A few things that caught my eye this past week
The climate blogosphere has presented some interesting analyses this past week.
Blackboard
Several very good posts at Lucia’s this past week.
SteveF has a post Estimating the underlying trend in recent warming, which is essentially a redo of the Foster and Rahstorf analysis. Here is the punchline:
Here I offer what I believe is a more robust regression analysis of the same three variables (volcanic aerosols, ENSO, and solar cycle) on temperature evolution since 1950. I will show:
1) An improved index for accounting for ENSO.
2) The best regression fit is found when volcanic aerosols and solar intensity variation are lagged considerably due to thermal inertia of the system. The estimates for the influence of both (on a degrees/watt/M^2 basis) are very similar, not dramatically different.
3) After taking ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar cycles into account, the best estimate rate of warming from 1997 to 2012 is less than 1/3 the rate of warming from 1979 to 1996.
Lucia has two posts that focus specifically on the recent decade 2002-2012:
Punchline:
A linear fit to anomalies show warming from the 1971 through 2012 was approximately 0.16C/decade. In contrast the recent decadal trend ending in 2012 was -0.05C/dec. Moreover, the 11 and 12 year trends ending in 2012 are -0.05C/dec and -0.02 C/decade respectively. All 13-year or longer term trends ending in 2012 are positive.
Note that one of Trenberth’s motive is to rebut the impression that recent trends are lower than past trends. Note further that these negative trends ending with the most recent year for which data are available that are providing the strongest support for that impression. And finally note: that none of these negative trends seem to be shown on Trenberth’s figure nor is their existence called out in any way.
Note that the only periods with negative 10 year trends were 2002-2011 and 2003-2012; the latter happens to be the 10 year trend that ends in the most recent year for which annual average anomalies are available.
These two recent trends are precisely those Trenberth is trying to explain away asnot indicating a “stall” in global warming. Yet his graph didn’t show these trends, he didn’t discuss them. In fact, his graph and narrative specifically ignore the two most recent trends and instead are organized to guide the reader to think the recent trends fall in the range of past trends. How does he do this: By highlighting the most recent decadal trend that occurred before decadal trends went negative.
JC note: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.
rgbatduke
Over at WUWT, Christopher Monckton has a post No significant warming for the past 17 years and 4 months. This post elicited a provocative comment from rgbatduke, who (I believe) is Robert G. Brown. I reproduce the comment in its entirety:
Saying that we need to wait for a certain interval in order to conclude that “the models are wrong” is dangerous and incorrect for two reasons. First — and this is a point that is stunningly ignored — there are a lot of different models out there, all supposedly built on top of physics, and yet no two of them give anywhere near the same results!
This is reflected in the graphs Monckton publishes above, where the AR5 trend line is the average over all of these models and in spite of the number of contributors the variance of the models is huge. It is also clearly evident if one publishes a “spaghetti graph” of the individual model projections (as Roy Spencer recently did in another thread) — it looks like the frayed end of a rope, not like a coherent spread around some physics supported result.
Note the implicit swindle in this graph — by forming a mean and standard deviation over model projections and then using the mean as a “most likely” projection and the variance as representative of the range of the error, one is treating the differences between the models as if they are uncorrelated random variates causing >deviation around a true mean!.
Say what?
This is such a horrendous abuse of statistics that it is difficult to know how to begin to address it. One simply wishes to bitch-slap whoever it was that assembled the graph and ensure that they never work or publish in the field of science or statistics ever again. One cannot generate an ensemble of independent and identically distributed models that have different code. One might, possibly, generate a single model that generates an ensemble of predictions by using uniform deviates (random numbers) to seed
“noise” (representing uncertainty) in the inputs.
What I’m trying to say is that the variance and mean of the “ensemble” of models is completely meaningless, statistically because the inputs do not possess the most basic properties required for a meaningful interpretation. They are not independent, their differences are not based on a random distribution of errors, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the errors or differences are unbiased (given that the only way humans can generate unbiased anything is through the use of e.g. dice or other objectively random instruments).
So why buy into this nonsense by doing linear fits to a function — global temperature — that has never in its entire history been linear, although of course it has always been approximately smooth so one can always do a Taylor series expansion in some sufficiently small interval and get a linear term that — by the nature of Taylor series fits to nonlinear functions — is guaranteed to fail if extrapolated as higher order nonlinear terms kick in and ultimately dominate? Why even pay lip service to the notion that 
Let me repeat this. It has no meaning! It is indefensible within the theory and practice of statistical analysis. You might as well use a ouija board as the basis of claims about the future climate history as the ensemble average of different computational physical models that do not differ by truly random variations and are subject to all sorts of omitted variable, selected variable, implementation, and initialization bias. The board might give you the right answer, might not, but good luck justifying the answer it gives on some sort of rational basis.
Let’s invert this process and actually apply statistical analysis to the distribution of model results Re: the claim that they all correctly implement well-known physics. For example, if I attempt to do an a priori computation of the quantum structure of, say, a carbon atom, I might begin by solving a single electron model, treating the electron-electron interaction using the probability distribution from the single electron model to generate a spherically symmetric “density” of electrons around the nucleus, and then performing a self-consistent field theory iteration (resolving the single electron model for the new potential) until it converges. (This is known as the Hartree approximation.)
Somebody else could say “Wait, this ignore the Pauli exclusion principle” and the requirement that the electron wavefunction be fully antisymmetric. One could then make the (still single electron) model more complicated and construct a Slater determinant to use as a fully antisymmetric representation of the electron wavefunctions, generate the density, perform the self-consistent field computation to convergence. (This is Hartree-Fock.)
A third party could then note that this still underestimates what is called the “correlation energy” of the system, because treating the electron cloud as a continuous distribution through when electrons move ignores the fact thatindividual electrons strongly repel and hence do not like to get near one another. Both of the former approaches underestimate the size of the electron hole, and hence they make the atom “too small” and “too tightly bound”. A variety of schema are proposed to overcome this problem — using a semi-empirical local density functional being probably the most successful.
A fourth party might then observe that the Universe is really relativistic, and that by ignoring relativity theory and doing a classical computation we introduce an error into all of the above (although it might be included in the semi-empirical LDF approach heuristically).
In the end, one might well have an “ensemble” of models, all of which are based on physics. In fact, the differences are also based on physics — the physicsomitted from one try to another, or the means used to approximate and try to include physics we cannot include in a first-principles computation (note how I sneaked a semi-empirical note in with the LDF, although one can derive some density functionals from first principles (e.g. Thomas-Fermi approximation), they usually don’t do particularly well because they aren’t valid across the full range of densities observed in actual atoms). Note well, doing the precise computation is not an option. We cannot solve the many body atomic state problem in quantum theory exactly any more than we can solve the many body problem exactly in classical theory or the set of open, nonlinear, coupled, damped, driven chaotic Navier-Stokes equations in a non-inertial reference frame that represent the climate system.
Note well that solving for the exact, fully correlated nonlinear many electron wavefunction of the humble carbon atom — or the far more complex Uranium atom — is trivially simple (in computational terms) compared to the climate problem. We can’t compute either one, but we can come a damn sight closer to consistently approximating the solution to the former compared to the latter.
So, should we take the mean of the ensemble of “physics based” models for the quantum electronic structure of atomic carbon and treat it as the best predictionof carbon’s quantum structure? Only if we are very stupid or insane or want to sell something. If you read what I said carefully (and you may not have — eyes tend to glaze over when one reviews a year or so of graduate quantum theory applied to electronics in a few paragraphs, even though I left out perturbation theory, Feynman diagrams, and ever so much more:-) you will note that I cheated — I run in a semi-empirical method.
Which of these is going to be the winner? LDF, of course. Why? Because theparameters are adjusted to give the best fit to the actual empirical spectrum of Carbon. All of the others are going to underestimate the correlation hole, and their errors will be systematically deviant from the correct spectrum. Their mean will be systematically deviant, and by weighting Hartree (the dumbest reasonable “physics based approach”) the same as LDF in the “ensemble” average, you guarantee that the error in this “mean” will be significant.
Suppose one did not know (as, at one time, we did not know) which of the models gave the best result. Suppose that nobody had actually measured the spectrum of Carbon, so its empirical quantum structure was unknown. Would the ensemble mean be reasonable then? Of course not. I presented the models in the wayphysics itself predicts improvement — adding back details that ought to be important that are omitted in Hartree. One cannot be certain that adding back these details will actually improve things, by the way, because it is always possible that the corrections are not monotonic (and eventually, at higher orders in perturbation theory, they most certainly are not!) Still, nobody would pretend that the average of a theory with an improved theory is “likely” to be better than the improved theory itself, because that would make no sense. Nor would anyone claim that diagrammatic perturbation theory results (for which there is a clear a priori derived justification) are necessarily going to beat semi-heuristic methods like LDF because in fact they often do not.
What one would do in the real world is measure the spectrum of Carbon, compare it to the predictions of the models, and then hand out the ribbons to the winners! Not the other way around. And since none of the winners is going to be exact — indeed, for decades and decades of work, none of the winners was even particularly close to observed/measured spectra in spite of using supercomputers (admittedly, supercomputers that were slower than your cell phone is today) to do the computations — one would then return to the drawing board and code entry console to try to do better.
Can we apply this sort of thoughtful reasoning the spaghetti snarl of GCMs and their highly divergent results? You bet we can! First of all, we could stop pretending that “ensemble” mean and variance have any meaning whatsoever bynot computing them. Why compute a number that has no meaning? Second, we could take the actual climate record from some “epoch starting point” — one that does not matter in the long run, and we’ll have to continue the comparison for the long run because in any short run from any starting point noise of a variety of sorts will obscure systematic errors — and we can just compare reality to the models. We can then sort out the models by putting (say) all but the top five or so into a “failed” bin and stop including them in any sort of analysis or policy decisioning whatsoever unless or until they start to actually agree with reality.
Then real scientists might contemplate sitting down with those five winners and meditate upon what makes them winners — what makes them come out the closest to reality — and see if they could figure out ways of making them work even better. For example, if they are egregiously high and diverging from the empirical data, one might consider adding previously omitted physics, semi-empirical or heuristic corrections, or adjusting input parameters to improve the fit.
Then comes the hard part. Waiting. The climate is not as simple as a Carbon atom. The latter’s spectrum never changes, it is a fixed target. The former is never the same. Either one’s dynamical model is never the same and mirrors the variation of reality or one has to conclude that the problem is unsolved and the implementation of the physics is wrong, however “well-known” that physics is. So one has to wait and see if one’s model, adjusted and improved to better fit the past up to the present, actually has any predictive value.
Worst of all, one cannot easily use statistics to determine when or if one’s predictions are failing, because damn, climate is nonlinear, non-Markovian, chaotic, and is apparently influenced in nontrivial ways by a world-sized bucket of competing, occasionally cancelling, poorly understood factors. Soot. Aerosols. GHGs. Clouds. Ice. Decadal oscillations. Defects spun off from the chaotic process that cause global, persistent changes in atmospheric circulation on a local basis (e.g. blocking highs that sit out on the Atlantic for half a year) that have a huge impact on annual or monthly temperatures and rainfall and so on. Orbital factors. Solar factors. Changes in the composition of the troposphere, the stratosphere, the thermosphere. Volcanoes. Land use changes. Algae blooms.
And somewhere, that damn butterfly. Somebody needs to squash the damn thing, because trying to ensemble average a small sample from a chaotic system is so stupid that I cannot begin to describe it. Everything works just fine as long as you average over an interval short enough that you are bound to a given attractor, oscillating away, things look predictable and then — damn, you change attractors.Everything changes! All the precious parameters you empirically tuned to balance out this and that for the old attractor suddenly require new values to work.
This is why it is actually wrong-headed to acquiesce in the notion that any sort of p-value or Rsquared derived from an AR5 mean has any meaning. It gives up the high ground (even though one is using it for a good purpose, trying to argue that this “ensemble” fails elementary statistical tests. But statistical testing is a shaky enough theory as it is, open to data dredging and horrendous error alike, and that’s when it really is governed by underlying IID processes (see “Green Jelly Beans Cause Acne”). One cannot naively apply a criterion like rejection if p < 0.05, and all that means under the best of circumstances is that the current observations are improbable given the null hypothesis at 19 to 1. People win and lose bets at this level all the time. One time in 20, in fact. We make a lot of bets!
So I would recommend — modestly — that skeptics try very hard not to buy into this and redirect all such discussions to questions such as why the models are in such terrible disagreement with each other, even when applied to identical toy problems that are far simpler than the actual Earth, and why we aren’t using empirical evidence (as it accumulates) to reject failing models and concentrate on the ones that come closest to working, while also not using the models that are obviously not working in any sort of “average” claim for future warming. Maybe they could hire themselves a Bayesian or two and get them to recompute the AR curves, I dunno.
It would take me, in my comparative ignorance, around five minutes to throw out all but the best 10% of the GCMs (which are still diverging from the empirical data, but arguably are well within the expected fluctuation range on the DATA side), sort the remainder into top-half models that should probably be kept around and possibly improved, and bottom half models whose continued use I would defund as a waste of time. That wouldn’t make them actually disappear, of course, only mothball them. If the future climate ever magically popped back up to agree with them, it is a matter of a few seconds to retrieve them from the archives and put them back into use.
Of course if one does this, the GCM predicted climate sensitivity plunges from the totally statistically fraudulent 2.5 C/century to a far more plausible and stillpossibly wrong ~1 C/century, which — surprise — more or less continues the post-LIA warming trend with a small possible anthropogenic contribution. This large a change would bring out pitchforks and torches as people realize just how badly they’ve been used by a small group of scientists and politicians, how much they are the victims of indefensible abuse of statistics to average in the terrible with the merely poor as if they are all equally likely to be true with randomly distributed differences.
rgb
Matt Briggs
As we ponder all of the above, it is worth considering Matt Briggs post Unsignificant statistics: or die p-value, die die die. Excerpt:
“Statistically significant” does not imply true nor useful nor even interesting. “Significance” is a fog which emanates from a computerized thurible, thick and pungent. It obscures and conceals. It woos and insinuates. It distracts. It is a mathematical sleight-of-hand, a trick. It takes the eye from the direct evidence at hand and refocuses it on the pyrotechnics of p-values. So delighted is the audience at seeing wee p-values that all memory of the point of a study vanishes.
Statistical significance is so powerful that it can prove both a hypothesis and its contrary simultaneously. One day it pronounces broccoli as the awful cause of splentic fever and tomorrow it is asserts unequivocally that broccoli is the only sane cure for the disease.
Both results will be accepted and believed, especially by those manning (and womanning!) bureaucracies and press rooms. Journalists won’t tell you about the deadly effect of either until 10 p.m. Government minions will latch gratefully on to anything “significant” as proof their budget (and therefore power) should be increased.
Time for statistical significance to be slain, its bones cremated, and its ashes scattered in secret. No trace should remain lest the infection re-spread. The only word of it should appear in Latin in tomes guarded by monks charged with collecting man’s (and woman’s!) intellectual follies.
Rather than wasting more taxpayer dollars on the vanity of climatists’ who would chase global warming ’til oblivion freezes over, dreaming of hurling their Global Circulation Models (GCMs) into the flanks of evil White Whales – GCMs that fail validation spectacularly at ever turn — people need only have read the Old Farmers Almanac. “It remains to be seen, said Editor-in-Chief Jud Hale, whether the human impact on global temperatures will cancel out or override any cooling trend. ‘We say that if human beings were not contributing to global warming, it would become real cold in the next 50 years,’ Hale said.” (USA Today, September, 2008)
rgbatduke (yes, that is Rob Brown the physicist at Duke known as “Duke Boy” on the rare occasions he annoys me).
Looks just like a spaghetti plot of hurricane tracks predicted from different models to me and those typically take the average as the most likely trajectory.
So I’m going to speculate that what Rob finds a terminating offense in physics (which can’t be done with tenured professors, but I digress) is de rigueur in climatology.
Springer, “Looks just like a spaghetti plot of hurricane tracks predicted from different models to me and those typically take the average as the most likely trajectory.”
Yep and there is the same debate about getting rid of the hurricanes models that suck also. The ensemble practice is so bad I hear some private forecasting groups make a fair living avoiding the practice :)
I can hindcast a hurricane track pretty good, but the market’s scornful. Maybe I’ll try the GCM business.
===============
‘It would take me, in my comparative ignorance, around five minutes to throw out all but the best 10% of the GCMs (which are still diverging from the empirical data, but arguably are well within the expected fluctuation range on the DATA side), sort the remainder into top-half models that should probably be kept around and possibly improved, and bottom half models whose continued use I would defund as a waste of time. That wouldn’t make them actually disappear, of course, only mothball them. If the future climate ever magically popped back up to agree with them, it is a matter of a few seconds to retrieve them from the archives and put them back into use.
Of course if one does this, the GCM predicted climate sensitivity plunges from the totally statistically fraudulent 2.5 C/century to a far more plausible and stillpossibly wrong ~1 C/century, which — surprise — more or less continues the post-LIA warming trend with a small possible anthropogenic contribution.”
############################################
This is factually wrong. The models range from a sensitivity of 2.1C to 4.4C. So if you selected the top 10% you would not get anything close to 1C sensitivity. In general I agree that using the best models makes more sense. But he’s got his details wrong.
The other complication is that models that do well on one metric ( say temperature ) can also do poorly on other metrics–like precipitation.
And finally, some models that match temperature well, have missing physics: there are handful of models that dont model volcanos.
Best GCMs, not top GCMs.
all GCMs range from 2.1 to 4.4C. take the best or the top and you will
not get 1c sensitivity. I think the professor failed, and I predict some weasels to come along and explain how its not a mistake.
Mosher,
Perhaps if you read it the way I (perhaps inexpertly) read it. Take the best of all the models, not the best of the models the IPCC deemed to suit their purposes.
Mosher,
Ok you disagree with RGB’s conclusion on what sensitivity would be if you eliminated all but the best working models. For me that was the least of his conclusions.
What about his point on using “a mean and standard deviation over model projections and then using the mean as a “most likely” projection” or that something like 30 – 40 models all suppossedly based on well known physics are all over the place. He calls it a frayed rope end. To me they look like something you’d get if you gave a class of 5 year olds a box of crayons and paper.
I don’t argue GCMs are useless and I don’t see Prof Brown doing that either. But I do think they leave a lot to be desired and that depending on them as we seem to be doing, or worse, using them in a way that is fundamentally meaningless, as RGB suggests, is bad practice at best and possibly dishonest.
“Mosher,
Ok you disagree with RGB’s conclusion on what sensitivity would be if you eliminated all but the best working models. For me that was the least of his conclusions.”
A) he misrepresented the simplest of facts to get correct. If he cannot get 2+2=4 correct, then you should doubt his other points, until such time as he owns up to his simple mistake. We all make them.
err no point B)
##################
What about his point on using “a mean and standard deviation over model projections and then using the mean as a “most likely” projection” or that something like 30 – 40 models all suppossedly based on well known physics are all over the place. He calls it a frayed rope end. To me they look like something you’d get if you gave a class of 5 year olds a box of crayons and paper.
#################
A) metaphors are colorful. He should avoid them
B) the results are not all over the place.
C) the point about the mean is more interesting but I would refer him
to the sketchy process of “renormalization”. That is, for some strange reason this process of averaging the models gives you a better result. Trust me I have heard phycists make strong arguements on both sides of this question.
“I don’t argue GCMs are useless and I don’t see Prof Brown doing that either. But I do think they leave a lot to be desired and that depending on them as we seem to be doing, or worse, using them in a way that is fundamentally meaningless, as RGB suggests, is bad practice at best and possibly dishonest.”
A) well he doesnt come at the topic objectively. His writing is far too emotional.
B) What he considers meaningless is not material. Nobody cares
if he cant figure it out.
The charge that something is meaningless is very hard to maintain or establish. Rather than telling others that they make no sense it is more productive to show how to make sense in a given situation. In this regard the good professor has also failed.
renormalization is used within a single model to deal with mathematical problems due to infinity. it is not valid across different models, and not valid when applied to a different purpose (statistics). RGB addressed this specific point.
“models that do well on one metric ( say temperature ) can also do poorly on other metrics–like precipitation”
How can you claim that a model is doing well on temperature if it is doing poorly on precipitation? Temperature and Precipitation are mutually causal. Surely you either get them both right or you’ve got them both wrong.
How can you claim that a model is doing well on temperature if it is doing poorly on precipitation?”
A) How does one make this claim? Well, you write it down.
Temperature and Precipitation are mutually causal.
A) Mutually causal?
B) The clue I will give you is clouds.
Surely you either get them both right or you’ve got them both wrong.
A) When somebody says surely that is clue they have no real argument.
B) You can get temperature correct and rain wrong.
C) you can get increase temperature “here” correct and decreased rain “there” incorrect.
Finally, there is no right and wrong. there is wrong and wronger.
Steven Mosher | June 15, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
Says: “..Finally, there is no right and wrong. there is wrong and wronger…”
And there I see you and Robert G Brown are ultimately in agreement.
Steve Mosher “Finally, there is no right and wrong. there is wrong and wronger.” Right on Steve. All the climate models are wrong, some just wronger than others. None of them should be used for any significant purpose- forecasts, environmental planning, etc.
Mosher, I do believe he is stating that one should model selection by natural selection. One picks a period, say five years, and you select the top 20% of models which give the best forecast. Then you allow each model to propagate and then run these models for 5 years. Do it often enough and evolutionary selection pressure will provide a robust model.
Then he should say that.
That approach would also have problems.
Look there are clearly models that are broken. They have missing parts like volcanos. personally, I would down select to a few models. That downselect process requires more thinking than a blog comment.
AS for averaging results. crap thats nothing comparing to renormalization. If it works, meh, use it.
“Do it often enough and evolutionary selection pressure will provide a robust model.”
Or more likely they will all end up extinct, because there isn’t a modeler on the planet who understand the climate well enough to model it.
“AS for averaging results. crap thats nothing comparing to renormalization. If it works, meh, use it.”
But since the models have never been validated or verified, we get to take the modelers word that “it works.” meh, no thanks.
“But since the models have never been validated or verified, we get to take the modelers word that “it works.” meh, no thanks.”
This is incorrect. There are two processes. Verification and validation.
Verification means that the model was built as specified. Validation
refers to the model meeting its specified performance. It’s true to say that there has been no IV&V or no formal IV&V. Please note, valid models can give wrong answers. In fact all models give wrong answers. A valid model is one where the wrongness does not exceed the specified wrongness.
For example: If I specify that a model
A) shall predict impact point of a gravity bomb within 1000 meters
Then a model that predicts it within 900 meters is both wrong and valid.
Since models are always wrong, we dont frame validity in terms of getting the “right” answer. We frame validity in terms of specifying their degree of wrongness.
Steven, you write “Please note, valid models can give wrong answers.”
You and I must have completely different ideas of what it means to validate a model; just like we differ on what “measure” and “estimate” mean. There are engineering models which calculate the wind loading of new strructures. When the model results are presented, a professional engineer puts his signature on the work, and if the model is wrong, then that professional engineer can be sued. That is the sort of test that distinguishes a validated model from a non-validated one. If a validated model gets the wrong answer, someone is in serious trouble.
Jim Cripwell.
validation is a professional term. It doesnt mean what you think it means.
Start Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_and_validation
“Validation. The assurance that a product, service, or system meets the needs of the customer and other identified stakeholders. It often involves acceptance and suitability with external customers. Contrast with verification.”
“Verification. The evaluation of whether or not a product, service, or system complies with a regulation, requirement, specification, or imposed condition. It is often an internal process. Contrast with validation.”
You will note that validation says nothing about being correct.
It has to do with meeting the customers needs.
Lets take your example
“There are engineering models which calculate the wind loading of new strructures. When the model results are presented, a professional engineer puts his signature on the work, and if the model is wrong, then that professional engineer can be sued. That is the sort of test that distinguishes a validated model from a non-validated one. If a validated model gets the wrong answer, someone is in serious trouble.”
I want you to think about how one builds these models and how one validates them. Think about estimating and measuring. Think about
things you’ve said about using models.
Read this
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000539
I bet you wont.
You understand how these CDF models are closely related to GCMs
at a deep mathematical level? You understand that the answers they give are not correct, they are allowed to be “wrong” within certin user defined guidelines. In short, reality doesnt determine validity: users do.
Next, understand that all models are wrong. they are all incorrect.
What that means is that the answers they give never match reality perfectly. There is always error. because there is always error we
specify that a model must get an answer correct within X units.
We never specify that the answer must be correct, we specify how wrong it is allowed to be.
Kosher you should retread rub without the smarmy assured ness that he is wrong. Try to ask yourself how can you remove your ignorance so that rub makes sense. I did not take his contention to mean to pick from the entir period the best models. Since over the entire period all of them pretty much suck. And the fact that you are in awe of the ensemble proves you know diddly. Instead you should have been jumping at the pathetic nature of GCMs
Mosh,
Don’t need a model to predict impact of a gravity bomb.
Simply stick a GPS guidence kit on it and it will land within a few feet of where you want it.
We have reintroduced the 250 lb bomb into the inventory due to the improved accuracy.
“The other complication is that models that do well on one metric ( say temperature ) can also do poorly on other metrics–like precipitation.”
Yeah, well, when you alarmists start trying to centralize control of the global energy economy on the basis of “other metrics,” that might actually be interesting.
Best five models? How about just one that actually has skill at predicting what the CAGWers claim they predict?
GCMs might well be “useful” for something. But what they are not useful for is what they were intended. Justifying the decarbonization of the global (really just the western) energy economy.
Don’t need GCMs to justify the decarbonization of the globe!
Even back of the envelope style common sense shows that we need to transition off fossil fuels ASAP.
Yeah, the world will transition off fossil fuels just as soon as there’s viable and affordable alternatives.
Until then, forget it – it just ain’t going to happen.
“GCMs might well be “useful” for something. But what they are not useful for is what they were intended. Justifying the decarbonization of the global (really just the western) energy economy.”
Historicall speaking GCMs were not built with decarbonizing in mind.
The core ocean models for example go back over 60 years.
Climate science is an observational science. That means you cannot
do lab experiments because the object you are studying is bigger than the lab. So, to understand the ocean for example you can make observations and collect data, but the only way you can do an “experiment” is “virtually” in a model. Its the nature of the business.
The only way you can “test” a theory of how a black hole works is
to build a model of it, since bringing one into a lab isn’t a good idea.
“The core ocean models for example go back over 60 years.”
The question is GCMs. A quick review shows that the first GCM covered all of 1/6th of the Earth’s surface, and was first reported in 1969. A few slightly better models were developed in the 70s.
It would be interesting to know how many of the models in the IPCC’s spaghetti graph charts were developed after 1988.
Not surprisingly, the results have never changed. As lolwot says elsewhere on this thread, you don’t need a computer to justify decarbonizing the world economy, just the back of an envelope. And we can pay for it with all the free money the governments of the world can print.
Massive, powerful, and modern as the computers used for GCMs are, they are still only a pitifully inadequate digital simulacrum of the giGaiantic analog computer that is the heat engine that is the Earth.
It will be orders of magnitude of computing improvement, plus decades, likely, of further observations, before our most advanced GCMs will model adequately.
I could be wrong.
============
3 orders of magnitude – and you have to wonder if that is sufficient.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/02/ellison
Mosher: ” So if you selected the top 10% you would not get anything close to 1C sensitivity.”
Perhaps none of them are of any use, then? Sometimes it’s a better use of time to tear down and rebuild than to try to repair.
His point still remains that if all of the models were even close to being based upon sound physics, their results really shouldn’t look like a frayed string, let alone having the majority of them diverge so severely from actual measurements in nature.
I’m in a different field, but if I was the author of a GCM that was so brutally poor at forecasting and it was being used to justify political action, I’d probably speak out and say “Woah, wait a minute here, we’re still working this thing out. We’ll let you know when you can actually use this model for making actual predictions,” rather than, “the science is settled, you should take action based upon this.”
A trivial issue, and one designed to distract from his arguments. How about you address his real contentions about the statistics of models, and leave this kind of nit-picking to the amateurs? You’re a very smart guy, Mosh, brilliant in my opinion … and that’s all you can find wrong in his presentation?
Sorry, but your whole point, while in my opinion true, seems to me like nothing but a red herring to distract folks from Robert’s evisceration of the models and the use of “ensembles”.
w.
I tend to agree. The world might have saved one hundred fifty billion dollars if they’d all been thrown out. Every. Last. One. Remind me of the negative consequences of that action.
So Mr. Mosher are you admitting that current GCM’s are worthless at answering the questions asked over the ludicrous time frames being used?
I don’t see hardly any models doing well on temperature this century.
No. The current GCM are not worthless. They are certainly t he best tools we have for informing policy makers of the best physics has to offer.
I see all the models ‘doing well” on temperature this century. Of course, “doing well” is a PRAGMATIC metric and is measured relative to the purpose. If you want to know if we should cut emissions you dont need a GCM. you just need a brain.
Steven Mosher
No. The models are not “worthless”.
They are just not good as prognosticators of future trends because of the many uncertainties involved.
They were poor in forecasting (or “projecting”) decadal warming: 0.2C per decade (AR4) or 0.15 to 0.3C per decade (TAR), compared to an actually observed slight cooling over the most recent decade.
If they are unable to project one or two decades in advance, there is absolutely no logical reason to assume that they can project several decades or even centuries in advance (Nassim Taleb).
They should NOT be used to influence policy makers (or, even worse, to feed them confirmation of forecasts supporting their preconceived agendas).
Use them more usefully in an attempt to better understand past climate trends.
And for day-to-day weather prediction, where they have some success.
Max
They are just not good as prognosticators of future trends because of the many uncertainties involved.
###########
I’m unaware of a single prognosticator who can come close to matching a GCM in terms of breadth and accuracy.
############
They were poor in forecasting (or “projecting”) decadal warming: 0.2C per decade (AR4) or 0.15 to 0.3C per decade (TAR), compared to an actually observed slight cooling over the most recent decade.
A) some were better than others.
B) they are generally good.
C) they may not be good enough to inform policy.
D) they are the best we have. shrugging your shoulders doesnt win this game
#############################
If they are unable to project one or two decades in advance, there is absolutely no logical reason to assume that they can project several decades or even centuries in advance (Nassim Taleb).
A) they are able to project
B) nassim Taleb says nothing of interest on this matter
C) There are many reasons to believe they do better on longer terms.
whether those reasons will prove correct is a matter not solved
by appealing to irrevelant authority. Energy balance trumps Nassim.
#################
They should NOT be used to influence policy makers (or, even worse, to feed them confirmation of forecasts supporting their preconceived agendas).
A) you are not a policy maker.
B) policy makers decide what is useful for them.
C) If a policy maker asks a phyicist for his best understanding,
he will quote a GCM. become a physicist if you want to change this
#####################
Mosh
I’m not going to get into a detailed blow-by-blow defense or critique of models with you, who are a model expert and firm supporter.
Taleb simply warns us that predictions fail not because of what we know, but because of what we do not know, and that this problem gets worse the longer the time period of the prediction is.
This applies to model predictions (called “projections”) just as it does for any other kind (expert judgment, crystal ball, oracles, prophets, tea leaves, animal entrails, etc.).
IPCC models could not even get the temperature trend for one decade right.
Why should we believe that they can get the next eight decades right?
We shouldn’t.
Let’s be honest about the limitations of climate models as prognosticators long as the uncertainties are still as great as they are.
If these models can help clear up the many uncertainties, great – let’s use them for that before we delude ourselves into thinking we can use them to make realistic predictions for the future.
Because we can’t.
Max
Just out of curiosity, Max –
What do you have to say about the following?:
Does that, perchance, ring a bell for you?
Here’s your chance, Max. Show that you’re a skeptic and not a “skeptic.”
Go for it, my brother.
Rise to the occasion.
I have confidence in you!
Steven Mosher June 14, 2013 at 5:52 pm
“If you want to know if we should cut emissions you dont need a GCM. you just need a brain.”
Thinking the likely cost to humanity of not cutting emissions today is greater than the likely cost of doing it today needs a state of mind as well as a brain.
“I see all the models ‘doing well” on temperature this century”
That is because they are fits and not models, they have been trained to match the historic temperature.
max.
“Mosh
I’m not going to get into a detailed blow-by-blow defense or critique of models with you, who are a model expert and firm supporter.”
A) I am not a model expert.
B) I am not a firm supporter. Whatever criticisms people have need to
be detailed in a fashion that can be checked. Models should not
be accepted or rejected out of hand.
###################
Taleb simply warns us that predictions fail not because of what we know, but because of what we do not know, and that this problem gets worse the longer the time period of the prediction is.
A) that might be a general rule based on limited examples.
B) in some ways its trivially true that what we dont know is important.
C) Its a gross assumption that the problem gets worse over time. It
depends on the temporal effects of the unknown. something that
is unknown of course.
##################################
This applies to model predictions (called “projections”) just as it does for any other kind (expert judgment, crystal ball, oracles, prophets, tea leaves, animal entrails, etc.).
A) it’s entirely different. oracles, prophets, expert judgement are not
typically open to revision. Models are.
########################
IPCC models could not even get the temperature trend for one decade right.
A) this is not correct. It depends entirely on the decade
B) decadeal skill may be important to you. you dont matter.
C) the real question is what skill do they have over what time periods
for what values. They dont get the size of snowflakes correct.
does that matter and to whom.
#########
Why should we believe that they can get the next eight decades right?
We shouldn’t.
A) you should not believe that they can get any decade right
B) they will get all decades wrong in some way or another.
C) the right question is what is the best tool for prediction
1) shrugging your shoulders.
2) a statistical model
3) a physics model.
Option 1 ( we dont know and cant know ) isnt even wrong.
Option 2 can play a role of course but statistical models
can be much worse than the worst physics model
Option 3, at its worse, is typically better than 2. Although we
need to be open minded and actually look at things.
You and others persist in the delusion that models can be correct. They cannot. no model will ever predict the exact number of snowflakes to fall in 2050 and get their shape and size right.
But being correct is not the goal. Being better than all other methods
is the goal. How much weight you choose to put on this tool is open to question. But shrugging your shoulders is not an option.
#############
Let’s be honest about the limitations of climate models as prognosticators long as the uncertainties are still as great as they are.
If these models can help clear up the many uncertainties, great – let’s use them for that before we delude ourselves into thinking we can use them to make realistic predictions for the future.
############################################
of course they can be used to make realistic predictions.
you need to adjust your idea of what you mean by realistic.
Put another way, no model aims at realism so judging them
by realism is rather silly.
DocMartyn | June 15, 2013 at 10:02 am |
“I see all the models ‘doing well” on temperature this century”
That is because they are fits and not models, they have been trained to match the historic temperature.
###############
Its obvious upon examination that they are not trained to match temperature. They dont match temperature. One typical approach is to
adjust one parameter ( say aersols) to get closure at TOA.
Put another way. IN the most complex GCM there are around 30 or so adjustable parameters. If fitting temperature were the protocal, you’d see a lot better fit. As a side note some modelers may try to match a temperature trend, but nobody gets absolute temperature correct. the spread is about 3K for warmest to coolest. Trust me it makes looking at extreme events ( like heat waves) tough when absolute temperature is off by 1.5K in either direction.
Wrong is worse than useless, to be honest, especially when coupled with overstatements of certainty.
Mosh said:
That is the basis of all information theory views of modeling. One always compares one model against another model, and the process uses characteristics such accuracy and fewest number of adjustable parameters to judge the winner. See techniques such as AIC and BIC.
Because most skeptics do not have an alternate model of any real value, they always lose in a game of one-on-one. That’s the way the ball bounces in information theory circles.
‘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. Plausibility criteria are qualitative and loosely quantitative, because there are many relevant measures of plausibility that cannot all be specified or fit precisely. Results that are clearly discrepant with measurements or between different models provide a valid basis for model rejection or modification, but moderate levels of mismatch or misfit usually cannot disqualify a model. Often, a particular misfit can be tuned away by adjusting some model parameter, but this should not be viewed as certification of model correctness.’
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Emphasis mine. Happy to help out.
“I see all the models ‘doing well” on temperature this century”
This is an information free statement. What would convince you in the next decade that these models are not “doing well”?
Is it a bit frustrating that there are no mechanisms provided by the modelers themselves to what constitutes success and failure in their minds. They should know where the real weaknesses are and what are the early signs of significant deviations internally. Judging solely based on global temperature observations is pretty crude.
In order to increase credibility, this validation information and methods need to be provided at the time of model release to prevent post-hoc judgment tampering. That’s the way real science works, the FDA doesn’t allow to determine that your drug trials “went well” by allowing you to make up what “went well” means after the trials are completed.
Given current performance against observations, arguments that there is “nothing to see here, just move along” are not very convincing. We know how to read a trend.
The GCM’s may be the best tool for climate prediction we have, nobody is arguing this point. That doesn’t mean they have much use beyond academia R & D at this time. The best 10 day weather forecasts in 1930 weren’t very useful. And that is where I think climate modeling is at this time.
Steven Mosher | June 14, 2013 at 5:52 pm | Reply
“…If you want to know if we should cut emissions you don’t need a GCM. you just need a brain….”
Now, I happen to agree with you here. The only question is how much we should upend our economies and productivity and enrich and empower the whole financial and administrative layer of of society in the process.
But it is fascinating to me that following your pedantic and definition laden defense of the indefensible, you resort to plain old common sense, which could be equally applied to counter your pedantry.
Serfs aren’t able ter follow the intrickasees of the
interackshns of physickal systems but this below
from Chiefio further makes me wary of those tenured
modellers in cloud towers, including these comments:
..’We are, quite literally,betting the nation’s economy
on code that would not pass FDA requirements for a
new form of aspirin…’
And this reminder of,’ the parlous state of Hadley
Software re the laments in the “Harry Read Me File,”
It comes down to trusting the opinions of the folks
who wrote the programs that there are no errors.’ (
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
Harry read me is perhaps the most un important mail in the whole stack.
It has absolutely zero to do with anything or any data used by climate science. Do you know the project he was working on? or the dataset?
My guess is no.
Steven Mosher | June 15, 2013 at 7:12 pm |
“Izzat so? Great. So all different models produced by various authors in cahoots with Sky Dragon Slayers are in there? How about Vuckcevic’s? And Tisdale’s?
###########
“The discussion is about GCMs. write that down.”
Yes. The first arbitrary selection is only GCMs. Write THAT down.
“The questions for characterizing and qualifying a GCM are all available as part of the CMIP Phase 5 process. Go look it up.”
The second set of arbitrary selection criteria by the self-appointed judges. Go look up the authors of that process and see if they all belong to an idenfiable group.
And thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Mosher’s in denial. He’s obviously too emotionally invested in the climate change charade to be an objective observer.
Saying that something is “the best we have” is hardly a ringing endorsement. Once upon a time, dirty, rusty surgical instruments were the best we had. Most sensible people who realised that “the best we have” was a health hazard, avoided surgery unless death was the certain alternative, and sometimes even then.
In the case of long term climate models, saying that they are the best we have is unverifiable. What we do know is that even the short-term ones are unreliable, and in the case of the Met Office models, have predictive power worse than a coin toss.
I’d add that “the best we have” is an arbitrary list selected by a self-selected set of judges who are by and large ideologically biased against human industrial and population growth enabled by abundant, affordable fossil fuels and who are, even worse, financially wedded to results that cause alarm and more funding for further research to better determine when and where and how the deleterious consequences will play out. Then there’s multiple huge cottage industries for alternatives to fossil fuels and other saleable mitigation strategies often subsidized by taxpayer dollars. It’s so corrupted it makes the governments of Afghanistan, North Korea, and Somalia looks like bastions of transparent democracy.
“Saying that something is “the best we have” is hardly a ringing endorsement. ”
It’s good for you to notice that. It’s pretty simple. The issue is not endorsing versus not endorsing. The whole concept of endorsement is confused. There is evaluation. try to be less emotional.
“I’d add that “the best we have” is an arbitrary list selected by a self-selected set of judges who are by and large ideologically biased against human industrial and population growth ”
No the best we have is not arbitrary. Its actually the full collection of all such models in existence. The problem is that ALL the models are used, not that some arbitrary list was compiled. write that down.
Further, when you look at all the models code what you will actually find is that they are a collection of various shared modules.
Here is a test of your knowledge.
How many distinct ocean components are there is the 20+ models in AR5. That is, how many share the same ocean?
How many share the same Radiative transfer model?
How many share the same atmospheric chemistry model?
Hardly arbitrary. quite the opposite.
Climate models suggest a shotgun approach hoping that one out of 100 pellets comes somewhere near the bullseye, but instead every pellet goes well above the target.
And the cult members congratulate each other and say “Nice Shot”.
Steven Mosher | June 15, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
“No the best we have is not arbitrary. Its actually the full collection of all such models in existence.”
Izzat so? Great. So all different models produced by various authors in cahoots with Sky Dragon Slayers are in there? How about Vuckcevic’s? And Tisdale’s?
ROFLMAO
“Izzat so? Great. So all different models produced by various authors in cahoots with Sky Dragon Slayers are in there? How about Vuckcevic’s? And Tisdale’s?
###########
The discussion is about GCMs. write that down.
1. the dragon slayers dont have global circulation models. If they do,
then please describe the ocean component.
2. Vuc does not have a global circulation model. If he does please describe the carbon cycle he uses.
3. Tisdale does not have a model. If he does please describe the land use model he uses.
The questions for characterizing and qualifying a GCM are all available as part of the CMIP Phase 5 process. Go look it up
David Springer | June 15, 2013 at 6:32 am | Reply
“…Mosher’s in denial….”
I believe David is partly correct here. However I don’t think it is because Mosher is invested so much in the charade.
Mosher’s approach is to simple deny most things put up …. then to re-define and twist a little … then to somehow point out he is of the same basic opinion but the other guy is wrong because of a missing dot on a i …
In short, Mosher just likes to disagree to then make the important point he is a little smarter than almost everyone else.
Now, I concede that while this may well be the case, it does little to clarify or advance the issue under debate, and much to obfuscate it.
Having said that, I would miss him if he went.
What day is it Steven?
The Twelfth of Nevaire, and if this is Wembley, this must not be Belgium.
=================
In an Earth shattering development, President Obama has made an important announcement about his administration’s environmental policy.
“With his administration under pressure from environmentalists to reject the Keystone XL pipeline project, President Barack Obama plans to unveil a package of separate actions next month focused on curbing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html
He announced that he is going to make an announcement. Be still my heart.
gary
Hooray! It sounds like Obama intends to shackle the US economy so it wont have an advantage over Europe. Get ready for Gas (petrol) prices at $10 a gallon and a doubling of your energy costs. Do what we have to do and have your heating on for half the time you would like to.
tonyb
Back ter the golden age
It’d be comic if’n
it weren’t so tragic.
A serf-down-in-the-dumps.(
(Sorry about the hyphens Tony.)
tonyb,
Hey, I don’t applaud the stupidity of your progressive politicians. :-)
I would think he would wait until he is a lamer duck.
Oh, let the serfs have their extra hyphens. Indulge them with petty rebates and benevolent advice on how to turn off the power at the wall. Hang it! Send them glossy brochures showing smiling serfs and bearing a title like “Your Sustainable Energy Future”. They can be treated to pictures of wind turbines across green hills, smile-shaped birdies hovering safely above, more smiling serfs picnicking below…and graphic instructions on how to locate their power points and read energy stickers on white goods. (The more stars the better. Get it, serfs?)
And if they are obliged to burn more twigs and dung this winter, we won’t count it in their carbon footprint. (Anyway, why count what you can’t tax?)
Serfs don’t have white goods, moso.
Guess we could have wasted that money on fixing 600 million clefts around the world. Oh, wait. That would be ALL of them with money to spare. Glad we have our priorities straight.
Posted this under Sociology of the Pause thread, as GWPF is pretty much the author of most of the false pause kerfuffle, and the sociology is interesting..
However, it’s also topical as of this week:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html
Will fraudsters be shut down by civil action like this? We have seen precedents across ‘the Americas’ with Mssrs Ball & Sullivan in Canada and countless Inhofites v. Mann, etc. etc. etc. for this to become itself the trend of the future. I well remember David Rose of GWPF threatening action against me for pointing out he’s a lying liar who lies a lot, in comments on Climate Etc. Is this sauce for the gander?
Anyone care to voice a thought?
One progressive applauding the censorship efforts of another. What’s to voice?
Censorship? You mean Inhofe v. Mann? So.. I’m now as ‘Progressive’ as Inhofe, in you twisty spinny worldview?
You can make it about censorship, if you like.
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-fights-climate-change-even-congress-doesn-t-210540289.html
Reports suggest this is about going to courts of law when administrations are so spineless, corrupt and ineffectual it takes the action of citizens to demand the government obeys the law.
You do favor government obeying law, don’t you?
Of course, the way you define words, you may think this is question about tunafish sandwiches and mustard.
Jellyfish and peanut butter for you, or there is more for the rest of us.
==========================
BartR
I have little time for the gwpf but even less for bob ward . Bishop hill sums it up nicely as do his commenters.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/6/14/gwpf-and-the-charities-commission.html
Tonyb
Tonyb | June 14, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
Thank you. This is helpful. (Which isn’t surprising. When I have questions pertaining to the UK, I frequently find you informative, and I appreciate your assistance.)
In case anyone doubts I sincerely care about Montford’s opinion:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-05-02/
The Flakmeter says GWPF is directly over the target. Bombs away! On Donahue, on Paterson, on Stringer, on Lilley.
==============================
Cold Bart.
Funny, but cold.
Thurible, thurible, thurible trubble. Alarums are bedeviled blue.
==================
It’s good to be reminded of the basics.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/06/10/junk-science-week-unsignificant-statistics/
The home truths contained, ‘gorgeous’ invective stripped away, ought be familiar any trendologist or statistician or inferential logician from their first studies in the techniques they use.
However, the case is overstated.
A great correlation, while it is not necessarily proof of causation, is hardly disproof either. An outside-the-CI result, while it does not disprove a claim, obliges one to consider the posit to be shakey.
And while the best experimental evidence is so cleverly clear as to need rely little on statistical interpretation — ideally not at all — this does not mean we can always get, nor ought limit ourselves to that perfect enemy of the good.
A gambler who rejected statistics and played dice or cards out of ignorance of probability distributions will lose more often, all other things being equal. Did you watch Moneyball? Statistics work. They keep being used because they work. They keep replacing guesswork because they work, and work, and work.
But they don’t always work, and they especially don’t always work the way intuition, scoundrels or journalists suggest.
“Statistics work” … “But they don’t always work”
Gee, Bart, I knew if you kept hitting the keyboard something profound would eventually come out.
Andrew
Stats don’t “work” when assumptions underpinning them are untenable.
Bart R linked to http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/06/10/junk-science-week-unsignificant-statistics/ :
“[…] the null hypothesis test procedure – another name for statistical significance testing – produces many such errors, with tragic results for real world economies, law, medicine, and even human life.
In a decades-long survey of leading journals, from the American Economic Review to the New England Journal of Medicine, we find that eight or nine of every 10 articles assumes that statistical significance demonstrates scientific, economic, or other human importance, and that a lack of statistical significance – statistical “insignificance,” or a p-value greater than .05 – indicates a lack of importance. Statistical significance is neither necessary nor sufficient for proving a physical, economic, or medical result. But the bureaucracies of science –from government grantors to journal referees – continue to insist on demonstrations of statistical significance, regardless of the real economic, medical, physical, or other effects revealed by the total evidence.”
Government grantors & journal referees are upholding the corrupt stat inference culture, which is founded on patently untenable assumptions.
PROMPTLY send out pink slips to the ones who insist on maintenance of inferential corruption.
Paul Vaughan | June 15, 2013 at 10:56 am |
Yeah, but the article’s ‘eight or nine’ in ten position has such a terrible p-value, it’s likely not really worth paying attention to. ;)
Tony, you and I have both looked at old documents, detailed and reflecting practical climate concerns, which indicate that, after earlier cool conditions and subsequent plague, the later 1300s were taken up with concerns over drought and even high heat in Southern England. Yet around 1400 the concerns about climate were very different indeed. Brrr.
In common with the rest of the human race, I have no idea if the recent cold events in the NH represent a new climate regime. (A few pretend to know, just as a few pretend to know what is happening in the depths of the hydrosphere – but they don’t know. Duh.)
How wise are we to neglect such solid historical evidence as you have gathered, and put our trust in the extrapolators and Year Zero hipsters? The climate in my region of Australia changed markedly around 2007, especially in regard to wind direction and winter thunder. It was a change noticeable even through the El Nino conditions of 2009, and bouts of heat and drought last year. Call it PDO if you wish (I’ve developed an allergy to facile acronyms describing simplistic “mechanisms”), or call it back-to-the-fifties, the shift was broad and so distinct as to be hard to miss. Yet it was missed by the very people who preach most vigorously about – you guessed it – climate change!
Mosomoso
I am currently relating cet to glacier advances and retreats although of course it will be very difficult to get anywhere much beyond 1086 with any accuracy.
However going back the 3000 years of glacier movements I have managed so far really puts cet into context and reinforces my growing realisation that climate changes in a manner noticeable to humans far more often than it remains static. In short, climate always changes and it is very difficult to see why some people get so excited about the modern era of warming
. The last decade has seen a noticeable period of climate change in Britain with a 0.6 degree c drop in the anomaly. It’s almost cancelled out the previous decade of climate change which in that case was warming.
We are heading back to the climate of the sixties and seventies and it’s an uncomfortable place to be but one apparently that was the norm prior to mans supposed interference with the climate.
Tonyb
“In short, climate always changes and it is very difficult to see why some people get so excited about the modern era of warming”
Because it’s just the beginning. We have had articles here talking about a 2C ECS.
If ECS is 2C, or even only 1C, given humans are going to more than double equivalent CO2, how can the CET, being fairly high northern latitude, not end up warming several degrees due to man?
So take the CET record and plot a line a couple of degrees higher than present. The climate change involved is much larger in magnitude than anything else in the entire record.
BartR, “A great correlation, while it is not necessarily proof of causation, is hardly disproof either. An outside-the-CI result, while it does not disprove a claim, obliges one to consider the posit to be shaky.”
Doesn’t that just suck!
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Zt1oH-PdG38/Ubx-Yc4PFjI/AAAAAAAAIng/B7BvlEPm0kY/s809/giss%2520and%2520ersst%2520with%2520ipwp%2520baseline.png
That correlation of “global” and regional temperatures to the IPWP is so good it is sexy, but it don’t prove squat.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-WJiDVg2R0KM/Ubx8SnnJOxI/AAAAAAAAIm4/ejLd98zWmpM/s800/giss%2520and%2520ersst%2520with%2520ipwp.png
Recovery from the LIA using the IPWP would explain a lot, but that is not the theory de jour.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0Ljwh9NTkS0/Ubx9dAfZtAI/AAAAAAAAInM/UROadZys8_k/s800/giss%2520and%2520ersst%2520with%2520ipwp%2520from%25200%2520ad.png
Looking further back in time, past, today would be “normal” and the start of the instrumental record Abby Normal, which pretty much sums up Climate Science.
captdallas 0.8 or less | June 15, 2013 at 11:16 am |
Recovery from the LIA ?!
Recovery from what, exactly?
How, precisely?
We hear so little about the supposed so-called LIA as to be unable to fix what triggered it or where it was, the sequence of climate events that comprised it, or when or how it ended.
Are you saying the planet has a natural GMT that just happens to be exactly today’s GMT? Or, rather, since we know you understand the term interglacial (after a fashion), that the planet has two natural GMT’s at either end of the glacial amplitude, and any variation from one or the other during its phase is an abnormal condition that can be recovered from by homeostasis?
Recovery from the LIA?
What an utter crock.
I’ve come to believe a starship came by earth and saved it, Star Trek style, from the LIA. Tonyb will never find a record of this in a library or an oil painting as allowing earthlings to know of this heroic intervention would have violated the prime directive.
BartR, “Are you saying the planet has a natural GMT that just happens to be exactly today’s GMT? ”
Earth exists with oceans and an atmosphere. If it did not have a normal temperature range i.e. GMT, it would not have oceans and an atmosphere. Today being near that GMT +/- a degree is not very far fetched. Btw, Exactly is a red herring, within a normal range, +/- one sigma is more appropriate. The LIA was a barely a two sigma event for the Holocene mean.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-u3b-zv8kbXw/UboHnO-BcbI/AAAAAAAAIko/OtKKX1EX6hc/s983/GISS%2520and%2520Hadley%2520from%25201915.png
That chart includes most of the instrumental records with the +/- 2 sigma range based on GISS NH which is the most variable. The margin of error at the beginning of those instrumental records is about +/- 0.25 C degrees improving to about +/- 0.125 C degrees at present. It is generally agreed that the LIA was between 0.5 and 1 C cooler than “normal” with estimates of :”normal” ranging from 14C to 16C. Trenberth’s “tragedy” is that we don’t have the accuracy to determine the “surface” imbalance which is likely on the order or about 0.5 Wm-2 +/- .2 Wm-2 for a friggin’ planet, which should not come as a great surprise.
So yes, today’s temperatures are well within the “normal” range.
Jch
Ah! Now I understand why it said in that old record ‘ the intense cold of the LIA was alien to Britain’
Tonyb
Tony, my response to your comment is on the thread above. It wasn’t gremlins. It was all my fault.
By the way, Judith, I would never have seen Tony’s work and much else without this huge and open forum you give to us. I’m in the middle of the Australian scrub with a failing (for some reason) satellite signal, but still connected with Tony’s latest hints on Hampshire’s weather in the 14th century.
Appreciate it so much, Judith, but have neglected to say it till now!
For de second.
==========
the best applied stat prof I had took great care to inform us that p<.05 was simply a useful first cut look at whether or not what you were testing might actually be different from your standard test conditions. It was merely a good argument for repeating the test, or perhaps doing the other half of a factorial experiment to corroborate the results. Even then, to be just fairly sure you had to find a p value 2,3,or even sigma difference.
p<.05 was never considered "proof" of anything. As many pilots have found a p<.01 on the first mission meant that p on the 40th mission was a statistical certainty you wouldn't come back.
There was a very interesting column in the WSJournal a few years ago chronicling how one bio scientist tried to go back and repeat his ground breaking Phd thesis after 10 years. He was curious why he hadn't seen much followup. After all, it had gotten him a couple of good jobs. He found he got much less significant results on the first try, and even less when he tried again. A literature search found the same thing had happened to 2-3 other researchers, and his ground breaking idea just simply got tabled.
This all resulted in another research project that showed something like 40-60% of all scientific "discoveries" just fade away. p<.05 just doesn't mean squat in the big picture.
BartR
This article was in the daily telegraph today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10118371/Statistically-speaking-politicians-place-too-much-faith-in-figures.html
Tonyb
Tonyb | June 14, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
Sometimes even I can detect irony in the art of headline drafters.
Evidence-based decision making is well known to be in far too short supply in governments, especially among political appointees.
An argument that the wrong inference is drawn from the numbers, or the wrong type of numbers are being used to make decisions isn’t a good argument that too much faith is placed in figures. It’s an argument that too much faith is put in fallacy and error.
I’ve never had much faith in error, as a guiding principle. Fallacy never was core to my belief system. I could see a case being made that in politics, these form the pillars of the popular religion.
JC says: “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.”
__________
JC, this looks like an opportunity for you to be uncertain. Tell those journalist that it may or may not be cooling, and more cooling, if there is cooling, may or may not be just around the corner, and if it does cool, the cooling may or may not last long.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2008/plot/gistemp/from:2008/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2008/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2008/trend
Here is the way I think we should treat this issue. As per the IPCC AR4, the only scenario on the table for the next few decades was warming. Over the past year or so, the scenario that the next decade or two could see flat temperatures has been gaining traction. Now it seems that there is rationale to add a 3rd scenario for the next two decades: possibility of cooling.
Excellent point, JC
The first steps in risk management, according to Australian/Nedw Zealand Standard 4360, are:
Establish the context
Identify risks
Analyse risks
Evaluate risks
Treat risks
Monitor and review
Communicate and consult
I say the first two steps have not been done properly so everything that follows is of no value.
Judith
Looking back through 35 decades of cet temperatures plus my additional 12 decades of reconstruction, on a decadal basis the climate is either warming or cooling with often one decade being substantially different to the one preceding or following it. There have been only a couple of exceptions to this, so the chances are that the climate will do something fairly noticeable over the next decade, either warming or cooling, and will not stay static
Tonyb
My apologies to new Zealanders for my spelling mistake.
What Tsonis and Swanson are predicting is a period of flat SAT. Swanson speculated the flat period would end around 2020, which is about 6.5 years away, plus or minus a few.
JC, I’m not sure “flat has been gaining traction” is the best choice of words. Flat doesn’t imply gaining or losing anything.
How about one of the following:
Global warming seems temporarily frozen.
Global warming is chilling out.
Global warming deserves a break now and then.
What would climate change be without a little cooling.
How about global temperature is frozen
Expect to hear more of a fourth scenario, a recurrence of extreme events within unnatural trends. Surely rotten weather can’t run out. Some things just don’t peak, right?
Even if climate goes a bit benign, for the first time in history, a few definitional changes and – bingo! – the old warmie gang are still in biz under a new shingle. Maybe “Eerie Calm” will do, in the very unlikely event of a “stable” climate?
Okay, the money and attention may not be as good (Cancun! Your guitars at sunset!), but things can still roll on nicely. There was Danegeld paid long after the Danes were gone. And if warming comes back round, the alarmists can just party again like it was 2007.
Judith Curry
You make sense.
While I am pretty sure IPCC won’t repeat the silly mistake of projecting global warming of 0.2C per decade for the next two decades (as it did in AR4), it will be interesting to see whether or not IPCC modifies its AR5 report to include the possibility of continued global cooling over the next two or three decades despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations expected to reach new record levels.
(This would make mockery of the so-called “commitment” projections, which would probably have to be eliminated from the report this time around.)
The Met Office made a curious press release recently hinting that the unusually cold UK spring (coldest in 50 years) may have resulted from man-made global warming.
Will this new “cold is actually hot” approach be the new IPCC gimmick?
Or will it all be blamed on the Chinese or the deep blue sea?
Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Looks to me sort of like a drowning person grasping for straws.
Max
Manacker,
Why did you stop at “next two or three decades”?
It should be 0.15C decade for an ECS of 3C for doubling of CO2 at the current rate. It is possible that they used 0.2C because they thought carbon emissions would accelerate a bit more than they have. But because of the crude oil plateau of 2005, the acceleration of that fossil fuel stopped.
It looks as if RGBAT is going for a Chewie award. Just an observation.
I disagree: RGBAT did try to argue for his “this makes no sense” stance.
“Just an observation.”
But out of the chute, one observation is that condition of independence, required for making statistical inference(s), are not being honored. There is more than a little substance to that criticism for the simple or relatively direct methodology referred to by ‘rgb.’ Inference is not the ultimate arbiter (a theme found elsewhere in the posting).
IMO anything that get authors to tighen-up the presentations, providing discussion of explicit and implicit assumptions needed and appropriate diagnostics is a good thing. This hold for alternative approaches, i.e., other than statistics. Just some thoughts…
key typo
‘Inference is not the ultimate arbiter…’ –>
‘ Inference of course, is not the ultimate arbiter of truth…’
+1
I didn’t say he would win the award.
All those curves and none of the gloves fit. Surprise, surprise. Has RGBAT actually run any random walk simulations? I do work with terrain relief — arbitrary elevation profiles through natural terrain reveals a Gauss-Markov distribution of elevation changes with distance traveled. None of these profiles can be predicted with any certainty but the stochastic trends are there.
The point about the models not being IID is a strawman. One of the overriding trait of the climate models is that they have a mean value of temperature change with doubling of CO2. This is currently holding onto the long-established mean value of about 3 C.
Let’s decompose this number. The delta Temperature for a delta [CO2] amount we can derive:
T = 3 * ln(C/C0)
dT = 3 * dC/C
so we are increasing CO2 by 2 PPM per year at a level of 400 PPM.
This gives
dT = 3*2/400 = 0.015C per year on land or 0.15C per decade. It is about half this over the ocean due to half the heat being sequestered into deep waters. So the global average is about 0.1C per decade.
Why is RGBAT (DukieBoy) not puzzled by the fact that none of the curves that Spencer (RoyBoy) cherry-picked seemed to match the mean value of 0.1C per decade?
And why is not IntelligentDave (SpringyBoy) even more annoyed?
Gee, a lot of people take independence seriously in statistical testing, although many more people should,
“Why is RGBAT (DukieBoy) not puzzled by the fact that none of the curves that Spencer (RoyBoy) cherry-picked seemed to match the mean value of 0.1C per decade?”
Because he is specifically addressing the assumption of independence, what statistical calculations are done, and how the results are used/interpreted. If an inference is being drawn using a statistical methodology and one or more conditions required for the inference are not met, a red flag is thrown. This is separate from other critiques, though common origins of two or more problems or deficiencies can exist.
The fact is most people including scientists ‘glaze over and swoon’ when statistical terminology is used–even verbal statistical crap have gravitas and too often is not challenged. It is tough to write clearly about statistics–maybe because it has rubbed up against the dismal science too much.
Anyway, that is my POV. Regards.
Oftentimes when it comes to refining knowledge, the heuristic technique known as “wisdom of the crowds” works. None of that is IID, yet it can be used to predict election outcomes, and otherwise narrow down estimates.
The value of 3C for ECS is based on ensemble averages and it matches well with the observations. This is not too hard to understand because science is geared to regressing to the truth, even more so than the ad hoc wisdom of crowds approaches do.
Certainly non-statistical approaches deserve a look and I anticipate use–no argument there.
Distinguishing between “wisdom of the crowds” and “mob rule” or “mass hallucination” may be difficult in the implementation phase ;O)
My inclination is to look at things using multiple approaches. It also is important to realize that a human or humans make the decision(s) and evaluations–models, decision tools, etc. are part of the input, and humans should be accountable for the decision(s). [Don’t allow the decision-makers abdicate their responsibilities to the maths or to the mobs.]
Judith & Web
I second RGBAT for the Cewie award.
Duke’s quick post is the most brilliant devastating compact critique of why GCMs fail abysmally and of what is wrong with “Climate Science”.
Now how can we persuade panicked politicians to return to sound stewardship?
I strongly recommend a full post to addressing and highlighting these issues Duke raises to move from political pergatory back towards real evidence based science.
Hagen,
They may work good enough. You also conveniently forget that GCM’s are not the most critical piece in the analysis. They help more with the natural variability piece of the puzzle than with the overall trends:
Lacis said in his post here a while back:
whut.
I think it would be interesting to apply this criteria
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/honesty/
to Trenberth
Last time I checked, the sea surface temperatures of the Pacific Ocean (60S-65N, 120E-80W) haven’t warmed in about 19 years, while the CMIP5 models indicate they should have warmed about 0.4 deg C:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/model-data-comparison-pacific-ocean-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/figure-2-42/
Graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/model-data-comparison-pacific-ocean-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
I’m overdue for another SST model-data comparison, but looking at the most recent one, the only ocean basins that are “cooperating” with the models are the North Atlantic and the Arctic:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/cmip5-model-data-comparison-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
I’m thinking of limiting the next sea surface temperature model-data comparison to the last 20 years.
Bob T.,
Too bad SST’s tell us so very little about the ongoing energy imbalance of the Earth system, eh?
R. Gates
Too bad we don’t even know if there is an ongoing energy imbalance of the Earth system, because the data we have are so dicey and mixed and the uncertainties so great
Max
I know how to use the NOAA NOMAD3 server too, so I have to ask: Is Tisdale a liar?
It looks like approximately 0.1C warming per decade, about what one would expect for a 3C ECS where half the heat is being sequestered into deeper waters.
What’s wrong with Manacker, doesn’t he know how to fact check?
Max,
Of course we know. Physics and actual data make it abundantly clear. But this preoccupation of deniers to the troposphere allows them lots of fodder for misdirection and obfuscation. The last 10 years of solid ocean heat content and cryosphere changes vastly outweigh the significance of anything the troposphere even could do, even though the point in fact is that the last 10 years in the troposphere as well are the warmest 10 year period on instrument record. But all these facts are lost on deniers of AGW, and this, in particular is what makes them deniers and not the far more noble honest skeptic.
What is interesting is the claim that the ocean is warming much more than the land and atmosphere; I have seen numbers like 90% bandied about. Of course this is not true as far as temperature is concerned but is true in terms of total heat retained. Since the ocean’s heat capacity is so much more than the land/atmosphere combination, this imbalance will continue until it reaches the ratio of the total heat capacities, which is close to 1000 to 1.
So every year, the imbalance will continue to increase from 90% on upwards. That’s just the way the terms are defined.
R. Gates, “Too bad SST’s tell us so very little about the ongoing energy imbalance of the Earth system, eh?”
Perhaps you are not a very good listener.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/06/deep-oceans-versus-surface-temperature.html
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-iOhbCX_6tjo/UbxoLm4bU9I/AAAAAAAAImc/55why0mp6Lc/s803/giss%2520and%2520ersst.png
I think it is you that is not listening Cappy. Yes, the ocean is retaining 1/2 the excess heat from GHGs, and the SST’s are rising at about 1/2 the rate as the land temperatures are. So we get hotter temperatures where people live and sea level rise from thermal expansion in coastal areas where people live. Is that what has gotten climate observers concerned?
This is the actual curve that Tisdale messed up:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&psfile=on&var=sst&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=1994&fmonth=may&fyear=2013&lat0=-60&lat1=65&lon0=-80&lon1=120&plotsize=800×600&title=60S-65N%2C+120E-80W&dir=
This is what happens when I overlay a 12 month running average on top of Tisdale’s work, shown as the red circles:
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/3447/4i5.gif
Note that Tisdale is a fabricator and data manipulator par excellence. The actual values are not as far from the predictions as Tisdale is fudging them out to be.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 15, 2013 at 1:23 am | says: “I know how to use the NOAA NOMAD3 server too, so I have to ask: Is Tisdale a liar?”
And later, WebHubTelescope, you wrote, “Note that Tisdale is a fabricator and data manipulator par excellence.”
Before you call someone a liar, WebHubTelescope, you should make sure you know how to use the tool you only believe you know how to use. Apparently you haven’t a clue how to use the NOAA NOMADS system.
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&varlist=on&new_window=on&lite=&ptype=ts&dir=
I presented anomalies and you presented absolutes. That was the first hint that you’re clueless. The anomalies selection is in the “Field” drop-down menu.
Second, I presented the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Pacific Ocean using the coordinates of 60S-65N, 120E-80W. Are you aware that 60S is input as a negative number (-60) in the left-hand field for latitude and 65N is input as a positive number (65) in the right? Are you aware that second number in the longitude field has to be greater than the one in the left, so that those longitudes are input as 120 in the left-hand field and 280 in the right-hand field? Apparently not.
And don’t forget to have January 1994 as the start month and year.
Since you insist on discussing sea surface temperatures, here’s a comparison of the data you presented versus the sea surface temperature data for the Pacific Ocean if you had entered the fields correctly.
http://oi42.tinypic.com/2zokgh2.jpg
Can you see the difference, WebHubTelescope?
All you’ve managed to do is illustrate for all who view this thread now and in the future that you, WebHubTelescope, are incompetent or that you are the “liar”, “fabricator and data manipulator par excellence”.
BTW, I don’t like being called a liar by someone who’s incompetent.
And if you’re not aware, people who are competent have been checking my graphs for years and this is the first time that anyone has ever said that I’m a “liar”, a “fabricator and data manipulator par excellence”.
Have a nice day.
WebHubTelescope: Based on the link you provided…
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&psfile=on&var=sst&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=1994&fmonth=may&fyear=2013&lat0=-60&lat1=65&lon0=-80&lon1=120&plotsize=800×600&title=60S-65N%2C+120E-80W&dir=
…everyone can see that you’re presenting the data for the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. You’ve entered the coordinates of 60S-65N, 80W-120E, not 60S-65N, 120E-80W.
It should read:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=sst&level=1&month=jan&year=1994&fmonth=may&fyear=2013&lat0=-60&lat1=65&lon0=120&lon1=280&plotsize=800×600&dir=
Yup, you’ve proven you’re either incompetent or intentionally misleading your readers. But we see that all the time with AGW proponents.
I’m thinking of making you famous, WebHubTelescope.
Have a nice day.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | June 15, 2013 at 12:02 am | says, “Too bad SST’s tell us so very little about the ongoing energy imbalance of the Earth system, eh?”
Too bad that surface temperature is still the primary metric of global warming. And too bad no one cares about the energy imbalance–except you…maybe.
OK, problems with the angular arithmetic
Try the entire span to eliminate ambiguities:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&psfile=on&var=sst&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=1981&fmonth=may&fyear=2013&lat0=-60&lat1=65&lon0=-180&lon1=180&plotsize=800×600&title=60S-65N%2C+120E-80W&dir=
This is still about 0.1C per decade, about as predicted for 3C ECS.
Bob T. said:
“Too bad that surface temperature is still the primary metric of global warming. And too bad no one cares about the energy imbalance–except you…maybe.”
———–
I agree that is is too bad that some are so transfixed on the rather limited and rather small energy content and low thermal inertia of the troposphere as displayed in surface temperatures, but it certainly provides some fuel for the endless chatter and yipping of denialists as the surface temperatures exhibit far more natural variability than the larger metric of ocean heat content. Moreover of course, the surface temperatures are the tiny tail that the big dog of the ocean wags, and your fixations with SST’s are a great metric for the transfer of energy from ocean to atmosphere, but poor at really showing the steady long-term energy accumulation in the Earth system.
In regards to no one caring about the energy imbalance in the Earth system, you of course mean than no denialists care or want to discuss it, for if they do, their arguments for “no warming” fall into the pile of dung where they belong. Of course, actual climate scientists care very much about the energy imbalance caused by the ongoing accumulation of multiple GH gases in Earth’s atmosphere. It is that imbalance, and all the different effects it has on oceans, biosphere, atmosphere, and cryosphere that is the focus of so much intense and exceptionally important research worldwide.
Webster, “I think it is you that is not listening Cappy. Yes, the ocean is retaining 1/2 the excess heat from GHGs, and the SST’s are rising at about 1/2 the rate as the land temperatures are. So we get hotter temperatures where people live and sea level rise from thermal expansion in coastal areas where people live. Is that what has gotten climate observers concerned? ”
Nonsense, the 1/2 is pulled out of thin air. “Global” surface temperature more closely follow tropical ocean temperatures which are more strongly influenced by clouds and solar. Thermosteric sea level rise agrees with OHC change agrees with SST change which agrees with ~0.8 C rise since the most recent minimum in 1915-1917. That ~0.8 C rise is near the estimated “global” temperature depression which is supposedly “below average” “Sensitivity” is dependent on what “average” is and you have no clue what should be the starting point. If you pick the coldest reference you will have high “sensitivity” which you can blame the 1/2 on, but since the initial conditions are vague at best, you are hopelessly lost.
@R gates
Yippee
The seas might be getting a bit warmer. Or they might not, given the paucity of accurate records from twenty plus years ago.
And if it’s true, remind me why such a circumstance should pass the ‘so what’ test.
I found it difficult enough to dampen my underwear at the prospect of the bit of the Earth where we live warming by 1 or 2K. I find it even less relevant that a bit we don’t live in might get 1K warmer in 100 years. It is surely the epitome of a purely academic argument.
But if it means that your and your co-religionists can still believe in your AGW God – that’s fine with me. But please do it in decent privacy and don’t bother the rest of us with your Faith. Thanks.
WebHubTelescope says: “OK, problems with the angular arithmetic
Try the entire span to eliminate ambiguities:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&psfile=on&var=sst&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=1981&fmonth=may&fyear=2013&lat0=-60&lat1=65&lon0=-180&lon1=180&plotsize=800×600&title=60S-65N%2C+120E-80W&dir=
This is still about 0.1C per decade, about as predicted for 3C ECS.”
That looks as though you’ve just admitted to making a mistake, WebHubTelescope. You called me a “liar”, and a “fabricator and data manipulator par excellence” and it was you who made the mistake? And to top it off, you didn’t apologize?
Now, to totally bury your own credibility, you’re presenting sea surface temperatures for the global oceans minus the polar oceans and listing the coordinates for the Pacific in your title block. That is, you’ve presented the data for the coordinates of 60S to 65N, 180W to 180E, but your title block reads 60S-65N, 120E-80W.
Are you aware that the coordinates you’ve entered appear in the link?
In the NOMADS link, “lat0=-60&lat1=65&lon0=-180&lon1=180” means you’re presenting the coordinates of 60S-65N, 180W-180E.
Also, the readers here might not understand that NOMADS does not automatically enter the coordinates in the title block. You, WebHubTelescope, had to do that. Well, now they do. The readers here now understand that you’ve entered one set of coordinates but listed another in the title block
One might conclude something from that: With your title block, WebHubTelescope, you’re intentionally misrepresenting the data you’ve presented. And you called me a liar?
The topic of discussion is the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Pacific Ocean, since 1994, not the global oceans minus the polar oceans. If you had entered them correctly, and asked for anomalies, this is the graph you would have been presented by NOMADS:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&month=jan&year=1994&fmonth=may&fyear=2013&lat0=-60&lat1=65&lon0=120&lon1=280&plotsize=800×600&dir=
Sure does look like an updated version of the data I presented in my original link:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/model-data-comparison-pacific-ocean-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/figure-2-42/
If you believed you had any credibility here, WebHubTelescope, wave good-bye to it.
Bye-bye.
PS: See my blog post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/i-dont-like-being-called-a-liar-fabricator-or-data-manipulator/
WHT, please go to Bob Tisdale’s blog to read his detailed response. Calling someone a ‘liar’ is almost always a bad idea. If I had spotted your ‘liar’ accusation before all of this discussion, I would have deleted your comment.
WHUT in the thread you called Bob Tisdale a liar, and we all in the end found out that you messed up the actual curve not Bob, that Bob was perfectly right in his statement.
And after finding out you were wrong WHUT you say: “OK, problems with the angular arithmetic”, and still miss the point. In addition you do not appologise and you do not retract your insult.
Fighting for what you might think is a good cause does not give you the higher morale.
A retraction and appology to Bob is due. Will you manage to stand to your errors and bad manners?
“Also, the readers here might not understand that NOMADS does not automatically enter the coordinates in the title block. You, WebHubTelescope, had to do that. Well, now they do. The readers here now understand that you’ve entered one set of coordinates but listed another in the title block”
Wow, burn. There goes your credibility.
Oooh, trying to get me in a trick box. Tisdale is the one cherry-picking the data by looking at some narrow window.
Let’s look at all the data. The ocean heat content is increasing throughout the volume at about 8.5*10^21 joules/year. This means that half the thermal forcing of 1.5 W/m^2 is going in to the deeper water. This also means that 1/2 the heat can not contribute to the SST rise.
If we use the mean ECS of 3 C for doubling of CO2 then half of this for the ocean is 1.5 C. Applying the log sensitivity:
T = 1.5 * ln(C/C0)
dT = 1.5 * dC/C
where C is the CO2 sensitivity. The dC is about 2 PPM/year and C right now is 400PPM. Then
dT = 1.5*2/400 = 0.0075 C/year
or 0.075 C/decade
The SST rise for the entire ocean since the start of the NOMAD3 data averages to a little above this rate.
This is all self-consistent with the consensus climate science. Don’t try to cherry-pick the numbers and make it almost impossible for anyone to try to follow your arguments.
Tisdale has the reputation for claiming that all the warming is due to slowly varying ocean oscillations. This is a great example of him trying to convince people that no warming in SST has occurred by isolating a constrained set of points.
‘T = 1.5 * ln(C/C0)’
OK – not
T = 1.5 x ln (C/C0) = 1.5 x ln (400/280) = 0.535 degree C I presume.
Seriously? The guy is so utterly incompetent as beggar belief.
The simple equations he messes up so badly are:
dT = λ*dF
where dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
For CO2 doubling – we get the usual 3.7W/m2.
dT is an unknown and is determined on the basis of models giving estimates of linear sensitivity λ.
Using 3 degrees as a delta T for ECS => λ = 0.81
Plugging that back into the formula gives an increase of 0.021 degrees C for a 2 ppm increase in CO2.
I don’t find the fact that he messes this up so badly to be surprising. It is all of a piece – incompetent math and fantasy physics.
Chief did the analysis wrong and is trying to misdirect.
If we use the mean ECS of 3 C for doubling of CO2 and realize that ocean is following the TCR of half of this value or 1.5 C. Applying the log sensitivity:
T = 3.0/2 * ln(C/C0)
dT = 1.5 * dC/C
where C is the CO2 sensitivity. The dC is about 2 PPM/year and C right now is 400PPM. Then
dT = 1.5*2/400 = 0.0075 C/year
or 0.075 C/decade
The SST rise for the entire ocean since the start of the NOMAD3 data averages to a little above this rate. Check it for yourself.
Or else take the HadSST data set and you will find it matches to this rate as well. Since 1960, this should be dT = 1.5*ln(400/315) = 0.36C
Check the trend for yourself:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1960/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1960/trend
Web, I believe you need to divide by ln2, which gives 0.5 C and that fits even better for your 1.5 C per doubling ocean sensitivity.
What a horrendous mish mash. I would hardly call this analysis – the sensitivity equations are a given and are as I quote them.
And the other schmuck decides he needs to divide by ln(2).
What a joke this is. The answer cannot be right if the formula used is incorrect.
CH, the data shows that the ocean is warming at 1.5 C per doubling since 1960 and land is warming at 4 C per doubling since 1980. Not sure what you are talking about.
JimD, yes thanks for the ln(2).
The general point of land temperatures increasing twice the rate of ocean temperatures is independent of that constant of proportionality. However, it obviously does affect the absolute increases.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 15, 2013 at 8:39 pm | says: “Oooh, trying to get me in a trick box. Tisdale is the one cherry-picking the data by looking at some narrow window.”
Nope. You jumped into that box of your own free will. You maneuvered the box into the hole. And then you skillfully and repeatedly dragged the dirt back in onto yourself, burying what was left of your own supposed credibility.
Now you’re trying to blame me for the blatantly obvious errors you made? How laughable!
The topic of discussion is the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Pacific Ocean (60S-65N, 120E-80W) for the past 19 years, using the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data. I presented data, and you, WebHubTelescope, presented fabrications. But you apparently did not realize you were exposing your fabrications with your links. So you continued to bury yourself.
Now that you’ve exposed your true self in an open forum, I can’t understand why anyone would bother to read your comments beyond your name. I got as far as what I quoted and then laughed aloud at your gall.
Adios, WebHubTelescope.
Wayman, Care to explain why the SST rise across the world happens to match the rise predicted by the expected ECS of 3 C per doubling of CO2, and an expected TCR for ocean of half this value ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/trend
Cherry-pick a particular region and it is obvious that you want to hide the incline.
Webby’s formula
T =1.5*LN(560/280) = 1.04
It is absurdly stupid.
The simple equations he messes up so badly are:
dT = λ*dF
where dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
=> dT = λ*5.35 ln(C/C0)
For CO2 doubling – we get the usual 3.7W/m2.
dT is an unknown and is determined on the basis of models giving estimates of linear sensitivity λ.
Using 3 degrees as a delta T for ECS => λ = 0.81
Plugging that back into the formula gives an increase of 0.021 degrees C for a 2 ppm increase in CO2.
WebHubTelescope says: “Wayman, Care to explain why the SST rise across the world happens to match the rise predicted by the expected ECS of 3 C per doubling of CO2, and an expected TCR for ocean of half this value ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/trend”
Wayman? No one named Wayman wrote anything on this thread, WebHubTelescope. Are you talking to me?
Are you referring to Wayman Tisdale, the former ball player, WebHubTelescope? Was that an attempt at some kind of racial humor based on my last name, WebHubTelescope? Or maybe it was an attempt at some type of morbid humor? Either way, are you trying to piss me off so that I lower myself to your level and write something stupid? Not gonna work, WebHubTelescope.
Wayman was, past tense, a kind and wonderful soul. If you’re not aware, Wayman passed away 4 years ago, WebHubTelescope, you offensive simple-minded twit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayman_Tisdale
R. Gates “Max,
Of course we know. Physics and actual data make it abundantly clear. But this preoccupation of deniers to the troposphere allows them lots of fodder for misdirection and obfuscation. The last 10 years of solid ocean heat content and cryosphere changes vastly outweigh the significance of anything the troposphere even could do, even though the point in fact is that the last 10 years in the troposphere as well are the warmest 10 year period on instrument record. ”
two points in the interest of balance and equal rights:
The last 10 years of solid ocean heat content and cryosphere changes vastly outweigh…..
Is that similar to how the first 10 years of “global warming” in the troposphere vastly outweighed the total lack of any other evidence?????
The other thing totally bugs me. I keep seeing quotes such as ” the last 10 years have been the warmest” for whatever variable you choose. Well, duh! as my daughter would say. We are at the ass end of a long, slow change in several global temperature variables. Would anyone seriously expect these temps or whatever to be the lowest? The 1600’s to about 1850 were uncomfortably cold by almost any measure. It’s been warming since. Temperatures do not go down when it warms up. Duh.
“last 10 years in the troposphere as well are the warmest 10 year period on instrument record.” Given the history, this is a totally inane argument.
R Gates
Living in the real world of a real country I am much more concerned with what the 350 year temperature record is showing us, not the highly theoretical ocean heat content of a poorly measured,medium with records stretching back barely a decade.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
tonyb
Tony,
Your argument for us not having a good grasp on the upward march of ocean heat content might have been valid 5 or 10 years ago, but no now. It is far more than theoretical.
R gates
Excuse me? So the heat content of the abyssal waters is what again?
Anyway, as you well know I was pointing out the lack of historical context in promoting such a short term record
Tonyb
R gates
I was also pointing out that I live on the land and not in the sea and that surface temperatures (plunging here) are much more important to non mermen than the temperature of the ocean at 5000 metres(unknown)
Tonyb
Tony,
Though we both live on land, you know even better than I (living closer to the ocean) how dependent we are on the ocean, and what a large roll it plays in the weather we experience on land. During these cool phases of the PDO with the favoring of La Niñas over EL Niños, we can always expect a somewhat cool troposphere. Combine that with a somewhat sleepy solar cycle, and a series of moderate volcanoes such as we had this past decade, and it is more than understandable and even quantifiable why the troposphere has done what it has. Blaming models for not foreseeing this natural variability and claiming that it undermines the basis of AGW is simple ignorance or willful obfuscation.
R gates
Where have I blamed models for not seeing this natural variability?
However whilst on the subject, we are dealing with a mind set where the met office proclaimed on their web site until last year that climate was essentially static until man started his co2 emissions. So they have a limited belief in natural variability and seem not to understand the climate history of their own country.
The current weather they are having a meeting about on Tuesday is entirely unremarkable, indeed the extremes of the past are considerably worse than we currently experience.
Now, you seem to have diverted the conversation away from the possible warming of the abyssal waters. Can you clarify which papers you are looking at that gives us worthwhile estimates?
tonyb
Tony said:
“…we are dealing with a mind set where the met office proclaimed on their web site until last year that climate was essentially static until man started his co2 emissions…”
_____
If this is true, it gives me even more of a reason to ignore the Met’s pronouncements and predictions.
R Gates
Go to my article here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/
The quote is a few paragraphs in. I had referenced it several times from around 2008 but it disappeared from their website sometime after this article in November 2011.
It a particularly daft thing for them to say as they have an extensive library and archives stuffed full of books, scrolls, diaries and other material all attesting to astonishing climate variability in Britain and further afield. The weather was far more extreme in the 11th to 18th century than it is now. Climate changes far more often than it stays static and switches very quickly.
tonyb
This is probably because of the PDO phase that you have selected maybe along with the current solar reduction. The model average would not have that signal. Looking at the land is instructive in this regard. Its warming rate has been twice the ocean’s for the last 30 years (half a purported PDO 60-year cycle).
I find it interesting that parts of the east Pacific haven’t warmed for 100 years. These are 30-year averages 100 years apart. I think it is because of the dominance of upwelling in the east Pacific rim area and Southern Ocean. Everywhere else has warmed. The deep water is still cold and has a memory of previous climate averages. The models likely have trouble capturing the upwelling part of the ocean circulation that provides this cold water spreading westwards from its source.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=5&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1982&year2=2012&base1=1882&base2=1912&radius=1200&pol=reg
JimD said:
This Land=2*Ocean warming is the most useful observation. If you apply this across the board to ocean heat content, land models, SST models, and global temperature models with the appropriate 70/30 split between ocean area and land area, all the data becomes self-consistent.
Self-consistency is the hallmark of making scientific progress.
Tisdale is too focused on the messy ocean surface variability to think about the simpler, but more relevant, things occurring over the land. A case of tunnel vision, not looking at the big picture. We have a few of them here.
‘A well-known feature of global warming scenarios is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Several recent studies find that this land–sea contrast is not just a transient effect due to the larger heat capacity of the oceans relative to the heat capacity of the land (Sutton et al. 2007; Lambert and Chiang 2007; Joshi et al. 2007). It is an inherent feature of global warming that exists in the equilibrium climate state of global warming scenarios. Sutton et al. (2007) explain the land–sea contrast by differences in the local latent heat releases over land and oceans, which lead to different negative feedbacks. However, they do not consider any ocean–land interaction. Joshi et al. (2007) explain the land–sea contrast in more detail, including the importance of global mixing of the free atmosphere. They find that the different moisture availability over land and ocean leads to different atmospheric temperature lapse rates (latent heat release), which in combination with a well-mixed free (above boundary layer) atmosphere can explain the land–sea contrast. Thus they implicitly argue that ocean–land interaction is an important factor. Compo and Sardeshmukh (2009) argue, based on model simulation with prescribed historical SSTs, that most of the continental warming is caused by the ocean warming and not by the local response the radiative forcings.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1
Happy to help out.
CH, while the land warms at 4 C per doubling and the ocean warms at less than 2 C per doubling, these are diverging. I don’t think this is a sustainable difference, at least I hope not, otherwise all the land humidity drops to cloudless desert-like conditions. Cold water can’t provide rain to hotter surfaces. Tough situation. Rather than this happening, the ocean may eventually warm more at the surface raising the global water vapor amounts.
Jim,
Read the study.
I should say read the study instead of pulling it out of your arse as usual.
Jim D stares three paradoxes in the face in his Tisdale critique above and doesn’t blink an eye. Wizardry.
==============
The Ocean’s Role in Continental Climate Variability and Change
CH, I looked at that model study. It says oceans have a bigger effect on land than vice versa. This means that if the land does warm faster than the ocean due to its lower thermal inertia, the ocean won’t keep up very easily. However, if the oceans have decadal variability (land doesn’t), this shows up in the land signal. Global warming is several degrees and decadal variability is a few tenths, so the former is the effect to consider as more important.
Again – the data shows most of the recent warming was cloud radiative forcing by a long shot. 0.7W/m2 cooling in IR and 2.1W/m2 warming in SW between the 80’s and 90’s.
As this stage – it looks very much like warming from CO2 is overestimated and climate change from natural variability underestimated.
CH, that would be consistent with a positive cloud feedback to the CO2 forcing change. It rules out negative cloud feedback when warming occurs with a cloud decrease, I think we can agree, which is why those people have been fairly quiet recently.
CH, you have to distinguish a forcing change, such as 1.9 W/m2 from CO2 since pre-industrial, from an energy imbalance which goes up and down on an annual basis. It is possible for a forcing change to lead to warming with no imbalance showing up, but in reality there is an imbalance because the surface temperature does not keep up with the forcing at all times. This imbalance mostly goes into the OHC.
So we have cooling in the IR and warming in SW much larger than any mooted change in forcing and this is consistent with positive cloud feedbacks? It is a joke I assume. It is consistent with natural variation.
I think we hit a nerve again.
From the Dommenget paper:
This doubling is just part of the observational record. It is all very self-consistent if one assumes half the heat entering the ocean is sequestered by diffusing to deeper layers.
That one guy has a blindspot by only focusing on the ocean, I agree. So much more information is available to tie together.
CH, what is the average of your imbalance over the period, and does it differ significantly from the one estimated as an imbalance by Trenberth or Hansen for example? They use the same methods and get something approaching 1 W/m2 heating especially in later years where surface warming stopped, but this can be accounted for by the OHC change (missing heat and all that). If you think you are doing something new here, you are mistaken. The TOA radiative imbalance is a known part of the global energy budget.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html
The oceans force the land.
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
The ‘noise’ exceeds the ‘signal’ over the entirety of the record. Get used to it.
For climate, it is the average over time that matters, not the noise. This is a common theme with natural variability versus sustained change whether talking about the imbalance or surface temperature. In the end, the sustained change is the one that wins out.
The paper that I get the most insight from is this one by Hansen et al
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf
J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann, “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 11, no. 24, pp. 13421–13449, Dec. 2011.
Look at Figure 18 in particular. This goes through each one of the climate factors in a very comprehensive fashion, leading to the planetary imbalance of ~0.8C. This is half the forcing and equal to the amount going into the OHC.
The warming due to CO2 is SFA. SFA sustained over a long time is SFA.
look at hansens fig 17,its wrong,now correct 18
Noise never stopped man from understanding the underlying behavior.
Witness the Voyager spacecraft.
For the climate, the signal is the forcing function.
As Lacis has noted on these comments:
I use the terms noise and signal ironically. Which is why I always put them within quotes. The inherent variability of climate is the most interesting aspect of climate.
Jim D “This imbalance mostly goes into the OHC.”
Whut ” It is all very self-consistent if one assumes half the heat entering the ocean is sequestered by diffusing to deeper layers. ”
Most anything can be made to work with the right assumptions. I find the assumptions of OHC intriguing. The deep ocean is at -4degC. It can cool 10x of the air 0.1 degC and absorb all that heat. When the deep ocean finally does turn over off the California coast or off Japan, or in any of the upwelling areas it will still be well below the current sea surface temperature. So none of that heat can add back to the atmosphere. It will again absorb more heat and reach a toasty -4.2 deg. C.
I wouldn’t expect any climatologically affective heat in the deep ocean anytime soon.
LogicalChemist, it is not an assumption, it is from measurements that are bearing this out with the improved Argo data.
The concept is to use a single-model framework to systematically perturb poorly constrained model parameters, related to key physical and biogeochemical (carbon cycle) processes, within expert-specified ranges. As in the multi-model approach, there is still the need to test each version of the model against the current climate before allowing it to enter the perturbed parameter ensemble. An obvious disadvantage of this approach is that it does not sample the structural uncertainty in models, such as resolution, grid structures and numerical methods because it relies on using a single-model framework.
As the ensemble sizes in the perturbed ensemble approach run to hundreds or even many thousands of members, the outcome is a probability distribution of climate change rather than an uncertainty range from a limited set of equally possible outcomes, as shown in figure 9. This means that decision-making on adaptation, for example, can now use a risk-based approach based on the probability of a particular outcome.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Each of the individual models in an ensemble of opportunity has a range of feasible outcomes that is arbitrarily broad as a result of the ‘damn butterfly’. The multi-model ensemble members are each chosen on the ‘plausibility’ of the outcome. Each member is an arbitrary choice of a solution from a range of feasible solutions which are then plotted as equally probable solutions. The butterfly ensures that there is no single deterministic answer.
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. op cit
Without the statistics of perturbed models – nothing sensible can be said about the solutions that are either chosen or ignored.
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.long
This is not about confidence intervals but is about the statistics of chaotic models. The need for perturbed model ensembles has been known for some time.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
WOOPS, my link suggest warming since 2008, but that’s not long enough to be statistically significant, and not as long as the cooling since 2002 which probably isn’t long enough to be statistically significant either. BORING !
I would just tell those journalist we don’t have enough to go on here, and to get back to me in a few years.
Max_OK,
Did you see my reply to your comment here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/10/climate-change-officers/#comment-332000
Peter, I never said people don’t swim on that beach. IMO, it’s just not a good place for swimming. The linked photo is a more realistic perspective on the beach and the nuke power plant than the photo you gave.
I have walked that beach many times in years past and there’s nothing you can say to change my mind about that power plant being an eyesore. It never should have been built in the Toronto metro area. I’ll be glad when it’s gone.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gs_rn=17&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=frencm&suggest=p&cp=26&gs_id=2u&xhr=t&q=frencmans+bay+beach+toroto&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmQ&biw=1758&bih=1083&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=rKG7UcXBLqrb0QGQ8ICADA#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=frenchmans+bay+beach+nuclear+toronto&oq=frenchmans+bay+beach+nuclear+toronto&gs_l=img.12…15794.26109.8.27935.9.9.0.0.0.0.45.382.9.9.0…0.0.0..1c.1.17.img.oalaBwv_yK4&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmQ&fp=e4e95e369c5f2404&biw=1758&bih=1083&facrc=_&imgrc=4ItEzv9hPT1nGM%3A%3BXLYbFIv5jWtAMM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%252F1310%252F1402311826_56db89240f_z.jpg%253Fzz%253D1%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforum.skyscraperpage.com%252Fshowthread.php%253Ft%253D189483%3B640%3B452
I apologize for taking up all that space for a link that didn’t work.
Peter, Google “Toronto nuclear Frenchman’s Beach” and click on Images to see several photos of the area.
Max_OK,
You’ve lost the plot. It’s got nothing to do with whether or not you’ve walked on that beach or whether the lake is too cold for people to swim in.
The point is that the plant is really safe, so safe they don’t even feel it is necessary to prevent people from swimming in the warmed water after it has passed through and cooled the power station. That was the point of the photo http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20070706/450_cp_nuclear_070706.jpg . You tried to make out the photo was staged. It is not. people do swim in the warmed cooling water after it has exited the plant. And’t they’ve been doing it for about 40 years. And no one has seen fit to stop them from doing so.
It demonstrates very clearly that your anti-nuke scaremongering is baseless.
Why don’t you show some integrity and acknowledge you were wrong on this point, and then go on and do the same for the other anti-nuke scaremongering points you raised and I debunked (see the four questions in comment above that you have not yet addressed).
Just to be clear, I posted the photo in response to you scaremongering comment “ BTW, is the Pickering plant the one that had the accident back in 2011, and dumped a lot of contaminated water into the Lake?. I asked you what “a lot” means and to provide context. You haven’t answered yet, despite me reminding you about four times so far.
Here are the questions I asked you and you haven’t answered, yet:
Peter, you have talked me out of being neutral about nuclear power. The more you try to promote it, the more I question whether it’s a good thing. Why? Because you are rude, obnoxious, and full of crap. As I’ve said before, if I were pro-nuke, I would want you to keep your mouth shut.
My guess is you are an old-timer who was enthusiastic about nuclear power in your younger days, and after seeing decades of it never amounting too much, you hope for a revival. Perhaps that’s the story of your life as well.
I wouldn’t bet on nuclear power having a bright future. Aside from the public perception that nuclear power plants are an enormous potential hazard, the high initial cost of these plants and the high cost of closing them when they get old works against attracting investment.
Natural gas fired plants are much less expensive to build and the price of gas may fall even more.
As for Pickering, getting rid of that ugly piece of crap will be something for Toronto to celebrate. Will it be replaced by new nuclear power elsewhere in Ontario? That’s hard to say. Nuclear power in Ontario faces an uncertain future.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2013/05/09/ontario_considering_nuclear_slowdown_minister_says.html
Max_OK,
So you don’t want to answer and of the questions about the assertions you made. You made baseless assertions and can’t support them. So you resort to avoidance and rudeness instead (as you have done frequently).
You’ve once again displayed the tactics of an irrational person who forms a belief based on ideological dogma then, when you cannot justify your baseless beliefs, you turn to abuse of the person pointing out your beliefs are irrational and baseless.
Your last comment is one of the silliest of all.
What it makes clear is how you form and then justify your beliefs. It’s fair to assume your other doomsday beliefs – such as in catastrophic AGW – are justified on the basis of similarly ideological dogma.
Peter, I’m getting bored with your tireless efforts to convince me you are a bore.
Try boring your friends instead of me. Invite them to your place. Treat everyone to glow-in-the-dark Jello shooters. That’s a good way to bring up your favorite subject, nuclear power.
Max_OK,
You made a whole series of really silly, baseless assertions. I’ve pointed them out and asked you some questions so that, if you were intelligent and open minded, you would realise and acknowledge your assertions were baseless, silly, and wrong.
All you have to do is admit and acknowledge you were making stuff up and, in your own terms, is ‘BS’. Then acknowledge you were wrong.
You could go further and admit that all your beliefs are based on loony Left ideological dogma and are are just as silly and have no more justification than your baseless assertions about nuclear power.
What I am doing is exposing the loony Left for what they are. You happen to be the useful idiot that has provided the excellent examples fro me to expose this time. You are doing very well; so just keep going as you are doing.
I’m sorry Peter, but I put my 2:10 am reply in the wrong place. It’s down thread a little ways.
Max_OK,
Yes. I saw it. It’ doesn’t say anything. You’ve made a host of baseless assertions and when questioned about them you’ve avoided answering.
You have clearly demonstrated you are an example of the loony left who believe the ideological dogma (e.g. CAGW) those who share their ideology simply accept without question. This demonstrates you are incapable of thinking for yourself, questioning what you are told or challenging your beliefs. I presume, if one of them said “build and Ark”, you’d be right in there doing as you are told, without hesitation and without question, right?
There is a suggestion that temperature pauses happen quite naturally in the climate record – and further that some 17 years of no warming is required to invalidate global warming from AGG. This is quite different to the natural variability hypothesis that suggests non warming for some decades to come. This is a testable hypothesis that is succeeding year after year and is the essence of science.
‘If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system,
specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal-scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al., 2008]. 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.’ ftp://starfish.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub/ocean/CCS-WG_References/NewSinceReport/March15/Swanson%20and%20Tsonis%20Has%20the%20climate%20recently%20shifted%202008GL037022.pdf
That there was a climate shift in 1998/2001 seems a matter of fact – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=4
There are no pauses in the past, nor is there a pause now. What we have is a ‘wobby’ rate change. Here is the rate of HADCRT4 temperature changes from 1851 to present, measured over 97 months.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/HADCRUT4monthly_zps575cf5ba.png
Note the temperature is falling.
‘The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each
of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’ http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
There are real systems with real modes of variability over many time scales. The multi-decadal mode is one having major implications for climate in the instrumental records.
It appears that humanity is just one of many natural causes of variability in the climate. Like all the others, there are cycles and feedbacks, both slightly positive and negative, that will affect the results of whatever we do.
I see. You want to say you are full of beans again.
OK, Peter, you are full of beans.
I wish everyone was so easy to please.
Max – The plant is an eyesore. However, if you are truly concerned about radioactivity, it is very easy to detect. Buy yourself a pancake-type Geiger counter and go to that beach and explore it for yourself. I built a Geiger detector and my son and I have had a lot of fun with it.
Eighth grade science class built a cloud chamber, quanticfied.
=================
We built one of those too. I love it!
Not that it proves anything WRT climate science, but still the cloud chamber left no doubt that cosmic rays, or ionizing radiation in general, can create nucleation sites.
I hid the juice about Bruce there.
=========
‘Time for statistical significance to be slain, its bones cremated, and its ashes scattered in secret. No trace should remain lest the infection re-spread. The only word of it should appear in Latin in tomes guarded by monks charged with collecting man’s (and woman’s!) intellectual follies.”
+100
I thought you were giving yourself +100. Then i saw the quotation marks.
So who said that?
+200
It’s from the Matt Briggs excerpt.
The modellers are cherry-picking physics. In classical terms, this can be described as adhering to Newton’s 3 laws, but ignoring (with purpose) the potential physical explanations.
The first law is first for a reason, when you look at something changing constantly, is something forcing it or was it already moving? From here we can see the very tenet of the climate movement, that the climate does not change unless there is something forcing it, maybe incorrect. Does the earth’s rotation require forcing? Newton didn’t think so. Are there climate cycles? Yes. Is it necessary for a cycle to be “forced”? No, according to Newton’s physics, an Ice Age does not need forcing.
Those who raise the objection that the economic costs of CO2 mitigation are too high might like to read the work of some of the increasingly vocal ‘neo-chartalists’ or Modern Monetary Theory advocates like Bill Mitchell and L. Randall Wray. They aren’t particularly concerned with climate change but they do answer the question of “where’s the money going to come from”?
To summarize some key points:
Sovereign issuers of currency are not revenue-constrained.
Governments don’t really borrow money. That’s a myth. Its just not possible to borrow your own IOUs
Therefore they cannot involuntarily default on debt denominated in their own currency.
Taxation isn’t about raising revenue for Governments to spend.
It is instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the currency and an expression public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income.
MMT is not really a theory of how the economy should work but rather of how it does work, no doubt to the dismay of the more conservative elements in society. There is just no analogy at all between the way individuals manage their finances and the way it’s done by governments.
“Governments don’t really borrow money. That’s a myth.”
Tell the Chinese holding $1.17 trillion of U.S T-bills. (Most U.S. debt is not currency, it is Treasury bills, negotiable instruments…you know, promises to pay…otherwise known as debt.)
Better yet, tell the Argentinians who still haven’t recovered from their default (which they are apparent;ly on the verge of doing again).
Then there is the unfunded debt to putative social security and medicare recipients (approximately $14 trillion – also not currency).
Reason 3,947 why the last thing we need is to let the CAGW wizards of smart (who have so badly mangled climate science, in which they are at least trained) get their hands on our economy.
….the last thing we need is to let the ….. wizards of smart ….. get their hands on our economy
Too late. They already have!
So I can declare myself sovereign and start printing my own script?
Theoretically, yes, but it would probably be worthless unless you guaranteed against something tangible. However, if your locality declared itself independent…….
US treasury bills are denominated in US dollars so the US government can’t default on those.
It is possible for governments to default on debt which isn’t their own currency. Like Greece, Ireland etc in the EU with their Euro debt, as well as the Argentinian example you’ve mentioned where their debt was largely in US dollars.
“US treasury bills are denominated in US dollars so the US government can’t default on those.”
That is just dumb. The US can refuse to pay the face value of the treasury bills. That is a default. The congress could fail to authorize the spending to cover the debt. That would be a default.
There are these things that are called ratings agencies. They downgraded US debt a couple years ago to reflect the increased possibility of US default.
The government will almost certainly default in the unfunded liabilities of social security and medicare, unless the congress first reduces those liabilities by simply legislating them away. (Which would be a de facto default.)
You may have even read about the debt ceiling, even if you didn’t understand it. The US government cannot spend more than is authorized by Congress. You really should not believe everything you read on wikipedia. Or wherever you found this nonsense.
The US could voluntarily refuse to pay its debts but it could never be in a position like Greece which isn’t in a voluntary position at all. It doesn’t have control over the Euro.
The US dollar is essentially a government IOU. The same with bonds except that usually there is some interest paid on them – but if there’s any at the moment it’s tiny. If I take your IOU, all you can do is pay me back with another IOU and you can write as many of them as you like. If that IOU is tradeable in the market I can swap it for gold or someone else’s IOU, or whatever. But if I own a lot of your IOU’s I would be silly to dump too many of them on the market all at once and depress their value.
That’s the position China are in at the moment. They probably need to diversify their foreign currency reserves but in a gradual way.
I’m not an economist but I have been wondering just how it is possible for countries like the USA to, seemingly, defy economic gravity without inflation being a big issue as it was in previous decades. It would seem that the economic powers-that-be, or ruling class in Marxist terms, in the USA are not too concerned at all by the ever increasing so-called national debt. There are those, like yourself, who think they should be but it seems to me that, rightly or wrongly, the prevailing orthodoxy in the USA, but maybe not Europe, is pretty close to the MMT theory that Mitchell and Wray advocate.
GaryM said on June 14, 2013 at 10:17 pm
“The government will almost certainly default in the unfunded liabilities of social security and medicare, unless the congress first reduces those liabilities by simply legislating them away. (Which would be a de facto default.)”
________
GaryM doesn’t like to think about funding the “unfunded liabilities of social security and medicare.” Funding implies taxes, a horrible thing for anti-government ideologues to contemplate. They would rather throw grandma under the bus.
tempterrain and Max_OK,
When it comes to economics, you are both dumb as a box of rocks.
Of course the US can promise to pay more than it is able. And has. Your belief that fiat money can be printed in an endless supply just shows that you don’t even understand the progressive economics you think you are in favor of.
The wealth of the US is not in the amount of currency printed by the Fed. It is in the goods and services created by its people. The government could print enough currency to make every person a millionaire tomorrow. Poof! All of our problems are gone because everyone is wealthy, right? Why don’t Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Bernanke?
Because they are not really as stupid as many of the useful idiots who vote for them.
The government could issue checks to cover all the unfunded liabilities it has promised for social security and medicare, but those checks would be worthless because no one would accept them as payment for anything.
Seriously, you people really need to pick up a book once in a while. Or at least go beyond the Huffington Post and New York Times. You think the talk of an economic abyss is just propaganda, because you have never taken the time to actually learn anything beyond what you have been told to think by the politicians and their PR people in the so called “press.”
There is a reason even the communist Chinese are talking about not using the Dollar as a reserve currency any more. If you even know what that means.
GaryM: + 1000
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person here who knows the difference between value and money.
Thaler, thale, bubble eater
Had a wife and couldn’t keep her;
He knew price, but naught of value.
She knew value, ought price knew.
===================
Oh, yeah H/t to Stonewall Hacksaw.
==========
temp,
I won’t be as harsh as Gary, but your understanding of US debt and the treasury dept does not run deep.
We already know Max’s understanding of economics, at least as to how he displays it here, is … well, it is difficult to describe how off base it is.
I do disagree with Gary regarding the possibility of China going to an alternative currancy to invest in. There isn’t one. All the gnashing of teeth and predictions of doom back when the credit agencies down graded our rating – so much bs. The interest on treasury bills dropped to record lows. Simply put, where else can one trust to put their money? The Euro? Right. The problems facing it make our issue seem like child’s play. China itself? Who is going to put their money into a currancy the government can revalue whenever they want?
timg56,
Oh, I don’t think the Chinese have anywhere else to go either. But the fact that they are talking about it shows that even avowed communists understand the difference between currency and wealth or value. Which was my point.
MMT is BS. You really don’t have a clue. Someone has erased your native intellect and replaced it with wacky ideology.
Barter, bakshish.
=====
Tempterrain, to reapply Wolgang Pauli’s comment on an assertion about Quantum mechanics similar to yours about macroeconomics,
“So bad it is not even wrong.”
I suppose I should know better by now but I’m always disappointed when I say something like “have you read X,Y, Z written by A,B” and I get responses along the lines of
X,Y, Z is ‘BS’ or ‘crap’ or whatever.
A, B, & C and Tempterrain are idiots or as ” dumb as a box of rocks” are don’t know what they are talking about. Especially as, in this instance, A and B are Economics professors and well respected in their field
“So bad it is not even wrong” Which is just as moronic a comment. It can be said about just about anything and everything.
It’s fair enough to think that X,Y and Z (also A and B and maybe me too) may be wrong, but if you can’t explain intelligently why you think that to be the case, I’d suggest you stick to drinking beer and watching the ball game on TV.
I you have a model, with confidence interval and reality, with a confidence interval, you can plot one against the other. A perfect model will have a slope of 1. A non-perfect model will diverge and as time goes by, as the number of points increases, one can accept or refute the null hypothesis.
This might be true for models of non-chaotic systems, but for systems such as the climate, models will always diverge also almost immediately, hence why even Trenberth fully admitted the models are always wrong. They can even have the dynamics down perfectly, and will be wrong over a very short period of time because of impossible to predict natural variability. This is what Lorenz discovered. It is only after the fact, that natural variability can be plugged back in to ensure that the models have the underlying dynamics correct.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/13/classic-states-debate-taxing-green-cars-to-recover-lost-gas-tax-revenue/
Money quote:
“Um, yes, that’s what we were saying years ago when you started subsidizing these cars with thousands of our dollars and lecturing us about how awesome it was going to be. STEP AWAY FROM THE RUBE GOLDBERG MACHINES IN YOUR MINDS. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE DOING.”
https://twitter.com/AvoidComments/status/341230258416136194
say willard – did you notice that Hoyt was watching hockey?
Yes:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/19/mainstreaming-ecs-2-c/#comment-323950
Ooops. I now realize I already read that comment from you.
imagine how addled I’ll be when I get to the average age of the “denizens.”
Ah, I weep for you already.
========
willard can’t interpret dolphin twitter wars. This is no ocean basin for an old man.
==========
I thought dolphins had Flipper wars.
They have grizzled pinball wizard vets from the flapper wars.
==============
Reading the comments beats eyeball licking
crazy young people
Mosher, Only wierdo’s like you would follow this sort of stuff. You’ve been looking at a computer screen for far too long
Peter. it follows me.
You need one of these.
http://neurowear.com/projects_detail/shippo.html
Hmm. I think this is more for you Peter
Ophthalmologic surgery has been done by tongue and mirror. I believe the rationale is less tremor.
==============
I’ve found that licking my eyebrows always impresses the ladies.
Try it. I’ll bet you can’t even lick your nose. I’ve known only one person who can.
=======
Depends on the bias implied to the Null eg ghil 2001
The global temperature increase through the 1990s is cer-
tainly rather unusual in terms of the instrumental record of
the last 150 years or so. It does not correspond, however, to
a rapidly accelerating increase in greenhouse-gas emissions
or a substantial drop in aerosol emissions. How statistically
significant is, therefore, this temperature rise, if the null hy-
pothesis is not a random coincidence of small, stochastic ex-
cursions of global temperatures with all, or nearly all, the
same sign?
The presence of internally arising regularities in the cli-
mate system with periods of years and decades suggests the
need for a different null hypothesis. Essentially, one needs
to show that the behaviour of the climatic signal is distinct
from that generated by natural climate variability in the past,
when human effects were negligible, at least on the global
scale. As discussed in Sects. 2.1 and 3.3, this natural vari-
ability includes interannual and interdecadal cycles, as well
as the broadband component. These cycles are far from be-
ing purely periodic. Still, they include much more persistent
excursions of one sign, whether positive or negative in global
or hemispheric temperatures, say, than does red noise
The role of chance is poorly understood when apportioning causality to cyclical behavior, there may not be any main mechanism,it can be Random eg Slutsky.
The summation of random causes generates a cyclical series which
tends to imitate for a number of cycles a harmonic series of a relatively
small number of sine curves. After a more or less considerable number of
periods every regime becomes disarranged, the transition to another regime
occurring sometimes rather gradually, sometimes more or less abruptly,
around certain critical points.
rgbatduke
…we can just compare reality to the models. We can then sort out the models by putting (say) all but the top five or so into a “failed” bin and stop including them in any sort of analysis or policy decisioning whatsoever unless or until they start to actually agree with reality.
Brilliant.
Thank you.
In AGW, the horse is behind the cart.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The radiative forcing dF due to change in CO2 from C1 to C2 is given by
dF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1)
Since change in temperature dT is proportional to the change in the forcing, we have from the above equation
dT = k* ln(C2/C1)
From the above equation, the final CO2 concentration C2 can be written in terms of the change in temperature and the initial CO2 concentration C1 as
C2 = C1*e^(dT/k)
In the above equation, if the change in temperature is positive, the CO2 concentration increases. However, if the change in temperature is negative, the CO2 concentration decreases.
The bankruptcy in AGW theory is they claim the above equation only works for positive dT. That is not science.
What the above equation shows is that if the temperature drops to the 1970s value, the CO2 also will drop to its value in the 1970s.
Then comes the hard part. Waiting. The climate is not as simple as a Carbon atom. The latter’s spectrum never changes, it is a fixed target. The former is never the same. Either one’s dynamical model is never the same and mirrors the variation of reality or one has to conclude that the problem is unsolved and the implementation of the physics is wrong, however “well-known” that physics is. So one has to wait and see if one’s model, adjusted and improved to better fit the past up to the present, actually has any predictive value.
Brilliant.
Tricky weather interactive complex systems
allow fer same from tricky science activists
who
“try to explain away,”
“organize to guide the reader”
and
“specifically ignore.”
rankexploits.com/musings/2013/trenberths-missing-trends/
“Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002”
The 15 year trend is 0.07C +- 0.13C/decade
Why do you call that a ‘pause’ when most of that range covers warming?
You seem happy to call the trend since 2002 ‘cooling’, despite that trend being -0.03C +- 0.2C/decade.
Why do you call the stronger warming trend a “pause”, but the weaker cooling trend “cooling”?
Is it not subconscious because GWPF propaganda has wormed it’s way into your head?
The last 15 year trend of 0.07C +- 0.13C/decade largely overlaps the preceding 20 year trend of 0.146C+- 0.067C/decade warming. Where’s the evidence of a slowdown let alone a ‘pause’?
It is called a “pause” because the skeptics just aren’t as diligent as you are. When the temperature in year A equals the temperature in year A plus 15 it tends to look like we have been there before.
What do you mean by 0.07C +- 0.13C/decade? Are you that the trendline is uniformly normally distributed and that this normal distribution has 64% of the distribution covering 0.26 degrees per decade?
What do you mean by you +/-? How did you calculate it?
Each of the data points has an error typically assumed to be 2σ. Thus you can get a trend in high values, low values and central estimates – but each of these trends is the same.
A trend of -0.03 +/- 0.2 degrees C/decade since 2002? It could be warming or cooling we just don’t know? Stop being silly.
lolwot
Get used to it. It’s cooling out there (on a globally and annually averaged basis, that is).
But (like the warming that preceded it), its so small you’ll never notice it.
Trend since 2002 (past decade)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
All records except UAH show a cooling trend (°C per decade):
-0.045 HadCRUT4
-0.083 HadCRUT3
-0.089 GISS
-0.079 RSS
+0.013 UAH
That’s it, lolwot.
Rejoice! We will not be fried!
Max
We are where we are at thawing out with about +33C heating thanks to 280 PPM of CO2. Care to explain the science behind that, Manacker? Or are you not interested in that science?
What will happen with a doubling of CO2 from 280 PPM to 560 PPM? Are you interested in that science?
Your idol Feynman had no patience for people that joked about the science. This is what David Goodstein recalled in his book “Feynman’s Lost Lecture”
It’s all right Manacker — we know you don’t mean well.
Webby
You have asked me some questions (I assume) in good faith. I will respond in kind.
We theoretically had 33°C total heating from the combined GH effect of all GHGs in our atmosphere prior to human CO2 emissions.
As Gavin Schmidt writes:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Most of this “thought experiment” is attributed to water vapor (plus liquid droplets and ice crystals), the most abundant GHG by far.
Somewhere between 3°C and 7.2°C of this is attributed to CO2 (Lindzen estimates 5.2°C, Schmidt estimates 20% or 6.6°C).
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
I can provisionally accept the above range until someone comes up with empirical data to falsify it (which is unlikely to occur).
As far as the impact of 2xCO2 is concerned, the theory (Myhre et al.) puts this at around 1°C at equilibrium, based on CO2 absorption characteristics determined in the laboratory and the assumption that this mechanism would work in our atmosphere.
I would not start the calculation at the year 1750 level of 280 ppmv as you have done, however, since there is no indication that the global temperature then (arguably 1°C or so cooler than today) was any better for humanity or our environment than the present temperature. In fact, there is considerable evidence that just the opposite is the case.
So I’d say that, if the IR absorption mechanism really works in our atmosphere as it does in the lab, a doubling of CO2 from today’s 394 ppmv to a value in the distant future of 788 ppmv would result in a theoretical warming of around 1°C, assuming “equilibrium” has been reached.
Until someone can either corroborate and quantify (or falsify) the CO2 GH impact empirically, I’d be prepared to accept this estimate.
All the rest is model assumptions on positive feedbacks and hype.
Hope this answers your question.
Max
So since we already have about 1.2C degrees of warming (measured from BEST) going from 280PPM to 394 PPM (measured from Mauna Loa), which is not even close to a doubling, I fail to see how doubling where we are at right now will only be an additional 1C.
Something is screwy with your thinking if you cannot use the observational numbers as they stand. Or it is not screwy and instead you wish to apply your magical powers of FUD and fudge.
Webby
Case you missed it, BEST only measures land temperature, not the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (HadCRUT3 or 4, GISS or NCDC).
Referring to land only temperatures is a red herring when we are discussing the global anthropogenic GH warming to date or the global natural GH effect, as we were doing.
So I’ll play back your silly statement for you:
Besides, Webby, if you are dumb enough to ASS-U-ME that ALL the warming since 1750 (?) was caused by the human GHG effect (as you are apparently doing), then you are really not too bright.
Max
Webby
To make it easier for you to understand, let’s go through the observations.
Since 1850, the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (HadCRUT3 or 4) has shown a linear increase of 0.7C.
Using the CET as a proxy, we had another 0.1C warming from 1750 to 1850, putting the total since 1750 at around 0.8C.
Over this period atmospheric CO2 rose from an estimated “pre-industrial” (ice core) value of 280 ppmv to a measured (Mauna Loa) 394 ppmv.
IPCC tells us that all anthropogenic forcing components other than CO2 (aerosols, other GHGs, etc.) cancelled one another out over this period, so the forcing from CO2 = total anthropogenic forcing ~1.6 W/m^2.
IPCC further tells us that natural (solar) forcing represented 7% of the total forcing, but concedes that its “level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) forcing is low”.
With this in mind, we look elsewhere and find several solar studies, which estimate that around 50% of the past warming (not 7%) can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th C solar activity.
So we have a range for “anthropogenic forcing” of 50% to 93% of the total.
With these data points, and applying the logarithmic correlation between CO2 and global temperature, we can estimate the observed total anthropogenic warming (= the warming from added CO2), and, from this, the observed CO2 temperature response.
Are you still with me, Webby? (This really isn’t all that complicated.)
So the long-term 2xCO2 temperature response is somewhere between:
0.8C * 0.5 * ln(2) / ln (394 / 280) = 0.8C
and
0.8C * 0.93 * ln(2) / ln (394 / 280) = 1.5C
So, using these two extremes, let’s see what’s likely to occur between now and 2100.
Atmospheric CO2 is likely to increase to around 640 ppmv*, assuming
– There will be no global Kyoto type climate initiatives
– Human CO2 emissions increase with human population
– Global per capita human fossil fuel use increases by 30% by 2100 (it increased by 20% from 1970 to today)
– Population growth is estimated to slow down sharply, with population reaching 10.5 billion by 2100
(*Note that this could be lower by around 60 ppmv if there is a concerted switch to nuclear power instead of coal for new power plants)
On this basis, we should see warming from today to year 2100 of between:
0.8C * ln (640 / 394) / ln(2) = 0.6C
and
1.5C * ln (640 / 394) / ln(2) = 1.0C
That’s it, Webby.
And that is nothing I’m going to get all worried about.
But, hey, if you want to fret about it, go ahead and do so.
Max
Manacker,
You are wasting a lot of time typing the same old stuff.
Why not just go to my blog where the ECS argument is laid out nicely, starting from carbon emissions in 1800.
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/stochastic-analysis-of-log-sensitivity.html
You really look foolish and underpowered with your shaky “analysis”.
Webby
1. On the one hand we have Webby’s wonderful theoretical formula (very impressive!).
2. On the other we have the actual physical observations on CO2 levels and global temperature (plus an estimated range on the impact of natural forcing components from IPCC and several other sources).
As a rational skeptic, I’ll go with #2.
But thanks, anyway.
Max
Worst of all, one cannot easily use statistics to determine when or if one’s predictions are failing, because damn, climate is nonlinear, non-Markovian, chaotic, and is apparently influenced in nontrivial ways by a world-sized bucket of competing, occasionally cancelling, poorly understood factors.
Climate is not chaotic on the long-term scale as shown:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:756/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1974/to:2004/trend/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.005/offset:-1.62/detrend:-0.1/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.005/offset:-1.35/detrend:-0.1/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.005/offset:-1.89/detrend:-0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:756/offset:-0.27/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:756/offset:0.27/plot/hadcrut3sh/scale:0.00001/offset:4/from:1870/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1949/to:2005/trend/offset:0.025/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1949/to:2005/trend/offset:0.01
With large enough error bars, I guess nothing is chaotic
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_GREAT_PACIFIC_CLIMATE_SHIFT_II.pdf
Or if you average over long enough. I don’t think he understands the concept of deterministic chaos.
Chief
The oceans have enormous heat capacity and therefore enormous inertia. As a result, the its established pattern must continue for several decades.
Oh – here – http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_GREAT_PACIFIC_CLIMATE_SHIFT_II.pdf
Girma, “The oceans have enormous heat capacity and therefore enormous inertia. As a result, the its established pattern must continue for several decades.”
Yep, until it stops. To figure out if it is about to stop, you have to consider the heat capacity and distribution. Once you get to a point where it normally stops, that strange attractor, it is more likely it will follow a similar but not exactly the same path.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-yCVnY6nXIiQ/UZmVEhGt-oI/AAAAAAAAIJs/EozQSkgn614/s817/IPWP%2520spliced%2520with%2520cru4%2520shifted%2520anomaly%2520from%25200ad.png
That is a reconstruction of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool with cru4 3030 spliced on. About now, because of the average ocean energy and distribution, we are likely to see one of the pre-1200 AD type events, not a continuation of the long term recovery from ~1700 AD. At the higher energy level, different mechanisms kick in, like Sudden Stratospheric Warming (energy relief mainly in the NH) and deep convection driven tropical ozone depletion. The more energy there is in a system the greater the number of ways it will find to get out. Climate is more than just seriously non-linear, it is down right chaotic, unless you throw in +/- 1.5 C error bars with seriously long time scales.
Girma
Climate is not just chaotic but persistent (Hurst Kolmogorov Dynamics) and driven by long term trends (Milankovitch & solar cycles) etc. See Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Climatic variability over time scales spanning nine orders of magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch cycles with Hurst–Kolmogorov dynamics, Surveys in Geophysics, 34 (2), 181–207, 2013.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130613.html
News just in: warmer water melts ice faster; heat also rises.
you do understand what basal means don’t you .
maksimovich | June 14, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
Why, I just had lambchops with mint and basal. Or was that basil?
Either way, a delicious meal.
The lamb was so tender, it just melted from below.
Bart R
When you start digesting that meal, this will be “basal metabolism”.
Max
It must have been Australian lamb – grown in God’s country, between ice ages, and between ‘Progressive’ governments.
Peter Lang | June 15, 2013 at 3:21 am |
I believe it was British Columbia lamb grown under one of the most fiscally conservative governments in the free world.. which would mean one of the most conservative tax-cutting, public-service-cutting governments in the world. You know the one, it’s famous for its revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Not that New Zealand, after eradicating pretty much half the habitat for every living species of plant and animal for pasture within its boundaries, doesn’t produce fine lamb.
Junk Science Week: Epic climate model failure
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/06/13/junk-science-week-epic-climate-model-failure/
By all means, let’s compare tropical tropospheric temperature to global simulations
That is an epic fail
‘Nearby is a running graph of 5-year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, climate models versus observations. In all, 73 climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project are plotted against observations so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.’
The comparison is from Roy Spencer and tropospheric. Now you’re just being silly Bob.
I thought the mean value was 3C warming for a doubling of CO2.
For the oceans it is about half this value or 1.5C because half the thermal forcing is sequestered into the deeper waters.
So we look at this as a differential perturbation:
T = 1,.5 * ln(C/C0)
dT = 1.5 * dC/C
If we are increasing CO2 by 2 PPM per year at a level of 400 PPM,
this results in
dT = 1.5*2/400 = 0.0075C per year over the ocean or 0.075C per decade.
Now look at RoyBoy’s curve and see where 0.075C per decade fits in
http://financialpostopinion.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/climate.jpg?w=620&h=872
Isn’t it odd that this mean value lays on top of his data, yet he tries to create FUD by cherry-picking all the obvious tail-enders from the simulations?
Tamblyn and Shore also take apart Spencer over other matters
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/#comment-82536
No response yet,.
Webby
Problem with your nice hypothetical “perturbation” calculation is that it isn’t happening in real life.
Are you sure that’s not just a “mastur…” instead of a “perturbation”?
Max
Manacker, stop being such a jerk-off. We know that you can’t do the math, except when it comes to playing with and fudging the numbers.
Every time he tries to do data analysis on his own, he gets caught red-handed.
Examples:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/06/detection-of-global-economic-fluctuations-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/#comment-112224
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/10/new-perspectives-on-climate-sensitivity/#comment-304039
Manacker likes the fudge.
Wbby
There are two common things that are dark brown.
One is “fudge”, which you claim I like.
You appear to like the other.
Max
dT = λ*dF
where dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
dT is an unknown and is determined on the basis of models giving estimates of linear sensitivity λ.
What webby is doing as usual is trash math and fantasy physics.
Chief, I know it is from Dr Spenser,
If that spaghetti graph is from model output that is restricted to the tropics, then those models have climate sensitivity for the tropics simular to the gloval sensitivity of about 3. I find that odd enough to question if those model outputs are actualy for the tropics.
Why is Dr Spenser comparing tropical temperatures to only RCP 8.3, what do the model outputs of RCP 6.0, RCP 4.5 and RCP 2.6 look like? Why is he picking the worst scenario with respect to emissions?
Does his temperature series include the stratosphere or not? TMT is mid troposphere, are the model outputs mid troposphere?
Can you see why it is still an epic fail?
Maxwell Dumb and the Chef ought to listen to Bob.
Spencer’s numbers are consistent with a ECS of 3C proportioned to reflect the heat uptake of the the ocean.
Compare Spencer’s epic fail with Tisdale’s epic fail. Tisdale is an amateur and could be excused, but old RoyBoy has no excuse.
It is RCP 8.5 – and querulous speculation that it is not what it is said to be is disingenuous in the extreme. Do you have any data showing that current temperature trends are not trending lower than model nonsense?
Got nothing to say about your latest idiot math webby?
Chief,
RIght RCP 8.5, 8.3 was a typo on my part, but those are global models, as
far as I can tell, why compare them to 20s to 20 N mid tropospheric temperature series, for anything other than nefarious purposes is anyones guess.
On the other hand, if you compare Hansen’s ealrly model, to the land only met station series it was designed to match, why it comes out pretty good, I
wonder why.
wonder why.
Again you insist that this is something other than what it is said to be – and introduce some other nonsense about a Jim Hansen ‘model’.
I have predicted non warming from natural variability for a long time – http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html
My prediction seems a hell of a lot more prescient than Hansen’s.
Third time lucky?
Bob Droege, ” why compare them to 20s to 20 N mid tropospheric temperature series, for anything other than nefarious purposes is anyones guess.”
No guess to it. Trenberth and others have accused Spencer et al.of not knowing what he is doing and because of their ineptitude, losing the “tropical troposphere hot spot”, the signature of WMGHG impact. Dessler et al. published a paper which used the change in the velocity of radiosonde balloons, instead of the on board instrumentation to show the the tropical troposphere hot spot did exist even though the correlation of the data required some serious creativity.
Spencer et al rebutted the Dessler et al rebuttal and actually got it published in a new remote sensing journal just before Trenberth managed to get the remote sensing journal editor fired for publishing the Spencer et al. rebuttal to the rebuttal.
Since the less than positive feedback of clouds in the tropics appears to be the reason that the tropical troposphere hot spot signature of WMGHG warming is missing which implies that the water vapor and cloud feedbacks that are supposed to produce 2/3 of the GHG effect warming are not following the game plan, Spencer et al., by averaging ever damn thing they would find that might possibly show the tropical troposphere hot spot, are basically telling Trenberth and Dessler , “told ya so!” with that raspberry noise for accompaniment. .
Scientist will be scientists.
If Spencer is looking at a narrow range along the equator, that is perhaps 85% ocean. At a climate sensitivity of 3C for doubling of CO2, what Spencer’s data shows is reasonable for an SST increase.
In 1979 CO2 was about 337 PPM and today it is 400 PPM.
The ECS-based dT is 3*ln(400/337) = 0.51C. Since the ocean sequesters half the heat during TCS, the change should be about half this or 0.255C.
What do you see on Spencer’s graph?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
It looks very close to 0.25C over those years.
Looks like consensus climate science is right on the money!
I don’t know the pedigree of the other spaghetti curves.
Girma
Check with Mosh how the observed data need to be adjusted, corrected, etc. to put them more in line with model predictions.
Or ask him to explain why, statistically speaking, the models can predict eight decades out into the future when they can’t get one decade right.
He still believes that models can
predictproject the future.Max
Again you insist that this is something other than what it is said to be – and introduce some other nonsense about a Jim Hansen ‘model’.
I have predicted non warming from natural variability for a long time – http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html
My prediction seems a hell of a lot more prescient than Hansen’s.
Again you insist that this is something other than what it is said to be – and introduce some other nonsense about a Jim Hansen ‘model’.
I have predicted non warming from natural variability for a long time – http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html
My prediction seems a hell of a lot more prescient than Hansen’s.
Hmm the coldening is unprecedented,panic is setting in at the met.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/met-office-holds-emergency-meeting-to-discuss-britains-increasingly-unpredictable-weather-patterns-8658613.html.
The Met Office will soon tell us that the coldest UK spring in 50 years is a direct result of man-made global warming.
Ouch!
Max
A “pause” in the heretofore inexorable march of the European lemmings into the central planning abyss.
http://euobserver.com/political/120501
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
“’The EPA has been gaming the system by grossly exaggerating economic benefits to justify its costly regulations, said Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter. ‘This recent review by an office within the Obama White House goes to show that even his Administration cannot support EPA’s practice. It’s not just a minor exaggeration: the EPA’s lowest range of benefits is ten times greater than it should be.’
The EPA initially estimated that its rule governing formaldehyde emissions yielded between $91 million and $278 million in financial benefits ‘due to avoided incidence of asthma, eye irritation, nasopharyngeal cancer and reduced female fertility.’
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget reviewed the rule and slashed those benefits to a range of $9 million to $48 million.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/epa-exaggerated-the-benefits-of-regulation/#ixzz2WFfPfWEW
Isn’t Senator David Vitter the whore monger who advocated abstinence-only sex education?
Max_OK
Only for other folks.
Max_CH
But that doesn’t have anything to do with the EPA exaggerations Vitter is exposing, as far as I can see.
Do you see a link?
Max_CH
Max_CH, I’ve looked for the OMB review and the EPA report, but haven’t found either. I’m not taking Vitter’s word.
Max-OK
If you’re really interested, keep checking.
If that doesn’t work, check with Vitter.
Max_CH
Yes but abstinence-only is an education policy for minors enrolled in public schools. Vitters’ alleged association with DC Madam Pamela Martin and Associates is (or was until Martin’s phone contact list was published) a private contractual relationship between consenting adults and did not result in any teen pregnancies so far as anyone knows by dint of the fact that neither Vitters nor Martin are teenagers.
manacker | June 15, 2013 at 12:47 am |
“But that doesn’t have anything to do with the EPA exaggerations Vitter is exposing, as far as I can see.”
Of course it doesn’t.
“Do you see a link?”
Imbeciles see lots of thing that aren’t there. It doesn’t matter if he sees a link or not unless you’re in the business of studying imbeciles.
…why we aren’t using empirical evidence (as it accumulates) to reject failing models and concentrate on the ones that come closest to working, while also not using the models that are obviously not working in any sort of “average” claim for future warming.
100%
ENSO: No one seems to understand it weii enough to include it as a prediction tool.
Linear fits to climate: I have seen some terrible attempts to fit trends to a straight line, such as for climate sensitivity studies.. They just don’t work in a system that has on/off warming of unpredictable length.
No meaning: Taking some sort of average – mean, SD, etc of supposedly different model outputs in the hope to get a more accurate result has no validity.
I can understand how the global warming alarmists of academia might believe in something so strongly that nothing else mattered. What I don’t understand is why these same academics didn’t believe in the scientific method and why their peers and the institutions they work in didn’t think that mattered.
With the global warming hoax and for all of those who have respect for truth for its own sake and as bad as it now is for trust in the authority of science, nothing is ever so bad as when no one will listen. That is why America owes denier William Grey and Kyoto-fighter George Bush so many kudos for standing tall against the nihilism of the Left’s Doomsday Global Warming Machine when it was the most hard for anyone to do that. There is a lot of despair and suffering in doing the right thing when others won’t.
The most compelling argument against AGW is the true one, namely that which proves no greenhouse effect is controlling surface temperatures.
I have spent thousands of hours looking into what must really be happening in the universe regarding temperatures above and below planetary surfaces. I have found, beyond any reasonable doubt that I could have, that …
(1) The answer to the dilemma lies in understanding that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (in its modern form – not the simplified “hot to cold” Clausius statement) is talking about a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium “evolves spontaneously” and so too does an autonomous temperature gradient (at the macro level) in a vertical plane in a planet’s atmosphere, crust and mantle.
(2) The absorption of new thermal energy disturbs the thermodynamic equilibrium (which results in the temperature gradient) and the new energy spreads out by convection in all available directions away from the new source of energy, but flowing over the sloping temperature plane. So some energy can actually move from cooler to warmer regions provided that the process stops when a new thermodynamic equilibrium evolves. Thus heat from the Sun “creeps” up the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, and then further up the steeper temperature gradient in the outer crust, and even further through the mantle until, whether you choose to believe it or not, it actually supports the core temperature, preventing the core from cooling off, even on planets like Uranus where no energy is created in the core.
By the time you have studied information about several planets in the detail and to the extent that I have, you may realise that this has to be what happens on all planets, including Earth. It is not radiative forcing associated with any greenhouse effect which is the primary determinant of planetary temperatures – it is the gravity effect which holds down thermal energy absorbed over the life of the planet. Instantaneous radiative energy balance is not doing it, and never could.
To better understand the complexity of climate Eschenbach identified “five major intricate, interrelated, and incompletely understood subsystems,” as follows:
“…atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere. (And that’s not counting the extra-terrestrial system, involving solar radiation, the complex interaction of helio- and geo-magnetism, solar wind, cosmic rays, coronal mass ejections, and the like.)
“Each of these subsystems has a host of known and unknown forcings, interactions, phase transitions, limitations, resonances, couplings, response times, feedbacks, natural cycles, emergent phenomena, constructal constraints, and control systems. Finally, climate is affected by things occurring on spatial scales from the molecular to the planetary, and on temporal scales from the instantaneous to millions of years.
“To illustrate what this complexity means for the current “simple physics” paradigm, consider a similar “simple physics” problem in heat transfer. Suppose we take a block of aluminum six feet long and put one end of it into a bucket of hot water. We attach a thermometer to the other end, keep the water hot, and watch what happens. Fairly soon, the temperature at the other end of the block starts to rise. It’s a one-dimensional problem, ruled by simple physics.
“To verify our results, we try it again, but this time with a block of iron. Once again the temperature soon rises at the other end, just a bit more slowly than the aluminum We try it with a block of glass, and a block of wood, and a block of copper. In each case, after time, the temperature at the other end of the block rises. This is clearly simple physics in each case.
“As a final test, I look around for something else that is six feet long to use in the investigation. Finding nothing, I have an inspiration. I sit down, put my feet in the hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth and wait for the temperature of my head to start rising. After all, heat transmission is simple physics, isn’t it? So I just sit with my feet in the hot water and wait for the temperature of my head to rise.
“And wait.
“And wait …
“The moral of the story is that in dealing with complex systems such as the climate or the human body, the simplistic application of one-dimensional analyses or the adoption of a simple paradigm based on simple physics often gives results that have no resemblance to real world outcomes. It is this inability of the current paradigm to lead us to any deeper understanding of climate that underlines the need for a new paradigm. The current paradigm is incapable of solving many of the puzzles posed by the variations in global climate.”
The dilemma is why is a planet mostly covered with oceans, as cold as it is.
Most of the answer seems to be related to random chance allowing land masses to be near the poles.
D Cotton | June 15, 2013 at 1:08 am | Reply
“I have
spentwasted thousands of hours looking into what must really be happening in the universe”Fixed that for ya!
Having wasted thousands of hours, and mistery loving company, Doug now wishes us to waste ours too. No chance. You’re a crank Cotton. Take a hike.
Cotton thinks the sun heats the core of Venus, you think the core of Venus heats the atmosphere, you are both cranks,
get a room
The core of Venus is heated by, wait for it, heat of formation (residual energy from gravitational collapse) and ongoing radiactive decay. Same as all the other rocky planets.
The sun can’t heat the mantle of the planet without the heat passing through the crust first which obviously isn’t happening because the earth gets hotter as you dig down not colder. Geothermal heat comes from within not without and there’s no other possibility because the cooler to warmer gradient always goes from heat sink to heat source respectively. Heat from gravitational collapse only happens as the collapse is occuring i.e. volume is decreasing or mass is increasing or both. Neither of these processes is happening on the earth and hasn’t happened since the end of the late heavy bombardment 3.8 billion years ago.
Anything else is crank science. Exactly how much internal heat is leftover heat of formation and how much is radioactive is not well constrained but there are no other possibilities given the surface to center temperature gradient.
Venus’ surface being geothermal heat is different only in that the insulativing layer that retains heat of formation and radioactive decay doesn’t stop at the top of the rocks like it does on earth. No no no. Venus’ troposphere is pure CO2 so thick it’s like a liquid and it insulates as good as rocks do on earth. It’s not rocket science although rocket science is responsible for the rockets which took instrumentation through Venus’ atmosphere and landed them on the surface so we could make direct observations.
Dave, your insulation argument is just as much crank science as Cotton’s.
When you, David Springer, can explain (or calculate) the Uranus temperature 350Km below TOA using radiative forcing / greenhouse conjectures then you might have some credibility. But remember there is no surface there and no direct Solar radiation which gets down there. I’m expecting a detailed explanation of the energy balance and a reason why the Sun’s energy gets down there by non-radiative processes, going from cold to hot regions against the temperature gradient. The explanation is in my paper when you give up. Meanwhile go back to this comment.
Venus can and does cool by 5 degrees in a mere 4-month-long night. What you cannot explain with radiation calculations is how the surface heats back up again by 5 degrees when the Sun shines for 4-months.
And, it would only take a century or two for it to cool right down If there were no Sun maintaining supported temperatures in the atmosphere, surface and regions below the surface, just as I have proved also happens on Earth.
If you wish to dispute what I am saying, then by all means try to find fault in the argument in “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” while it is still open for world-wide review.
The concept of insulation is crank science?
I suppose to an imbecile it might be. It’s actually just engineering. Specifically in this case properties of materials. Here’s an example:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4591223&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F94%2F4591205%2F04591223.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4591223
Fundamental insulation characteristics of high-pressure CO2 gas for gas-insulated power equipment – effect of coating conductor on insulation performance and effect of decomposition products on creeping insulation of spacer.
You and Cotton are two peas in a pod. I’m not sure which of you should be insulted more by the comparison. :-)
Get it published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal, Cotton. Then I’ll take it seriously. Got it?
Catch 42.
=======
You still can’t answer the question about Uranus, can you David Springer?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/14/week-in-review-3/#comment-332752
Willis is six feet tall? And here I figured with all his bluster he had short man’s syndrome.
Anyway, his metaphor fails, as it leaves out important context and doesn’t quantify scale. No says that the climate doesn’t have stabilizing attributes. The question is whether external forces can be stronger than the forces that maintain homeostasis, and the relative influence of each. Make the tub of water hot enough and it will break down his body’s homeostasis and the top of his head will get hotter just like the top of the chunk of iron.
Metaphors can be useful to illustrate a concept, or they can be used as fallacious rhetoric.
This is what is really misleading the public:
The fake fisics of the AGW Greenhouse Effect Illusion.
As I’ve just posted on the the Jo Nova site and waiting to see if it gets through moderation: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/weekend-unthreaded-12/
“There is no AGW Greenhouse Effect.
It is an illusion created by sleight of hand manipulation of real physics, changing properties and processes and misattribution and word play. Created by magicians’ tricks.
AGWScienceFiction’s fake fisics has taken out the Water Cycle which with its great heat capacity takes heat away from the surface and releases it in the colder heights, and comes down in cooling rain, bringing with it all carbon dioxide around because there is great attraction between them and they form carbonic acid – all unpolluted natural rain has a pH of 5.6-8 from the carbonic acid content.
If they put back the Water Cycle there is no “33°C warming by greenhouse gases from -18°C it would be without them”, because the Earth with without water but with the rest of the atmosphere in place, practically all nitrogen and oxygen, would be 67°C and not minus 18°C.
That’s the real greenhouse gas blanket in the real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect misses out the nitrogen and oxygen thermal blanket, think deserts.
And it puts in its place the frankly idiotic trace gas carbon dioxide which makes a blanket of practically 100% holes in the atmosphere..
The proper comparison is between the Earth and the Moon which has no atmosphere and goes through extremes of heat and cold.
The AGW GHE begins with a lie, it has taken the figure for the Earth without any atmosphere at all of -18° C and given that to the Earth “without their version of greenhouse gases”.
Earth with all its real gas atmosphere: 15°C
Earth without any of all its real gas atmosphere: -18°C
Moon without any atmosphere: -23°C
Earth with all its real gas atmosphere, but without water: 67°C
There is no mechanism to get the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases from the -18°C it would be without them”.
Because it wouldn’t be -18°C without them, it would be 67°C.
It is this great thermal blanket of mainly nitrogen and oxygen which make up around 98% of the atmosphere which prevents the Earth from going into the extreme cold of the Moon, but,
it is also this our real gas atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen which prevents the Earth from going into the extreme heat of the Moon.
Because oxygen and nitrogen are real gases with real properties not the pretend “massless ideal gas” which AGW says they are.
So these real gases have individual volumes which expand and condense and as they do this they become lighter and heavier than air. They expand when they are heated and condense when they are cooled. So lighter when heated they rise taking heat away from the surface and heavier when cooled they sink to the surface.
This is how we get our winds, which are volumes of real gases on the move in the fluid ocean which is our atmosphere, as cold heavier condensed gases sink displacing the rising expanded lighter gases by flowing beneath.
Combined volumes of real gases heated expand and become less dense forming areas of low pressure, combined volues of real gases cooled condense forming areas of high pressure. Because their weight is spread over a larger area when they expand taking up more room, and their weight confined into a smaller area when they condense taking up less room.
Hot air rises cold air sinks.
Winds flow from high to low.
This is basic meteorology in traditional physics.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect Illusion is created by deliberate science fraud by replacing our real gas atmosphere with properties and process with the imaginary theoretic fiction of empty space massless ideal gas.
Not only is there no Water Cycle in their Greenhouse Effect world and no rain in their Carbon Cycle, there is no atmosphere at all – they’ve taken all of it out.
Their Greenhouse Effect is created out of fake fisics, through the looking glass with Al fantasy fisics where any number of impossible things can be thought before breakfast.”
Myrrh. The oxygen / nitrogen blanket is the temperature that it is because of the gravity effect. The temperature at the base of the troposphere “supports” the surface temperature because of the blanket effect you correctly mention. We do agree on some points.
Grin.. yes that’s what confuses me …
Planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures are not determined by (and cannot be calculated from) radiative energy budgets. In fact there is a huge effect caused by non-radiative processes. But there is no physical relationship that enables you to determine the temperature of a surface from just some information about non-radiative heat transfer. Furthermore, you can tell nothing from radiation either if significant energy is simultaneously being lost by non-radiative processes. At the very least you need information on temperature gaps at boundaries, because cooling processes are slowed as such gaps approach zero.
The whole of the pseudo physics of greenhouse effects and assumed heating of the surface by back radiation (or “radiative forcing”) is trying to utilise the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only relates to bodies in a vacuum losing all their energy by radiation without any conduction or evaporative cooling. A planet’s surface is not remotely like that.
Just try explaining Venus surface temperatures with an instantaneous radiative energy budget! There is only about 10W/m^2 of direct Solar radiation reaching its surface, that is, less than a tenth of the amount received by Earth’s surface. So why is the Venus surface about 730K and how does it actually increase in temperature by about 5 degrees during the 4-month long Venus day?
Instantaneous radiative energy budgets don’t have built in storage factors – the energy flows are balanced autonomously, but there is a lot of non-radiative heat transfer happening on Venus, and you need to understand why, or you don’t really understand what happens on Earth either.
You need to factor in that the ‘atmosphere’ at the ‘surface’ of Venus is like the medium in a sandblaster, under tremendous pressure and velocity and with a temperature at over halfway between that of hot beach sand and shooting lava.
Wagathon: I’m quite aware of the temperature of 730K or so
But nothing in standard physics can be used to prove what you imply, namely that high pressure maintains high temperature.
In the absence of any overall contraction of the planet (as is happening on Jupiter) high pressure cannot impart new energy to the base of the Venus atmosphere or its surface. That’s physics. What you assert is another of the Old Wives’ Tales of Climatology which I wrote about in an article of that title on PSI.
The relationship between boiling temperature and pressure is pretty well known.
So what Wagathon?. Where’s your explanation and calculation of how the Venus surface temperature increases by 5 degrees? Your fissics is so simplistic that I really can’t be bothered with you. You have absolutely no concept of what is in Sections 4 to 9 of my latest paper. Ignore it if you wish – that’s your prerogative. But don’t try to break in on a serious discussion of the paper about which you know nothing.
You said, in big bold letters, “But nothing in standard physics can be used to prove what you imply, namely that high pressure maintains high temperature.” I never implied such a thing and in any event your statement was very, very wrong. You could be wrong about many things. If you care you will have to find someone who also cares. Good luck.
D Cotton | June 15, 2013 at 6:38 am |
The whole of the pseudo physics of greenhouse effects and assumed heating of the surface by back radiation (or “radiative forcing”) is trying to utilise the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only relates to bodies in a vacuum losing all their energy by radiation without any conduction or evaporative cooling. A planet’s surface is not remotely like that.
So they changed the atmosphere around the Earth to make it that..
They threw out all the properties and processes of real gases and reduced them all to a single theoretical fiction “ideal gas”.
Ideal gas which has no mass therefore no weight under gravity because there is nothing on which gravity can pull; which has no volume therefore does not expand or condense changing its weight under reduced and increased pressure or heat and cold and so does not become lighter or heavier than air under gravity; with no attraction therefore merely capable of bouncing off another and not capable of undergoing chemical changes, such as water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forming carbonic acid.
They create their world out of descriptions of an imaginary gas.
They no longer, from what I have seen on pages from universities, teach the difference between ideal and real gases. They have expunged real gases and their differences, thus the real world of form around us, from the consciousness of those being taught.
Tthis is how they think the real world is, that there really is empty space around the Earth because it is so described by being told there is no difference between ideal and real. This is where they get their “container”….
Which of course, ludicrous to the ears of any who know the difference, has now become an invisible container around the Earth against which these ideal gas molecules bounce when they are not bouncing off each other in elastic collisions and so “thoroughly mixing”..
Because they do not know their ideal gases are imaginary and not real, they call them the different names of real gases erroneously, they are not capable of extrapolating into the fun part that there is no “invisible container” around the Earth so their ideal gas hard dots of massless nothing travelling at great speeds under their own molecular momentum through empty space miles apart from each other – are all disappearing to the ends of the universe.
You will not find Van der Waals in their history of gas laws..
But, this one is an unusual find, though it still pushes the general meme that real gases will not be discussed (I had found an education page earlier which said that real gases differences should not be covered at university level, not just high school/secondary level): http://www.oakland.k12.mi.us/Portals/0/Learning/gaslaw.pdf
“1. All matter is composed of tiny, discrete particles (molecules or atoms).
2. Ideal gases consist of small particles (molecules or atoms) that are far apart in comparison to their own size. The molecules of a gas are very small compared to the distances between them.
3. These particles are considered to be dimensionless points which occupy zero volume. The volume of real gas molecules is assumed to be negligible for most purposes.
This above statement is NOT TRUE. Real gas molecules do occupy volume and it does have an impact on the behavior of the gas. This impact WILL BE IGNORED when discussing ideal gases.
4. These particles are in rapid, random, constant straight line motion. This motion can be described by well-defined and established laws of motion.
5. There are no attractive forces between gas molecules or between molecules and the sides of the container with which they collide.
In a real gas, there actually is attraction between the molecules of a gas. Once again, this attraction WILL BE IGNORED when discussing ideal gases.
6. Molecules collide with one another and the sides of the container.
7. Energy can be transferred in collisions among molecules.
8. Energy is conserved in these collisions, although one molecule may gain energy at the expense of the other.
9. Energy is distributed among the molecules in a particular fashion known as the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution.
10. At any particular instant, the molecules in a given sample of gas do not all possess the same amount of energy. The average kinetic energy of all the molecules is proportional to the absolute temperature.”
So that is how they think there is empty space around our Earth with gas ‘molecules’ miles apart from each other travelling at great speeds unimpeded by the volumes of other gases around them, because their gases have no individual volumes.
They have no sound in their world and they do not know they have no sound in their world, just as they do not know this ideal gas scenario created into being the AGW Greenhouse Effect world does not exist.
They are completely, utterly, divorced from the reality of the natural world around us.
Just as our real gases have had all their real properties and so processes excised to create this one size fits all ideal gas world, they have done the same with the electromagnetic spectrum from the Sun – in their fake fisics meme: “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”.
Systematically indoctrinated into this fake fisics through the general education system they have no reason not believe that “visible light/shortwave from the Sun heats the Earth’s surface and longwave infrared from the Sun plays no part this heating”.
Nor can they see how ludicrous the two reasons given for there being no direct radiant heat from the Sun..
Their minds have been pumped full of scrambled impossible fisics and they will not be able to see this unless they get back to knowing the difference between real and ideal gases, between the real different wavelengths and the one size fits all AGWSciencFiction meme of the Greenhouse Effect.
They do not have any sense of scale and so cannot see the absurdity of a trace gas being a thermal blanket around the Earth or being capable of driving global temperatures, because in their fake fisics world there is no scale. For them a gamma ray and a radio wave are one and the same.
They cannot get winds and weather, they cannot get clouds, in their imaginary GHE world, because their gases are not bouyant in air, so of course they have no convection – and that is why they have no heat transfer by convection.
They have no gravity because their ‘molecules’ have no mass, so they have no weight relative to each which in the real world causes them to separate out, and so of course, their ideal gas molecules can become “thoroughly mixed and can accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years”.
And they have no idea why they do not have these real world properties and processes, they have never been taught them, so they claim they are not important…
Myrrh – the mass for an ideal gas is accounted for in the temperature. For if the particles comprising the ideal gas had zero mass, the temperature would also be zero. Therefore, implicit in the equation, due to the temperature term, is the mass of the particle of the gas in question.
Myrrh – here is a way to connect the ideal gas law to mass:
” An interesting aspect of the Ideal Gas Law is its flexibility. It contains elements that allow you to solve for other quantities, such as density or molecular mass. To solve for molecular mass:
PV=nRT – start with the equation
PV=mass/mol. mass x RT – change moles to mass(m) in grams divided by molecular mass in grams
mol. mass x PV = mRT – multiply by molecular mass
molecular mass = mRT/PV – divide by pressure and volume.
We can also see density in that last equation, m/V (grams/liter). The same equation, but with density(d) in place of mass per volume (m/V), is:
molecular mass = dRT/P”
http://library.thinkquest.org/12596/ideal.html
Here is another way (You can’t see the equations because they are embedded images):
“Kinetic Temperature
The expression for gas pressure developed from kinetic theory relates pressure and volume to the average molecular kinetic energy. Comparison with the ideal gas law leads to an expression for temperature sometimes referred to as the kinetic temperature.
This leads to the expression”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html
Don’t throw Kinetic Theory right out the window, Myrrh. The distances between molecules are very large compared with the molecular size, and the other forces are mostly only slightly significant when two molecules are relatively close to each other. We can derive the Ideal Gas Law from Kinetic Theory, and Einstein and others used Kinetic Theory successfully.
At least Kinetic Theory can be used to explain the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, and the passage of heat up that gradient when thermodynamic equilibrium is disturbed with extra absorption above. That is a huge step toward demolition of the GHE.
I quote from the linked Wikipedia item …
The theory for ideal gases makes the following assumptions:
The gas consists of very small particles known as molecules. This smallness of their size is such that the total volume of the individual gas molecules added up is negligible compared to the volume of the smallest open ball containing all the molecules. This is equivalent to stating that the average distance separating the gas particles is large compared to their size.
These particles have the same mass.
The number of molecules is so large that statistical treatment can be applied.
These molecules are in constant, random, and rapid motion.
The rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly elastic. This means, the molecules are considered to be perfectly spherical in shape, and elastic in nature.
Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. (That is, they exert no forces on one another.)
This implies: 1. Relativistic effects are negligible.2. Quantum-mechanical effects are negligible. This means that the inter-particle distance is much larger than the thermal de Broglie wavelength and the molecules are treated as classical objects.3. Because of the above two, their dynamics can be treated classically. This means, the equations of motion of the molecules are time-reversible.
The average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the temperature of the system.
The time during collision of molecule with the container’s wall is negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions.
Because they have mass, the gas molecules will be affected by gravity
Yes, I know it is approximate. So too are Newton’s Laws of Motion, but that does not make them useless for most practical applications.
jim2 | June 15, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Myrrh – here is a way to connect the ideal gas law to mass: etc.
jim2 – that is not the point. It is not so much a maths problem, as the maths is the problem.
The maths bears no relation to the actual real world around us, it is a problem of the maths hiding the role of imagination, of conceptualisation, of the inability of the maths to describe the actual world around us – to the extent that the words “convection” and particularly “gravity” drive some quite demented, into paroxysms of rage, who argue from “ideal gas in a container” maths.
lolwot came close to nailing it here:
“Your weapon is basically their own (doubt, uncertainty) and they know no defence to it, because it’s easy to doubt models and theory.”
But my challenge is more specific than that, I’m challenging their very basic physics as descriptions of the world around us. They freak out at mentions of convection and gravity because they do not have them, and they do not understand why they do not have them in their maths because they know these are real science words which mean something..
Their fisics does not describe the world around us, their maths therefore is describing something other than the world around us.
Correcting for lack of mass by sticking in another equation does not solve the problem – the problem is the maths still does not describe the actual real world around us because the scenarios created by AGWScienceFiction fake fisics are of a different world built out of the non-existant massless, volumeless, attractionless, non-condensable and not bouyant in air ideal gas – because there is no air in their ideal gas atmosphere, only empty space, they do not have any atmosphere at all.
The ideal gas world of AGWSF Greenhouse Effect goes straight from the surface to empty space.
They have taken out the entire atmosphere around us!
There is no convection in empty space so they do not have convection. There is no gravity in their empty space atmosphere because they have nothing for gravity to work on. And my running joke, they don’t have sound in their world which might account for them not being able to hear this..
Why don’t they have these? Because they have created an imaginary world from the description of an non-existant gas with no properties, so actually, really, with nothing for gravity to work on, so, their ideal gas molecules have no weight relative to each other so they cannot separate out as real gases do, have no attraction so cannot form a medium or combine, are nothing so there is nothing to undergo chemical changes, etc. etc.
The fictional ideal gas with no individual volume but a hard massless dot of nothing is empty space.
There is nothing in ideal gas to form a physical entity, no physical entity to form a medium.
Real Gases are fluids because they have form, shape, they form a fluid medium under gravity from their real property of attraction. Our real atmosphere is a fluid, an ocean of gas, a voluminous entity with weight and attraction, not empty space.
Stand outside and look at the sky, or imagine yourself doing it.., that is a heavy volume of fluid above you weighing down 14lbs on every square inch of you, a stone on every square inch, a ton on every square foot – that is a ton of the great fluid atmosphere of gas weighing down on your shoulders.
Real gases move in this fluid in the grip of gravity.
Not in an imaginary container around the Earth containing nothing but empty space.
Our real atmosphere is not empty space with gas molecules moving in that, but is the combination of the individual volumes of gases around us constrained by gravity’s pull. It is gravity’s pulling power on mass which gives weight.
Gravity is the real container around the Earth.
Real gases do not “spontaneously diffuse into the atmosphere under their own molecular momentum to travel at great speeds through empty space miles apart from other bouncing off each other in elastic collisions” of ideal gas – because real gas movement is inhibited by the individual volumes of other real gases around them, under the pulling power of gravity. Under the containment of gravity.
It is the pulling power of gravity acting on real gases with mass which keeps them from flying off into empty space..
Real gases don’t move anywhere unless work is being done to them – that is how we get the “standard of air under gravity gradient” as gravity’s pull on the individual mass is stronger at the surface and lessens the further away the real gas.
Real gases are condensable, because real gases have individual volumes which can expand and condense they become less dense the weaker the pull of gravity and more dense the stronger the pull of gravity.
The pressure of gravity here is its pulling power on the mass of the real gas molecule, the gases closer to the surface are under higher pressure than the gases further away from the surface.
This basic real world physics is what gives us our lapse rates.
This is what areas of high and low pressure are just under gravity. The gases under high gravity’s pressure closer to the surface are being condensed, bringing them closer together there are more of them so their combined weights under gravity are heavier than gases further away from the surface which have expanded becoming lighter because there are less of them taking up the same room, there are fewer of them so weigh down less heavily on us.
Because real gases not only expand and condense when under different pressures, but expand and condense when heated and cooled, so becoming lighter or heavier than ‘standard air under gravity’, they will rise when heated and will sink when cooled.
Hot air rises cold air sinks”. Is the very basic physics of meteorology, from understanding built on knowing the properties and processes of real gases which are our fluid ocean atmosphere around us.
So heated gases rise moving heat, which is convection. Thermodynamics in fluids, heat transfer by convection.
And we get the basic physics in meteorology in “Winds flow from high to low”, from the understanding of how expanded and condensed gases move in this fluid which is our atmosphere, when they are differentially heated.
When volumes of air – intrinsic to this use of the word “volume” is that it comprises of the individual volumes of the molecules of air, sometimes in brackets (packets), to bring that to the attention.., when volumes of air are heated they expand and now lighter than air rise taking away heat from the surface, and colder volumes of air, of the fluid gas air around them, being heavier because colder so more condensed will sink to the surface flowing beneath the volumes of less dense air.
Volumes of heated expanded air form areas of low pressure, because the individual molecules are taking up more room their weight is spread over a greater area. Conversely volumes of cooled air form areas of high pressure because as their individual molecules are condensing there are more of them in the same room their weight is more concentrated forming areas of high pressure, weighing down on us more heavily because there are more of them.
High pressure heavier, low pressure lighter.
Winds flow from colder high pressure to warmerlighter, as the volumes of real gas forming high pressure areas are heavier and sink displacing the volumes of warmer gases forming areas of low pressure.
This is the same process of liquid water in the ocean, which when heated expands and becomes lighter and so rises and colder volumes of water around it will sink beneath – in the ocean this is called currents, movements of volumes of water through differential heating.
In the fluid gas atmosphere air these are called winds.
Winds are volumes of air on the move through differential heating, called convection currents.
So, deal gas with no actual volume has nothing to expand and condense which which is how we get convection as heated real gases mainly nitrogen and oxygen and water expand becoming lighter than air and so rise which spontaneously makes colder heavier real gases sink – in the fluid medium they comprise. And so they have no heat transfer by convection, and no winds and no weather and so no climate..
You cannot do the maths unless you can accurately attribute all these properties and processes into the maths.
What we really have here is the inability of those pushing AGW’s Greenhouse Effect to extrapolate from ideal gas to get the real world around us.
Hence the antagonism at any mention of convection or gravity.
And, because those being brainwashed with ideal gas descriptions with no teaching on the differences between ideal gas and real gases which have real properties of weight, volume and attraction, which have been given different names because they are different from each other, what we also have is the inability of those pushing the GHE to see the absurdities created by extrapolating from their ideal gas..
Real gases separate out from each other by weight, so, real gas methane will always rise in air because its mass is lighter than air under gravity, as is water vapour. Real carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it cannot accumulate in the atmosphere which is air because it is heavier than air, it will always sink in air.
Those brainwashed by the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect fake fisics cannot see the absurdity of their claim that carbon dioxide “accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere” because they do not know their ideal gas is not real but masquerading as carbon dioxide,.
No real gas obeys ideal gas laws. The ideal gas does not exist, it creates an impossible and ludicrous world which one can see by extrapolating from ideal gas descriptions and seeing that is not what the natural world around us looks like.
This is what AGWScienceFiction has done – it has built an imaginary Earth on the imaginary ideal gas for its AGW Greenhouse Effect and because it does not teach the difference between ideal and real gas the general population have a deliberately corrupted concept of the world around us, they do not know their arguments come from a fictional fisics so they cannot see how physically impossible the world they describe.
How does carbon dioxide stay up in the atmosphere accumulating for hundreds and thousands of years? Why is there no rain in the AGW carbon cycle? How can oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide diffuse at great speeds into the atmosphere under their own molecular momentum being miles apart from each other in empty space to “mix thoroughly”? Where is this invisible “container” around the Earth against which they bounce in elastic collisions?
So they cannot answer simple questions such as “where is this invisible container around the Earth against which their ideal gas molecules bounce and which stops them from flying off at great speeds to the ends of the universe?
The AGWSF’s fake fisics is a science fraud because it claims that real gases are ideal, and claims that real gases do not exist.
It is a clever manipulation of science terms to create an impossible world correctly belonging to the sci-fantasy genre, and through systematic brainwashing through the general education system it has imposed this imaginary world into science to successfully obliterate the real physics basics of the natural world around us.
This is book burning by incremental steps over time so it will not be noticed.
AGWSF has taken the basic description of ideal gas pre Van der Waals, try to find the real history of gas laws, and created an impossible world where its molecules are all the same one with no properties and so no processes – because it doesn’t have any physical form.
Myrrh – the kinetic theory of gases, Newton’s laws, and thermodynamics have all been well tested and verified at human and Earthly scales. I think you are suffering from the same problem the climate modelers suffer from – a lack of empirical verification. Climate models are not like fundamental physical theories. In the purest quest, climate models are an attempt to assemble fundamental physics and obtain a mathematical model that mimics climate. There isn’t enough computer power to do that, so approximations of climate sub-systems have to be made in order to simplify the task. But the fact that climate models don’t replicate the behavior of Earth’s climate in no way nullifies the long verified theories of physics.
Some gases actually do approach the behavior of an ideal gas, but that aside, as the title says, the equation is for an IDEAL gas which does not exist. But the equation has been found to be useful after adjustment for real gases and it has been verified experimentally time and time again.
Well said, jim2
Kinetic Theory is useful and I have used it in my paper to explain the autonomous formation of the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, which then fully explains the warmer surface temperatures of all planets and, cogently debunks the greenhouse “radiative forcing” conjecture.
D Cotton | June 16, 2013 at 6:27 am | Don’t throw Kinetic Theory right out the window, Myrrh. The distances between molecules are very large compared with the molecular size, and the other forces are mostly only slightly significant when two molecules are relatively close to each other. We can derive the Ideal Gas Law from Kinetic Theory, and Einstein and others used Kinetic Theory successfully.
So you point me to something that does not describe th kinetic theory of ideal gas…? Brownian motion? Where’s the volume of the individual molecules under gravity to give a speck of pollen movement, on the nano scale, in the fluid medium gas which is brownian motion?
You have to be very wary of wiki pages, they mix fact with fiction to deliberately confuse in support of the AGW Greenhouse Effect, as I was caught out just the other day until I recalled that the solar constant is derived from the amount of heat energy reaching the surface – so thermal infrared, the longwave infrared from the Sun which the comic cartoon’s Greenhouse Effect energy budget has expunged completely, is actually all of the watts attributed to “shortwave in”, not just over half as I first thought, which came from a wiki page giving the proportions of visible/uv/infrared. [Which gave 53% infrared, which, as the AGW has it, only shortwave infrared is included in the “shortwave in” and that at 1% of the total. So their science fraud was worse than I thought..
I’ll look for the link to that discussion, it was before I was censored so it might still be up…*
And, please, don’t give Einstein as an authority.. His theory of relativity is impossible, and unless you really think that someone running down the corridor of a train is going to taking longer to arrive at the next station than someone sitting still in a carriage.., so should you reject it.
Einstein projected his internal subjective perception onto the outside objective world and got gobbledegook.
At least Kinetic Theory can be used to explain the gravitationally induced temperature gradient, and the passage of heat up that gradient when thermodynamic equilibrium is disturbed with extra absorption above. That is a huge step toward demolition of the GHE.
Which kinetic theory? It’s not Brownian Motion. As I’ve said, I don’t understand what you’re saying because it doesn’t fit what I am arguing from or against; from real gases of the real world against the imaginary world of the AGW Greenhouse Effect created by ideal gas unconstrained by the individual volumes and nature of real molecules under gravity around them.
From the Oakland link I gave, my bold:
“Kinetic Theory Assumptions (characteristics of an Ideal Gas): These statements are made only for what is called an ideal gas. They cannot all be rigorously applied (i.e. mathematically) to real gases, but can be used to explain their observed behavior qualitatively.”
Well, actually they can’t, because they miss out what their maths can’t describe – the actual properties and processes of real gases, which is why they freak whenever convection or gravity is mentioned..
Because the kinetic theory in real gas begins with volume of the individual molecule, kinetic energy is the vibrational energy of molecule, which is heat. Temperature is the average of that. And, taking in the properties and processes of the molecule it is this real kinetic energy of vibrational motion which is heat which expands the molecule, the heat energy goes into expansion, it does not go to bouncing the molecule through empty space to hit another miles apart .. that is the “kinetic theory of ideal gas”.
From jim2’s link: “It is important to note that the average kinetic energy used here is limited to the translational kinetic energy of the molecules. That is, they are treated as point masses and no account is made of internal degrees of freedom such as molecular rotation and vibration. This distinction becomes quite important when you deal with subjects like the specific heats of gases. When you try to assess specific heat, you must account for all the energy possessed by the molecules, and the temperature as ordinarily measured does not account for molecular rotation and vibration. The kinetic temperature is the variable needed for subjects like heat transfer, because it is the translational kinetic energy which leads to energy transfer from a hot area (larger kinetic temperature, higher molecular speeds) to a cold area (lower molecular speeds) in direct collisional transfer.”
Why ignore the caveat? The “direct collisional transfer” of the ideal molecule being “sent flying” to transfer its heat, molecular speed, kinetic energy, to another through empty space is not what is happening in our fluid ocean of gas..
The molecules of oxygen and nitrogen and carbon dioxide are not being sent flying to knock other molecules – they are ABSORBING the heat energy. (And they have different heat capacities in doing this.) They use the energy in expansion which makes them lighter, they don’t move anywhere unless the amount of heat energy is sufficient to make them lighter than air in which case they will rise through the fluid gas around them, and, the molecules around them which are colder therefore heavier will sink below them. This is heat transfer by convection. The movement of a heated molecule in a fluid.
The molecule will first use the heat energy in expansion and on cooling will again condense and sink because heavier, and it will cool when its heat expanded volume flows to colder air which absorbs the heat, the internal kinetic energy of vibration, which if strong enough will pass that heat to another colder (which is why visible light is not a thermal energy, it is not powerful enough to move a molecule of matter into vibration, it takes the bigger heat wave, longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared called that because it is the wavelength of heat) – that is how convective heating warms the fluid gas air in a room, by circulation, in the rise and fall of molecules as they expand and condense, not by heat energy propelling molecules to hit other molecules..
The massless ideal gas misses out the processes of a molecule with properties. So it has no heat capacity. So it has no convection. So it has no heat transfer by convection.
I quote from the linked Wikipedia item …
“The theory for ideal gases makes the following assumptions:
“The gas consists of very small particles known as molecules. This smallness of their size is such that the total volume of the individual gas molecules added up is negligible compared to the volume of the smallest open ball containing all the molecules. This is equivalent to stating that the average distance separating the gas particles is large compared to their size.
That’s why you have no sound in the ideal gas world of AGW’s Greenhouse Effect ..
They are not separated, they have real volumes and their individulal volumes impinge on each other, that’s how real gas molecules form a fluid medium.
Sound does not travel through empty space..
“These particles have the same mass.”
Wiki w*nk. They are describing ideal gas which has no mass, so the same mass is a hard dot of nothing… Which is why ideal gas is not subject to gravity.
Anyway, they do not have the same mass if they are real gases. They have different masses which is why they have different weights which the pull of gravity acting on mass gives them. Real gases separate out which is how we get the Water Cycle. Which is why methane is lighter than the bulk air around and so will rise, so does water vapour because it is lighter than than air. Carbon dioxide is heavier so it will always sink in air. Real gases have differences from each other.
“The number of molecules is so large that statistical treatment can be applied.”
This does not mean heat can flow from colder to hotter.., that somehow there is a magic demon producing a net flow from hotter to colder. Any statistical treatment must be in accord with reality, with the flow, the direction.
“These molecules are in constant, random, and rapid motion.”
Because you are giving a description of ideal and not real – real molecules move more quickly when they are heated and slow down when they are cooled.
Also, this is ideal gas “constant rapid motion” by which it means travelling at great speeds through empty space, it does not mean the vibrational movement of the molecule which is anyway confined by by the other real gas molecules under gravity around it.
Think of the way the energy of sound travels through air – if the molecules of air were moving rapidly in random directions miles apart from each other in empty space we would not get sound.
“The rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly elastic. This means, the molecules are considered to be perfectly spherical in shape, and elastic in nature.
Which is not real gas molecules in our atmosphere – they are not constantly colliding with each other in elastic collisions, the pull of gravity and the volume and weight of the other molecules around them – constrains them – they may well have rapid molecular movement, vibrational, which is real gas kinetic, heat, but they are moving nowhere fast because they are constrained the the volume and weight of the other real molecules under gravity around them. Real molecules have attraction between them, they do not bounce off each other. That’s how we get rain which has a pH of 5.6-8 because of the attraction of carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere – forming carbonic acid.
A good example of elastic collision is not between molecules, but between visible light and the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere, which is how we get our blue sky. The electron briefly absorbs visible light and is energised to move, but as an electron always wants to return to its ground state it does so and in doing so it releases the same energy it took in, blue light in blue light out. This is how we get reflection/scattering.
There is no invisible “container” around the Earth against which real molecules bounce in elastic collisions as they bounce off each other. Here’s a bit about the strong attraction of nitrogen molecules which make up the bulk of our atmosphere: http://philmintz.tripod.com/Chemistry/page3.html
“Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. (That is, they exert no forces on one another.)
This implies: 1. Relativistic effects are negligible.2. Quantum-mechanical effects are negligible. This means that the inter-particle distance is much larger than the thermal de Broglie wavelength and the molecules are treated as classical objects.3. Because of the above two, their dynamics can be treated classically. This means, the equations of motion of the molecules are time-reversible.”
Real molecules exert force on each other, weight and attraction.
The average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the temperature of the system.
Nope, as before the caveat – heat capacity is all important here. Which is why carbon dioxide with negligible heat capacity absorbs and releases heat practically instantly, while water with its very great heat capacity takes far longer to show any temperature change and it absorbs and absorbs and absorbs heat slowly getting hotter until it’s quite full up, and then one last little teeny bit more and it bursts apart …. This is called phase change, and is how the Water Cycle takes huge amounts of heat away from the surface – bringing the temps down to 15°C from the 67°C temp without it, but with our massive heavy thermal blanket of our atmosphere in place – which is around 98% nitrogen and oxygen.
“The time during collision of molecule with the container’s wall is negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions.”
shrug. There is no container of empty space around the Earth and there is no space between molecules in a fluid which would not make the time not neglibible, if that was what was happening..
“Because they have mass, the gas molecules will be affected by gravity”
But, this is describing ideal gas which has no mass, so is not subject to gravity. So here it is mixing the real gas in with ideal, as if they are one and the same and they are not….
Yes, I know it is approximate. So too are Newton’s Laws of Motion, but that does not make them useless for most practical applications.
Ideal gas is not even approximate, it is useless for describing the natural world around us of real gases under gravity which are our fluid atmosphere around us and not the massless ideal gas of nothing forming empty space.
Even if you add in Van der Waals for volume, which AGWSF does not include.., it is still the incorrect way to describe what is happening in our atmosphere.
Begin with real gases which have properties and then understand what those properties can and can’t do to see what is happening, the processes.
Unless they bring back real gases they do not have gravity. So they cannot understand heat transfer in our atmosphere unless they understand how real gases expand and condense and move in the fluid medium that these are under gravity, becoming lighter and heavier than air when heated or cooled forming areas of low and high pressure.
Our atmosphere held in place by gravity acting on their mass which gives them weight relative to each other, because they are different from each other, and those differences are critical to understanding heat transfer by convection which is how we get our winds and weather, which we get from differential heating of volumes, packets, of fluid air.
The bottom line is, that the AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect is created out the descriptions of ideal gas – from this they have actually extrapolated to describe the atmosphere around us.
They get their radiation only heat transfer by taking out all the real gas atmosphere with its real properties and processes and replacing this with the “ideal gas scenario”.
That’s why they have no heat transfer by convection.
That’s why they have carbon dioxide which wears its pants on the outside defying gravity to accumulate in their empty space where it has diffused at rapid speed to mix thoroughly and can’t be unmixed by bouncing off points of nothing when it isn’t bouncing off an invisible unknown to science container around their world… because they don’t have gravity because they don’t have molecules of gas subject to gravity.
That’s why they don’t have the Water Cycle, because they don’t have heat capacity in the real properties of gases which shows that water is the great cooler of the atmosphere, from the 67°C it would be without it.
That’s why they don’t have rain in their Carbon Cycle.
Etc. etc., they have created an impossible imaginary world – forget the maths, it doesn’t matter in this context. The context being the point I’m making that the Greenhouse Effect is built on science fraud by sleight of hand changes to real physics, the ideal gas/real gas is just one example – the real world around us is nothing like it is depicted in the AGW GHE..
The Greenhouse Effect is an Illusion.
*just found that link if you’re interested at all, where I remembered what the solar constant really was.. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/more-climate-models-fail-a-chink-in-the-armor-at-science/#comment-1334187
‘And, please, don’t give Einstein as an authority.. His theory of relativity is impossible, and unless you really think that someone running down the corridor of a train is going to taking longer to arrive at the next station than someone sitting still in a carriage.., so should you reject it.’
Yes – I really do believe that the runner will be younger than the sitter on arrival and it is all down to relative velocities. A clock moves slower for the runner.
Chief Hydrologist | June 16, 2013 at 8:25 pm | Yes – I really do believe that the runner will be younger than the sitter on arrival and it is all down to relative velocities. A clock moves slower for the runner.
Chief – you’re sitting at the table in the kitchen, in your fists knife and fork their handles digging into the table, their points impatiently splitting the air above them.. Your partner getting more and more flustered by your silent condemnation is busy busy busy rushing around the kitchen opening fridge and cupboard doors fetching more ingredients, stirring pots chopping vegetables searing meat wishing it were warm outside to throw another prawn on the barbie.. Will you ever get your dinner? Will your partner ever get the timing right as time slows for him/her and he/she can’t get to stir the pot before it boils over, doesn’t even know that you’re now in the future aging quicker as you watch the steaks go up in flames which your partner can’t see because time has slowed and he she is still in mid dash to get to the pan to add the onions?
The objective world doesn’t slow down – it carries on at its own pace. Our subjective perception can make it appear it has slowed down, which was Einstein’s analogy – of an hour spent lost in the rapture of love of the woman with you “stretches”. Duh?
That’s how it changes the physiology of your body to slow down aging? Does your heart beat ever slower, does the oxygen your breathe in take longer to get around your blood stream, does the 6.5% per lungful carbon dioxide you have to produce to stay alive ever get to your lungs to make use of the oxygen you’re taking trying to take in but failing because your in breath is slowed down in time?
How do you stop aging? Will you ever get to the speeding ball still inches off the bat to make the catch as the ball is slowing down even faster than you are slowing down at the speed you’re running and you’ve already reached the boundary? Oops, that sure beats there are two trains running in opposite directions at different speeds..
The poster child recently for this absurdity has been the GPS system, and recently there was some clock put on a satellite which they claimed proved speed slowed down the clock, which on closer inspection showed the same wishful thinking as we note in reading the variety of models produced of an alien world with a cold Sun and no atmosphere passing itself off a this one – here, a real world analysis by a real world scientist blanked out by consensus:
By: Dr. Alf Kelly, Engineer (deceased) Special Relativity Right or Wrong?
“Sagnac Test
“By a measurement made solely upon the spinning disc, he recorded the difference in the time of the signals sent in the opposing directions. As shown in the diagram, the time for the signal to traverse from the light source at A via C-D-E-F-C is less than the time in the opposite direction A-C-F-E-D-C. The light source was fixed to the spinning disc; the measurement of the time difference was at an interferometer at C also fixed to the spinning disc. Sagnac produced a formula that exactly matches the difference in the times taken in opposing directions. This formula can be derived, by assuming that the light travels in relation to the fixed laboratory. But, the measurement of the time difference is done solely aboard the disc. What can this mean? The only explanation possible is that the time aboard the spinning disc and in the fixed laboratory is the very same. This is not in accord with Special Relativity. Another defence of Relativity theory is the claim that the light path upon the disc is longer in one direction than the other. But, the circumference of the disc, as measured by someone upon it, is surely the very same in both directions. In a test in which signals are sent around the Earth from a fixed position, the light signal is emitted upon the spinning Earth, and the record of the time difference taken by the opposing light paths is solely upon the Earth. To claim, in this case, that the circumferential distances East and West are different is bizarre. A test done in 1926, by Michelson & Gale, first showed that the speed of light was not the same Eastward and Westward around the Earth. They constructed a rectangular circuit of over a mile in periphery. This was a Sagnac test on a disc of diameter 9,500,000 m diameter (the diameter of the Earth at that latitude). In the case of the Earth at the equator, the difference between the times taken in opposing directions is 414.8 nanoseconds. This result is enormous when considered against the accuracy (one million times better than that) required to-day of standard clock-stations. The difference between the times going Northward and Southward around the globe is zero. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) sets the rules for synchronising clock stations.
“Synchronising Clocks upon the Earth
“A signal sent Westward around the globe has to allow for the fact that it travels at the speed of light (c) plus the rotational speed of the Earth at that Latitude (v), giving c+v. A signal sent Eastward has to allow for the fact that the speed of the signal is c-v. According to Special Relativity theory, the speed of light is a constant. Not only that, but the direction is not supposed to matter to Special Relativity; going East, West or North should have the very same speed. As shown in the diagram, a ground clock station at A is to be synchronised with a ground station at B, via a satellite S. The signal sent from A to B travelling in the same direction as the spin of the Earth takes less time than in the reverse direction. A third defence that is used is that the c+v and c-v are only average figures and that the instantaneous velocity of the light signal is always equal to c. On a perfectly circular circuit the c+v (in one direction) is the velocity that would be measured at a million spots on the circumference; how then can the average become c? Take v as 250,000 km/s. In a million measurements the speed of the signal is 550,000 Km/s while the claim is that the instantaneous speed is 300,000 km/s. Bunkum. The ITU apply the necessary correction and call it “a relativistic correction, for the rotation of the Earth”. But it is not a relativistic correction. A person at a fixed position sends signals Eastward and Westward around the globe. There is no relative motion concerned. How then is it that the signals arrive back at different times? There is only one sensible explanation. The signals are travelling at different speeds around the globe. Taking the speeds to be c±v in the opposing directions agrees exactly with the experimental result. A test was done in 1976 in which an atomic clock was transported on an aeroplane from Washington (USA) to Tokyo. Also, a signal was sent between the two clock-stations. A correction had to be applied to the signal exactly as described above, while the transported clock needed no correction. Despite this, the ITU claims that a correction of 207.4 nanoseconds has to be applied to the time on a clock brought around the Earth at zero height and very slowly; these stipulations ensure that there can be no correction due to General Relativity (height over sea level) or to Special Relativity (speed). This correction is a nonsense. The President of the organisation in Paris which oversees these rules wrote to the author “you are right stating that the Sagnac effect is not relativistic”. That is an honest answer. ” :
My bold to bold for emphasis..
And while I’m here.. (grin) Dark matter plasma ether? Whatever, I’m posting this for the following:
“(A little insight – Wendy remembers that the title ‘Physics without Einstein’ was chosen because Harold was frustrated when papers were turned down because “the equations didn’t have relativistic corrections”! Further, she knows “Modern Aether Science” was written because Harold was being heavily criticised for being too mathematical.)” http://haroldaspden.com/index.htm
Both now gone, but should not be forgotten to science..
My kitchen is neither here nor there – although the scenario seems fairly far fetched. I am more likely to be told to get my own dinner if I am that hungry.
‘The Sagnac effect is the shift of interference fringes in the case the interferometer starts to rotate. This holds for laser interferometers as well as for interferometers for neutrons or atoms. Though many derivations
of the Sagnac effect for matter waves use a non-relativistic Hamiltonian only or even use non-relativistic particle motion, we will show that the Sagnac effect is a truly relativistic effect which can be understood
only by using SR.’
http://www.zarm.uni-bremen.de/uploads/tx_sibibtex/2005Laemmerzahl.pdf
“The President of the organisation in Paris which oversees these rules wrote to the author “you are right stating that the Sagnac effect is not relativistic”. That is an honest answer. ”
They adjust the time by the Sagnac effect maths – that’s what they actually do.
I don’t see how it can be clearer than that.
‘”But it can’t be so.” “It just doesn’t make sense.” These are common responses – and they were certainly the responses of this author when he first read about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and experiment (as Plato’s student Aristotle, and even more emphatically Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement with what we observe in the universe. Relativity is a theory that has been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe. Most people who claim to disagree with relativity are troubled not so much by the theory but by the results of experiments such as this one. Deep down, I think that such people are saying “It may be true, but it wouldn’t be true if I had designed the universe” or “I don’t like it that the universe behaves thus”. To this objection, the universe is unlikely to register offence. It seems that you have three options: either to accept it, to forget about it or to go and live in a universe where it isn’t true.’
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_M&M.htm
Chief Hydrologist | June 17, 2013 at 7:08 pm | ‘”But it can’t be so.” “It just doesn’t make sense.” These are common responses – and they were certainly the responses of this author when he first read about relativity. The answer to the first is simply that it is not up to us to decide in advance what is and what is not so (in spite of what Plato might have said). That is the job for observation and experiment (as Plato’s student Aristotle, and even more emphatically Galileo, might have told Plato). To the second objection, we might say that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement with what we observe in the universe.
Which is precisely what the Sagnac Effect does, shows what is.
Not only does it not need any “relativity” to get the clocks adjusted, it falsifies the claims made for relativity. But it seems you have no problem with the distances being different from one place to another, longer one way and shorter the other, as you have no problem in reaching tomorrow slower than someone rushing headlong into it..
Relativity is a theory that has been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe.
BS – show the experiments. It has never been shown to be real.
What has shown to be real, for example, is that light travels at different speeds, it’s not constant as in the Sagnac Effect because of the spin of the Earth. Just as different medium slow down light, the atmosphere for one and the ocean which slows it down some 14 times more – diamonds are even better at slowing it down.
Where is you experiment that shows that physical processes slow down without collapsing the faster you go? It’s absurd.
I don’t mind absurd being real, I’ve had enough experiences in my life that are still inexplicable to science, but if the clocks were physically slowing down and not an artifact of the signalling of light slowing down, then everything on that satellite or plane would be slowing slowing down, which would affect all the mechanics. If they all, clocks and mechanics, somehow slowed down then our great forays into space and now out of our solar system would not still be sending back signals..
If you’re saying that all, clocks and mechanics, have somehow got into another ‘dimension’ where time changes and the clocks slow down because they’re in a different space, then show how they got there, account for those missing nanoseconds. And, show how they got back..
Until then, I’ll stick with the observed and with the rational explanation of the observed, which is what I like about science..
“A person at a fixed position sends signals Eastward and Westward around the globe. There is no relative motion concerned. How then is it that the signals arrive back at different times? There is only one sensible explanation. The signals are travelling at different speeds around the globe. Taking the speeds to be c±v in the opposing directions agrees exactly with the experimental result. A test was done in 1976 in which an atomic clock was transported on an aeroplane from Washington (USA) to Tokyo. Also, a signal was sent between the two clock-stations. A correction had to be applied to the signal exactly as described above, while the transported clock needed no correction.”
What this is saying, is you cannot claim it as a proof of relativity..
“Most people who claim to disagree with relativity are troubled not so much by the theory but by the results of experiments such as this one.”
No, most people on reading the rational well tested explanation aren’t troubled by it at all, they are troubled by those who claim it is proof of something that it falsifies..
Go fetch your “Relativity is a theory that has been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe.”
I’m really looking forward to examining these.
http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/03/21/relativity-measuring-the-speed-of-light/
http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html
Look you can find these things for yourself – understanding them takes a little longer. It all emerges from the invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum. Not ‘believing’ in relativity makes you look like a crank. Do you want to look like a crank retailing inane analogies?
Look you can find these things for yourself – understanding them takes a little longer. It all emerges from the invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum.
I am examining the claim that the GPS clocks show relativity – they don’t. Why don’t they? Because none of the conditions necessary for this to be a proof of relativity is involved in the GPS clocks.
You cannot use this to “prove” relativity, this is basic science thinking.
However, there is a perfectly reasonable physical explanation for it, that the spin of the Earth affects the speed of light. That has been calculated and is used to adjust the clocks for GPS – it’s that simple.
Show how the astronaut and the spaceship cease to age at the physical rates the body and machinery age, to get them back decades later decades younger than those bodies and machines they left behind.
This is your claim.
The claim is that in a discrete length of time, decades, the body and machinery will not have aged at the same rate as the bodies and machinery they left behind aging normally.
That rushing madly through life will not only make you take longer to get to tomorrow than the lazy layabouts around you such as myself, but that they will continue to age, their bodies will continue to age as bodies age normally, but your body will have stopped aging at a measurable rate as claimed “shown by the GPS nonoseconds” . That speed magically slows down your body’s processes without destroying the processes which work to their normal speed and cease to work when those speeds are interfered with.
All you have shown me so far is the same ‘baffling with science’ produced by the CAGW camp – have you read the conclusion of professional modellers on Ch 8? * – this time with “light experiments”, reading into it what isn’t there.
If you refuse to see as Kelly explains it simply that the conditions are not there for this to be a proof of relativity, then we’re not communicating on the same wavelength..
What GPS does show is that light slows down in one direction because of the spin of the Earth. That’s simply a physical observation which Newtonian gravity explains – it doesn’t require anything else.
And look at the magician’s trick – Einstein claiming that gravity would bend light was showing that it was proof of his concept of gravity as this spacetime warp, when it is still basic Newtonian…
..which he would have known.
As one of the commentators on your link reminded:
sunwukong says:
May 21, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Gravity (not gravitational waves) is the fastest thing in the universe.
Light speed is dependant on source & target (e.g., dopler) as shown in 1676, before the internet and Einstein.
So everyone went “ah” what a clever man..
..and then went off in millions of directions imagining what else this oh so clever genius inspired space/time gravity could do.
Look at the spacetime gravity descriptions – you know the one, the two dimensional rubber mat with the heavy mass of a planet distorting it showing how an object falls into the three dimensional spiral of the unknown to science never observed vortex created by the mass of the planet. What’s happening the other side?
Not ‘believing’ in relativity makes you look like a crank. Do you want to look like a crank retailing inane analogies?
Me look like a crank when you claim that speed makes physical processes slow down without destroying the bodies by x per decade..?
Did you know that it was Beria who first came up with that line of attack and his reasoning for it?
Which you’ve used in lieu of providing me experimental proofs of your claims about speed and aging about which you said “Relativity is a theory that has been very thoroughly and precisely tested, and whose predictions are in spectacularly good agreement with the behaviour of the universe.”
That’s why Stalin sent all those disagreeing with him into insane institutions, calling them cranks, because Beria told him that people would be too embarrassed to be associated with the thinking of mad men.
I don’t have to ‘believe’ anything. You have to show that relativity is our physical reality and you have spectacularly failed to do this.
You have not fetched anything which shows ‘the body ceases to age at normal speed as its processes slow down as the clock slows down’. Until you do, you have sweet eff all except your belief.
And I am not obliged to follow your belief to prove I’m not insane..
..have a go at following that one through, what does that make you?
*http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
JC posted this in a discussion on modelling some time ago, from it :
“We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. …The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/05/RS-Invitations.pdf
On 20th May, Benny Peiser, of the GWPF, wrote a letter to Prof Mitchell, inviting the team from the Royal Society to hold a discussion on CAGW.
Quote ” I hope you will be able to accept this invitation in principle and we can then fix a date and location for this meeting”
It is now the 15th of June, and so far as I can make out, there has been no response from Prof. Mitchell and the RS. Our hostess opined that it would be a good idea if this meeting took place. One wonders whether the RS is cooking up some excuse to wiggle out of this meeting, such as the secret money the GWPF gets, and prevent the RS team from being completely humiliated.
Anyone got any news?
Arguing with fools makes you equally a fool.
R. Gates, You write “Arguing with fools makes you equally a fool.”
The GWPF team includes the following names
Prof Vincent Courtillot
Prof Mike Kelly, FRS
Prof Richard Lindzen
Prof Richard Tol
Are you claiming that these distinguished gentlemen are fools? In which case, what is your definition of a fool?
Doesn’t the GWPF team also include a certain Monckton?
I rest my case
lotwot write “Doesn’t the GWPF team also include a certain Monckton?”
No it does not. The remaining two members are Nic Lewis and Viscount (Matt) Ridley.
If one wants to discuss why the troposphere is not warming over some prescribed period of time, looking at all the energy inputs to that troposphere, etc. and compare it to the models, then that is a valuable activity. But if one wants to conflate a flat-line or even decline in temperatures of the troposphere to be equal to “the world” is not warming, when clearly larger metrics tell us quite the opposite, then arguing based on that conflation would be arguing with fools.
Jim
As far as I can see the RS only ever offered education on AGW to the GWPF I am not sure they ever agreed to the sort of meeting of equal minds that the GWPF had in mind. I think that an organisation such as the Royal Society -established 1660 and in the mainstream of AGW thinking- is never likely to feel humiliated by GWPF who even I as a sceptic feel lukewarm about.
tonyb
Tony, you write “I am not sure they ever agreed to the sort of meeting of equal minds that the GWPF had in mind.”
I agree. The letter by Sir Paul Nurse is vague on this issue. However, a letter from Benny Peiser to Prof Mitchell exists. I would suggest it is in the interest of the RS to respond to this letter; even if all it says is that they are not going to participate. Nigel Lawson has an awful lot of cards he can play if no reply is made to Benny. Nigel was editor of The Spectator, and this magazine has published many articles criticising CAGW. He could surely get something published in The Telegraph and The Mail. I believe the RS is pubicly funded, so it would not be impossible to have a written question posed in the House of Lords to the Minister responsible for the funding to the RS; cf Lord Donagouh’s (?sp) letter to the Minister responsible for the Met. Office.
So I am not sure the RS can afford NOT to reply to Benny.
It were badminton weren’t it shuttlecock. Fly, fluffy truth, fly.
==============
Jim
I think the politicians are so committed to AGW-ideologically, politically and financially-that I am not sure the resolution of it will come via that medium as it will entail them climbing down. As we have seen with the Eurozone fiasco politicians will do anything to save face rather than admit it was a crazy idea in the first place.
I think the climate wars will be played out in the media and the court of public opinion. The media here are definitely becoming more sceptical although the British public are likely not to see the whole picture until something dramatic happens that affects them personally, such as energy costs rising even faster and a huge power black out as a winter high settles over the UK and the wind turbines stop turning.
I think the RS would view the GWPF as a fly on the back of an Elephant and the failure to debate is only likely to resonate in the blogosphere. Anyway, I am not sure that the GWPF team is that powerful, whilst it has good players they may not necessarily be good at playing this particular game.
tonyb
Stupid is as stupid does.
ClimateReason apparently is not concerned about the straits his country is in regarding fossil fuel reserves. As predicted:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-rise-and-decline-of-uk-crude-oil.html
In June, the crude oil production is in a free fall
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/pprs/full_production.htm
That’s called natural variability and the variability goes secularly in one direction, Down, down, down, ….
Tony, youi write “I think the RS would view the GWPF as a fly on the back of an Elephant and the failure to debate is only likely to resonate in the blogosphere.”
I hope and think you are wrong. Dont forget that Lord Lawson has a significant presence, (and lots of contacts,) in British politics, and he knows how to use it. I just dont think the RS can get out of the original letter by Paul Nurse unscathed
i would say don’t underestimate paul nurse and the RS. Look what he did to delingpot
I just saw that consensus question that Nurse posed to Delingpole — would you trust the consensus treatment if you had cancer? It left Delingpole flummoxed.
lol and web would consult a consensus climatologist if their climate had cancer. Too bad climate science doesn’t do autopsies.
===================
Jim Cripwell I hope and think you are wrong. Dont forget that Lord Lawson has a significant presence, (and lots of contacts,) in British politics, and he knows how to use it. I just dont think the RS can get out of the original letter by Paul Nurse unscathed
They know that, hence their new line of attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 15, 2013 at 1:07 am |
“The value of 3C for ECS is based on ensemble averages and it matches well with the observations. This is not too hard to understand because science is geared to regressing to the truth, even more so than the ad hoc wisdom of crowds approaches do.”
If you actually look at the ECS PDF plots for models the peaks cluster between 1C and 3C with an average for the peaks at about 2C. It’s the long fat tails that drive the PDF ensemble average up another degree to 3C. The long fat tails are artifacts and should be ignored. This point is not original with me and I believe Curry has posted one or more articles on just the long fat tails.
As well, either not mentioned or ignored by you, are that ECS estimates based on empirical studies which use data up through the present time cluster below 2C. The last few years subsequent to 2010 have seen global average temperature decline at the rate of nearly 1.0C/decade. If the trend since 2010 continues until 2020 empirical ECS will be about 0.5C which I personally believe is very near the correct figure for global average. ECS of course varies widely spatially and temporally with much higher values for inland continental winters at higher latitudes which is generally where people desire warming to occur.
Interested parties such as myself advocate waiting a while yet to see if the cooling trend we predicted and which actually began more or less on time in 2010 continues as we believe it will or is just a bit of dumb luck and turns around soon. As of right now the evidence is on my side and more accumulates in my account with each additional year of pausation. It must suck to be you. I’ve never been so spectacularly and daringly wrong as the alarmists so I really don’t know how bad it feels I can only imagine.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/trend/detrend:-0.315
^^^^ data showing 1.0C/decade rate of decline in lower troposphere temperature since 2010 – I’m not making it up – global average temperature has been dropping like a stone since 2010 – in fact that rate of decline is itself alarming if it continues for long – it had better be a freak happenstance of back-to-back to La Ninas because a repeat of the Little Ice Age will have a far higher toll in absolute number of lives lost compared to the last one.
Strongly up since 2011
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2011/plot/rss/from:2011/trend
If SpringyBoy thinks he is so correct, he should try correcting the Wikipedia entry for climate sensitivity.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2012.4/plot/rss/from:2012.4/trend
Your move…
Checkmate
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
Indeed
If the heat that is being retained by the ocean was converted to an equivalent sea-surface temperature (SST) anomaly, it would double its rate of rise. In this case, the ocean temperature rise would match the land temperature rise. This recent blog post of mine details the analysis:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/05/proportional-landsea-global-warming.html
Climate scientists tend not to go over this analysis because it is perhaps stating the obvious. Of course that doesn’t prevent me from being pedantic about it :)
Different game, lowlot.
But while we’re on the subject of OHC, and how the average ocean temperature has risen around 0.08C over the last 50 years (0.016 deg/decade), why not look at the first figure on the NOAA page:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
Care to propose a theory as to how the 0-2000m layer has accumulated heat over the last decade at a much faster rate than the 0-700m layer?
And if a proportion of the mass of pigs were converted into wings, they would probably fly.
That pig has a will of its own, but can also be willed to fly if necessary. If deep, it will re-emerge roasted, just as the mass starvation of the end of the Holocene rampages. If flown, it has passed Cap’n Stormfield on the way out.
=============
The obvious: cold salty water being subducted in the North Atlantic is “warmer” (not quite so cold) and saltier. Note that actual warming is both observed and predicted by the models to be concentrated in NH winter continental interiors. Where does the added effect of GH gases over the NH high-latitude oceans go, if not into increased temps? Into increased evaporation without cooling.
Or at least without as much. Thus, the “warm” component of the North Atlantic subduction is a little warmer and saltier. There’s a trade-off in density between temp and salinity.
AK, I was talking about the rate, not the method
FattieBoy said:
The rate of the 0-2000m layer has to be higher than the 0-700m layer.
This is a first-order diffusional analysis I did that requires some skill:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
If, on the other hand, one rephrases the question and asks in terms of accumulated heat per incremental depth that would be a different matter. But you didn’t ask that question.
Too many POV warriors on wickedpedia who revert edits that aren’t politically correct. Encyclopedias are starting points not end points for research in any event and this is usually reflected in classroom policies which disallow directly using an encyclopedia as an authoritative reference.
I can point to IPCC AR4 for a source for my claim that model PDF peaks cluster below 2.0C. Only the fat tails drag the ensemble ‘consensus’ a degree higher to 3.0C.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-20.html
Webby
You can prove anything with bogus data.
Keep rollin’
Max
You obviously missed seeing the word ‘much’
David Springer | June 15, 2013 at 7:11 am said: ”“The value of 3C for ECS is based on ensemble averages and it matches well with the observations”
Springer, cut the dead wood, cross the irrelevant zeroes and embrace my / Stefan’s formula: Absorption of heat always equals the release {A=R}
Which gases make 998999ppm of the atmosphere and how they regulate the overall heat? Do they expand and shrink in a change of temperature; because they have nothing better to do – OR, they expand when warmed, to increase the volume of the atmosphere = to release more heat AND, they shrink when cooled more than normal, to preserve heat. Same as you in bed stretch when hot / shrink in fetus position when cold; to imitate the earth’s atmosphere/ troposphere can double in volume in an instant; if warmed enough – it means: can release twice as much heat as necessary.
Time to get read of the pagan believes and put my formula under your pillow: Absorption of heat = Release {A=R}
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | June 15, 2013 at 1:33 am |
“Manacker, stop being such a jerk-off. We know that you can’t do the math, except when it comes to playing with and fudging the numbers.”
Yeah so what is Dr. Paul Pukite’s (a.k.a. WebHubTelescope) excuse for being an anonymous blog-comment warrior instead of having climate-related stuff published in peer reviewed journals? Your opinion of yourself appears to be highly inflated Dr. Pukite. In reality you’re a non-descript engineer at BAE and in your mind you’re a math whiz kid who has solved the climate equation. It’s laughable. At least you’re bright enough to attempt to cloak your rants with the veil of anonymity. Unfortunately you aren’t quite bright enough to even pull off the anonymity. Has anyone written to your employer about you yet?
Have you seen “The Big Lebowski” by the Cohn brothers? The murderer became that way because she spent a winter in Moorhead, Minnesota…
Alexej Buergin
You sure that wasn’t “Boorhead” (or “Borehead”) Minnesota?
Max
The director of the Manhattan Project focused attention on death and destruction in the first atomic bomb explosion at Los Alamos, New Mexico on 16 July 1945:
“If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one.” and “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
http://quotationsbook.com/quote/47841/#sthash.zSTRKpVe.dpuf
Fear and loathing that humans might destroy life on Earth, as large sections of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be destroyed three weeks later, on 6 and 9 August 1945, laid the foundation for five unscientific consensus models that still prevail today:
BBM (Big Bang Model) of hydrogen creation at the birth of the universe,
SSM (Standard Solar Model) of hydrogen-filled stars heated by H-fusion,
AGW/AGC Models of Anthropologic Global Warming and / or Cooling,
Models of neutron stars as dead nuclear embers of burned-out stars, and
The BHM (Black Hole Model) for storing imaginary stellar end products.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/14/global-warming-appears-to-have-slowed-lately-thats-no-reason-to-celebrate/
We’re still on pace to blow past that 2°C climate target. Intricate arguments about climate sensitivity often miss a crucial point. Humanity is on pace to do a lot more than simply double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by the end of the century (compared with pre-industrial levels). Doubling means going up to 560 parts per million. We’re currently at about 400 ppm and rising fast.
Lets not get complacent and reckless about our world!
I saw Governor Christie of New Jersey, US, on TV. He was saying due to climate change the rebuilding of the coast there had to include buildings on stilts. This has been common practice on coasts where people were aware of the existence of hurricanes. I’m not sure why the good people of New Jersey hadn’t heard of them, but now that they have been struck by one, they seem to have woken up. It is very disingenuous of him to blame the new construction recommendations on global warming because they should have be doing this all along, since hurricanes have existed all along. This is a good example of how a meme, good or bad, is sustained.
We are supposed to believe that more ACO2 –> more backradiation + lapse rate —> higher global temperature —> more water vapor —> higher global temperature.
That isn’t sufficient as it comes nowhere close to modeling the Earth’s climate. The prediction of the tropospheric hot spot failed probably due to tropical clouds formed from the extra humidity.
And even if you can actually demonstrate there will be 2 – 6 C of global warming, you have failed to show that is it a net negative.
After all, the extra CO2 has already greened bare desert. This will have a cooling effect and also sequester some CO2. Plants grow faster with more CO2 and utilize water more efficiently. This will help us grow food and will sequester CO2 in other vegetation. I’m not convinced you have a case for global warming or that if it happened it would be a bad thing.
Coastal cities have time to prepare for sea level rise, if they believe it is inevitable, so they should be doing it already.
lolwot,
complacency is one of the results one gets when people run around telling us doom is upon us and it fails to show up.
Telling people the debate is over, the science is settled, now do as we say or the world is doomed is a poor way to get one’s message across. If you are correct and disaster is surely in our future, it will be on the shoulders of those who were too arrogant to accept any questioning of their methods or results.
rgbatduke hit the nail on the head! It overturns all this obfuscatory BS about “post-normal” science, those models are the best we have, all measurements involve theory, the philosophy of science which has more variations even than the climate models, and all the other crap pro-CAGW’ers throw in the road to truth.
rgbatduke is absolutely right. The climate scientists need to keep the climate models in their toy box until they have something that reflects reality to the extent possible in a spatio-temporal chaotic system.
One minor point, the n-body problem was solved analytically by Quidon Wang in 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
Years ago I wrote that the modelers were trying to keep their toys on circular tracks, on the ceiling.
=====================
I made a comment previously at Lucia’s about a similar and related phenomenon to climate models, that being the recent cook survey. My question then was how valid a result can be [97 %] when it matches up exactly with what the authors were looking for in a totally different survey of climate scientists [97%]. * see her response]
Mr Watts has an article on this in a lesser vein re the British Met service predicting the weather wrongly and that on 12 out of 13 occasions predicting that it would be warmer. [none colder?]
All the current climate models predict an increasing temperature with most models having a default 1 or 2 years out of 20 where they will allow a dip to make the model seem more natural.
True models should have a random walk zero input that means the graphs go up or down 50% with a year or 2 in 20 upwards for global warming due to the projected Carbon warming. The fact that no models show a 50% guess for the future of the next 10 years is a beacon of the ineptitude and bias of all global weather models.
It stands out, it cries out that the models are wrong.
No one would offer odds of 20 to 1 that next year will be warmer than last year in any of the next 20 years, we do not know.
But that is the obvious and mistaken conclusion of all the models.
Where is the Honest Climate Model and what should it look like [ Would love JC to make a post on this subject and will cross post at the Blackboard if possible.
The result is valid. 97% of papers that offer a position in the abstract endorse AGW. Even many skeptics now endorse AGW, so it really shouldn’t be a surprise for anyone at climate etc!
The problem is the public think that scientists are divided over whether AGW exists, so it’s worth letting them know about the 97% figure.
As for the Met Office, the jet stream has been responsible for a number of failed predictions. Typically this brings colder, wetter weather to the UK, so this could explain why the predictions were always too warm. None of the blocking patterns have yet given us a heatwave, that seems to be reserved for the Arctic and Greenland so far. Maybe the thinner sea ice is playing havoc with the weather!
Climate models present a smoothed generalized simulation of climate, so it should perhaps not surprise if they give a smoothed predictions, missing a lot of the year-to-year noise in the actual climate. They are more likely to be right in the long-term than the short-term!
lolwot, you write “Climate models present a smoothed generalized simulation of climate, so it should perhaps not surprise if they give a smoothed predictions, missing a lot of the year-to-year noise in the actual climate. They are more likely to be right in the long-term than the short-term!”
Then why does the Met Offcie use climate models to predict short term events? Are they just plain stupid that they dont take any notice of what you know, or what?
The fact of the matter is that climate models have NEVER been validated as being suitable to make predicitons over ANY time frame. And they have been programmed so that any increase in CO2 causes an alleged rise in temperaturte. No wonder they always get the wrong answer
“Then why does the Met Offcie use climate models to predict short term events”
It doesn’t
lolwot, you write “It doesn’t”
What about Smith et al Science August 2007?
They used a decadal forecast model to make decadal forecasts.
That model was/is not used to make climate projections to 2100.
It is said they are all weather models.
JCH, you write “They used a decadal forecast model to make decadal forecasts.”
Sorry, you lost me. Why is a decadal forecast model not a climate model?
lolwot,
lets be accurate regarding the 97% figure.
97% of the 32% of some 12,000 papers covered by the study, which provided attribution, agreed that 50% of more of the warming could be due to human activity.
timg56, you’re massively over-selling Cook et al’s findings. They only rated something like 65 abstracts as saying the human contribution is greater than 50%. The remainder of the papers only said humans cause some unspecified amount of warming.
I don’t blame you for misunderstanding this though. Cook et al have actively portrayed their “consensus” as taking the form you suggested. If not for my series of posts at The Blackboard, it’s likely the truth of what their “consensus” is wouldn’t have been discussed anywhere.
In other words, you’ve been tricked by Cook et al’s misinformation campaign into thinking their paper has stronger conclusions than it does.
This is an article about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/14/uk-weather_n_3439346.html
Is this part of AGW? The faster warming of the Arctic does lead to more sluggish weather patterns in the northern mid-latitudes, which gives more stationary and easterly flows than were normal before. Easterlies are historically responsible for Britain’s extreme weather, both in summer and winter. Blocking also leads to extremes developing in air masses, such as cloudless heat waves in the summer and cold clear-skied high pressure centers in winter. So, yes, it is a viable hypothesis that this is a local effect of AGW climate change, specifically via its effect on the Arctic. In the US, some might speculate that the turning of hurricane tracks like Sandy could also result from this effect in addition to more frequent droughts.
Both measurements and theory separately show the imbalance exists in the longterm. The short-term is anyone’s guess as there is a lot of noise, but in the longterm the total anthropogenic forcing will likely be greater than 7wm-2 meaning the planet has to rebalance by the same. Feedbacks in the system will probably unbalance it further.
It’s interesting that there is no feasible means by which the Earth could have ever naturally undergone a 7wm-2 imbalance in a matter of centuries. The closest mechanism is probably continental drift, but that happens over far longer time scales.
Perhaps much of the rebalancing can be done by increased clouds/reflected sunlight, rather than increases in temperature. But of course then we have the spectre of Anthropogenic Global Cloudening (AGC), or in other words human activity altering cloud patterns, which of course like AGW will affect weather. There’s no escaping the significance of changes needed to rebalance!
A particular issue with AGC this is that the imbalance from GHGs is distributed fairly evenly over the Earth, but cloud albedo is far from distributed evenly. So if clouds must increase in order to close much of the 7wm-2+ imbalance, this will involve highly uneven changes or fluctuations in the existing system. This is similar, but more serious, to the problem with geo-engineering via aerosols. There is also the question of the dimming itself, if say sunlight in the tropics dropped by 5% what influence would that have on photosynthesis and ocean heat absorption given that longwave and shortwave are absorbed differently.
Mere conclusory statements do not convincing science nor even compelling arguments make.
Obviously, any ‘imbalance’ in the system must be indicative of a cooling trend for Trenberth would not be looking for missing heat and looking for excuses why it cannot be found nor measured.
lolwot, you write “Both measurements and theory separately show the imbalance exists in the longterm.”
Sorry, you are wrong. There are NO measurements that show there is an energy imbalance; none whatsoever. The Wm-2 you quote are calculations made from radiative transfer models. The problem with these is that no-one has shown that radiative transfer models are suitable to calculate the radiative imbalance. So all you have are hypothetical estimates, and there are no ways in which these estimates can be translated into changes of either surface temperature or total heat content.
Continued increases of heat in the ocean show an imbalance still exists. Sea level rise is another of the side effects.
What is the average global temperature of the ocean?
“The recent data (2004-2008), according to Josh Willis, is quite robust in showing no global annual averaged upper ocean warming. This is also documented in the papers.” Dr. Pielke, Sr.
lolwot, you write “Continued increases of heat in the ocean show an imbalance still exists. Sea level rise is another of the side effects.”
Maybe, maybe not. But for the moment, let me agree that you are correct; even though I dont actually beleive that. Where is the proof that the imbalance was caused by the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
lolwat doubling 400 pp zillion means 800 ppz by the end of this century or more accurately double whatever CO2 was as of 2000 [ goes up 3-5 ppz a year so may have been [guess 360 ] so will have to go to 720 by end of century to double. I know what you mean but it isn’t what you have said
. Strongly doubt there would be enough coal and people in the world for 90 years to do that.
And, as Dr. Happer observed, in a geophysical context, the Earth’s atmosphere would still be CO2-deficient… and that is given the erroneous assumption CO2 actually stays in the atmosphere instead of–e.g., in the bark of a tree or the matrix of a clam’s skeleton.
How can one project a warming of 4 deg C from the following pattern?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:756/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.005/offset:-1.62/detrend:-0.1/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.005/offset:-1.35/detrend:-0.1/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.005/offset:-1.89/detrend:-0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:756/offset:-0.27/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:756/offset:0.27/plot/hadcrut3sh/scale:0.00001/offset:4/from:1870/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1882/trend/detrend:0.11/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1882/trend/detrend:0.11/offset:0.27/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1882/trend/detrend:0.11/offset:-0.27/plot/none
May be they don’t have any pattern recognition skill.
For that to happen we need a constant 0.4 deg C/decade warming.
The observation says we are a cooling trend now:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/mean:12
This caught my eye this week: http://www.cleveland.com/top-workplaces/index.ssf/2013/06/exxons_rex_tillerson_see_clima.html
See if you can tell me why the head of a company that lines its pockets by causing a problem it believes there may be no solution to preaching to the people his company previously told there’d never be a problem that they should just get used to being victims of the problem might have a credibility issue?
If it were typhus instead, any “CO2 Mary” like Exxon would be quaranteened and barred from cooking up more contagion.
And, in the weekly Fun With Infographics section:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201213.gif
And in our Look Into Yesteryear (well, last year):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13/supplemental/page-1
Always the past for cult members. Never the present.
AGW: “It used to warm … ” “I swear”.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/noaa-may-2013-southeast-states-were-cold/
The Cultists cannot bear the thought that their AGW God has deserted them – and hence their raison d’etre has gone too. Hence their anxiety to relive the good times when He walked the Earth and to hope that ‘long-term’ trends mean He will return.
And since He is leaving no trace in the atmosphere, they have to believe that He is hiding in the oceans.
But the longer he is absent, the weaker their Faith will become and the fewer new Cultists they will recruit. Already children leaving school next year will never have known a warming world. And – despite Cultist theology – they are very familiar with UK snow.
Latimer Alder | June 15, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
These would be graduates who have lived through, what, fourteen of the fifteen hottest years on record?
Ten of the twelve most extreme weather years on record?
And how many of these schoolchildren have appointed you to speak on their behalves?
You seem to forget that we in the UK have written records of extreme weather events going back over 1000 years.
Of course, the internet didn’t exist back then, so they may not always be easy to find, but I’ve seen more than enough to know that your glib statement is inaccurate, to say the least.
…and, with the possible exception of 2003, I don’t recall any of the past 15 years as being particularly hot in the UK – in fact a lot of them have been distinctly on the chilly side.
BartR
Like me Latimer lives in Britain. The schoolchildren here don’t live in a mythical land of globally averaged composite temperatures but in a real country with the worlds longest temperature record. They would have seen a decade of rapidly declining temperatures that brings us back to the temperatures of the 1730’s. Fortunately that is still warmer than many other eras mainly because the winters have become warmer since around that date. Summers haven’t really changed.
So Latimer is more right than wrong. I’m hoping that the 350 year long temperature rise we can observe since the 1660’s resumes! because if this is supposed to be the ‘norm’ before man started ‘messing’ with the climate it’s an uncomfortable place to be
By the way my reading of tens of thousands of weather observations back to the year 1150 demonstrate that Ours is a very benign era and that extremes were far worse in the LIA
Tonyb
phatboy | June 15, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
Central England total area: 130,395 km2
EU total area: 4,422,773 km2
US total area: 9,372,610 km2
Now, I’m reminded that the US is only 2% of the area of the globe from time to time, mostly by people who don’t seem to regard that as particularly significant.. many of them from the UK.
Which has a land area under 1.4% the area of the USA.
So, really, talking about the UK is very.. very.. very insignificant when discussing normalized trendology on a world scale.
And let’s face it, the scattered scribblings of some obscure corner of some obscure corner of under 1.4% of 2% of the topic area is bound to not be anything like comprehensive.
Who are you trying to fool?
Bart R – Latimer was talking about UK schoolchildren. The UK climate is very significant to them – it’s the only one they’ve known.
And as for your ‘scattered scribblings’ throwaway, well that doesn’t even deserve a reply – it’s an insult to the meticulous record-keeping of dedicated people from past centuries.
Behold the obscure scattered scribblings;
Far away forgotten words
And blogging long ago.
===========
phatboy | June 15, 2013 at 7:55 pm |
The meticulous what?
The record-keeping of 1150?
Records in a language you can’t even read, written by someone who likely never travelled more than 40 miles from where he was born, nor even knew more than three people who had, about only things he could relate to his own personal experiences as he lacked instruments or even understanding of how the world around him worked?
This is, as we’ve been lately reminded, the World Wide Web, not the Central England two-soupcans-and-a bit-of-string. We aren’t talking about the trendology of three ten thousand parts of the globe; we’re talking about the whole globe.
How can you possibly expect anyone to believe you can grasp the full sweep and import of a millennia of climate kinetics in such a narrow spot, and yet not graps how narrow a spot is your focus?
And even if we grant that somehow you show appreciation of the scale and scope of the discussion, what of it?
We know the current unnatural normalized trends at the climate kinetic scale are due lucrative activities of a few free riders tyranically consuming more than their share of the carbon cycle commons; we know the right solution for this is privatization of the commons; we don’t need to know what British children had for lunch nine centuries ago.
BartR
I suggest you read the Domesday book before making your comments about record keeping and fortunately some of us make the efforts to translate other medieval records from Latin or French.
I have previously posted on those many scientists who, after studying the evidence, have determined that CET is a reasonable- but by no means perfect- proxy for temperatures in the much wider world because of our geographical position. If you support the BEST historic global data then you are tacitly endorsing CET
However, as Hubert Lamb remarked ‘we can understand the tendency but not the precision’. It’s curious as to how the best weather documented country in the world speaks of natural variability and numerous periods of climate change that some-including the Met office (and you BartR?) seem to want to belittle.
tonyb
@bart r
Can you tell the difference between the two sentences
‘It has warmed’ and ‘it is warming’?
Or between a set of data and its first derivative?
Because you comments strongly suggest that your education has not got that far.
tonyb | June 16, 2013 at 2:16 am |
Domesday book is intensely boring, and intensely incomplete.
Eight hundred years passed between the composition of the greater and lesser Domesday books, and let’s face it, they left out the cities and vast tracts, without explanation.
If this is your idea of meticulous record keeping, then you’re severely undermining your credibility as judges of records.
And I’m not really interested in many scientists’ opinion. I’m interested in seeing the method and the data, and understanding the reasoning.
And I have to admit, I’m not a thorough reader of all your past posts, for the simple reason of not having that much time in my life for tedium.
And I say this as someone who read Greek classics as a pre-schooler, and browsed the Domesday books in the original very vulgar Latin, for kicks.
Bart R | June 16, 2013 at 2:34 am |
Blarg… 800 years between the greater and lesser Domesday books and the next attempt to update the tally for the same area..
Sometimes when I write about the UK, I find the material so dry my mind wanders mid-sentence.
Ok, now let’s see your 800 years of documented American history.
Time for a re-read.
============
phatboy | June 16, 2013 at 4:54 am |
It’s not a race.
The UK, the USA, the UN, all are inadequate by the measure of our best efforts.
Everyone’s keeping inadequate records for detailed enough climate analyses on any span of time much longer than 8 years, compared to what they are capable of and ought want.
For someone to claim Yamal-this or CET-that is some sort of idealized global representation is so bogus mathematically as to inspire nausea.
The globe is a complex quiltwork of dozens of climate basins with dynamics not yet well-understood even in the present day. To suppose the same dynamics dominated in past days is statistically naive.
To suppose the pre-instrumental record can give more than glimpses of the flavor of an era while rejected global instrumental observations and analyses.. that’s simply mystical nonsense.
Bart R, you’re now playing games.
You started out by asserting that ten of the twelve most extreme weather years on record have occurred in the last 15 years.
I then pointed out that records of extreme weather events going back many centuries cast doubt on your assertion.
Since then you’ve been moving the pea around under the thimbles.
phatboy | June 16, 2013 at 10:14 am |
Hey, this is your shell game, not mine.
I’m talking about global trendology on modern records.
You’re talking about an area 3/10,000’s of the globe on intermittent and irregular pre-instrumental personal point-of-view recitations.
All of the extreme events of the modern record are larger than the entirety of your central England pea by some orders of magnitude.
rgb says this of Monckton’s and Spencer’s attempts to compare models with observations (and others like Rose’s seen in the press).
“Note the implicit swindle in this graph — by forming a mean and standard deviation over model projections and then using the mean as a “most likely” projection and the variance as representative of the range of the error, one is treating the differences between the models as if they are uncorrelated random variates causing >deviation around a true mean!.”
I think on this point I agree. The models are not representing natural variability over such a short time span. The model mean is not a good thing to compare with observations that have natural variability on decadal scales. If there was a way of taking natural variability out of the observations, that should be compared with the model mean.
I don’t agree with much of the other stuff he says, but this hits the nail on the head with short-term (in)validation spans.
You don’t like UN-approved statistics? It was good enough for CRU, Michael Mann, Penn State and the EPA.
It’s in the interpretation, rgb interpreted the model results in his own peculiar way, and then proceeded to say why he was wrong in that interpretation. Weird article.
If you are a global warming alarmist, sea level rise is not something you can hang your halos on. As Roger Pielke observes: “Regarding sea level rise, it has reduced in recent years, according to the peer reviewed paper below. Moreover, the rise that has occurred is not from thermal expansion (i.e. the steric component).” (See–e.g., Cazenave et al. Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo. Global and Planetary Change, 2008)
Judith, much food for thought in your post beyond climate. RGB points to some horrific methodological fails that violate core notions in statistics. MB points to the misuse/ misunderstanding of p tests.
All of statistics are based on mathematics derived from assumptions about probability distributions, and how data and errors in measured data might follow them. Methods which ignore/violate the underlying assumptions give meaningless results, as McIntyre showd Mann had done.
Independent of physics, logic, data uncertainties, and such, it is profoundly disturbing to see how often even simple statistical fundamentals are misused or possibly deliberately abused in ‘climate science’. Nic Lewis has posted on this concerning sensitivity density functions and AR4. RGB does here concerning simple intermodal comparisons. Lucia does here concerning Trenberth’s ‘slippery'(to be charitable) language.
How can we demand higher quality from people supposedly practicing science? In addition of course to calling them to account as here, which seems to have little impact on their behavior? Or have great swaths of academia (and government lab equivalents) become so corrupted by political correctness that standards no longer matter? I have already ‘defunded’ two of my three alma mater schools over this issue of fundamental standards, honesty, and openness. A mere drop in the bucket.
Pingback: I Don’t Like Being Called A Liar, Fabricator or Data Manipulator | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
WHT, please to to Bob Tisdale’s blog to read his detailed response. Calling someone a ‘liar’ is almost always a bad idea. If I had spotted your ‘liar’ accusation before all of this discussion, I would have deleted your comment.
Such accusations generally say much more about the accuser than accused. Bob T. has in my opinion shown himself over and over again to be a man of openness and integrity. Plus, he uses his real name.
WHT? Not so much.
curryja | June 15, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
Keeping personalities out of it, have gone back and forth over the claims Bob Tisdale makes regarding Pacific trendology.
In essence, all that’s happened here is the rediscovery of the principle of regression to the mean. If some part of a larger whole has an average that is higher than the average of the whole, then the complement has an average that is lower. The so-called ‘Pacific’ basin (which comprises parts of some 20 discrete actual climate basins, to my understanding of the concept) used by Bob Tisdale is just a part of the whole that has for a very tiny part of it a lower average rise.
In short, it’s a cherry-picked sample of dubious significance that dives deeply into more Uncertain parsing of the available information than is necessary.
From the recent Muller-Curry paper underscoring the AMO influence, we know PDO to be of lesser import on global normalized trends. We know there have been many volcanic eruptions since Pinatubo, and that some of these may have played a role in reducing the temperature forcing.
Taking all factors into account, we’d expect the only lesson from Tisdale’s analyses we can take away is that models cannot predict unpredictable events like volcanoes and ENSO, political decisions and biological responses.. which we knew about GCMs from the outset, as the people who published the GCMs warned us was the case.
However, these unpredictable influences are each a two-edged sword.
If ENSO is in an El Madre phase, then it could flip into an El Padre phase at any time, and the tendency appears to be shorter and shorter El Madre’s and longer and longer El Padre’s. Eocene paleoclimatology suggests El Padre could become permanent at CO2 concentrations above 400 ppmv.
If aerosols from volcanic eruption sometimes dim the stratosphere, when they do circulate back out then we are left with dimmer surface albedo. Which albedo darkening appears to be amplified by feedback. There is, so far as we know, no feedback mechanism of a dimmer stratosphere that causes more volcanic eruptions.
If semi-predictable ocean overturnings swallow more heat for a decade or two, they absorb less on the next half of their oscillation. And solar influence is so tiny and arbitrary that its signal is either lost altogether or vainly variable for the last half century at least.
Though if we’re speculating on such things as Bob Tisdale’s personal integrity and honesty, I believe psychogenic confirmation bias, rather than conscious decision to deceive, is an adequate explanation of the bad math. I’ve found it statistically valid to prefer to ascribe to incompetence what could be explained by actual malice.
BartR: Your comment is a wonderful attempt at misdirection. Well worded, well written. But still, it’s nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Additionally, you wrote:
“From the recent Muller-Curry paper underscoring the AMO influence, we know PDO to be of lesser import on global normalized trends.”
The PDO does not represent the multidecadal variability in the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific. The PDO only represents the variations in the spatial patterns (warm in the east, cool in the central and west during a positive PDO, etc.). If you were to detrend the sea surface temperature anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N, so that you’re comparing apples to apples, you’d discover that the strength of the variability in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the extratropical North Pacific can be comparable to the AMO and can run in and out of phase with the AMO.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-24.png
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/multidecadal-variations-and-sea-surface-temperature-reconstructions/
Regards
‘Several papers have suggested that an El Niño condition was a permanent feature of Pliocene climate rather than oscillating between La Niña and El Niño states (e.g. Molnar & Cane 2002; Philander & Fedorov 2003; Barreiro et al. 2005; Wara et al. 2005; Fedorov et al. 2006). ‘Permanent El Niño’ is a rather loose and potentially confusing term, and here we interpret it as a state in which the west-to-east temperature gradient in the tropical Pacific is considerably weaker than today (with the potential for uniform SSTs across the basin) and ENSO variability is almost completely absent. We would expect the atmospheric circulation to respond to such differences, but we make no assumptions about the mean state of the ocean below the surface. If an El Niño state was a permanent feature of the Mid-Pliocene, it could be expected that temperatures in the EEP were higher, the thermocline in the region deeper and the Hadley circulation strengthened relative to today (Molnar & Cane 2002). It has also been proposed that the termination of a permanent El Niño-like state may have been a positive forcing mechanism for the intensification of Northern Hemisphere glaciation ca 2.7 Ma BP (Cane & Molnar 2001; Philander & Fedorov 2003; Huybers & Molnar 2007). This state has recently been referred to as El Padre (A. C. Ravelo 2007, personal communication) in recognition of the fact that a mean state warming in EEP SSTs does not necessarily imply the presence of a permanent El Niño.
A number of palaeoceanographic studies have examined the development of the thermocline and SST gradient in the tropical Pacific over the last 5 Myr. Both Cannariato & Ravelo (1997) and Chaisson & Ravelo (2000) recorded a cooling of surface water in the EEP using δ18O measured in the surface-dwelling Globigerinoides sacculifer and deeper-dwelling Globorotalia tumida. Cannariato & Ravelo (1997) observed that δ18O in the east was lighter between ca 5 and 4 Ma, suggesting that surface waters of the eastern Pacific may have been warmer than they are today. Chaisson & Ravelo (2000) found that differences in δ18O between the two species decreased after 4.2 Ma, from which they surmised that the deep dwellers lived in increasingly cooler water, indicating that the thermocline in the EEP has shoaled since 4.2 Ma.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1886/127.full
El Padre refers to a Pliocene state associated with flow through the Isthmus of Panama. The state seems to have changed with the shoaling of the Isthmus – which incidentally is associated with Arctic glaciation. Antarctic glaciation started much earlier (34 million years ago) with the opening of Drakes Passage. – http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2508 –
Although I have not seen El Padre and La Madre (the feminine noun still demands the feminine form) used for periods of increased frequency and intensity of ENSO events – it is perhaps not a bad usage if the terms are defined properly as the dominance of one ENSO state over another over decades to millennia.
We are currently in a decadal La Madre phase. You can see this in Claus Wolter’s MEI.
La Nina (blue) dominance to 1976, El Nino (red) to 1998 and La Nina since. So we might call the current state La Madre but it is within a period El Nino dominance on centennial scales.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=60
More salt in the Law Dome ice core = La Nina
So we can have long periods of La Nina dominance within a millennial El Padre phase. You can see in this proxy a shift from La Nina to El Nino 5,000 years ago.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ENSO11000.gif.html?sort=3&o=119
We are perhaps better off thinking in terms of the changing frequency and intensity of ENSO events. A further shift to yet more frequent and intense La Nina for hundreds of years seems possible.
The PDO is at its core about upwelling of cold water – as is ENSO. So it is about sea surface temperature cooling with upwelling. The other significant point is that none of these phenomenon can be considered in isolation – better to see them as nodes on a complex system. Or as tremendous energies cascading through powerful mechanisms.
Bob Tisdale | June 16, 2013 at 9:47 pm |
I don’t do misdirection. It appears you have a suspicious nature.
I’m well aware the PDO and AMO do not synchronize. Which again, is a two-edged sword. Where they interfere constructively, they produce extreme pressures to lower or raise the GMT normal trend, but they can only interfere thus for a decade or so, and then work counter to one another for an extended span.
And how many like basins contribute to GMT peaks and valleys? Not just the AMO and the North Pacific, but perhaps a dozen more might. And with the TOA imbalance, the energy that maintains the basins changes, restructuring the climate kinetics of regions, for instance the jet stream shifts documented by Dr. Jennifer Francis and others.
So the past trends you rely on might simply become inoperable as the old boundaries of basins vanish or double unpredictably. The very basis of Pacific trendology you count on is not possible to establish as valid, without far greater work than you demonstrate.
The smallest normalized temperature trend we can reliably interpret as representative of climate kinetics is global, comparing discrete spans of at least 17 years each to a confidence of 19 times in 20, and preferrably at least 32 year spans.
Not the Pacific from 60S to 65N and 120W to 80E for five year smoothing over nineteen years — too short by fifteen years to produce a meaningful independent comparison. Not the CET for 3/10,000’s of the globe for 900 years of dubious reconstructions from artwork and novels. Not a satellite record build out of faulty 1970’s technology and run in secret behind closed doors by missionaries.
What we do have, statistically, is tenuous enough without muddying the waters of the Pacific. Where the statistics are done competently, the evidence supports GHE. Odd that so many who dispute a political position find their fascination with just the bad statistical practices that support their politics. Indeed, the statistics on that phenomenon belie coincidence.
Your analysis brings no additional understanding or new insight. It errs. It omits. It overemphasizes the small while ignoring the large. It encumbers the reader with needless Uncertainty when a better picture is at hand with less. It is, in short, not analysis but rather obfuscation.
Which is a sad waste of the talents of an obviously capable analyst.
And really, temperature is such a small part of the whole system, it is mildly irritating to see so much focus on temperatures and so little on all the other indicators in climate kinetics of increasing unnatural chaos due external forcing.
Give it up Bart – you do obfuscation and misdirection with the best of them. Nothing is as it seems – it is all somewhat less than science while superficially engaged in the semblance of the idiom of scientific objectivity. The words seem almost to aspire to meaning but then inevitably dissolve into twaddle when you scratch at the surface.
It is England and England is such a small place. But the temperature is at least regional. It is the equatorial Pacific and this is smallness again. But the central Pacific is an area of fundamental importance global climate.
You claim to statistics but forget that science is about predictive hypotheses. You will find that my hypothesis continues to be verified year after year. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
You do a narrative that is full of lies and calumny and that seems utterly devoid of actual science. You become more pathetic day by day.
Red the other one as well – it might give you some ideas about chaos that are not misbegotten travesties.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html
BartR said (again)
“Not the CET for 3/10,000′s of the globe for 900 years of dubious reconstructions from artwork and novels.’
Your understanding of how and why CET is a proxy is much more limited than the many scientists who believe it is.
However it is intriguing to note that the statistic you note of 3/10000th of the globe almost exactly matches the percentage co2 concentration currently in the atmosphere. So we can agree they are both utterly trivial amounts and would have no effect on anything even if they were many times larger? Good news indeed.
tonyb
climatereason | June 17, 2013 at 5:55 am |
Just addressed Steve Mosher elsethread about why are the UK and Portugal alike and how do they differ.
So, it’s an apt time to compare and contrast the UK and CO2.
The UK (central England only): 3/10,000’s the surface of the globe and shrinking from a time when the Sun never set on it. Now at its lowest level in 500 years.. almost all its territory lost under the current UK monarch.
CO2: 4/10,000’s the volume of the atmosphere and growing. Now at its highest level in at least 3 million years. Almost all its unnatural growth under the current UK monarch.
Effect on the world: reduce CO2 levels to zero worldwide and all life as we know it ends; if the UK disappeared, someone might write a book about it, but life would go on for everyone else with practically no impact other than blog comment sections would be shorter. Double the area of the UK (central England): no significant impact on the world; double CO2 levels and we see conditions unlike anything our species has ever known, with camels in the high Arctic and a permanent El Padre in the Pacific, sea levels rising a half foot a decade and more than double the frequency of extreme weather events.
The effect of the complement: Outside CO2, the volume of the atmosphere that comprises GHG’s is less than 1% of the total, the majority being N2 and O2 – nonGHG’s with only passive roles in the net GHE; outside the UK, the rest of the globe is substantially populated and organized into nations, many much larger and more important in every measurable way than the UK, and few so much smaller than the UK that at a granularity of 10,000ths we’d notice much difference.
In short, of the two of them, CO2 actually matters.
Bart R | June 17, 2013 at 1:11 am | says: “I’m well aware the PDO and AMO do not synchronize…”
You’d better read my reply to you again. You obviously have misunderstood it. My post about Muller et al (2013) may also be helpful:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/on-muller-et-al-2013-decadal-variations-in-the-global-atmospheric-land-temperatures/
Regards
The sun sets daily on the United Kingdom and still never sets on the British Empire.
==========
Check out me trolling steven goddard in the comments (I gave myself the troll-name CarbonPollution)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/14/global-warming-appears-to-have-slowed-lately-thats-no-reason-to-celebrate/
yeah i was just being a tosser (some say “what’s new”, but see i was doing it deliberately this time)
Iolwot
Are you really proud of yourself for saying this during your trolling expedition?
‘The 30,000 pensioners were killed by a decades long UK policy of fossil fuel dependence. Cold weather conspired with corruption in the natural gas supply to kill tens of thousands of old people when the prices soared. The blood of those pensioners is on the fossil fuel industries hands. And the grubby hands of their enablers… ‘
Tonyb
lolwot, that is obscene. But not unexpected. Cult members are insane.
so steven goddard blaming the 30,000 pensioners deaths on eco-taxes wasn’t obscene?
At least I was parodying his nonsense.
He actually meant it.
Seriously lolwot, you’ve got to know that Steve Goddard is just a side-show, where he’ll say the most preposterous things just in the hopes that someone will stick their heads in his tent and see what freaky things might be present. The scientific and even social value of what he banters about is next to zero, but for a laugh or out of some attraction to the absurd, many continue to stick their heads in.
It was fun to hold a mirror up to him and see if he recognized the reflection. don’t think he did.
You cult member should realize Goddard is parodying your alarmism.
And thats why we laugh at you. EVERYTHING is caused by global warming. Therefore, nothing is.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
Now and then there are things that having read them, they are regretted. ‘just being a tosser’ is one such line.
lolwot tossed
And thus was lost.
=======================
Checked out yer comments Carbon Pollution, re the deaths of
30000 UK pensioners not dueto cold weather, as claimed, but
‘killed by a decades long UK policy of fossil fuel dependency.’
Ludicrous and callous comment, lolwot, can’t lol at that.
A serf.
Beth Cooper | June 15, 2013 at 8:24 pm |
Right.
As excess winter deaths can be shown to be largely caused by lack of hand-washing and hygiene equal to the shifting conditions of transmissibility of disease, one ought be properly laying such deaths at the feet of educators.
It’s not blood that’s on people’s hands. It’s invisible microbial soup of virile contagion.
That this is even a question testifies to the sorry state of personal hygiene among journalists and blog commenters.
All of you, go wash your hands, and learn to cover your mouth properly when you cough.
Bart,
The whole hand washing and fear of microbes is far, far over blown. There is a reason hospitals are home to the nastiest bugs. They put so much effort into assuring survival of the fittest.
Oops, didn’t mean to appear highlighted under Judith’s name. Feel free to move or delete as see fit..
Pokerguy
Unfortunately the word ‘liar’ is all too frequently bandied about here.
People make mistakes, they get confused, they don’t always understand the subject they are commenting on properly. But very few people deliberately lie as they would be found out very quickly and of course one would hope its not in their nature to do so anyway.
I thought WHT had been much better since the return from his self imposed exile and is all the more readable because of it. But he does have lapses…
Tonyb
I have the utmost respect for the values of science and want to believe that all scientists are coming from an intellectually honest place.
But when I read things like Dr Curry has written here — that an 11-year trend is climatologically significant — I am simply stunned.
I can’t for the life of me understand her scientific motivation, and can’t see how it doesn’t lie elsewhere. This is simply not honest science.
Where did I say an 11 year trend is climatologically significant?
There are oceanographic and atmospheric mechanisms that operate at multi-decadal timescales and that are ‘climatologically significant’. These periods last 20 to 40 years in the proxy record – so it becomes a testable hypothesis.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html
Non-warming for another decade to 3.
Chief Hydrologist | June 15, 2013 at 9:42 pm said: ”There are oceanographic and atmospheric mechanisms that operate at multi-decadal timescales and that are ‘climatologically significant”
Chief, you must have learned those on some public toilet wall; because has nothing to do with science; stop learning from gratify!!!.
You and David Appeal, both sods should learn that my / Stefan’s formula proves them all wrong, including your crap: because oxygen & nitrogen shrink / expand in a change of temp; absorption and release of heat are overall always equal {A=R} Absorption = Release of heat – more absorbed = more released / less heat absorbed = less released. Repeat it three times and stored it under your pillow!!!
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
You should learn something before making an idiot of yourself yet again.
Chief Hydrologist | June 15, 2013 at 10:01 pm said: ”You should learn something before making an idiot of yourself yet again”
YOU and Jim D should learn something before making an idiots of yourself yet again: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/
I have spent decades learning – did you not learn anything form the NASA link? Merest beginnings in oceanography that it is.
Thanks but I won’t bother with your loser blog again. I consider you to be an internet wack job with nothing at all of any interest to say. A crazy man full of rants and raves but no clue about science at all and a line in meaningless drivel. One unfortunate thing about climate science is that it has encouraged madman like you to indulge your fetid ramblings in public.
If I go any further I will get moderated. What say we make a deal? You ignore me and I will continue to ignore you.
It’s hard to tell the difference between the two Aussies, The Stef and The Chef.
Borne of the same cultural heritage of mocking authority.
Have you got the sensitivity equations right yet? Or the location of the Pacific Ocean?
Chief Hydrologist | June 15, 2013 at 11:39 pm said: ”I have spent decades learning”
Chief Sh/ting Bull, you wasted decades of learning crap; now the truth is giving you shivers. When you are throwing tantrum; must seat down, kick with your feet, scream and leek your snot all at the same time! Whatever comes from your fork tongue is a compliment for me. Admit that the truth scares you Chief Sh/ting Bull {CSB}
Stef – you wouldn’t recognize rationality if it bent over and bit you. No chance of you p_ssing off then? Because really you are just a waste of broadband.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | J said: ”It’s hard to tell the difference between the two Aussies, The Stef and The Chef”
Crackpot, you better stop comparing me with the Chief; otherwise you are going to heat from my solicitor.!!!
David Appell | June 15, 2013 at 6:09 pm said: ”I have the utmost respect for the values of science and want to believe that all scientists are coming from an intellectually honest place”
you are addressing that about the shonks in IPCC; but if mentioned about nuclear energy scientists, you don’t trust them – which shows where you are coming from. Compare Mann’s, Hansen’s IQ, honesty and knowledge to the one of nuclear scientist.
Matt G Time for statistical significance to be slain, its bones cremated, and its ashes scattered in secret. No trace should remain lest the infection re-spread. The only word of it should appear in Latin in tomes guarded by monks charged with collecting man’s (and woman’s!) intellectual follies.
As is sometimes said in other contexts, if you have a better method for handling the uncertainty that results from the omnipresence of empirical random variation that occurs in research, you might at least mention it and show how it’s better.
I find it funny that certain climate scientists attempt at using statistics and other mathematical manipulations where fine with them, desired actually, when they could twist them to their needs. But having been hoisted by their mathematical petard by McIntyre, et al, they now want to dispose of stats and other maths. Very funny and very telling also.
That being said, Spencer’s model chart included 73 models. Unless there are a whole lot more of them, it’s hard to see how that would be cherry picking. And, other than a meaningless mean, he showed only the path taken by each model, not a meaningless SD for all models combined. Still, the balloon and sat numbers were outside the model paths.
The global warming debate has become so divorced from reality its like monks washing each others feet in a monastery high on a hill distant from the law on the commons while Vikings row ashore looking for adventure and treasure and a lot of blood on the blade of a battle axe.
Bosch the Alarmist.
======
Gore the Impaler…
Chief and Captain Dallas,
You are evading my point, that comparing global models to tropical temperature series is an Epic Fail.
Chief, you asked for model output that underpredicts temperature trends, Hansens old stuff does that.
Thre tropical troposphere prediction was for 2x CO2, you may notice that we are not there yet, but trending in that direction.
Bob – you are positing incoherent drivel as rational argument. You assume that these models results are global and then make an argument on that basis. I don’t know – I merely repeated what was claimed by Roy Spencer. That the results related to the tropical troposphere.
You then wave your hands in the general direction of a Hansen model and I suggest that my prognostication is working out much better.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html
You are twisting the point beyond any rationality.
Chief,
I am not assuming the models Dr Spenser is referring to a global, the Rcp website says they are global.
I am just skeptical of Dr Spenser’s claims that tropospheric temperatures should be compared to global models.
Dr Spenser has been asked these questions, lets see if he responds.
‘In response to those who complained in my recent post that linear trends are not a good way to compare the models to observations (even though the modelers have claimed that it’s the long-term behavior of the models we should focus on, not individual years), here are running 5-year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, models versus observations…’
You are asking to confirm what he has already stated in the first paragraph? Global models can’t be interrogated for regional results? If I were Roy – I would ignore you as an irrelevant crackpot.
Chef, In case you haven’t heard, CO2 doesn’t confine itself to localized regions around the world. It will increase the thermal load globally and then the heat may adjust locally. You can’t cherry-pick the geographical spots and then assert that the heat rise is not as big as predicted.
Do you guys never get anything right? The story was about model comparisons with data in the tropics. One dimwit insists that the models are global and the other complains that it is not global.
Bob Droege, “You are evading my point, that comparing global models to tropical temperature series is an Epic Fail.”
Not really, in the tropics the models predict a constant relative humidity which would be an increase in specific humidity with warming due to 2XCO2. The warming in the tropical troposphere was supposed to be about 1.2 times the surface warming after adjusting for the increased latent surface cooling. While CO2 hasn’t doubled, CO2e or equivalent forcing is close to the doubling value and you have to squint to see any tropical troposhpere warming and that is only in the RSS data.
The lack of tropical troposphere warming btw appears to be related to tropical ozone depletion which may be related to stratospheric moisture. If that stratospheric moisture is due to deep convection, cloud feedback and/or aerosols have to be reevaluated. If that stratospheric moisture is due to CH4 reacting with O3 then the chemistry modules needs to be tweaked. Even Ben Santers noted in a published paper that model aerosol treatment has to be revisited. This is not like major breaking news, Roy is just getting in his “told ya so”. Even Troy Masters, another not a climate scientist with published papers in climate science pointed out that cloud feedbacks were grossly over estimated and more likely negative than positive.
All of this has lead to a general lowering of “sensitivity” estimates with the range headed in the 1.5 C per doubling range before adjustment for long term persistence. That should be the next shoe to drop now that the R&F pseudo-paper has been pretty much trashed.
Yes, that’s about right for the ocean as a TCR value. For the land as an ECS value, it is about double this or 3C.
Or even 4 C if you count from 1980.
I just noticed something very interesting in the picture at the top of this thread: https://theconversation.com/think-politics-is-frustrating-welcome-to-climate-negotiations-15164#comment_171777
Look at the penguins. What do you notice about which way they are looking to pass each other.
I assert that this demonstrates which is the natural and correct side of the road to drive on. :)
Beyond agreeing to stab America in the back they can’t seem to agree on anything at these climate talks.
For those in academia who make a living in the global warming community pushing fears about a 3 to 7 °C increase in an average global temperature over the next century — instead of a 0.5 °C increase in 100 years as the Earth has experienced since the Little Ice Age, it will be business as usual for them no mater what nature or humanity does.
The men of science want newer models.
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/06/14/new-study-says-men-are-cause-of-menopause/
WHO knew.
Pingback: Quote of the week – a pause for cooling off | Watts Up With That?
“Statistical significance” is forever being misunderstood. If present, it simply mens that , statistically, there is a non-zero effect, even though that effect maybe, well, small (and insignificant). Use a large enough sample size and a truly miniscule effect can be shown to be present (in all likelihood).
@Steven Mosher
“You and others persist in the delusion that models can be correct. They cannot. no model will ever predict the exact number of snowflakes to fall in 2050 and get their shape and size right.
But being correct is not the goal. Being better than all other methods
is the goal. How much weight you choose to put on this tool is open to question. But shrugging your shoulders is not an option.”
Actually it might be better had you shrugged your shoulders and done something useful. Because the politicians have taken the worst possible case from the models as ‘delivered truth’ and the quality of the models has NEVER been questioned by Hansen or Gore or You when talking to politicians so they have taken the ‘precautionary action’ as if the worst possible case was the correct outcome. With eager support from ‘the Team’.
The result is that there are large numbers of people in Europe dying of cold in energy poverty. Age UK reported 5000 excess deaths in March 2013 alone, in Germany hundreds of thousands are now without energy as they cannot afford it
German Energy Poverty
“Many people in Germany are no longer able to pay their electricity bills. Skyrocketing electricity prices are making electricity unaffordable for a large number of Germans. Every year 600,000 households are getting their power switched off in Germany because they can’t afford the skyrocketing electric bills.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/germany-energy-poverty-600000-households-disconnected-annually/
UK Deaths from Cold
“The number of deaths last month has increased by more than 5,000, following the second-coldest March on record.”
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/5000-extra-deaths-during-march/
The UK Met Office uses one of these models and is now holding a panicky meeting as they have got 12 longer range forecasts wrong out of 13. Biased warm of course – hence the deaths from cold.
So this is not a nice academic argument about Bayesian vs frequentist statistics and whether averaging ensembles makes sense. Like Jim Cripwell’s bridge model that could kill people, the errors in the climate models have led directly to people dying as the ‘energy prices necessarily skyrocket’ when governments make decisions based on the models. The difference is that unlike the engineer designer of the bridge – I don’t see any climate ‘scientists’ standing by their models and taking responsibility – quite the opposite.
rgbatduke has hit the nail on the head. His analysis of atomic modeling is very persuasive. Basically, “including more physics” results in an intractible problem. You need a level of modeling complexity where the parameters can be well constrained by data.
Judith, Could you ask him to do a guest post?
A cold body does not transfer thermal energy by spontaneous radiation to a warmer body. All it can do is slow that portion of the rate of cooling of the warmer body which is itself due to radiation. Back radiation does not slow evaporative cooling of a warmer water body, or slow the rate of conduction into air molecules at the surface-atmosphere boundary. The latter two processes transfer twice as much thermal energy to the atmosphere as does radiation from the surface according to the NASA net energy diagram reproduced in my paper.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on mean planetary surface temperatures which are supported by the autonomous gravitationally induced temperature gradient which results from the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in which thermodynamic equilibrium evolves spontaneously.
All the “calculations” of Earth’s surface temperature in the GH models are fudged, because unless you know the temperature gap at the boundary, you cannot determine the rate of non-radiative cooling, and such cooling removes energy which cannot then come into the radiation calculations. Most of the radiation from the surface is merely “pseudo scattered” back radiation which is not cooling the surface at all because its energy did not come from the surface.
You do understand that–e.g., even a big, slothful and moribund cold body is comprised of –e.g., a whole bunch of youthful, energetic and inquisitive ‘lil atoms, right? (wow: on a scale of–e.g., ~8.36 x 10(24 –> exponent) molecules in a cup of water).
Pingback: No Global Warming, But Now Signs Of Cooling Instead | PA Pundits - International
A typical U.S. Republican adheres to the principle that people have a patriotic duty to avoid paying taxes but, an equally patriotic duty to unquestioningly obey when the government orders someone other than them or their children to fight and kill foreigners.
Any comments?
Sounds like polemic BS to me.
Typical topography.
======
I too noticed lucia’s posts on The Blackboard and and left some comments. They are #115984 & #116040 & #116266. Some of this pertains to your note below:
” JC note: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause.’ ”
First, that “climate shift” of 2001/2002 you refer to is the result of the step warming I have been talking about. Satellite data show it clearly after the La Nina dip that follows the super El Nino of 1998. Ground-based data don’t have enough resolution to show this. 2001/2002 is where the warming leveled off and became the twenty-first century high. This lasted seven years. It is a composite of two El Ninos with an abortive La Nina in between that was wiped out except for a symbolic dip in its center. That was from the excess warm water. It was followed by the 2008 La Nina. The El Nino that followed after it came in 2010. But the temperature remained high and if the center point of the El Nino peak and the adjacent La Nina valley is taken as the global average it lines up nicely with the platform of the twenty-first century high. Apparently this high level has become the new average for the century, something to think about. Is it possible that one load of warm water is enough to reset the global temperature scale? Since the warming is of oceanic origin, could it be drawing on that lost heat of Trenberg’s? The step warming itself lasted less than four years but it casts a long shadow over the rest of the century. One result of it is that all the years of this century are warmer than the years before 1998. Hansen noticed this too and pointed out that out of ten warmest years, nine happened after 2000. He is right of course because they all sit on top of the warm platform created by the step warming. He is dead wrong for calling it greenhouse warming. As we know there has been no warming at all for fifteen (seventeen?) years and he still dreams his favorite dream. That “slight cooling trend” compounds the mystery. It is present in only one of the three ground-based data sets, namely HadCRUT3. I suspect it is a remnant of their monkeying around with that late twentieth century warming. And it is not so slight – they show a cooling of a tenth of a degree in a decade. If this were all I would ignore it. But now it turns out that one of the satellites, namely RSS, also shows a cooling trend in the twenty-first century. That seems to have something to do with recalibrating their system and that is all I can guess. The UAH satellites do not have it, and neither do GISTEMP and NCDC data sets from the land. It is quite impossible to use an average temperature for the century because we are dealing with the presence or absence of a feature. My feeling is that somebody there is pulling a fast one but I don’t know why. We need someone like the guy who told us about Climategate to find out the facts. In either case, lack of warming for 15 years is enough to conclude that greenhouse warming does not exist and the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming by the greenhouse effect is false.
Pingback: How Australia’s ABC’s AM Program Hyped The Climate Commission’s Scare. Did Mark Scott Listen? | PA Pundits - International
Pingback: Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming: Earth Has Been Cooling Since 2002 « GeoEngineering Exposed
Pingback: I answer three Global Warming Cultists | On the Mark
Pingback: The Earth is getting colder….since 2002! 1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week. | Mario Murillo Ministries
Pingback: Which way are we going? | Random Thoughts
Pingback: Whitehouse útočí na úvodník Wall Street Journal za ‚popírání‘ vědy
A factor that makes sure its totally great is whenever you get a nice time on Minecraft Premium Account Generator almost inside
the first few minutes of playing, like being jumped on by a creeper.
If you are considering mods, you can simply mount
them. Many external websites over the internet claim to achieve
the solution to achieving these kinds of Minecraft Gift Cide Generator premium is the reason free,
however the majority these websites use black loath methods, and result in you not having your free gift codes from your Minecraft Gift
Cide Turbine Gift Cide Generator.
Pingback: Moonbattery » United Nations Cranks Up Hysteria on Faltering Global Warming Hoax, Demands We Change Our Lives
Pingback: United Nations Cranks Up Hysteria on Faltering Global Warming Hoax, Demands We Change Our Lives | Right Wing News
Pingback: Study: Some Areas Cooling Despite Global WarmingNews Trends Today | News Trends Today
Pingback: Study: Some Areas Cooling Despite Global Warming – Daily Caller | Latest News Portal Info
Pingback: Study: Some Areas Cooling Despite Global Warming – Daily Caller | Everyday News Update
Pingback: Study: Some Areas Cooling Despite Global Warming | NHAT NET