellite data – pre and post CERES. The pre-CERES data from ERBS shows -2.1 W/m^2 warming in the SW and 0.7W/m^2 cooling in IR between the 80’s and 90’s. ISCCP-FD for the globe is very similar. The ‘noise’ is very much larger than the ‘signal’. It beggars belief to suggest that the flea is wagging the dog’s tail.
The shifts occurred around 1910, the mid 1940’s the late 1970’s and 1998/2001. At these points the frequency and intensity of ENSO events changed along with the trajectory of surface temperature.
Who attributed what?
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.
I have quoted a NASA page before about how these decadal modes augment and hide global warming. The unresolved question is how much and what the future of natural variations will bring. It is not likely that I will consider that you have answered that question – space cadet.
Speaking of impossible things how does the warmist explain ocean getting warmer due to CO2 without warming the air containing the CO2?
The only thing that can warm the global ocean everywhere at once is global shortwave from the sun. Solar SW can be throttled by the atmosphere but not directly by atmospheric gases transparent to shortwave.
Enter a long narrative song and dance (absent experimental science to test the narrative of course) about ocean cool skin layer being the man in the middle.
Diffusion. Downward mixing, if you prefer. And yes, the thermal gradient across the surface skin layer is what determines the rate of heat loss from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. This is the only way out for energy in the ocean below the skin layer. So atmospheric temperature modulates the rate of ocean cooling.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/04/sensitivity-about-sensitivity/#comment-294221
BBD | February 10, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
ds>>Speaking of impossible things how does the warmist explain ocean getting warmer due to CO2 without warming the air containing the CO2?
bbd>Diffusion. Downward mixing, if you prefer. And yes, the thermal gradient across the surface skin layer is what determines the rate of heat loss from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. This is the only way out for energy in the ocean below the skin layer. So atmospheric temperature modulates the rate of ocean cooling.
Diffusion is rearranging the deck chairs. Ocean heating is adding more deck chairs. Try again, dopey.
Very little heat loss is via conduction. Air temperature and water surface temperature at the interface average within 1C of each other and conduction requires a temperature difference to drive it. Don’t you even know what’s on Trenberth’s famous energy budget cartoon? Only over dry land does conduction become more than a second order effect in the grand scheme of things. Over the ocean it’s less than 10% of the total.
Here ya go. I know you don’t like information from the relevant college textbooks but I insist.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_06.htm
Ocean heat budget from Physical Oceangraphy at TAMU. It starts out with Trenberth cartoon: 24w,76w,40w conduction, latent, radiative respectively global average.
Go down to illustrations of global distribution. Note figure 5.10 Sensible Heat Flux it’s near zero at the equator. It can be ignored virtually everywhere over the ocean. It becomes significant only in arid climates.
Then look at latent heat in fig 5.9. This is almost nothing over arid regions and almost everything over oceans.
Finally go to radiative surface heat loss in fig. 5.8 (bottom) and see that over deserts it accounts for just about everything, is dominant in general over land, and not much of the total over water.
You really don’t don’t know jack shiit about global heat budget and why it is what it is. Without that grounding all you do is parrot your superiors and do it poorly enough to embarrass them.
Springer
How does *any* energy from the ocean arrive at the surface air interface if not by passing through the skin layer? How does it do that if not by conduction? Or does it just teleport itself across?
I’m glad you’re asking questions instead of answering them.
There are three modes of transport in heat budget. Sensible, latent, and radiative.
Conduction halts when the temperature of two things is the same. The ocean surface and the air in contact with it are nearly the same temperature. Conduction isn’t happening much with a delta-T that small. This is reflected in the Physical Oceangraphy text I referenced for your edification. That leaves two other ways. Radiative and latent. We can see radiation only accounts for a small portion over the tropical oceans – about 40W/m2 out of 200w/m2 total. This only leaves latent, which is huge.
Water evaporates off the surface of the ocean and the vapor is at the same temperature as the water. Over the ocean water vapor is about 5% of the atmosphere by weight but about 95% by heat capacity. See here: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/enthalpy-moist-air-d_683.html
If the warm vapor encounters cooler air it warms the air. When any molecule of water vapor loses enough energy this way it condenses and warms the air a whole buttload in the process. Because of Boltzmann distribution of energies there’s always some amount of condensation occuring spontaneoulsy. Adiabatic cooling eventually kicks in to condense the bulk of the Boltzmann distribution and a cloud forms. Condensation occurs all along the path as the water vapor rises and cools to the dewpoint. This spreads the energy out along the path resulting in the much lower saturated lapse rate.
If you were able to follow that you now know how the ocean heats the atmosphere.
The reason dry air columns have higher surface temperatures is that they have bigger lapse rates. Without water vapor to spread the surface heat more evenly through the column you end up the column base warmer and column top cooler. But the dry air column holds a lot less energy so when the sun goes down and the surface is no longer heating it through conduction and radiation the column cools rapidly hence the great diurnal temperature range of the desert and the almost total lack of diurnal temperature change over the ocean.
@Springer
To correct a “minor” error, when water and air are in contact and the air is “dry” (below saturation humidity at the interface temperature) both the water and the air cool because evaporation converts sensible heat into latent heat, which both phases supply. As you know, the process moves the system along a line of constant entropy toward the saturation line. The process is called “Adiabatic humidification” and is the basis for cooling towers and spray ponds. At the equator, the sun heats the water and adiabatic humidification removes the heat, and convection, the upwelling of humid air, transports the heat to the radiation zone.
How does energy leave the ocean without crossing the surface skin layer by conduction?
pochas – lets get the first order effect understood first then we can get around to theory of operation behind swamp coolers
BBD | February 10, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
ds>>?If you were able to follow that you now know how the ocean heats the atmosphere.
>>”How does energy leave the ocean without crossing the surface skin layer by conduction?”
It doesn’t cross the skin layer. The skin layer is constantly being peeled away at the top through evaporation. Skin layer is about 1mm deep and evaporation rate is up to 40mm/day in the tropic. The skin layer is mechanically replaced by water immediately beneath it up to 40 times a day in other words.
And constantly maintained by viscosity at the surface. SoD on skin layer. More on skin layer.
Energy has to cross the skin layer by conduction. Really. I know it sounds crazy, but…
This brings us back to thermal gradients, and the way a warming atmosphere inhibits ocean cooling and so causes OHC to increase.
I agree that energy must cross the skin layer by conduction for climate sensitivity to be high.
Regardless of the physical needs of your conclusion the skin layer is removed many times a day by evaporation. Water is a piss (pun intended) poor thermal conductor.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
Rocks, which are usually considered poor thermal conductors, are an order of magnitude better than water.
Water convects and convects strongly. If it weren’t for surface tension the skin layer could not be cooler than the water below because its higher density would cause it to sink.
BBD | February 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
“This brings us back to thermal gradients, and the way a warming atmosphere inhibits ocean cooling and so causes OHC to increase.”
I know how OHC can increase when the atmosphere gets warmer.
The question was how can OHC increase WITHOUT the atmosphere getting warmer.
Reference? Otherwise we’re still with the standard position that viscosity at the surface maintains the skin layer during evaporation. Why would viscosity just… disappear?
Because it hasn’t reached equilibrium yet. That old thermal gradient again.
BBD | February 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
“And constantly maintained by viscosity at the surface. SoD on skin layer. More on skin layer.”
If you need references to blogs to make your points you can make them with someone else. So I’m not even going to waste my time with Science of Doom. What a joke. Maybe I should start a blog under a different name then write my own references. [snicker]
The NASA link doesn’t speak at all to conduction across the skin layer so that was just what I like to call “a literature bluff”.
References given at the bottom of the SoD essay:
***
This is puzzling:
Here is what it says:
‘Molecular processes’ means ‘conduction’.
Good advise from max ter BBD:
‘Remember, the first step in thinking outside the box is to realize
there is no box.’
Best ter stop shadow boxing, BBD, yer dealing with weather
emergent phenomena that jest don’t come nicely gift wrapped.
Regarding forcings and feedbacks please try to remember that the only real forcings are the sun and seismicity. All the rest are feedbacks. The concept of a feedback that becomes a forcing is only an artificiality required to simplify the climate models.
The person who suggested that skeptics build their own models seems to strongly imply that all modelers must be biased prior to starting out. Well that may be true but it isn’t science. All modelers should be distrustful of their results in the face of such huge uncertainties for the inputs.
In fact, there are only two things to bear in mind with climate models. The first is that they are utterly inadequate to model the climate of the world and will remain so for a long time to come due to the uncertainties of how the climate works and the immense scale of the problem. Secondly you can actually repicate any global anomaly you like just by varying existing parameters; ergo if you presume the sun dominates then you can adjust the parameters to allow this and do as good or bad a job at replicating the anomaly as a CO2-biased model. This has been done already by Hadley.Centre and used to be on their publications list on the web.However it is no more valid than the assumption led conclusion that CO2 is the climate control knob for the planet.
Also can we stop mixing up CO2 sensitivity with climate sensitivity? This is a Mannian idiocy. Sudden lurches of climate in the paleo studies is meaningless for CO2 sensitivity.
And for heavens sake stop just assuming the skeptic viewpoint because you are creating strawmen. Read something/anything from Lindzen if you want to know the real skeptic viewpoint about climate studies – don’t waste time with ‘skeptic’ bloggers who are guessing nearly as much as true believers.
The GCMs, powerful though they be, are pitifully inadequate digital simulacrums of the great analog computer and heat engine that is the earth. Much else of interest in what you say, JamesG, as always.
====================
Chief Hydrologist | February 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
“The question was that – if surface temp are not increasing how does that continue to cause an increase in ocean temp. The answer is that ocean temps are still not equilibriated with the previous increase in atmospheric temp. The ocean lag effect.”
The ocean heats the atmosphere not the other way around. Try again.
Let’s say you have both a sun lamp and a heat heat lamp on a container of water at some equilibrium temperature – it is cooling as fast as it warms. . We turn the heat lamp up a notch and the water doesn’t jump to some new equilibrium but adjusts over time. So your facile and specious reasoning again fails – so sad.
Cooler objects do not add heat to warmer objects. The ocean is warmer than the air you imbecile. Write that down.
A super stupid fest going on today with BBD and Ellison competing to see who’s the least able to make a coherent point. The boys sure can flap their gums though. I’ll give ’em that much.
Lessee, so I axed how the whole ocean everywhere could be gaining joules.
Ellison’s answer is the ocean hasn’t reached thermal equlibrium with the atmosphere. This is senseless in two ways. If you transferred all the energy from the atmosphere into the ocean it wouldn’t raise total ocean heat substantially because the ocean’s heat capacity is thousands of times that of the atmosphere. The other part is that the ocean is warmer than the air and so for the atmosphere to put energy into the ocean would require breaking the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy.
BBD on the hand said diffusion. This is only wrong in one way. Diffusion moves energy from one place to another but it doesn’t increase the total. So BBD’s answer breaks the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy.
I’m torn. Ellison is doubly stupid but the second law is inferior to the first. If stuipid were a crime then Ellison commited two class A misdemeanors while BBD committed a single felony.
Lessee, so I axed how the whole ocean everywhere could be gaining joules.
Ellison’s answer is the ocean hasn’t reached thermal equlibrium with the atmosphere. This is senseless in two ways. If you transferred all the energy from the atmosphere into the ocean it wouldn’t raise total ocean heat substantially because the ocean’s heat capacity is thousands of times that of the atmosphere. The other part is that the ocean is warmer than the air and so for the atmosphere to put energy into the ocean would require breaking the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy.
BBD on the hand said diffusion. This is only wrong in one way. Diffusion moves energy from one place to another but it doesn’t increase the total. So BBD’s answer breaks the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy.
I’m torn. Ellison is doubly stupid but the second law is inferior to the first. If stuipid were a crime then Ellison commited two class A misdemeanors while BBD committed a single fe1ony.
Speaking of stupid, the word f-e-l-o-n-y is blacklisted.
Because the rate at which is cools is being reduced everywhere. Because the atmosphere is slightly warmer than it was. What do you think about the way energy teleports across the skin layer btw?
How does energy from within the ocean actually arrive at the water/air interface?
As energy accumulates in the upper ocean it is being transferred (mixed) down into the deeper ocean. So *total* OHC increases but upper ocean OHC doesn’t rise dramatically.
Most people understand that the oceans are warmed by sunlight and energy is lost by net IR up, evaporation and conduction. If net IR up decreases because the atmosphere is warmed – the energy accumuates in the oceans because the losses are reduced. The question that is unanswerable is how long that energy accumulation occurs for before a new equilibrium is reached.
The question to my mind is one of those theoretical imponderables – a thought experiment with not much resemblance to reality. Sort of like what passes for cognitive abilities in the springer brain. The real answer lies in the constraints of the energy budget at TOA – and what little evidence there is suggests that OHC follows changes in the erergy balance at TOA quite closely. OHC changes are constrained by the global energy budget as you would expect if not engaged in pointless and misleading thought experiments.
There is no question of heat diffusing into the ocean from the atmosphere. This is governed by the statistics of thermodynamics. The net loss of heat as IR emissions is from the oceans to the atmosphere. This happens in the top 100 microns or less – giving a cool skin effect that is constantly renewed at the velocity of photons in the atmosphere and mixed into the ocean surface at the speed of eddies and waves. The net loss of heat from the cold skin is one effect that determines the accumulation of energy in the oceans.
So blah blah is wrong about diffusion from the atmosphere to the oceans. It is a meme that originated with Hansen – and is repeated down the line by the likes of Moolten and webnutcololosope.
So we should not be too hard on blah blah. Springer on the other hand is his usual dogmatic, foolish, unimaginative,bombastic, misguided pedantic self.
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
You have misunderstood me.
I said:
And later:
How does energy from the ocean radiate from the surface as IR unless it crossed the skin layer by conduction first?
BBD | February 10, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
ds>>Lessee, so I axed how the whole ocean everywhere could be gaining joules.
bbd>Because the rate at which is cools is being reduced everywhere.
No. This conserves Joules already there. It does not add additional Joules.
bbd>”Because the atmosphere is slightly warmer than it was.”
That works. But the question was how it was possible WITHOUT the atmosphere being warmer. Try to stay focused. Assuming for the sake of argument that “the pause” is not an instrument error and the troposphere hasn’t gotten any warmer in 16 years then this raises the question of how ocean heat content could be rising which, according to ARGO, at least the upper half of the ocean is accumulating thermal energy.
“What do you think about the way energy teleports across the skin layer btw? ”
No, the skin layer itself is removed by evaporation up to 40 times a day in the tropics. You’re asking the equivalent of how can we get to the top of a tree without climbing it. We can chop the son of a bitch down, that’s how. That’s the same way energy from beneath the skin layer makes it to the top of the skin layer. It doesn’t climb through the skin layer. Evaporation chops the son of a bitch down.
]
DSW adds more joules all the time. Inhibit the rate of ocean cooling and OHC increases. Current tropospheric temperature seems to be high enough to inhibit ocean cooling enough for OHC to continue to increase slowly.
Chief Hydrologist | February 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
“Most people understand that the oceans are warmed by sunlight and energy is lost by net IR up, evaporation and conduction. If net IR up decreases because the atmosphere is warmed – the energy accumuates in the oceans because the losses are reduced. The question that is unanswerable is how long that energy accumulation occurs for before a new equilibrium is reached.”
Same wrong. Different wording. Once the atmosphere stops warming it cannot add more Joules to the ocean. It can conserve what’s there but not increase the total.
When the atmosphere IS warming it’s a consequence of ocean warming.
The sun heats the ocean and the ocean heats the atmosphere. For f*ck’s sake PLEASE write that down.
The answer to this question is not broken laws of physics it’s broken instrumentation. ARGO showing heat accumulation in the ocean absent rising air temperature is not possible. So either ARGO is wrong or RSS/UAH is wrong. Given that both of them are operating at or beyond the their limits of detection and/or coverage measuring average temperature with millikelvin per year accuracy I’m not sure which one is wrong. Given that modelling of the raw data to narrow the error margin can change the polarity of signals so close to zero it’s a really tough call. If forced to choose I’d say ARGO because that at first showed cooling, which was what it should have shown to be consistent with air temperature, and then was hastily “adjusted” to show the politically correct result.
And don’t mention ERBS again. It isn’t near sensitive enough to detect a half watt imbalance at TOA. ERBS was deployed in the mid-1980s with mid-1980’s technology aboard at best. Adding insult to injury it was supposed to have a 2-year mission life but in fact managed to keep transmitting data for 20 years. Today, she’s dead Jim. She died in 2005. Presumably data quality deteriorated the whole time she was alive.
The whole global warming brouhaha is built within the margin of error of actual instrumentation we can bring to bear on the problem. Curry knows this. So does everyone else in her business. She’s unique in that she isn’t shy about admitting it in public. They all admitted it privately in climategate emails. Oh the travesty of it all. Conscious choices in how to refine inadequate data to the precision needed to make a case is the whole shootin’ match and can be seen in fat tails where there should be no tails.
Dave, it’s solar shortwave that heats the ocean. Tropospheric temperature regulates the rate at which the ocean cools.
BBD | February 10, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
“DSW adds more joules all the time. Inhibit the rate of ocean cooling and OHC increases. ”
Correct. But I already knew that and it wasn’t my question.
How does the atmosphere inhibit ocean cooling without the atmosphere itself getting warmer?
Big dave,
You’re pretty dumb even for a redneck American.
The sun warms the oceans. A higher atmospheric temperature reduces net IR losses and energy accumulates until losses are again balanced with evaporation, conduction, increased IR up or all three.
When the atmosphere is warming from greenhouse gases it is a function of the increased number of greenhouse gas molecules. Warming of the atmosphere drives energy accumulation in the oceans through changing net IR up – until a new equilibrium is reached.
So there is no essential link between the lack of recent warming and ocean heat content. I’d say all both ARGO and UAH are potentially correct with the difference being albedo. Which is of course the other factor in the global energy budget. ARGO is consistent with CERES.
As for ERBS. ‘Uncertainty in any TOA radiative flux dataset results from a combination of factors including calibration, spectral sampling, angular sampling, spatial sampling, and temporal sampling, as well as algorithm changes.’
The ERBS Nonscanner WFOV dataset is the only stable long-term climate dataset that is based on broadband
flux measurements. The ERBS WFOV instrument is an active cavity radiometer designed to measure broadband hemispheric fluxes. The major sources of uncertainty for this dataset include those of calibration, angle sampling, spatial sampling, and temporal sampling. The total uncertainty for the WFOV longwave and shortwave is estimated by Green et al. (1990) to be on the order of 2.5 W m_2 or 2.5% of SW TOA reflected flux and 1% of LW TOA emitted flux.
For decadal changes and interannual variations as shown in the current paper, however, the more relevant error analysis is for annual mean changes in the Tropics and 60°S to 60°N over the 1985–99 time period.
Below we consider the four major error sources (calibration, angle sampling, time sampling, and space sampling) and briefly summarize results documenting these uncertainty levels…
When the four ERBS error sources are combined, the total stability uncertainty (1-sigma) in the 60°N to 60°S and tropical annual mean radiation for the ERBS WFOV 15-yr dataset from all three sources combined is on the order of 0.3 to 0.4 W m^2. Time sampling uncertainty dominates SW and net flux stability, while calibration uncertainty dominates LW flux stability.
Although we should and do neglect absolute values – the error for anomalies is considerably less than the trend in anomalies. Which is the only reasonable test for epistemic uncertainty in data. Even at the limits of epistemic uncertainty – the trends do not change sign. Not by a long shot.
So really I think you should take you’re facile, specious and uneducated reasoning and dump it all down the toilet where it belongs. Start again with some real knowledge gained over decades – and not in half an hour on the internet. I know you think you can become an instant expert on everything with a half hour on the web and a great deal of specious reasoning and redneck bluster – but it is most obviously BS.
Hey!, careful with the redneck abuse. I’ll sic Martha on ya
He’s babbling. If two materials are in physical contact if you change the temperature of one it effects a temperature change in the other. This is an unavoidable consequence of the law of entropy.
If two materials are in physical contact if you change the temperature of one it effects a temperature change in the other. This is an unavoidable consequence of the law of entropy.
Anyone here own up to denying this ?
Anyone know someone else who seems to deny this, either explicitly or implicitly ?
BBD
You wrote tropospheric temperature seems to be high enough to allow the ocean to warm slowly.
It *seems* that the ocean is warming but the lower troposphere is not. ARGO and satellite MSU data make it seem that way.
I want to know how it is possible for the ocean to get warmer without the atmosphere above it getting warmer.
Propose an experiment where you warm a pan of water in a lab without effecting the temperature of the air above it. I double dog dare ya. :-)
thermal inertia you dunce
Propose an experiment that demonstrates a pan of water may be warmed without warming the air above the pan, dopey. I’m waiting.
David
How about a lid for the pan? (On an induction cook-top, of course).
Max
You will note that I specified in one of my rare – in fact unique – ‘thought experiment’ somewhere recently both a sun lamp and an IR lamp. The sun lamp warms the water – let’s assume to a temperature such that net IR up – the IR emitted by the water less the IR hitting the water from the lamp – is positive. Sound familiar? Now let’s turn the IR lamp up a notch – the IR up is stil positive and the water slowly warms to a new equilibrium. This is a result of an entirely unexpected property of the water that we shall call – say – thermal inertia.
If the water warms it will warm the air in contact with it. There’s really no escaping the fact that when two materials are in physical contact a temperature change in one effects a temperature change in the other. Unless magic is involved of course. Should I start calling you Chief Houdini?
For backradiation to be happening in the absence of no warming of the troposphere, would seem to require that ALL radiation absorbed is re-emitted into space, ie NONE of it results in any warming.
Is that believable? If not, the current non-warming of the troposphere suggests there is no significant backradiation GW effect in evidence either.
What is the mean temperature of the troposphere over the oceans?
JCH, “What is the mean temperature of the troposphere over the oceans?”
At what altitude? At the surface, the mean temperature is about 21 C degrees. At 2 meters above the surface, it is about 20.2C degrees. At 2 meters below the surface, the water temperature is about 17C degrees.
The average energy at the ocean surface is about 425Wm-2. Since that surface is transferring about 125Wm-2 of latent energy, the total energy of the ocean surface is about 550 Wm-2 , but the oceans only cover about 70% of the globe. So the Global surface energy due to the oceans would be about 70% of 550 or 385 Wm-2, about 165 Wm-2 would be transferred to the poles and land areas. For that energy to be transferred poleward instead of lost to space, it would have to encounter a resistance equal to 165Wm-2 which would produce a “DWLR” of 2*165 or 330Wm-2 +/- a touch.
Capt. D – I’m probably interpreting SE wrong here, but he seems to be saying the 10-year “standstill”, as an example, in warming in the Gistemp L&O anomaly series means OHC should also have stood still, and it didn’t. So SE, and several others, have asked what other mechanism is causing OHC to rise when the atmosphere is not warming.
First, I do not know if that is the case as the OHC graph Eli linked to from UCAR ends at 2010. Hansen’s standstill ends in 2012. Up until 2011, that trend in that period was positive.
JCH, I think everyone can get confused with the curious leads, lags and bumps. There will be “back radiation” or there would be no poleward transfer. The “back radiation” or resistance to flow depends on the heat capacity, the changes in atmospheric composition and changes in poleward transfer. Since the imbalance is only ~.3 Wm-2 at the ocean surface, any change is in that +/- a bit. Temperatures are just not accurate enough to say one way or another.
“Propose an experiment that demonstrates a pan of water may be warmed without warming the air above the pan, dopey. I’m waiting.”
It’s not about the water being warmed. Its about thermal inertia.
write that down.
Babbling noted.
I’d like you to write down that when two materials are in physical contact, such as air & water, a temperature change in one effects a temperature in the other. It is physically impossible to change ocean temperature without it effecting a temperature change in the air in contact with it.
Thus if one set of instrumentation shows the ocean warming and another set shows the atmosphere not warming then you may safely conclude that one of them is erroneous. The only other conclusion is that the second law of thermodynamics is no longer working. I realize that for people like you the laws of thermodynamics are more like recommendations that can be avoided when in conflict with favored narrative descriptions of reality.
People still have the misconception that CO2 has to warm the atmosphere for it to warm the surface. No it doesn’t. Just increasing CO2 without changing the temperature increases the downward IR flux from it. This affects the surface energy balance and warms it. The atmosphere is warmed by the surface in the global average, not vice versa.
That’s so dumb Jim – there is no possible way that greenhouse gases can be added to the atmosphere wothout warming it – all else being equal – which it never is.
Well, they even cool the stratosphere, don’t they? This might indicate that your assumption is wrong.
Probably due to ozone depletion. But adding grrenhouse gases will cool the troposphere – OK I’ll go with that.
The temperature of the troposphere (unlike the stratosphere) depends on the surface temperature through convection, so when that goes up due to the GHG IR enhancement, the troposphere warms in response. Even the no-feedback mechanism works that way, and I thought everyone agreed on that part.
God I was bring sarcastic – you indicate that the stratoshere cools and that might indicate that my assumption that adding CO2 to the troposphere warms it might be wrong.
The atmosphere warms because of added greenhouse gases. This increases downward IR reducing cooling from the surface. You really have it arse about.
Chief,
You should really say ‘the troposphere warms because of added greenhouse gases’ rather than just “the atmosphere.”
Its worth just asking why the stratosphere has a negative lapse rate. Its worth also asking just how the stratosphere cools itself and that can only be because it contains GH gases. The stratosphere contains ozone which absorbs in the UV region warming it. Without GH gases the heat would be confined except by conduction and so would become very hot indeed. So they do have the opposite effect there.
CH,
Jim can correct me if he thinks I;m wrong but wasn’t he speaking about cause and effect? Adding GH gases to the atmosphere doesn’t make any difference to the incident light energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface, but it does cause a partial blocking of the transmission of IR from the surface which of course does have a warming effect in the troposphere.
If GHGs block/capture some outgoing IR, they must surely do the same with incoming IR (which constitutes nearly 50% of solar radiation in energy terms as I recall ).
Steady Eddie,
“…. incoming IR (which constitutes nearly 50% of solar radiation in energy terms as I recall ).”
No, that’s not right. The amount of incoming IR is so small that it’s negligible in any calculations.
From wikipedia on Infrared
“Much of the energy from the Sun arrives on Earth in the form of infrared radiation”
If IR is defined as “wavelengths longer than the visible spectrum”, then over 50% of the Sun’s EM energy arriving at Earth is in the IR (eg. see here).
However, at the wavelengths where CO2 acts as as a GHG, the energy of the radiation from the Sun is negligible compared to that from the Earth (eg. see here). On the other hand, at water vapour’s GHG wavelengths, the energy is significant (as can be seen in the chart in the first link). Since atmospheric WV is expected to increase as a result of higher temperatures, the “WV-enhanced” greenhouse effect should cause some of the solar radiation that would otherwise reach the Earth’s surface (in the absence of the enhanced GH effect) to be absorbed in the atmosphere, where that energy can perhaps be more easily lost to space (the complexity of the climate system permitting).
I don’t know whether this variability of the atmosphere’s opacity to incoming solar radiation is included in the climate models (presumably it is ?), or what the magnitude of the effect is. I’d be grateful if anyone could provide the relevant reference.
One universe,
Yes I’ll go along with that. I should have said IR at frequencies absorbed by GH gases.
I’d be surprised if the effect you mention with water were significant but I too would be interested to know from someone who’s studied this in detail.
JimD,
Sceptics do seem to have a big problem with downward IR flux. I’m not sure why. It should be pretty obvious that a molecule of any GH gas doesn’t much care in which direction a photon of IR is re-radiated after absorption.
But another way of understanding the GH effect is to consider that the Earth must radiate at a temperature of approx 255K to maintain energy balance. Because the atmosphere is semi opaque to IR this corresponds to the temperature of approx 6000 metres high, essentially the top of the troposphere, given the measured lapse rate of about 6degC /1000m. . More GH gases makes the atmosphere more opaque and so the troposhere thickens. Make it 6500 metres thick and the surface temperature will rise by 3degC.
People still have the misconception that CO2 has to warm the atmosphere for it to warm the surface. No it doesn’t.
This is totally opposite to your simplistic characterisation. In fact temperature increases in the atmosphere and the radiant flux is restored to the conditional equilibrium. How long does that take? Irrelevant and imponderable.
This is really BS climate war narrative superficially in the objective idiom of science. There is one and only reality behind these complex – in the dictionary sense – processes. That is data. Ocean heat, TSI and radiant flux especially. Only in this way is the energy balance determined empirically and the multitude of changes – cloud height and extent, water vapour, ozone, surface temperature, ice and snow, biology, aerosols – integrated in a comprehensible measure.
Unless you are talking about all these things at once – and about the couplings of these things – you are talking through you’re f_cking arse as usual.
the multitude of changes – cloud height and extent, water vapour, ozone, surface temperature, ice and snow, biology, aerosols – integrated in a comprehensible measure. Unless you are talking about all these things at once – and about the couplings of these things –
Like the models ?
No one objects the exploration of complexity through models – but the models themselves are deterministiclly chaotic without a doubt.
‘In 1963, Lorenz published his seminal paper on ‘Deterministic non-periodic flow’, which was to change the course of weather and climate prediction profoundly over the following decades and to embed the theory of chaos at the heart of meteorology. Indeed, it could be said that his view of the atmosphere (and subsequently also the oceans) as a chaotic system has coloured our thinking of the predictability of weather and subsequently climate from thereon.
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’
Unless you inderstand that – you are talking through your arse as well.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
People still have the misconception that CO2 has to warm the atmosphere for it to warm the surface.
That it itself a misconconception. While indeed true in principle, in practice the effective mechanism of AGW is that a warmer troposphere slows the cooling of the oceans into itself.
Steady Eddie,
So you’re saying that before about the middle of the 19th century , before AGW started, the oceans ‘cooled into themselves’ faster? So you don’t think the oceans were in equilibrium at that time but were, at depth, still warming up? Why?
You misread that. The oceans cool into the atmosphere, not into themselves (which is obviously a nonsense).
Warmist R Gates was stressing this very point some months back.
Do you mean the oceans cool the atmosphere?
No you have it back-to-front. The oceans are warmer than the troposphere, not cooler. So heat flows from oceans to troposphere.
tempterrain
It looks like you suffer under the common misconception that our climate was “in equilibrium” before human industrialization.
This is obviously incorrect. It never has been “in equilibrium”.
Max
While sounding true, if this were the only mechanism, wouldn’t we be saying the oceans are a lousy heat sink. There is something different about them other than just one is a massive amount of fluid, and the other a massive amount of gas.
“This is obviously incorrect. It (our climate) never has been “in equilibrium”.
Are you using the “climate is always changing” argument? And does this mean that because climate has changed slowly in the past, before human industrialisation, slow changes corresponding to the climate being slightly out of equilibrium, that the speed of future climate change and the extent of the disequilibrium can be ignored?
Just asking.
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2012/10/17/new-paper-cuts-recent-anthropogenic-warming-trend-in-half/
It is not all that rapid – about 0.08 C/decade at most. And if the bloody satellites are half right much less. I think the satellites are right – at least within 0.4 W/decade.
And as these decadal variabilities seque into cenntennial modes in the onset of Bond Event Zero – say farewell to the balmy days and nights heady with the scents of tropical flowers hanging n the languid air.
slow change? LOL. At no stage did the climate ever change slowly – it just doesn’t work like that.
‘Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.’
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1
Jump to it bunnies – the iceman cometh.
tempterrain
What?
We realize that our climate is never in equilibrium, that there have been changes in recent times (prior to significant human GHG emissions) that show warming rates that are statistically indistinguishable from those of the late 20thC, which are being used by IPCC as the model for its CAGW premise?
And yet we should worry about the model-projected rapid changes of future temperature?
Especially when these models projected warming of 0.225C per decade (TAR) or 0.2C per decade (AR4) for the initial decades of the 21stC, which has NOT occurred?
Get serious, TT. THAT’s nothing to worry about, because it’s not real.
Max
I see there has been a lot of discussion. The troposphere, by its definition, is the layer that is directly affected by the surface through convection. Its temperature is basically governed by thermodynamic lapse rates with the only free parameter being the surface temperature. GHGs don’t warm the troposphere directly. They add to its cooling to space, which is what the stratosphere does more freely. The way GHGs affect the troposphere is via the surface temperature which responds to its own energy balance, part of which is downward IR from the troposphere. More GHGs mean more downward IR even at the same temperature. With no GHGs there would be no thermal emission from the atmosphere, and the surface would be -18 C instead of +15 C.
More GHGs mean more downward IR even at the same temperature.
True but trivial and irrelevant, since more GHGs necessarily mean a warmer atmosphere. So if the atmosphere is not warming, it means the extra GHGs are having no significant effect. Which also means any extra downward IR is also not significant.
The troposphere warms via the surface, so the order of events is that the surface warms, and atmosphere responds. Yes, trivial, but people are having trouble understanding anyway. Yes, the troposphere is warming, we all agree. The stratosphere doesn’t. The difference is the connection to the surface.
Who is it you imagine doesn’t understand this?
The real misunderstanding seems to be the failure to grasp that the crucial first AGW symptom is a warming of the troposphere, all the other effects flowing from this.
Vassily, yes the troposphere and surface warm together. Don’t forget the surface. It is a necessary part of the system.
No, not together. The troposphere first, since that is where the (extra) CO2 is.
Jim D, your “GHGs don’t warm the troposphere directly” is incorrect. Several physicists including Pekka have told me that ALL of the energy absorbed by GHGs is immediately lost to the surrounding atmosphere via kinetic collisions. Re-emission only occurs because that energy wanders back to the GHGs statistically. The troposphere is where the GHGs are so the greenhouse effect occurs there directly, not via the surface. You seem to have the basic mechanism wrong.
Vassily, then why doesn’t the stratosphere warm too? You are making the exact error of thought that I was trying to correct.
How much CO2 is there in the stratosphere though ?
I think people need to look at the concept of radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere. Isaac Held has worked a lot in that area. Convection warms and radiation cools. These balance each other in the troposphere. In the stratosphere ozone warms and the other GHGs cool.
Why not start by giving us your version of how/when GHGs cool rather than warm?
When you add GHGs to the atmosphere, it both emits more radiation towards space and earth and absorbs more radiation mostly from earth. It turns out the emission effect slightly dominates leading to general cooling, which averages up to 2 degrees per day in the whole troposphere. Without this cooling, convection could not operate because it destabilizes the atmosphere relative to the surface. So how does the surface warm, you ask? This is because, as I said, the atmospheric emission is increased, and the surface adds this to the solar energy it receives. It is only a few W/m2 per doubling, but the surface has to warm to bring itself back into balance. In warming, the troposphere is warmed by convection starting at the new surface temperature.
JimD
I asked you to explain how GHGs cause cooling.
Instead you just assumed it.
And you are basically making the same mistake over and over. The surface warms because the CO2-warmed troposphere has warmed, leading to a reduced ocean-troposphere temperature gradient, and hence reduced ocean cooling.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Chief Hydrologist | February 10, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Reply
“That’s so dumb Jim – there is no possible way that greenhouse gases can be added to the atmosphere wothout warming it – all else being equal – which it never is.”
Brief and correct. Extend that to there’s no possible way to warm the ocean without the ocean warming the air in contact with it.
Jim D | February 10, 2013 at 10:07 pm |
“Well, they even cool the stratosphere, don’t they? This might indicate that your assumption is wrong.”
The stratosphere is above the CO2 emission altitude. Above the emission altitude it no longer presents an obscacle to radiation escaping to space.
Think of it like friction. Thermal emission from the earth passing through CO2 in the troposphere is slowed by frictional contact with CO2. Think of the CO2 like walls in a pipe. The more CO2 the narrower the pipe. It heats in the passing from friction and like a narrowed pipe in order to get same amount of flow through the narrower pipe the pressure has to be increased which in this case is a ******land or ocean surface temperature.
Above the emisson altitude CO2 becomes frictionless to radiation. Other gases and isotopes thereof however start having significant effects. As altitude increases so does the spectrum of sunlight. Ozone absorbs ultraviolet light for example which are higher energy than visible light and little of it reaches into the troposphere. The thermosphere is some 1500F IIRC in full sun.
**************radiation isn’t the only path through the troposphere. Water vapor moves most of the energy wherever there’s water present on the surface to evaporate. If the radiative channel becomes more restricted by rising CO2 evaporation can increase instead of temperature in response to get more thermal energy through the troposphere. Alarmists almost certainly now made a mistake with water vapor amplification. They thought the increased evaporation from CO2 would make things even warmer since water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. So CO2 is a “control knob” that actuates a gate for a far larger flow. The mistake was clouds. Strangely enough when you have more water vapor you have more clouds and perhaps just as strangely a cloud blocks more sunlight from reaching the ground in the first than the water vapor which formed it traps via greenhouse effect. So over the full course of a day the average temperature is lower on cloudy day than on clear days and why tropical deserts have the highest mean annual temperature of any climate type.
Monk | February 11, 2013 at 5:12 am |
“The effective mechanism of AGW is that a warmer troposphere slows the cooling of the oceans into itself. Warmist R Gates was stressing this very point some months back.”
That’s what Gates believes. It’s not the whole story. A warmer troposphere makes for more evaporation which cools the surface and forms more clouds which shade the surface. The net effect is that a lot of the radiative warming is negated by evaporative cooling. Radiation is not the prime mover over the ocean, evaporation, convection, and condensation moves the lion’s share of solar heating from the ocean to the atmosphere.
JCH
The ocean is a massive heat sink.
The same amount of energy that would warm the entire atmosphere up to the tropopause by 1°C would raise the upper ocean (0-700m) temperature by 0.0045°C and the entire ocean by 0.0007°C.
At the new observation-based estimates of 2xCO2 “equilibrium climate sensitivity” of 1.7°C, and assuming ALL the theoretical energy from doubling atmospheric CO2 went into the ocean, we would see:
0.0077°C warming of the upper ocean, or
0.0012°C warming of the entire ocean
Up until 2003 we could only guess-timate (based on very inaccurate and spotty data) whether or not and by how much the ocean was warming.
Since then ARGO measurements show us the upper ocean is barely warming at all. First they showed slight net cooling, then (after some corrections were made) they show slight warming.
These increases are barely measurable and certainly nothing to get very excited about.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Max
Max, “The ocean is a massive heat sink.” Nope, the oceans are a massive thermal reservoir. A heat sink just wicks away heat, a reservoir provides energy in metered amounts. Since the “surface” air only has 1/1000th of the thermal mass of the oceans, it is not leading the show, it is the tail being wagged.
Cap’n
I’ll accept your “thermal reservoir” versus “heat sink”, but otherwise I believe we are on the same track.
And the “tail” isn’t really “wagging”, it’s just barely “quivering”.
Max
No.
Reading the entrails of animals is a form of divination called haruspicy
According to Wiki:
Just like the climate models of today, there is no basic problem with this method – it just becomes problematic when you begin believing the forecasts.
Max
When modelers show what criteria each of their models are designed to forecast over what timescales, and within what margin of error, AND their models have shown a track record of reasonably accurately matching observed conditions; then I will believe the model that has demonstrated such performance is worthy of consideration for formation of government policy.
The fact that people are willing to implement policy that is based on the current models is beyond invalid science, it is stupidity.
When my father’s WW2 task force sailed up the slot one night to interdict the Tokyo Express, they had to peer into the darkness and decide whether or not to fire on an enemy that may or may not have been there. They guessed wrong, and they suffered the 3rd worst defeat of the US Navy in WW2. All because one Rear Admiral held a totally unreasonable standard of proof of the enemy’s presence. So after that the US Navy took Rear Admirals out of loop and handed the triggers to the youngsters in the destroyers.
You have it backwards.
The model requirements start with the users ( policy makers ) specifying what metrics they find important ( sea level for example ), what time frame they find important, and what accuracy they find important to make effective policy.
Steve
You know quite well that was NOT the process that was followed. Try being honest.
Rob,
Im telling you the process that should be followed rather than the process you demand. The process you demand can never work.
in your process the modelers must show a track record of ‘reasonably accurate matching” this pre supposes that a definition or requirement of “reasonably accurate” has been laid out.
What you find reasonable does not matter since you are not a decision maker. What I find reasonable does not matter.
Steve
If we are discussing the process that should have been followed I might largely agree.
I disagree that the process that I suggest is unworkable to be followed today. If someone has developed a climate model they would know what criteria the model was developed to forecast. By looking at the accuracy of the model’s performance in matching hindcasts they would be able to estimate within what margin of error the model was expected to be able to perform. If the model does not perform well it should tell the developer that there is something wrong with the model (for specific criteria at least).
What you or I think does matter to the extent that people who are familiar with modeling (especially people like you who have some respect within the climate science community) need to be very vocal about the relative reliability of the tools being used to make decisions. Imo, those who are the most concerned about a warmer world are being very dishonest in not acknowledging that they do not really know very much at all about what conditions will be like or that they are necessarily worst for their country or the world.
That seems true unless one is willing to be like BBD who believes that by stating that a Hadley cell may develop means the same thing as knowing that the US will get less rainfall due to AGW.
“I disagree that the process that I suggest is unworkable to be followed today. If someone has developed a climate model they would know what criteria the model was developed to forecast. ”
really. The typical “criteria” for research code is not the criteria that one typically works with in other disciplines. The criteria is vague as in
“doing the best we can to fully represent the physics”
‘What you or I think does matter to the extent that people who are familiar with modeling (especially people like you who have some respect within the climate science community) need to be very vocal about the relative reliability of the tools being used to make decisions.”
Wrong. reliability is relative to the purpose or use of the model.
What a scientist thinks is necessary and reliable is not the same as what a decision maker wants to know. I’ll give you a simple example.
Suppose I build a flight model to test an airplane before flying.
I’m focused on seeing if and when the plane will depart and for example if it will enter a flat spin that cannot be recovered. ie, the plane pancakes into the desert floor ( haha had that happen once, weird looking crashed plane on its belly straight out of the sky ).
Now, I know that the model isnt that reliable. I know it cannot catch all the conditions that could cause a flat spin. And I know that the estimate of whether the plane is recoverable or not is maybe right half of the time.
is the model reliable enough to make decisions?
it depends.
Decisions about changes to aero structures and controls? nope
Decisions about whether to proceed to test flights? yup
The maker of a model is not the decision maker.
What model makers need to be vocal about is the performance.
decison makers can decide if that performance is good enough.
For example, if I were a decision maker a simple curve would be enough to tell me that GHGs are an issue. Climate models are overkill for decision makers.. if I were a decision maker.
What curve? Muller’s and Julio’s? Isn’t it wonderful that it has warmed?
=============
Steve writes:
1. “reliability is relative to the purpose or use of the model.”
My response- That is obviously true so let’s examine your point more closely. Isn’t the purpose of a climate model being used for policy purposes to forecast how conditions will change in the future as a result of additional CO2? Haven’t many peer reviewed papers been written describing how humanity will be harmed as a result of the changed conditions? Doesn’t that assume fidelity in the model’s performance sufficient for the purpose? How can someone claim to KNOW that any specific location or nation will be harmed by AGW?
2. decision makers can decide if that performance is good enough.”
My response- How can decision makers know that performance is good enough if modelers do not report how their model is actually performing vs. specific criteria? Annual rainfall as well as temperature would seem to be key criteria that all models would seek to forecast. Why is this information not published for each model used by the IPCC?
3. What model makers need to be vocal about is the performance.
My response- On this point we might largely agree but honesty in evaluating performance is a key and verification of stated performance would seem to be a necessary requirement.
Steve- Here is a simple straightforward question. Do you believe that you know that a warmer world will be worse for humanity overall over the long term? If I excluded sea level rise from consideration, would your answer be the same? How much do you believe sea level will rise by 2100?
Steven, I’ve been involved in CAGW policy discussions in Australia at times since 1989-90, including drafting Cabinet submissions, and my experience differs from what you claim at 12.47 & 1.02 11 Feb. In my experience the push for policy has come from committed environmental activists, some of whom are serious environmental scientists, and the policymakers and politicians have reacted to the activists input. They have never not, to my knowledge, “specified what metrics, time-frame and accuracy they find important to make effective policy,” they have adopted knee-jerk, ineffective policies in response to the scare stories they were fed, and have generally found it expedient to do so. Those non-politicians who have sought to expose this and establish a sound basis for policy have generally been vilified and/or ignored. Follower of non-News Corp media in Australia would generally be unaware of concerns raised about CAGW or policies adopted to reduce emissions. I’m British by origin, and I think that the UK story is similar.
Steven, further to my earlier post, since 2007 the Australian government has sought advice on global warming/climate change only from those committed to CAGW, even when their background and experience are not relevant. Many of these advisers are very poorly regarded – with good reason – by their professional peers, e,g, in economics. (Ross Garnaut has done excellent work in years past, but seems to have been seduced by fame, ideology and closeness to power in his work on global warming, which is not well-regarded.)
faustino –
Let me ask you – is there anyone who you disagree with on global warming who has not been seduced by fame, ideology, or closeness to power? Is there anyone who you agree with on global warming who has?
Joshua, I’m talking here of someone I know, was once quite friendly with, and whose work I have admired and often praised. I’m not alone in my recent assessment of Garnaut. There are plenty of people here and elsewhere who have different views to me, but for whom I have no evidence to think of them in the way I do of Garnaut. As for those I know with similar views, I can’t make the same criticism of them. Of those in the public eye, none seem driven by fame and ego (I generally don’t find such people attarctive), while Garnaut, who is very charming, has always had that tendency – he was a close friend of PM Bob Hawke when I first knew him. Hawke had a great ego but I think he’s the one very good Australian PM in the last 40-odd years. I do know many of the advisers to the ALP government whom I broadly criticised. I also knew many advisers to the previous ALP governments who I greatly respected, for their quality of work, integrity and genuine interest in “good” policy. I haven’t seen many such people selected by the 2007+ government, I’ve known some excellent people – e.g. Warwick McKibbin – to whom they’ve given the elbow.
Those wondering where Michael Cunningham’s deep insights come from could do worse than analyze them in the light of J. Gregory Keyes’ fascinating alternate history Newton’s Cannon (The Age of Unreason, Book 1), set primarily in the court of Louis XIV.
The less said about that the better.
The bottom line is that Rob Starkey is right – basing policy on current models is stupid. Decision makers have grabbed hold of the alarmist line and run with it because it suits their broader agenda. We know too little about future climate at this point to know whether rapid reduction of CO2 emissions is worthwhile. It’s a pity they didn’t decide instead to focus on adaptation and build more resilient infrastructure. Could have saved quite a few lives and a lot of dollars by now.
The point is that these are government decision-makers, so obviously they are first and foremost going to select the models and modellers they believe will most benefit the cause of government.
Progressive politicians pay progressive scientists to develop models that support implementation of progressive policies, which results in greater power for the politician, bigger budgets for the scientists, and more computer created “data” to support the politicians who pay the scientists who…..
All aboard…on the gravy train….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0N-l0tCHhM
I’ve listened to preachers
I’ve listened to fools
I’ve watched all the dropouts
Who make their own rules
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role
(No editing necessary)
Mental wounds not healing
Who and what’s to blame?
I’m going off the rails on a crazy train
Yup, Gary. He was serenading you.
Steven Mosher
OK. Let’s cut the BS and get to the real issue here.
The IPCC models told us it would warm by 0.2C per decade (AR4) or 0.225C+/- 0.075C per decade (TAR), as a result of human GHG emissions.
It didn’t.
Instead it has been cooling slightly since the end of 2000, despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels.
Now, based on those same models, “policy makers” should be deciding on “policies” to avert a potential disaster from human-induced global warming by curtailing human GHG emissions.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Max
CH @ 145am
‘Farewell to the balmy days and nights heavy with the scents of
tropical flowers hanging in the languid air.’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVwTDOKBBco
Oh no, more carbon ter stave of the cooling!
@BC: ‘Farewell to the balmy days and nights heavy with the scents of tropical flowers hanging in the languid air.’
Wot, are you claiming the air’s gone all illanguid now, BC? Who’s the barmy one now I ask you? Heavy wif non-scents if you ask me.
more carbon ter stave of the cooling
Nil carborundum bastardio. (Don’t let the bastards tax your carbon.)
BC –
Art, beauty, poetry, music, love, lust AND Truth? I don’t know how one can think clearly in the swoon of such distractions. But, Beth, somehow I think you do just fine.
You will probably have ter blame me Vaughan – I jest cum over all lyrical like.
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2012/10/17/new-paper-cuts-recent-anthropogenic-warming-trend-in-half/
It is not all that rapid – about 0.08 C/decade at most. And if the bloody satellites are half right much less. I think the satellites might be right – at least within 0.4 W/decade.
And as these decadal variabilities seque into cenntennial modes in the onset of Bond Event Zero – say farewell to the balmy days and nights heady with the scents of tropical flowers hanging in the languid air.
And
slow change? LOL. At no stage did the climate ever change slowly – it just doesn’t work like that.
‘Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.’
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1
Hop to it bunnies – the iceman cometh.
I chié dans votre chapeau.
Please confirm that this is a wind-up. Tell me you haven’t gone over the edge completely and joined the kim camp.
‘Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.’
I think – like Chiefio – that the onset of Bond Event Zero is quite likely sopmetime soon – http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/ It seems as well to involve the modulation of ENSO and the polar cyclones – which is suggestive.
I think that climate shifts are likely 3 or 4 times this century – I am just not clever enough to predict the outcomes. I am in quite good company here – Palmer and Tsonis amongst many others and like the NAS Committee on Abrupt Climate Change – I expect ‘inevitable surprises’. One of these is that this comes as a surprise to anyone.
What a cute little space cadet blah blah is.
And yet again, you are pretending that events confined only to glacial/interglacial transitions can occur during the late Holocene:
NOT during interglacials.
The mechanisms you need (mainly abrupt proglacial lake drainage, AMOC shut-downs/resumptions and ice-sheet dynamics) are MISSING today.
This is all very interesting, both for understanding of climate and of narrative, but BBD mocks himself pretending to know where the boundary of interglacial/glacial is. Were events to become actually more extreme, the cause would be most likely the slide into the next glacial.
Hoist, on the Gorbellied Fool’s expanding carcass.
=================
Dang, ‘bubbling carcass’.
============
kim
This is the Holocene. The Holocene is an interglacial. The Holocene began about 11.5ka. It’s all in the textbooks. Perhaps reading a few might be a good idea.
Yes, the Holocene interglacial has currently endured 11,500 years and that’s in all the textbooks.
The average duration of interglacial periods is 10,000 years. That’s in all the textbooks too.
That’s what I love about BBD, digging and hoisting with the same motion. Efficient.
But if this paper is true, and why wouldn’t it be, a tendency to greater weather and climate extremes would be a harbinger of descent into the next Ice Age, a sign that the border from interglacial to glacial has been passed.
Time for a narrative review.
=============
BBD, “The mechanisms you need (mainly abrupt proglacial lake drainage, AMOC shut-downs/resumptions and ice-sheet dynamics) are MISSING today.”
Yep, so we are in a double dip interglacial since there is farm land instead of ice sheets. That part of the “feedback” is missing, so sensitivity would be different.
WOW! It is like deja vu all over again.
Cap’n
You don’t seem to understand Ellison’s point. He thinks abrupt and significant cooling episodes are feasible, even likely during this century. The rest of the world thinks that the forced warming trend will dominate on centennial scale and he is over-stating his case.
He thinks that we can look to paleoclimate as evidence for abrupt climate change – and indeed we can – but the examples he has to use are those of abrupt change during deglaciation (YD) or during glacial climate (D-O; Heinrich; Bond).
It’s all such a muddle with you.
BBD, “You don’t seem to understand Ellison’s point. He thinks abrupt and significant cooling episodes are feasible, even likely during this century.”
If there are peaks and valleys and you are at a peak, which way is more likely?
Ellison understands the range of possibilities. What you don’t understand is “sensitivity” changes with respect to the peaks and valleys. Since the “system” exhibits general bi-stability, staying in that range of bi-stability is most likely with an offset due to “ALL” anthropogenic forcings.
captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | February 12, 2013 at 11:00 am |
“If there are peaks and valleys and you are at a peak, which way is more likely?”
How do you know when you’ve reached a zenith except in hindsight?
Take a rainstorm for example. Are there more first raindrops, last raindrops, or raindrops that are neither first nor last? Statistically speaking reversals are the rarer events. So if you’re at a perceived peak an even higher peak is the more likely event. Never bet against a trend.
David Springer, “How do you know when you’ve reached a zenith except in hindsight?” You spend more time looking at paleo associated with the ocean “average” temperature to get a better handle on what the limits are and why.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…
There’s plenty of paleo DJIA data. Are we at a peak today?
Who says we’re at a peak? Orbital eccentricity is approaching its 400ka minimum again – this could be a re-run of MIS 11. And even if it isn’t, CO2 emissions will delay the onset of glaciation for a long, long time. See Archer & Ganopolski (2005).
Capn
I don’t accept this and I’ve just explained why: there is no mechanism for abrupt and significant cooling later this century. CO2 forcing is increasing and will increasingly dominate, resulting in warming on the centennial scale, exactly as everybody bar the contrarian fringe now acknowledges.
As for the new meme about S being different between the LGM and the Holocene, those who give credence to this suggest that the difference is *small*.
In fact give me a figure and a reference. You bring this up constantly – what do you have in mind?
CO2 forcing is increasing and will increasingly dominate, resulting in warming on the centennial scale, exactly as everybody bar the contrarian fringe now acknowledges
“Acknowledges” eh? I think what you mean is, as everyone paid by government or with some other vested interest in proving cagw true, is saying. You know the ones – the Climategate crooks and all their fellow travellers who couldn’t bring themselves to criticise the Climategate crooks.
BBD, “As for the new meme about S being different between the LGM and the Holocene, those who give credence to this suggest that the difference is *small*.”
How “small” that is would depend on the total mass and area of the land based ice. How abrupt would depend on the impact of 10^22 Joules per season lost to space and 10^22 Joules of energy per season dissipated from the system as ice. If you want an ice age, you have to have an ice box.
BTW, S being non-linear is not a new meme, it appears to be a reality.
Capn
Please give me a figure (with reference) for the hypothesised difference in S between the LGM and late Holocene.
BBD, solar forcing ~TSI*(1-albedo)/4 What was the area of the Ice with that high albedo during the LGM? Then the thermal mass of ice is about 1/2 that of water. As ice area and mass go to zero, their feed back goes to zero.
Now if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, you could consider insolation by latitude and actual heat absorbed.
Stop wriggling and give me a number and a reference or admit that, yet again, I’ve caught you guffing and bluffing.
BBD, You really do have some issues don’t you?
“The positive ice-albedo feedback acts to amplify the climate change as a consequence of the melting of sea ice and ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. An unexpected and interesting result is that the ice-albedo feedback is negative in some regions, particularly in the Arctic Ocean, because of an increased ocean basin size at PI.”
http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/pubs/Burt_Randall_Otto-Bliesner_submitted.pdf
That is submitted not published so you may wish to continue living in the past until it is, but the math really shouldn’t be that difficult for you.
Capn
Yes, with serial guffers and bluffers like you.
This stuff isn’t what I asked for. I’m not interested in regional feedback change. I’m interested in the net of all regional feedbacks – global climate sensitivity – and the grossly exaggerated claims made about it by fake sceptics.
Claims which you are failing to substantiate.
Number and reference please. Now.
BBD, All you are interested in are things that bolster your opinion. That paper has a comparison of ice albedo change between the LGM and pre-industrial for the globe, by latitude. Since most of the change is in the NH, they focus more on the region that is impacted. There is no magic to be found be picking a choosing “global” when convenient or regional when convenient or OHC when convenient or surface temperature when convenient. If you can’t grasp the physics, cook a turkey :)
All I am interested in is quantification of the change in S between the LGM and the Holocene. Something you frequently allude to.
But – shockingly – when asked to provide an actual value and a reference, you implode.
There are several terms for making grossly over-stated but completely unsubstantiated claims as you have clearly been doing for some time.
In accordance with our host’s wishes, I have used only the mildest and most child-friendly ones.
But you know what you have been caught doing and you know what it’s called.
How many times is this now? I’ve lost count.
BBD, “All I am interested in is quantification of the change in S between the LGM and the Holocene. Something you frequently allude to.”
Then you should listen and think. A major feedback in the glacial interglacial transistion is the loss of glaciers. Imagine that, an ice age requires ice.
Since S is supposed to be the “sensitivity” to ALL forcings, the S would change.
Now if you incorrectly assume that S is solely depended on CO2, then you would be wandering around dazed and confused agruing non-sense.
The forcing change due to CO2 though is fairly linear and would produce 1 to 1.5C per doubling at some altitude “ALL THINGS REMAINING EQUAL” Ice ain’t remaining equal.
First things first. You are making all sorts of big claims about the supposed difference in S between the LGM and the Holocene but when it comes down to it you cannot quantify it at all. Nor can you reference any study that attempts to do this.
The whole thing is weightless – just handwaving (as per).
As for trading opinions, IMO you over-state the *global* efficacy of ice-albedo feedback and under-state the global efficacy of GHGs. The most efficient way to raise GAT is to apply a radiative forcing to the oceans (70% surface area). Ice albedo feedback change is mainly limited to high latitude NH *land* during deglaciation, and its effects – though strong – are limited compared to those of a radiative forcing over the global ocean.
This goes a long way to explaining the *globalising* effects of GHG feedback during deglaciation.
But I didn’t.
BBD, once again the comprehension thing is biting your arse. The albedo change by latitude in the paper includes “surface” and “oceans”. When you consider the angle and time period that Arctic Ice is open, the radiant impact is small. In fact, since snow covered sea ice insulates, there can be a negative feedback from an open Arctic ocean.
If you want a precise estimate of the change in sensitivity from what you would consider a “trusted source”, you are own your own. I have my estimates because I was curious who were the biggest idiots in climate science and did it myself. You will just have to wait for the attraction of the “range of comfort” to weak which might be a year or two.
It’s not me that has comprehension issues.
What have I been talking about? The limitations of efficacy of ice-albedo feedback. Just read it again, slowly this time. Do you deliberately jumble up what I say as an obfuscatory defence mechanism? Or do you just not get it?
As for this:
I don’t believe a word of it. Guff and bluff.
BBD, I did. Realistically, the range of sensitivity should be listed as 4.5 to 0.8, because there would be a larger impact when the heat capacity is lower and there is more ice to feedback. Once the ocean approaches a higher average temperature, there is an exponential increase in water vapor latent heat response.
BBD, “I have my estimates because I was curious who were the biggest idiots in climate science and did it myself.
I don’t believe a word of it. Guff and bluff.”
What ever you wish. A rough estimate though is not difficult. You just use generic, “atmospheric forcing” The combined atmospheric forcing is nothing but the resistance of the atmosphere to heat loss. At the “surface” that would be ~340 Wm-2 (roughly the average Tmin or DWLR value). If you increase the resistance by 4 Wm-2, the “surface” would have to increase by 4 Wm-2 to 344 Wm-2 which would be a 0.81C increase in surface temperature. Another way is that the Ein at the “surface” is 330 Wm-2 daytime and would have to release the same at night to be in a steady state. If you add 4 Wm-2 to the night resistance, 0.79 C. There is nothing complicated about a true “surface” estimated sensitivity to a fixed amount of forcing. Statically, the problem is a piece of cake. Dynamically, is a totally different situation, but you can still take different layers of the onion and set up a static budget to estimate different “wall” or internal energy transfer averages required in a “balanced” state.
If you do that, then the Toggweiler “thermal equator” would make more sense to you.
I think my point is that climate shifts are likely 3 or 4 times this century – and that I am not clever enough to predict the outcomes beforehand. The causes of Bond Events are little understood, many of the climate indices – including thermohaline circulation – are little understood and have decadal to millennial variability. How to predict this? I don’t.
And I have quoted Palmer and Tsonis often enough to show that idea in particular – the inherent uncertainties of prediction over the century to show that this idea is not unknown in the peer reviewed literature ar to the rest of the world.
I have quoted the NAS often enough – it is certain that there will be ‘inevitable surprises’.
Guff and bluff. Give me a non-crank published reference or stow it.
The above was in response to Capn Galileo, not CP.
BBD, “Guff and bluff. Give me a non-crank published reference or stow it.”
I have given you quite a few references and you ignore them. You choose to believe what you wish. Just remember, precession, tides, fixed ice and 4300 years :)
Whenever I go to the trouble of *checking* your references it turns out that they do not say what you think they do. We had this with Martin; we had this with Toggweiler.
Misrepresentation of others’ work aside, the problem here is that you make wild claims and then completely fail to substantiate them with either a reference or anything I can actually recognise as orthodox methodology. Hence the use of the c-word.
If you cannot quantify the difference in S between the LGM and the present, you cannot make claims about it as you do.
Get it?
Interesting paper dallas.I suspect the ice albedo will be the easy part. The glaciers melting will have changed the hydrologic system and by inference patterns of heat transport several times between LGM and now. Land albedo will have changed several times and of course aerosols which they mention in passing. I suspect the only way they will figure out how the sensitivity changed over time is to take it region by region. I’m not holding my breath waiting on good estimates of the distant past considering we are still arguing over the present.
BBD and Cap’n
Not to get into the nitty-gritty of your discussion on past climate changes as divined from tea leaves, chicken entrails or paleo reconstructions, but this sentence by BBD caught my eye:
This statement is full of logic errors.
– “there is no as yet known mechanism” would have been a better choice of words. To conclude that there is NO mechanism is simply an “argument from ignorance”
– “CO2 forcing is increasing” as atmospheric CO2 levels increase (duh!), but there is no empirical evidence to indicate that “CO2 forcing …will increasingly dominate” (the relation with concentration is logarithmic and you have no notion about other factors, such as those causing the current “lack of warming”), so this part should be eliminated
– “exactly as everyone bar the contrarian fringe now acknowledge” is presumptive and unnecessarily derogatory. Replace with “as the consensus group of climatologists now suggest”.
There.
That should fix it for you.
It now reads:
Makes sense now, although I am personally of the opinion that solar forcing is grossly underestimated by this “consensus” group, and if the current weak solar cycle 24 is followed by an even weaker cycle 25, we may have a new ball game.
IOW something (which we cannot explain as yet) is causing the recent “pause” in warming despite unabated human CO2 emissions; and this “something” may just continue for a while.
Max
steven, ” I’m not holding my breath waiting on good estimates of the distant past considering we are still arguing over the present.”
I think things are moving in the right direction. One thing about Ice is that it has to be fixed to land to be stable. Since there are longer term “king tides” linked to lunar and solar orbital synchronization, ice has a better chance of getting fixed on an ebbing king tide. So oddly it is the sun and the moon, but not the way folks think, to a large extent.
manaker, ” “there is no as yet known mechanism” would have been a better choice of words. To conclude that there is NO mechanism is simply an “argument from ignorance””
Actually, the mechanisms are all known, someone just screwed up and let Telescope Jockeys think they could do thermo :)
Cap’n
I appreciate your telling me that the mechanisms for the projected cooling are known but, being a rational skeptic, I’d like to see them corroborated (or falsified) by empirical evidence.
I see that it has cooled slightly since the end of 2000 despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 concentrations reaching record levels.
So, even before I ponder what the mechanism for this observed “lack of warming” could be, I conclude that there must be a “mechanism” which is working against and even overpowering the posited GH mechanism.
BBD ignores the empirical evidence because he cannot define any mechanisms that could be working against the GH mechanism.
This seems to me to be simply sticking the head in the sand.
Max
manacker
Wow. I’ve seen projection from contrarians, but having you tell me that I ignore empirical evidence takes the biscuit.
Try this for size.
Empirical evidence for you.
As for your presumptions above:
You don’t get to lecture me on non-existent logical errors either. Especially when you don’t have the learning or the wit to distinguish between Holocene climate phenomena and deglacial/glacial climate phenomena.
BBD
What in the world are you thinking?
I ask for empirical evidence that human GHGs (principally CO2) have been the primary driver of past climate and therefore constitute a serious threat to humanity and our environment (the IPCC CAGW premise as outlined in its AR4 report).
Instead of showing me this empirical evidence you cite a link to a study on the ENSO impact on the past temperature record.
This study is very nice.
It shows that the lack of warming after 2000 can be partly attributed to a shift from warming El Niño activity to cooling La Niña. Likewise, the strong warming over the 1980s/1990s correlates with frequent and strong El Niño during that period. Some underlying warming also occurred during so-called ENSO “neutral” years.
Duh!
This is not new info. The 1980s/90s El Niño and their temperature impact have been published long ago by NCDC directly. They show:
– We have an observed period between 1977 and 1998, during which most of the observed warming of the past 50 years has occurred.
– During this period we have observed a strong, warm El Niño trend, culminating with the super El Niño of 1997/1998,which led to the all-time warmest year of the modern record.
The latest shift to La Niña removes this source of warming, so there is now an observed “lack of warming”
But, hey, BBD, this is absolutely no empirical evidence that human GHGs (mainly CO2) have had anything whatsoever to do with the warming. It only shows that, in addition to the warming and cooling impact of ENSO (plus the spot influences of various volcanoes) there is also something else that is influencing our climate.
Come with empirical evidence, BBD, not with stuff like this that any 5-year old can see through.
Max
What’s the 4300 years in reference to? IIRC that’s about the temporal distance to Milankovitch peaking in favor of glacier building then NH summer and winter insolation disparity starts to increase again.
Presumably as the peak nears the other elements of a perfect storm line up and booyah the curtain falls on the Holocene. The other elements of the perfect storm somewhat less predictable but evidently inevitable if you wait long enough would be a solar grand minimum and one or more VEI 5+ volcanoes.
David Springer, the 4300 year cycle is related to precession. There are also 5000 and 5700 year cycles related to obliquity. The 4300 year cycle appears to be dominate when relative sea level is high.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.long
The 4300 year cycle doesn’t have as much warming upside since there is not much fixed ice to free with tides.
Anyway, that is what looks like happens. It is still just a theory.
Chief Proctolgist
Another stunning display of projection where your error magically become mine:
Er no, CP. I have to highlight the things that you have misunderstood. Then you go and misunderstand them all over again, despite the idiot’s guide! Too funny, as they say.
But it *was* about deglacial change – and if you did but know what you were talking about, you would know that scientific opinion *now* is that the MOC shutdown/slowdown/cooling meme has been sidelined, at least as far as C21st projections are concerned. Some aspects of the NAS report might reasonably be regarded as alarmist.
Nope; strawman. How do they test their model? Why they compare it to a single time series – HadCRUT3. A more rigorous – and so convincing – analysis would have used several others. As I pointed out. Are you strawmanning this to try and get around this awkward but valid criticism of your all-time fave paper? I think perhaps that you are.
I can’t help it if what S&T wrote demonstrates that they think their results are highly speculative and anyway agree that whatever happens will be riding *up* the centennial forced trend. That’s what they wrote – go and argue with them. It would do you good.
This is basically a lie. All I did was point out that the AR4 quote *you provided* says that the average projection is around 25% (Weaver says much the same) and that this won’t offset forced warming. I’ve explained at least once that only the more extreme emissions scenarios get you any higher. Sounds like lack of familiarity with the basics to me. To cut a long story short, I pointed out that you were wrong. Again.
Now you’ll come barking back repeating all your old mistakes and making up a parallel universe version of what I said but it makes no odds. Either you *know* you’ve been set straight or you are so far gone in megalomania that there’s no help for you. If the former, mission accomplished. If the latter, breath wasted.
On which point, you don’t take correction well, do you CP? My advice is learn to love it. There will be plenty more.
blah blah,
Please see the bold sentence in the comment immediately above this thread. I think you accidentally left it off the paragraph I had quoted from the NAS report – Abrupt climate change: inevitabke surprises.
Chief Proctologist
NAS – obsolete and wearyingly over-quoted source.Things have moved on.
Where’s the mechanism? All the stuff in the NAS report is deglacial or glacial abrupt change. Where’s the mechanism for abrupt and significant cooling *now*? It isn’t the AMOC. Nobody thinks that any more. See Weaver et al. (2012).
This is the most recent and by far the most comprehensive study. No support there.
Under increasing GHG forcing the warming trend will dominate on a centennial scale, exactly as predicted by just about everyone, including Tsonis. I’ve only quoted this fifty or sixty times, so it bears repeating:
(Swanson & Tsonis 2009)
Not much warming for a decade, maybe, perhaps, possibly. Even back in the mid-C20th, the cooling was very slight, let’s not forget. Ever-shorter pauses in the warming trend are plausible but the forced trend will dominate on the centennial scale and that’s what matters.
Quite why you invest such enormous amounts of energy into trying to divert attention away from this is mystifying.
Blah blah,
Borrowed webnutcolonoscope’s nomenclature? It is a bit derivative – as of course I had already implied and explicitly stated that he has his head up his own arse. He is a proven liar and a fraud interested only in game playing. You would be better trying for original or witty – so far you are a miserable failure.
‘This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed specific changes in the aggregate time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability serve as a harbinger of climate shifts. Specifically, when the major modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability are synchronized, or resonate, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system appears to be thrown into a new state, marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of El Nino Southern Oscillation variability. Here, a new and improved means to quantify the coupling between climate modes confirms that another synchronization of these modes, followed by an increase in coupling occurred in 2001/02.
This suggests that a break in the global mean temperature trend from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred.
This has most certainly happened. The evidence of a Pacific shift – folowing shifts around 1910, the mid 1940’s and 1976/77 – is quite evident – as in the NASA site I keep linking to.
‘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.’
It is indeterminate because it is chaotic – but they last 20 to 40 years in the proxy reocrds.
‘Doing so is vital, athe future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the
spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’
You might try reading the rest of the paper.
Presumably superimposed on a warming trend but with potential to surprise. As most recent warming was quite natural – significant potential to surprise.
The NAS report is a good resource – nothing has moved on from the central idea. You quote back to me the paragraph – but lacking the last sentence on modern abrupt change – then insist that a 2002 report by many of America’s leading paleoclimatologists is obsolete because I suggest that including the last sentence is less like cherry picking.
There is a section on modern shifts – but this has certainly moved on.
‘ The evolution of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) in 30 models of varying complexity is examined under four distinct Representative Concentration Pathways. The models include 25 Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) or Earth System Models (ESMs) that submitted simulations in support of the 5th phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and 5 Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs). While none of the models incorporated the additional effects of ice sheet melting, they all projected very similar behaviour during the 21st century. Over this period the strength of MOC reduced by a best estimate of 22% (18%–25%; 5%–95% confidence limits) for RCP2.6, 26% (23%–30%) for RCP4.5, 29% (23%–35%) for RCP6.0 and 40% (36%–44%) for RCP8.5. Two of the models eventually realized a slow shutdown of the MOC under RCP8.5, although no model exhibited an abrupt change of the MOC. Through analysis of the freshwater flux across 30°–32°S into the Atlantic, it was found that 40% of the CMIP5 models were in a bistable regime of the MOC for the duration of their RCP integrations. The results support previous assessments that it is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo an abrupt change to an off state as a consequence of global warming.’
So we have all models still projecting a significant slowdown of the MOC – although with quite a range of results. This is far from a new result.
‘Based on current simulations, it is very likely that the Atlantic Ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) will slow down during the course of the 21st century. A multi-model ensemble shows an average reduction of 25% with a broad range from virtually no change to a reduction of over 50% averaged over 2080 to 2099. In spite of a slowdown of the MOC in most models, there is still warming of surface temperatures around the North Atlantic Ocean and Europe due to the much larger radiative effects of the increase in greenhouse gases. Although the MOC weakens in most model runs for the three SRES scenarios, none shows a collapse of the MOC by the year 2100 for the scenarios considered. No coupled model simulation of the Atlantic MOC shows a mean increase in the MOC in response to global warming by 2100. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century. At this stage, it is too early to assess the likelihood of a large abrupt change of the MOC beyond the end of the 21st century. In experiments with the low (B1) and medium (A1B) scenarios, and for which the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised beyond 2100, the MOC recovers from initial weakening within one to several centuries after 2100 in some of the models. In other models the reduction persists. ‘
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-15-atlantic-ocean.html
‘What does this imply? Given the very different physics of each of the proxies, it seems unlikely that the model would give good results for all of them if its simulated climate response was completely off. Therefore, the results demonstrate that a multi-decadal period of reduced overturning in the ocean is very consistent with the whole pattern of the observed event. By scaling the model’s response a little, we estimate that a reduction of about 50% in the MOC is the most consistent with the data.’ http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/legrande_01/
The sytem doesn’t have to shut down entorely to have major effects. But the search for abrupt change is problematic still and the feedbacks obscure. What are the system thresholds?
Selective quoting, incorrect interpetation, dogmatism based on the flimsiest of special pleding. My opinion of you is not improving.
Comedy gold from the Chief Proctologist:
God yes, ‘blah blah duh’ is just sooo witty and clever. Chief Proctologist you will remain until you start using my correct screen name. Learn to love it; it suits you well.
This – from you? The master of selective quoting and misrepresentation! You project even more vividly than manacker, which is truly impressive. Well done!
T&S go on about breaks in the global mean temperature trend. So what? What are a few brief pauses over a century? Nobody says this won’t happen. A slight cooling mid-C20th is all they’ve got as empirical evidence when we get down to the detail. Everything else in that paper depends far too much on the use of a single obsolete temperature series. I’d like to see that analysis hold up if it was done rigorously with NOAA, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH and RSS TLT. You build so very much on so very little. It is a tell.
It’s all just a smokescreen with you. The MO is to make a massive, distracting noise and hope nobody notices that what you are really doing is denial. Tactically, copy/pasting great screeds to cover up the fact that you aren’t *saying anything* is an familiar old dodge of yours. It doesn’t work. You still ain’t got a mechanism. That’s what Weaver 2012 says ;-)
Learn to love it!
Chief Proctologist
Nice that after accusing me of selective quotation and incorrect interpretation you round off your little Gish Gallop of cut’n’pastes with an excerpt from LeGrande et al. (2006). Here’s the punch-line again:
Now you make it sound as though this is something to do with AGW and MOC slowdown but it isn’t at all. It’s from a modelled study of freshwater pulses from the Hudson Bay designed to test the hypothesis that the abrupt drainage of glacial lakes Agassiz and Ojibway triggered the 8.2ka event. That’s an explicitly deglacial climate event that you are misrepresenting there, CP.
Just… stop it. Assume that I see through the BS.
And here’s the stuff you chopped out of AR4 WG1 with the a little highlighting to illustrate how you misrepresented the text:
No support for the Chief Proctologist’s pet smokescreen there either.
Blah blah,
Very odd. The usual confusion and false claims. Evidence very much of bad faith. You and webnutcolonoscope make a fine pair.
T&S go on about breaks in the global mean temperature trend. So what? What are a few brief pauses over a century? Nobody says this won’t happen. A slight cooling mid-C20th is all they’ve got as empirical evidence when we get down to the detail. Everything else in that paper depends far too much on the use of a single obsolete temperature series. I’d like to see that analysis hold up if it was done rigorously with NOAA, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH and RSS TLT. You build so very much on so very little. It is a tell.
The model is actually based on 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 – and 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 two if the recent past is any indication.
It is just reflected in changes in ocean states and in the trajectory of surface temperature. These are quite obvious in the instrumental records of ocean and atmospheric indices – and in the 400 to 11,00 year proxies. Lots of them. It is quite a tell that you are such an idiot.
The NASA page I linked to used modelled the younger the 8.2 ky event as an abrupt climate change for which there is some evidence – and for which they find a 50% slow down of the MOC is implicated.
Now they were suggesting in your study a 25 to 50% slowdown, – and many other places as I indicated. This is perhaps significant. Will it keep warming if snow and ice feedbacks kick in? What if most of the recent warming was not greenhouse gases – as seems quite likely? When do we switch to abrupt change ? What are the system thresholds?
Please – if you are going to argue – at least make some sense of the sources I quote and that you quote back to me. Take it that I have actually read them – unlike you obviously.
Chief Proctologist
But I did read your sources – and demonstrated how you misrepresented them. And not for the first time either.
This is just another page from your well-thumbed playbook. Favourite plays include hyper-focus on one, extremely speculative study (T&S09); misrepresenting the potential for abrupt cooling in the C21st, dismissing the dominance of the centennial forced trend, misrepresenting deglacial abrupt climate change; grossly over-stating the accuracy and utility of pre-CERES TOA reconstructions (especially the synthetic, non-observational ISCCP-FD reconstruction); hyper-focus on interannual OHC variability; confusion of cause and effect with long-term trends in OHC (CO2 forcing denial) and general inability to see that natural variability from now on will be riding up a forced trend which will increasingly dominate climate behaviour.
This great bundle of half-truths, over-statements, misrepresentations and errors has a single objective: to minimise/deny the role of CO2 forcing in recent climate change.
When challenged over your misrepresentations and pseudo-science you flip into a cartoon aggressive bluster in an attempt to disguise just how shoddy the whole thing really is and intimidate dissenters. In other words, classic crank blog bullying.
Your bad luck is to run into someone who can see through your distortions, understands their intent, and who doesn’t tolerate bullies. It’s going to go downhill from here for you.
Oh blah blah – your agression is sadly misplaced. I simply pointed out a few errors on your part. You should thank me. The first was that the Tsonis network model – the 2007 and 2009 papers – were not based on temperture records but ocean and atmoshere indices. The second that the NASA modelling of abrupt climate change in the 8.2 ky event was entirely consistent with the paper you quoted and many others. That is a slowdown of MOC of 25% to 50%. This seems quite significant and not to be lightly dismissed. There are unknown thresholds for abrupt change.
Your threats and bluster is noted and duly ignored.
‘The observed global-warming rate has been nonuniform, and the cause of each episode of slowing in the expected warming rate is the subject of intense debate. To explain this, nonrecurrent events have commonly been invoked for each episode separately. After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. A recurrent multidecadal oscillation is found to extend to the preindustrial era in the 353-y Central England Temperature and is likely an internal variability related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), possibly caused by the thermohaline circulation variability. The perspective of a long record helps in quantifying the contribution from internal variability, especially one with a period so long that it is often confused with secular trends in shorter records. Solar contribution is found to be minimal for the second half of the 20th century and less than 10% for the first half. The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates. Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.’
Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records – Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou
Perhaps some more sceptics in Tung and Zhou – but I go further of course. If the satellite data is ‘real’ (IPCC 3.4.4.1) – decadal cloud variability accounts for a lot more. I suggest it might be real to within 0.4W/decade – which is well within the identified trends. My attitude – more scientific than some – is to assess the validity of data and see where it might lead. At this stage – it is to no warming for a decade or three more and to considerable uncertainty after that. The is opposed to the certainty of the narratives of space cadets.
Chief Proctologist
Which are then compared to HadCRUT3. Please read the words rather than constructing strawmen.
First, it isn’t. 50% AMOC slowdown is above the extreme end of projections, which were 22% (18%–25%; 5%–95% confidence limits) for RCP2.6, 26% (23%–30%) for RCP4.5, 29% (23%–35%) for RCP6.0 and 40% (36%–44%) for RCP8.5. Blatant misrepresentation. Do you know what RCP8.5 actually represents btw? I begin to wonder. Second, you are ignoring your own misrepresentation of AR4. Here, again, is what is *actually said* (you even quoted it yourself – but clearly hadn’t read it through):
Reminds me of when you claimed that S&T09 ‘doesn’t predict warming’. And how you refused – oh, how you refused – to acknowledge that error. Despite the quotes being put in front of you dozens of times.
And now we’re off into the horribly flawed Tung & Zhou paper. Predictably – when cornered over one set of misrepresentations, whizz off somewhere else, obfuscating frantically.
There’s a rather big problem with what T&Z did with the AMO in that paper. Let’s see if you are capable of the smarts you so loudly and frequently (and hilariously) proclaim. Can you spot the error?
Blah blah,
‘A multi-model ensemble shows an average reduction of 25% with a broad range from virtually no change to a reduction of over 50% averaged over 2080 to 2099.’ IPCC – already linked to.
We get into the realm of the potential for abrupt changes – which is a little beyond the capability of models. The AOGCM – are themsleves chaotic and a bit problematic as a result.
The Tsonis paers has to do with a ‘network model’ of ocean and atmospheric indices. The temperature record doesn’t form any part of the mathematics. Something that you simply got wrong and now will waffle on endlessly denying.
Now you hand wave about Tung and Zhou – becasue it is not the AGW goupthink meme. It is peer reviewed science however. As is much else that you dismiss arbitrarily. Please by all means link to a peer reviewed rebuttal – blog science not acceted.
I feel a bit hard done by. I never repeat that I a smart – and certianly not loudly and repeatedly. Perhas you are thinking of someone else. In this very post – I said that I was not smart enough to predict climate. Other than the obvious that we are in a cool mode for a decade or three more.
Here is the full quote – again – from S&T09
Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.
Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that
is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies [cf. Roe, 2009]. If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate
climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle, 2008].’
Now this seems pretty clear that risks at both ends of the spectrum includes risks at the warm end. Yet you insist – on the basis of the most blatantly idiotic understanding of the papers – that a risk at the cool end isn’t what was said. Just what do you think the role of internal variability involves?
Bluff, bluster, prevarication and obfuscation noted and duly ignored.
That’s quite a deft non-answer to just about everything I asked.
42
CP
From your link to the briefing on LeGrande et al:
Modelling rapidly pulsed freshwater flux like this is not an analogue for future climate change in the late Holocene. Glacial lakes Agassiz and Ojibway disappeared about 8.2ka ;-). As LeGrande points out, it is more of a calibration exercise:
The studies in AR4 and Weaver et al. (2012) suggest under late Holocene conditions the MOC slowdown might be in the order of 22% – 29% for all but the highest emissions scenarios.
Weaver gives: 22% (18%–25%; 5%–95% confidence limits) for RCP2.6, 26% (23%–30%) for RCP4.5, 29% (23%–35%) for RCP6.0 and 40% (36%–44%) for RCP8.5.
AR4:
And concludes:
As I have said before, none of these deglacial climate events (including the last hurrah at 8.2ka) can happen in the late Holocene. So pointing to them doesn’t get round the key problem of a lack of mechanism for an abrupt and significant cooling event during this century.
blah blah blah blah blah blah
You go over the same things again and again.
The NASA page was about modeling abrupt change – using information on the 8.2 ky event. Now the modelling showed a slowdown of 50% of MOC – in line with the higher end of the other models. The question is – what is the threshold for abrupt change in the modern era?
What else was there? Oh yeah. Who cares.
We are still talking about abrupt cooling. So the question is whether there is a mechanism sufficient to get us anywhere near such a threshold. I see no evidence for this, but it is central to your belief that surprises at the cold end of the spectrum are no less likely than surprises at the warm end.
Absent the mechanisms available during deglacial climate change, and under sustained and increasing forcing from GHGs, it seems *very unlikely* that this will be the case.
Which brings us back to the mainstream scientific position, which is that the forced trend will dominate on a centennial scale. This is not the same as arguing for monotonous warming. It just amount to about the same thing over a century.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah duh,
Certainly abrupt change in the MOC would probably mean cooler – and amplified by snow and ice feedbacks. And quite a few of the models shows quite significant changes in MOC. The mechanisms involve salinity and surface temperature as they must. But we are looking at a number of interacting processes resulting in abrupt regime shift and not a simple cause and effect.
I think your ‘mainstream science’ is space cadet science. It doesn’t see the uncertainty that is everywhere in climate science – and consists only of building a narrative in support of the groupthink. Science is about understanding process not quibbling bout words like a lawyer.
Chief Proctologist
– Mainstream science = space cadet science!
– Only consists of a narrative supporting groupthink!
And when misrepresentation of a paleoclimate study is demonstrated:
– Quibbling about words like a lawyer!
Coming soon: just how much can we furiously assert based on pre-CERES TOA flux observations?
And some discussion of cause and effect.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah duh,
I suppose you mean the NASA page? What was it called? Modeling an abrupt climate change?
‘What does this imply? Given the very different physics of each of the proxies, it seems unlikely that the model would give good results for all of them if its simulated climate response was completely off. Therefore, the results demonstrate that a multi-decadal period of reduced overturning in the ocean is very consistent with the whole pattern of the observed event. By scaling the model’s response a little, we estimate that a reduction of about 50% in the MOC is the most consistent with the data.
Thus, we have now been able to test the ocean’s response to freshwater forcing. While the 8.2 kyr event is not an analog for what may happen in the future, a slowdown in the MOC is predicted by our model (and others) for a future world, partly as a function of ocean warming and partly as a function of increased freshening from ice melt and increased rainfall. As more models perform these kinds of experiments, it may be possible to narrow the uncertainties in the future projections based on how well they simulate the 8.2 kyr event.’
The ISCCP-FD and ERBS data? I am pretty much with ‘mainstream science’ on this.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1
Let’s see – the estimated error is well within the trends and the Mt Pinatubo event is captured. I expect there is some veracity. There is certainly low frequency variability of climate. If real – most of the recent warming was from cloud changes – with cooling in the IR. This is what the evidence says. To reject it holus-bolus because it doesn’t fit the meme is space cadet science.
‘Thus, we have now been able to test the ocean’s response to freshwater forcing. While the 8.2 kyr event is not an analog for what may happen in the future, a slowdown in the MOC is predicted by our model (and others) for a future world, partly as a function of ocean warming and partly as a function of increased freshening from ice melt and increased rainfall. As more models perform these kinds of experiments, it may be possible to narrow the uncertainties in the future projections based on how well they simulate the 8.2 kyr event.‘
I suggested that your ‘mainstream science’ was not actually much to do with science at all. As for lawyerly quibbling – you highlight sentences and miss the entire point.
‘a slowdown in the MOC is predicted by our model (and others) for a future world, partly as a function of ocean warming and partly as a function of increased freshening from ice melt and increased rainfall. As more models perform these kinds of experiments, it may be possible to narrow the uncertainties in the future projections’
You do this again and again with any number of studies. You requoted almost the entire paragraph for the NAS report on abrupt change. highlighting the penultimate sentence and leaving the last sentence entirely out. You then claim it was about about pre-Holecene change and had not relevant to the modern era. The last sentence talked about modern changes.
You totally misunderstood the entire basis for the Tsonis network model – but rely on the last paragraph in the 2009 paper and deny that the second last has any relevance. You deny MOC changes on the basis of a paper that shows up to a 44% slowdown.
Again and again you misunderstand science and insist that it is everyone else. Your ‘mainstream science’ = cult of AGW space cadets
(Misthreaded above:)
Chief Proctolgist
Another stunning display of projection where your error magically become mine:
Er no, CP. I have to highlight the things that you have misunderstood. Then you go and misunderstand them all over again, despite the idiot’s guide! Too funny, as they say.
But it *was* about deglacial change – and if you did but know what you were talking about, you would know that scientific opinion *now* is that the MOC shutdown/slowdown/cooling meme has been sidelined, at least as far as C21st projections are concerned. Some aspects of the NAS report might reasonably be regarded as alarmist.
Nope; strawman. How do they test their model? Why they compare it to a single time series – HadCRUT3. A more rigorous – and so convincing – analysis would have used several others. As I pointed out. Are you strawmanning this to try and get around this awkward but valid criticism of your all-time fave paper? I think perhaps that you are.
I can’t help it if what S&T wrote demonstrates that they think their results are highly speculative and anyway agree that whatever happens will be riding *up* the centennial forced trend. That’s what they wrote – go and argue with them. It would do you good.
This is basically a lie. All I did was point out that the AR4 quote *you provided* says that the average projection is around 25% (Weaver says much the same) and that this won’t offset forced warming. I’ve explained at least once that only the more extreme emissions scenarios get you any higher. Sounds like lack of familiarity with the basics to me. To cut a long story short, I pointed out that you were wrong. Again.
Now you’ll come barking back repeating all your old mistakes and making up a parallel universe version of what I said but it makes no odds. Either you *know* you’ve been set straight or you are so far gone in megalomania that you can’t be reached. If the former, mission accomplished. If the latter, breath wasted.
On which point, you don’t take correction well, do you CP? My advice is learn to love it. There will be plenty more.
Jim D | February 11, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
“Vassily, then why doesn’t the stratosphere warm too? You are making the exact error of thought that I was trying to correct.”
The distance between molecules in the stratosphere lets thermal radation pass through unmolested.
Vassily | February 11, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
“How much CO2 is there in the stratosphere though ?”
Approximately 390ppm just like anywhere else.
Ellison thinks he can warm a pan of water with a sunlamp but the air in contact with the warmer water will not also be warmed. The law of entropy is null and void. What a wonderful world of opportunity this opens up. Who needs insulation around a hot water heater when heat doesn’t flow from warmer to colder anymore? Joy to the world we are saved. Stupid physics. It was all a hoax.
So springer descends further into webhubian dissembling. This is a world where ordinary language ceases to have any menaing and becomes whatever springer says it does.
I am a little perplexed that the phase net IR up – could really preclude any emission of IR but this is the brave new world we live in.
“O brave new world,” he repeated. “O brave new world that has such people in it. Let’s start at once.”
Let’s outlaw thermal inertia of the oceans – that’s the ticket.
Another great quote from Shakespeare and adapted by Aldous Huxley and now with the Chief. The oceans are evolving and changes in Earth’s climate are linked to chaotic processes akin to the Darwinian meme of natural selection in biololgy.
This link relates to the study of oceans and their impact on climate.
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/publications/articles/feature_ecco.html
blueice2hotsea. @ 4.37am, Thx fer yr kind words and U have
a lovely name )
BC
Arctic albedo
Ice insulates by blocking evaporation as well as having poor thermal conductance. This is much greater effect than high albedo because water albedo is higher when sun is low on horizon and it’s low on the horizon for 6 months and completely absent the other six.
The arctic ice cap is like a thermostat in traditional automotive water cooling where it was positioned between the engine block and radiator and opened farther as water temperature increased allowing more water to reach the radiator. Sea ice works almost exactly like that. As water warms ice reduces allowing more water to get to the radiator. It’s a negative feedback. Black soot on multiyear ice is a player in albedo space because, unlike water, it’s albedo remains low regardless of sun low on the horizon or not. Soot floats too so any partial melt just concentrates it on the surface.
arctic heat flux is almost zero anyhow
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_06.htm
See lower figure 5.7 total heat flux is essentially zero higher than 80 north and very little down to 70 north outside winter sea ice extent. The seasonal ice farther south is in the dark most of its life too as it forms in the winter so its albedo is meaningless. All cats are gray in the dark…
BBD
As far as any of us open society advocates are capable of being
groupies, MANY of us here are Kim followers. I personally am mad
about Kim:)
Beth escapee from the hu-man- it-ees.
Well, kim’s just mad.
=============
Are you mad enough to escape from the manatee, kim?
Or man enough to escape from the mad itty?
After all my characterisations of America I expected howls of the outraged patriot defending the virtues. What I got from springer was ludicrous threats to shoot us down from floating cities you call aircraft carriers – or from drones directed from wherever. Yeah right. Joshua of the mommy mommy whine – predicably whined mommy mommy I do it too.
Kim expressed the only true and noble defence of America. My admiration grows.
Agree Tomcat @ 3.43am:
The price of freedom lies not only in constant vigilance, but
in the recognition that each new regulation is likely to be an
encroachment on individual liberty. Classical liberalism, as Hayek
argues, ‘had to rely largely on the gradual increase of wealth
which freedom, brought about, it had constantly to fight proposals
which threatened this progress’ and so came to be regarded by
many as a negative creed, because it offered many individuals
little more than a share in the common progress, ‘ a progress which
came to be more and more taken for granted and was no longer recognised as the result of the policy of freedom.’
(The Road to Serfdom, Ch 1.) Put oversimply, a case of killing
the goose that laid the golden egg.
I think the point is that democracy alone is not enough. There needs to be firm limits on what governments are allowed to do to some people, no matter how many other people vote for it . Everything from plundering your wealth to give to others, to sending you and your family to the gas ovens.
That’s what constitutions are supposed to be for – to protect people from abuse by government.
Say, a bit forced there, VP …
Take a lesson from the non pareil hisself )
BBD and Beth (in alphabetical order)
As seen from over here in snowy Switzerland, kim’s got it right.
The danger (in representative democracies like the USA and Switzerland) is “creeping totalitarianism”, a slow process whereby the politicians and bureaucrats of central governments (i.e. the “ruling class”) take over more and more of the power (through increased regulations, taxes, controls, wealth redistribution schemes and targeted taxpayer-funded spending), thereby slowly reducing the individual freedom and liberty of the general populace.
This process is almost always driven by “good intentions” (to protect us from ourselves or to create a fairer society) by a ruling class that knows best what is good for the people.
C. Northcote Parkinson addressed this phenomenon humorously over fifty years ago.
But it’s no joke.
Max
“O brave new world,” he repeated. “O brave new world that has such people in it. Let’s start at once.”
Let’s outlaw thermal inertia of the oceans – that’s the ticket.
You have made my day Chief:)
My admiration grows.
Yeah, I got something growing right here.
Is yours one of the states where it has been legalised springer?
Did Gillard make woodies illegal in her ongoing and evidently successful attempt to feminize your culture?
Hard to think of a reply that doesn’ include the word wanker. I’ve been witty and I’ve been moderated – really just for American sensibilities I suppose. Delicate little creatrues.
But perhaps this just comes under the heading of far too much information.
Chief Hydrologist | February 13, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
“Hard to think of a reply that doesn’ include the word wanker.”
A problem you’ve likely had since puberty, I reckon’.
I’ve got your [whatever] right here.
It’s an American expression of contempt.
http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS461US461&q=I%27ve+got+your+right+here
The climate scientist in the drum was my favorite. Scroll down.
================
Again – it is not something that is appropriate and cetainly not something I want to know about. You may keep your expressions of contempt for someone who gives a rat’s arse.
BBD
Yopu have been attempting to turn the discussion on a possible future cooling phase with your “where is the mechanism?” challenge.
How ’bout we respond with: “the same mechanism that has caused the observed recent decade of slight cooling despite unabated human CO2 emissions and concentrations reaching record levels”?
That should do it.
Max.
Manacker, this argument “observed recent decade of slight cooling [of surface temps] despite unabated human CO2 emissions and concentrations reaching record levels” would be relevant if it was posited that CO2 is the only influence on climate. Climatology does not make that claim. CO2 is one factor among many – ocean currents, volcanoes and solar being the main natural influences. The point is that these other influences are cyclical, whereas CO2 (or to be more accurate, anthropogenic GHGs) are a constant, and increasing, warming influence.
docrichard
Appreciate the many rationalizations on natural variability that are taking place to “explain” the recent lack of warming despite unabated human GHG emissions (including, but not limited to, CO2).
These are great, but what is missing is a convincing natural “mechanism” for this phenomenon.
Simply positing that they are “cyclical” does not resolve whether or not they will continue to play a major role in our planet’s climate over the next few decades, as the Chief, the Cap’n and other posters here have suggested could be the case.
And this is precisely where BBD is on thin ice in suggesting that the GH effect will take over again as the principal climate control knob because there are “no other mechanisms”.
That was my point.
Max
Manacker,
You said temperature does not exactly track the CO2 trace.
I said CO2 is one constant and increasing factor among many cyclical factors.
You said what is missing is a convincing natural “mechanism” for this phenomenon.
Which phenomenon? Solar variation, ocean currents and volcanoes we understand well enough in their effects, though it is impossible to predict *exactly* what they are about to do. We can however make an informed guess based on the last few cycles: solar is likely to be low for the next 30-60 years, which can be expected to put a cooling factor of 0.1C into the equation. http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/climate-model-projections-how-reliable.html
The AMO can be expected on past form to stay warm for another 30 years, and the PDO could be expected to stay in its cool phase for the next 5-15 years.
You say “Simply positing that they are “cyclical” does not resolve whether or not they will continue to play a major role in our planet’s climate over the next few decades”.
It is not clear what you are trying to say here. Surely you are not suggesting that the solar and ocean cycles are going to stop?
But as I said, all the time these cycles are working to warm and cool the planet, the enhanced greenhouse effect is working constantly, and on an ever-increasing basis, to warm the climate.
docrichard
You write:
Faith is a wonderful thing, doc.
But I guess I’m the “doubting Thomas” type.
I prefer empirical scientific data to corroborate or falsify scientific hypotheses (Feynman and Popper).
And that is missing so far for the CAGW premise or hypothesis as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report.
The uncertainties on the magnitude of natural variability and forcing factors are just too great to be able to quantify any anthropogenic forcing that may be there.
Max
Max,
Your hypothesis is that CO2 will not have a serious effect on global climate, agreed?
Q1: do you agree that a doubling of CO2 levels will cause a global temperature increase of ~1.2C?
Q2: does the value you posit for ECS arising from this initial increase include 2C within its 90% probability?
Q3: if not, what evidence do you have for that value?
Q4: if yes, we can debate the seriousness of climatic impact of a 2C rise to test your hypothesis.
Thanks for answering these qq.
docrichard
First of all, let me say that I agree with the statement made by our hostess before a US congressional committee a bit more than two years ago:
As to its impact she testified:
Adding, later:
These statements from someone who knows the theory of how and why our climate works are reassuring to me.
I can readily accept that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR under laboratory conditions, that it is emitted by human activity and that its concentration in the atmosphere has increased since measurements started at Mauna Loa.
However, I am rationally skeptical that AGW has had or will have any major impact on our climate (and, hence, of the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report), until empirical scientific evidence can be presented to show that this is, indeed, the case.
So far this empirical evidence is lacking.
Past predictions of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at equilibrium (ECS) have been made based on model simulations, rather than on analyses of real-time data. These have shown a mean estimated value of 3.2C. Weak spots have been the model-derived predictions for cloud and water vapor feedback, both of which have been assumed by the models to be strongly positive.
More recently we have seen several estimates, based largely on actual physical observations on temperatures and GHG concentrations, with some estimates for natural forcing and variability. These are generally around half the previously estimated values from the models, or around 1.5C+/-0.2C.
While I still would like to see actual physical observations as the basis for the entire estimate, these latest estimates (unlike the previous ones) are at least partially based on real-time data. So, until the empirical evidence can be presented to tell us what the long-term climate response to a doubling of CO2 really is in actual fact, I am prepared to accept these latest estimates, with 1.7C as a provisional upper limit.
Now to your questions:
Your hypothesis is that CO2 will not have a serious effect on global climate, agreed?
Yes, that is my conclusion (explained above). The “null hypothesis” is that the effect is “null” (= zero).
Q1: do you agree that a doubling of CO2 levels will cause a global temperature increase of ~1.2C?
Yes (see above). I would provisionally agree that this could be possible until empirical data can be presented to show what the impact really is in actual fact.
Q2: does the value you posit for ECS arising from this initial increase include 2C within its 90% probability?
No. This is stretching it a bit. I would put the upper limit at 1.7C
Q3: if not, what evidence do you have for that value?
There is no empirical evidence to support any value for 2xCO2 ECS and the “null hypothesis” is that it is “null”, so it is not up to me to show empirical evidence; it is up to the proponents of something other than the “null hypothesis” to do so, and there is no such evidence.
Q4: if yes, we can debate the seriousness of climatic impact of a 2C rise to test your hypothesis.
Let’s go through the exercise with an upper 2xCO2 ECS estimate of 1.7C. OK?
IPCC estimates CO2 level by 2100 at around 640 ppmv (BaU, no climate initiatives, projected slowdown in population growth)
At this level, we would see warming from today to 2100 of around 1.2C at an ECS of 1.7C. This is a bit less than twice the amount of warming we have seen over the past century, so obviously nothing to get alarmed about.
WEC2010 estimates (optimistically, it appears from the recent Istvan + Shollenberger post) that around 85% of all the fossil fuels that were ever on our planet were inferred to be still in place in 2008 and recoverable (i.e. we had used 15% to year 2008).
The first 15% got us from an estimated pre-industrial 280 ppmv (IPCC) to 395 ppmv in 2008 (Mauna Loa).
So the remaining 85% would get us to:
385 + 0.85*(385-280) / 0.15 = 980 ppmv
When they are all 100% used up (some day in the far distant future, if ever).
At 980 ppmv and an ECS of 1.7C we would see global warming of a bit more than 2C, as an asymptotic limit to be reached when all fossil fuels are completely used up a few hundred years down the road.
I think you know that it would be very difficult for you to convince me that I should get alarmed about that possibility, so let’s leave it that.
Max
Manacker,
Thank you for your reply. You favour an ECS of 1.5 +/-0.2.
I would be grateful if you would give references for the source of this figure.
docrichard
I notice you are now wanting to discuss impacts of warming. However, I am wondering why you avoided answering my question about the damage function where we were discussing this very issue on the previous thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/08/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-294312. My last paragraph said:
I’d urge you to read the comments in that sub-thread for backgound.
We do not need to agree a climate sensitivity figure before discussing the damage function. If the damage function is small, then the climate sensitivity can be high and the consequences of warming are small or even beneficial.
docrichard is still in the nightmare phase of AGW. Stir him gently, but before the cold pinches.
==============
Why does docrichard keep breaking off discussion away when confronted about the damage function?
Seems ter me that a distinction that progressive governments and
their supporters like ter make in arguing the case for more legislative controls over their citizens is to argue the negative aspect of
freedom, an argument of ‘freedom from’ rather than’the positive
notion of ‘freedom to’. The problem here is that some kind of
constraint is being considered as part of what we mean by
‘freedom.’
However necessary it may be to put some limitations on freedom
through the rule of law, it is important, I’d say, ter recognise that
these constraints are not in themselves an extension of individual
freedom.
Once the argument is accepted that such and such legislation, eg imposition of censorship legislation means ‘freedom from’ moral
or political corruption, once we we allow that freedom might, even paradoxically entail some kind of restraint, we allow big government
to take the high moral ground.We offer the bureaucrat or the dictator
the excuse fer imposing safeguard-legislation in the name of freedom.
We accustom citizens to accept encroaching controls over their lives
as measures of protections of personal freedom.
By making it clear that any kind of constraint is a limitation of freedom
and not its extension, the onus is on those who wish ter introduce that
constraint to demonstrate that it is justified but they can’t as easily use
the double speak of introducing legislative constraints as a promotion
of freedom. Jest sayin’…
Yes the bogus freedoms – eg freedom from poverty, from from being offended – are but the forked tongue of the totalitarian brigade.
The only meaningful freedoms are freedoms from impositions by others, including governments. (Which might include, say, minimum wage laws that condemn the less skilled to unemployment, and hence also to poverty).
Beth
You’ve got it right IMO.
Roosevelt started the political concept of “freedom from” – and it is a slippery slope, which starts with
– freedom from want
– freedom from social or economic inequality
– freedom from exploitation by profit-hungry corporations
– freedom from self-induced obesity
– freedom from catastrophic climate change
and eventually leads to “freedom from freedom”
(Jes’ mah take on it.)
Max
I’ll go an’ git me horse.
B the cow girl )
Look!
Out on the road!
It’s a dog!
No, it’s a Volkswagon!
No, it’s Super Flapper, the mighty man of water.
At least we can get our dogs to drive us home from the Great Western – not just look stupid.
In the US the dogs look stupid and sit on the passenger side.
In Australia Ellison says the positions are reversed.
I suspected as much.
Mike and Ike! You’re working together!
==========
Home Fido. The villagers are revolting.
I have to navigate – he can’t read a map for sh_t.
docrichard | February 14, 2013 at 4:28 am |
“You favour an ECS of 1.5 +/-0.2. I would be grateful if you would give references for the source of this figure.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6-2.html
See figure 9.20.
Andronova (2001) and Forster/Gregory (2006) have sharp probability density peaks just under and just over 1.5C respectively. There are others more recent than AR4 in the same ballpark. The trend in climate sensitivity estimates are falling due to lack of warming trend in past 15 years. The last 3 years in particular global average temperature has dropped considerably. No climate estimates I’m aware of offhand take data past 2010 into account.
CS seems to approach X as a limit.
========================
Max combines two phenomena approaching a lower limit than previously, catastrophically, expected, that of climate sensitivity and of ultimate AnthroCO2 release. This is synergistic death of catastrophe.
================
David Springer,
Thanks. I have reviewed results of model-lite empirical CS studies here:
http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/model-free-climate-sensitivity-is-still.html
Some show low CS. They tend to be more recent studies, which by definition must exclude longer term feedbacks like CH4 and CO2 releases from water and soil.
However, the simple average of these studies is 1.8 – 3.5, which comfortably contains both the 2C “threshold” and the more serious 3C most common figure.
Which bears out my main contention here – that there is now an overlap, at 2C, between mainstream climatology and lukewarmers, and the next step is to go see what a 2C elevation means in terms of economic functioning of the human species.
manacker,
You write “At 980 ppmv and an ECS of 1.7C we would see global warming of a bit more than 2C, ”
Taking, for the sake of argument, your estimate of 980 ppmv as something to work with, 980/280=3.5, which is a doubling + 3/4 of a doubling.
Applying your 1.5C ECS figure this yields T increase of about 2.7C.
Using your upper bound of 1.7, we have an increase of 3.1C.
This is an horrendously crude approach to the problem, but it does show that we should be looking at the effect of global temperature increases of 2.7 to 3.1C on your own calculations and preferred figures.
You may respond that these figures do not matter, because they will be affecting several generations down the line. Some might bring ethical arguments to bear on that point.
docrichard
Your arithmetic is bogus.
You are starting your projected future warming back in 1750, when CO2 was supposedly at 280 ppmv.
This is pure hokum.
We have already seen the warming since 1750. It has already happened and we are doing just fine (probably much better than we were in 1750).
So you can’t include past warming in the projected future warming we should see from added GHGs.
Come back down to Planet Earth, doc. You are beginning to lose it.
The figures I cited are projected future warming starting from today (and that’s all anyone with his/her head screwed on right is concerned about – not past warming since 1750).
Max
manacker
I wrote
“all the time these cycles are working to warm and cool the planet, the enhanced greenhouse effect is working constantly, and on an ever-increasing basis, to warm the climate.
You wrote
Faith is a wonderful thing, doc &c.”
But if you accept that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a GHG, and that CO2 has increased (along with other GHGs), you have to accept the merit of my point: that solar, volcanoes, ocean currents and other natural variations do their thing, they vary, but GHGs exert a steady, constant upward forcing on temperature, which upward forcing is only offset by increased heat losses to space from a warmer planet.
manacker/max
You write
“Past predictions of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity at equilibrium (ECS) have been made based on model simulations, rather than on analyses of real-time data”.
CS cannot be observed directly, it is an emergent property of a complex system when it is perturbed in either sense by any forcing. The convention is to take a doubling of CO2 as the forcing relevant to our present debate, and that value is agreed by all reasonable parties to lie between 1C and 1.2C.
In order to derive a CS figure, we have to take a known observed forcing and observe what the equilibrium temperatures are before and after that forcing is applied.
In order to do that calculation, computers are required to do the thousands of necessary calculations.
Now there are degrees of involvement by models. As you say, the more recent studies using recent observations have come up, unsurprisingly, with low CS values, given that recent surface temperature changes are flat. However, short term studies cannot take into account long term feedbacks such as ice albedo changes and CH4 and CO2 releases from soil and ocean.
So, yes, computers are used. Arrhenius complained of the tedious calculations needed. Would we have climatologists go back to pencil and paper? I do not think so.
More from me on computers here: http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/climate-models-are-they-any-good.html
and here: http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/climate-model-projections-how-reliable.html
docrichard
You cite a lot of theoretical calculations of CS.
Fuggidaboudit, doc.
We have several recent studies based largely on the actual past physical record plus some estimates on natural forcing, which have concluded that 2xCO2 ECS is around half as high as the range previously predicted by model simulations and claimed in AR4.
I have told you that I have concluded that these estimates are probably the best current guess of ECS as an upper limit, and until actual empirical data can be cited to actually quantify this parameter.
Using these latest estimates, I have shown you that the anticipated GH warming from today to 2100 is just above 1C, so not quite twice what we saw over the 20thC and, hence, nothing to worry about
In addition, I have shown you that the total future GH warming from the principal GHG, CO2, is constrained by carbon content of all remaining fossil fuels on Earth to an absolute asymptotic maximum of around 2C, which could theoretically occur in 200 to 300 years, in the unlikely event that all fossil fuels get 100% used up by then
Again this is nothing I am going to worry about.
If you want to worry about it, be my guest.
Max
Yes, and they’re all wrong, Max. But expecting you to look into the matter and actually find out what the problems are… well on a real sceptic would do that.
BBD
I’m afraid you are barking up the wrong tree when you simply tell me all the recent studies showing a much lower 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity are In your opinion “all wrong” (and actually expect me to believe you).
Duh!
I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.
Max
Why must one accept this as a given. Would it be crazy to say until a monotic underlying signal has been detected. it is reasonable to wonder if a currently unknown process or processes are dampening the CO2 signal and may correlate in strength to CO2 levels? just askin.
I personally find it strange in a system of such complexity with so many unknowns, that one MUST accept black and white, if / then logic, based on overtly incomplete and possibly flawed knowledge.
docrichard
There’s a flaw in your logic.
The natural forcings may, indeed, be cyclical. We know a few of these cycles (the “solar cycle”, for example). Others we are not so sure about, especially those which might be operating in cycles of several decades or even centuries. A multi-decadal (or -century) natural cyclical forcing could well be the cause of all the warming we saw over the second half of the 20th century. (We just don’t know.)
GH forcing of our climate is a hypothetical construct whose theoretical basis is well known, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain: is it significant or not? (We do not know the answer).
And while theoretically an increase of a few hundred ppmv of CO2 (and smaller quantities of other trace GHGs) might “exert a steady, constant upward forcing on temperature”, this upward forcing is constrained by the amount of GHGs emitted by humans based on the C availability in the remaining fossil fuels.
This limitt is somewhere below 1000 ppmv (as I demonstrated to you).
That’s it, doc.
There isn’t any more.
And that figure is based on what some people have called overly optimistic estimates (WEC2010) of remaining recoverable fossil fuel resources.
These remaining fossil fuels should last us at least 200 to 300 years (probably much longer, as they get replaced by other sources over the next centuries).
And I have shown you that even at that asymptotic upper limit many, many years in the far distant future there will be no harmful warming from AGW, based on the latest estimates of 2xCO2 ECS.
So your statement is theoretically correct, but only within the practical constraints cited above.
The “bottom line” is that there is no reason to be concerned about AGW, based on latest 2xCO2 ECS estimates. Ever.
Max
“The “bottom line” is that there is no reason to be concerned about AGW, based on latest 2xCO2 ECS estimates. Ever.”
settled science from skeptics.
Steven Mosher
You got it wrong again, Mosh.
No “settled science” either way.
But simply: where is the empirical scientific evidence (Feynman) to support the IPCC hypothesis that human GHG emissions have caused most of the warming since 1950?
That’s the question the rational (or scientific) skeptics ask.
And it is the question you have been unable (or unwilling) to answer.
Got it now?
Max
Steven Mosher
As far as accepting the latest estimates of 2xCO2 ECS as “settled science” is concerned:
I have pointed out to docrichard that I am rationally skeptical of the IPCC CAGW premise as outlined in AR4, which is based on a mean value for 2xCO2 ECS of 3.2C, as this premise and the ECS estimate upon which it is based is not corroborated by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman)
I have also told doc that, until such empirical evidence can be shown that quantifies ECS, I would personally be inclined to accept these latest estimates of ECS provisionally as an upper limit. My reasoning: these latest estimates (unlike the 3.2C estimate in AR4) are based on analysis of the actual past record with some estimates made for natural forcing/variability (with some uncertainty on whether these natural factors have been underestimated).
The “science is NEVER settled”, Mosh (it appears we agree on that) – I have just concluded, based on all the data and constraints out there at this point in time, that the potential CAGW threat depicted by IPCC (expressed as theoretical GH warming above today’s temperature) is not realistic.
Max
Ellison and BBD are made for each other. Witless vs. clueless.
We’re overdue for a few paragraphs on chaotic climate from Ellison and mebbe time for BBD to spin the dial and pick out another talking point from Skeptical Science to cut & paste or is Science of Doom’s turn?
Let the fest continue!
Or perhaps something from big dave on (literally it seems) high heeled shoes, woodies and flapping dogs.
Aren’t you getting enough of those at home?
No davo – we need you for such schoolgirl bully standard wit and wisdom. Very clever – nah nah I’m not you are? Tell you what – once you move past juvenile insults and redneck homophobe jibes to something that has some science, wit or wisdom about….no not a chance.
You know who else used to be a Skeptic and then turned Believer?
BBD.
He can tell us how his conversion happened.
Andrew
Andrew
Yeah. And I used to be a believer and turned into a skeptic.
I could tell you how that happened, as well.
But who really cares about me or BBD?
Max
Max,
When BBD’s conversion happened he didn’t explain himself very well. And you are right, it doesn’t really matter although an honest description of what happened in BBD’s case would be an interesting read.
Andrew
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah duh,
Let’s see if I can keep this straight in the context of a wordpress comment box.
BBD | February 15, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
‘Chief Proctolgist
Another stunning display of projection where your error magically become mine:
Er no, CP. I have to highlight the things that you have misunderstood. Then you go and misunderstand them all over again, despite the idiot’s guide! Too funny, as they say.’
‘Thus, we have now been able to test the ocean’s response to freshwater forcing. While the 8.2 kyr event is not an analog for what may happen in the future, a slowdown in the MOC is predicted by our model (and others) for a future world, partly as a function of ocean warming and partly as a function of increased freshening from ice melt and increased rainfall. As more models perform these kinds of experiments, it may be possible to narrow the uncertainties in the future projections based on how well they simulate the 8.2 kyr event.’
Your highlights from which you take away the massage that there is no relevance to the modern era. But the point of the exercise was to use the the 8.2kyr event to examine the potential th abrupt change in the modern world. I have just shown this in my last comment – it is quite obvious that you somehow entirely missed the purpose of the exercise.
‘a slowdown in the MOC is predicted by our model (and others) for a future world, partly as a function of ocean warming and partly as a function of increased freshening from ice melt and increased rainfall. As more models perform these kinds of experiments, it may be possible to narrow the uncertainties in the future projections’
‘But it *was* about deglacial change – and if you did but know what you were talking about, you would know that scientific opinion *now* is that the MOC shutdown/slowdown/cooling meme has been sidelined, at least as far as C21st projections are concerned. Some aspects of the NAS report might reasonably be regarded as alarmist.
‘Researchers first became intrigued by abrupt climate change when they discovered striking evidence of large, abrupt, and widespread changes preserved in paleoclimatic archives. Interpretation of such proxy records of climate—for example, using tree rings to judge occurrence of droughts or gas bubbles in ice cores to study the atmosphere at the time the bubbles were trapped—is a well-established science that has grown much in recent years. This chapter summarizes techniques for studying paleoclimate and highlights research results. The chapter concludes with examples of modern climate change and techniques for observing it. Modern climate records include abrupt changes that are smaller and briefer than in paleoclimate records but show that abrupt climate change is not restricted to the distant past.’
‘This is basically a lie. All I did was point out that the AR4 quote *you provided* says that the average projection is around 25% (Weaver says much the same) and that this won’t offset forced warming. I’ve explained at least once that only the more extreme emissions scenarios get you any higher. Sounds like lack of familiarity with the basics to me. To cut a long story short, I pointed out that you were wrong. Again.
‘Based on current simulations, it is very likely that the Atlantic Ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) will slow down during the course of the 21st century. A multi-model ensemble shows an average reduction of 25% with a broad range from virtually no change to a reduction of over 50% averaged over 2080 to 2099.’ IPCC
‘Over this period the strength of MOC reduced by a best estimate of 22% (18%–25%; 5%–95% confidence limits) for RCP2.6, 26% (23%–30%) for RCP4.5, 29% (23%–35%) for RCP6.0 and 40% (36%–44%) for RCP8.5. Two of the models eventually realized a slow shutdown of the MOC under RCP8.5, although no model exhibited an abrupt change of the MOC.’ Weaver et al
MOC slowdown is anticipated in the 21st – although the results are very wide ranging and lacking somewhat in the modeling of the potential for abrupt change.
‘Nope; strawman. How do they test their model? Why they compare it to a single time series – HadCRUT3. A more rigorous – and so convincing – analysis would have used several others. As I pointed out. Are you strawmanning this to try and get around this awkward but valid criticism of your all-time fave paper? I think perhaps that you are.
I can’t help it if what S&T wrote demonstrates that they think their results are highly speculative and anyway agree that whatever happens will be riding *up* the centennial forced trend. That’s what they wrote – go and argue with them. It would do you good.’
No – the two papers are concerned with ocean and atmospheric indices. These synchonise at points of inflection of the surface temperature record – but are quantitative analysis independent of the temperature records. What they said was that the decadal changes were presumably superimposed on a global warming signal.
What they said was it was speculative to consider the potential for a few decades of no warming. Not that the mode of climate shifts was speculative. The modes involve deterministic chaos – and so imply sensitivity of the climate in regions of the state space close to bifurcation. Climate shifts involve abrupt shifts in ENSO, PDO, AMO, SAM. NAM etc. That is abrupt shifts in the climate system that are captured in these modes of atmospheric and ocean circulation. The results are collective feedbacks of cloud, snow, ice and MOC that produce the potential for ‘surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ Simple enough language but a reality you fail to see.
‘Now you’ll come barking back repeating all your old mistakes and making up a parallel universe version of what I said but it makes no odds. Either you *know* you’ve been set straight or you are so far gone in megalomania that there’s no help for you. If the former, mission accomplished. If the latter, breath wasted.
On which point, you don’t take correction well, do you CP? My advice is learn to love it. There will be plenty more.’
Your method is to repeat these points again and again and weirdly nothing adds up to a hill of beans. Megalomania? You are a weird little space cadet.
Not quite straight – but close enough. Other model results for MOC are much wider – including those reported in AR4. Averaging them is quite silly. More important to recognise limitations and uncertainties.
‘Feb. 25, 2008 — Predictions that the 21st century is safe from major circulation changes in the North Atlantic Ocean may not be as comforting as they seem, according to a Penn State researcher.’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102148.htm
“Currently, MOC projections are deeply uncertain. This uncertainty puts a large value on observation systems that could deliver an actionable early warning of an MOC collapse,” Keller said February 17 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston. “The problem is that information that arrives after the threshold response has been triggered is only of very limited use. For example, warning a person in a canoe about an approaching waterfall can be useful before the waterfall, but is not really useful after the canoe went over the waterfall.
“The problem with the potential MOC collapse is that the signs of an approaching threshold response are very subtle to detect. The noise is large and picking out the signal from the noise is non trivial,” he adds.
“There is tantalizing evidence for a recent MOC slow down. However, this is not an open-and-shut case,” Keller continues.
The researchers analyzed how they could improve MOC observation systems to result in more skillful MOC projections. For example, optimizing the locations of the observation system can considerably improve the projections.
Understanding of other feedbacks associated with the cryosphere (e.g., ice insulating feedback, MOC/SST-sea ice feedback, ice thickness/ice growth feedback) has improved since the TAR (NRC, 2003; Bony et al., 2006). However, the relative influence on climate sensitivity of these feedbacks has not been quantified.
Understanding and evaluating sea ice feedbacks is complicated by their strong coupling to processes in the high-latitude atmosphere and ocean, particularly to polar cloud processes and ocean heat and freshwater transport. Additionally, while impressive advances have occurred in developing sea ice components of the AOGCMs since the TAR, particularly by the inclusion of more sophisticated dynamics in most of them (see Section 8.2.4), evaluation of cryospheric feedbacks through the testing of model parametrizations against observations is hampered by the scarcity of observational data in the polar regions. In particular, the lack of sea ice thickness observations is a considerable problem. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-3.html
Models have limited utility without data.
As mentioned above, highest surface densities in the world ocean are reached where water is very cold, while lower densities are found in the saltier but warmer tropical and subtropical areas. In this sense the THC is thermally driven. Nevertheless, the influence of salinity is important and is what causes the non-linearity of the system. This was first described in a classic paper by [10] with the help of a simple box model. Salinity is involved in a positive feedback: higher salinity in the deep water formation area enhances the circulation, and the circulation in turn transports higher salinity waters into the deep water formation regions (which tend to be regions of net precipitation, i.e., freshwater would accumulate and surface salinity would drop if the circulation stopped). Put simply, in Stommel’s model the high-latitude salinity increases linearly with the flow, and the flow increases linearly with high-latitude salinity, which combined gives a quadratic (i.e., non-linear) equation. This leads to two possible equilibrium states, the system is bistable in a certain parameter range. This becomes more than an academic point as complex circulation models behave in the same way, and as the present North Atlantic in many models is in the bistable regime ([11]). The first coupled climate model to show these two equilibria (discovered quite by accident) is the one by [12].
The situation can be described with a simple stability diagram showing strength of the THC as a function of the freshwater input into the North Atlantic. This shows the bistable regime and a saddle-node bifurcation point where the circulation breaks down.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html
Science is about understanding process. Part of the process is instability driven by complexity.
manacker worte ” A multi-decadal (or -century) natural cyclical forcing could well be the cause of all the warming we saw over the second half of the 20th century. (We just don’t know.)”
Max, you just cannot invoke multidecadal or century-long natural cycles that might or might not exist. We have to work with the data. The longest cycles are we KNOW of are Milankovitch cycles, and we could possibly be moving into a Milankovitch low sometime in the next 2 millenia. However, the rate of cooling from a Milankovitch low is, unfortunately, less than the rate of warming that we are currently experiencing: http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/will-ice-age-cycle-stop-global-warming.html
docrichard
To attribute the past warming (or current standstill) to AGW you have to first understand and exclude any natural forcing or variability that could have been the real (or primary) cause.
There is major uncertainty regarding the impacts of natural forcing/variability as our hostess has emphasized repeatedly, including in testimony before a US congressional committee.
As a result, we do not know how much of the past warming was caused by natural factors and how much was caused by human activity.
It’s just that simple, doc.
We do not know all the natural variability cycles (except we have seen 30-year cycles in the temperature record that tell us there is something there, and we have also seen longer-term warming/cooling cycles like the MWP or LIA). All your arm-waving about Milankovitch cycles, etc. does not change this.
Now, as far as solar forcing is concerned, we only know for sure about changes in direct measurable solar irradiance, but not about other forcing mechanisms.
One such proposed mechanism is the cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis of Svensmark. There is a good correlation long-term between solar activity and global temperature but (of course) correlation dioes not provide evidence for causation.
The basic cloud nucleation mechanism in the presence of certain naturally occurring aerosols has been confirmed by reproducible experimentation at CERN – so we have an empirically confirmed mechanism.
This is essentially the same for the CAGW hypothesis: lab experiments have confirmed that CO2 (and water or other trace gases) absorbs and re-radiates LW energy – so, again, we have an empirically confirmed mechanism.
So we have two hypotheses – both with an empirically confirmed mechanism.
What is not known, however, is whether or not this mechanism will really result in changes in cloud cover in our atmosphere (or in the case of CO2, to a measurable GH effect in our atmosphere), and hence to changes in global temperature. Additional reproducible experimentation under controlled conditions simulating our atmosphere is planned over the next two years at CERN to either corroborate and quantify or falsify the Svensmark hypothesis, so we will know more then.
Unfortunately there are no plans (as far as I know) to corroborate the hypothesis that added CO2 will result in warming in our atmosphere.
So to ASS-U-ME that warming can be attributed to CO2 because there are no other identified viable alternates today is simply an “argument from ignorance”.
The “uncertainty” is still too great.
Max
Yet a third hypothesis, Max, as i’m sure you understand and am almost as sure docrich doesn’t understand, is an Ultra-Violet component in conjectured solar mediated mechanisms. UV radiation from the sun varies enough to explain the range of climate variation, and there are a number of speculative feedback mechanisms to ameliorate any magnification. Lacking, sadly, but not forever, is a mechanism.
=============
manacker | March 2, 2013 at 1:54 am| March 2, 2013 at 2:25 am |
Faustino | March 2, 2013 at 12:41 am |
Myrrh | March 2, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
Steven Mosher | March 2, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
Glad you find them convicing. Miskolczi did not actually show humidity values but based his argument on measured IR transmittance values for the atmosphere as a whole. It is this part of his observation that seems counter-intuitive and hard to understand. How is it possible that carbon dioxide, which demonstrably absorbs in the infrared, fails to do so when released in the air? Its absorbancy is a physical property of the gas and to halt it seems like a violation of the laws of physics. There is no doubt about his observation but it is still hard to explain. Here is where water vapor steps in. Miskolczi worked out his original theory for an atmosphere containing several greenhouse gases that simultaneously absorb long-wave infrared radiation.. The chief greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are carbon dioxide and water vapor which both absorb in the infrared. He was concerned with their combined effect and realized that for a stable atmosphere to exist they have to cooperate to avoid a runaway greenhouse effect. There has never been a runaway greenhouse effect in geologic history and there must be a reason for it. He deduced that the cooperation of these gases has to take the form of an optimal atmospheric transmittance window for infrared radiation, such that if the concentration of one gas, say carbon dioxide, varies and changes atmospheric transmittance, the other components, such as water vapor, will have to compensate for it by changing their concentrations. From this theory and using data from NOAA and Tigr2 databases he calculated that the optimal transmittance for earth must have a value of 1.867 in optical thickness units. Those are expressed as negative natural logarithms of transmittance and 1.867 translates into 15 percent transmittance in everyday units. According to him, what happens is that when more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere it begins to absorb immediately and atmospheric transmittance drops below that optimal 15 percent. Water vapor then reacts to this increased absorption, its concentration in air diminishes, its share of IR absorption goes down, and atmospheric transmittance is restored to its nominal 15 percent again. This in effect is negative water vapor feedback, the exact opposite of IPCC doctrine. All this was in his theory which has been out for five years now and was simply disbelieved. It just happens to be true as his observations in 2010 have proved. Your data from 1948 to 2008 are an excellent illustration of how negatve water vapor feedback works. As far as Minschwaner & Dessler are concerned, I am inclined to ignore them. As Lindzen pointed out, their data were obtained at 12 kilometer height where there is very little water. Most absorption takes place below ten kilometers. Dessler himself is a big warmist and expresses his bias this way: “Everything shows that the climate models are probably getting the water vapor feedback right, which means that unless we reduce emissions, it is going to get much, much warmer on our planet by the end of the century.,” That was in 2009. Take it for what it’s worth: opinion, not science. Science is observation, and Miskolczi’s observations are real. So far there has been no peer reviewed article challenging him and I personally don’t think we will see one. To check the optimal transmittance value further Miskolczi divided the NOAA database into seven subsets and computed the optical thickness for each subset separately. In three figures, all values came out as 1.87 in optical thickness units. He reported this to the EGU meeting in Vienna in 2011. I reproduced his results in my paper on the Arctic which you can get here: http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf.
Note that Miskolczi’s observations make the greenhouse effect impossible and runaway greenhouse effect of Hansen doubly impossible. That guy keeps babbling that the atmosphere of Venus was created by a runaway greenhouse effect and that this could happen to us too if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. He was an astronomer on the Pioneer Venus project before he joined NASA GISS but he shows a total ignorance of Venusian geology. Unlike the earth, Venus does not have plate tectonics. On earth radioactive heat from the interior is continuously vented by plate boundary volcanism. On Venus the heat just builds up under the crust, creates in-plate volcanoes , and this so weakens the crust that it breaks up into giant slabs which sink into the interior and a new crust is formed. Judging by impact crater density one such cycle takes from 300 to 600 million years to complete. This means that there has been time in Venusian history for perhaps ten such cycles. Its atmosphere is entirely a product of these giant eructations and has nothing whatsoever to do with any runaway greenhouse effect. As to any guest post, I have not solicited any. J.C. is already under attack by warmists and this would complicate her position.
Steven Mosher makes two points:
1 The temperature records do capture 1998 well.
2. Satellites do not give you temperatures.
As to point 1, no they don’t. To be specific, the latest GISTEMP shows its peak height as approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius while satellites show the peak height as 0.9 degrees. But this is not all. Its peak is shown to be level with the twenty-first century high, the temperature platform created by the step warming from the super El Nino. We know from satellite data that the super El Nino peak is 0.4 degrees higher than that platform. By the way, I am talking of actual temperature measurements here and am excluding the sharp peak in GISTEMP at the beginning of 1998 which gives it a boost of 0.07 degrees. That spike is not real but is placed there by a mysterious computer processing software you guys used that had unanticipated consequences. Namely, it placed sharp peaks like that at the beginnings of a number of years, including 1990, 1995, 1998, 2002, and 2007. You find them at exactly the same locations in GISTEMP, HadCRUT3, and NCDC temperature curves. Go ahead, check me out. Looks to me like a cross-ocean project to falsify temperature values.
Your point 2 is pretty irrelevant. Any instrumental measurements have to be calibrated and these are calibrated in reference to radiosonde values. If you are doing spectrochemical measurements you always need to calibrate your working curves against known standards such as those issued by the National Bureau of Standards (or whatever it is called now).
@arno
+1
Pingback: Rétro-pédalages et replis élastiques :: RESILIENCETV