Tall tales and fat tails

by Judith Curry

The economic value of climate mitigation depends sensitively on the slim possibility of extreme warming.

Tall tales and fat tails:  The science and economics of extreme warming

Raphael Calel, David Stainforth, Simon Dietz

It has recently been highlighted that the economic value of climate mitigation depends sensitively on the slim possibility of extreme warming. This insight has been obtained through a focus on the fat upper tail of the climate sensitivity probability distribution. However, while climate sensitivity is undoubtedly important, what ultimately matters is transient temperature change. A focus on transient temperature change stresses the interplay of climate sensitivity with other physical uncertain- ties, notably eective heat capacity. In this paper we present a conceptual analysis of the physical uncertainties in economic models of climate mitigation, leading to an empirical application of the DICE model, which investigates the interaction of uncertainty in climate sensitivity and the eective heat capacity. We expand on previous results exploring the sensitivity of economic evaluations to the tail of the climate sensitivity distribution alone, and demonstrate that uncertainty about the system’s effective heat capacity also plays a very important role. We go on to discuss complementary avenues of economic and scientic research that may help provide a better combined understanding of the physical and economic processes associated with a rapidly warming world.

This is a new working paper from the London School of Economics, which can be downloaded [here].   From the Discussion:

Uncertainty about the shape of the fat upper tail of the climate sensitivity distribution can wreak havoc with economic analysis of climate policies. However, the climate sensitivity matters only indirectly. Economic analysis is sensitive to the probability of extreme warming, and high values of the climate sensitivity are only one of the factors that lead to rapid warming. As we have shown, uncertainty about the effective heat capacity also matters a great deal for economic analysis, and this uncertainty greatly amplifies the economic consequences of uncertainty about the shape of the tail of the climate sensitivity distribution.

With results like these, it is perhaps understandable that some have concluded the risk of a climate catastrophe should be the sole determinant of climate policy. Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, it highlights the need to improve our understanding of the relevant risks. It would be valuable to place a greater emphasis on exploring uncertainty about the probability of very high transient temperature changes directly, which would entail a more inclusive discussion of the underlying physical uncertainties that accompany a rapidly warming world. A concrete example of this is carbon cycle feedbacks, which, studies suggest, may be substantially different in character in a high-warming scenario compared with low warming.

A secondary conclusion relates to the importance of the damage function in economic analysis. As we saw in section 3, with one damage function the expected value of the policy was rather insensitive to the probability of extreme warming, while another damage function makes the economic analysis hypersensitive. This is because each damage function implicitly defines what level of warming is considered catastrophic, and uncertainty about extreme warming plays a profoundly different role in economic analysis depending on how we define `catastrophic’. For all of the focus on the economics of catastrophic climate change, surprisingly little attention has been paid to this issue. At a basic level, we must try to understand better the limits of human adaptation to climate change. A noteworthy example is provided by Sherwood and Huber (2010), who note that for temperatures above 35C, dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible in humans and mammals, causing hyperthermia and death. They proceed to estimate that with an increase in global mean temperature of roughly 12C, most of todays population would be living in areas that experienced temperatures of more than 35C for extended periods. Given how important the limits of adaptation appear to be for economic calculations, further exploration of such limitations may prove informative.

Our analysis indicates it would be especially valuable to gain a greater understanding of both the physical and social processes associated with a much warmer world. The proposed endeavour will necessarily be speculative in many respects. It will involve trying to understand which physical feedbacks will become signicant in the next few centuries, and how much warming they can and cannot account for. It will require that we both imagine and take seriously the social and demographic processes that would accompany a quickly changing climate. The fat tail of the climate sensitivity distribution has perhaps been an effective vehicle for bringing attention to the issue of extreme warming, but it is time to move beyond this convenient metaphor and build a scientific view of society in a rapidly warming world.

JC comments:  There are a number of interesting points in this paper, two that I find most significant are:

  • calling out the need to actually define ‘catastrophic’ and understand the limits of adaptation
  • focus on effective heat capacity of the climate system (I agree this is a highly important and relatively neglected parameter

The issue of effective heat capacity is looming very large at present, owing to arguments regarding sequestration of heat in the deep ocean.  I will try to cook up a thread on that topic in the coming week, in the mean time I would appreciate your suggestions of references.

335 responses to “Tall tales and fat tails

  1. Whew. This seems like a very important topic. Bjorn Lomborg, are you listening? Sounds a lot like he’s been saying for a while: If you just stick with the median scenarios, there’s not much bang for your mitigation buck.

    Could someone explain the relevance of effective heat capacity part of the discussion?

    • This just my take on it. The heat capacity of the Oceans are about 1000 and of the Atmosphere about 1, using relative numbers. I don’t know what the exchange rate it? The year 1998 included an El Nino, and that seemed like a lot of exchange to me. It seems reasonable to me that the 2 things would be trying to reach an equilibrium. I find the Sea Surface Temperatures interesting as it’s right there on the edge of all that heat capacity, and that data goes back much further than the Argo data. I appreciate all the information Bob Tisdale has put together.

    • miker613,

      If you just stick with the median scenarios, there’s not much bang for your mitigation buck.

      You’re dead right with that comment. Consider this example of the costs and benefits of the Australian ETS to 2050.

      According to Treasury estimates, the ETS would cost Australia $1,345 billion dollars in total to 2050.

      That is $61,000 for every person living in Australia now (assuming 22 million population). This is what it will cost if we pay it in yearly installments for the 37 years to 2050 – at current prices.

      However, the present value – i.e., for a person who chooses to pay a lump sum up front and no more to pay – is $19,000 per person (or $76,000 for a family of four). In return for this up front payment you hope to get $5,600 per person of benefits, as climate damages avoided, over the period to 2050.

      How many are prepared to pay $19,000 per person as a lump sum now, or prepared to pay $61,000 over 37 years, in the hope of gaining the benefit of $5,600 of reduced climate damages over the next 37 years?

      The costs are more than ten times the benefits

      But the ETS is just part of the cost we are committed to pay. There are many other schemes with costs that greatly exceed the benefits. One is the Renewable Energy Target.

    • One just has to read comments from any random article on global warming – say at Huffington Post – to see the extent to which the extreme scenarios are driving the discussion. “Look, we need to do this or the world is toast.” There are plenty of people who take this view for granted. But if indeed extreme scenarios have become increasingly unlikely, and the real discussion today is working out exactly what the sensitivity is, somewhere around 2, and can we estimate impacts, and is it better to mitigate them or adapt to them – well, if that’s also part of the “97%”, it would be nice if climate scientists were saying so louder.

    • There are several things that we know for sure from climate activists:

      1. The nearly 20 year lag in predicted temperature rises “only gives us a few more years”. Hmmm, by my count we should get a minimum of the identical number of years as the lag. Perhaps this is because they think we are already 20 years behind. And I do realize that the temp.’s have not been completely flat but nearly so and that they vary according to which temp. record is used. My point is that one or two decades should give us more time to study than one or two years.

      2. A reduced temperature sensitivity to doubling of CO2 only gives us a few more years. This is ludicrous. So ludicrous that no one says it openly but instead they ignore this possibility. If the nearly 20 year lag is actually because the sensitivity is less than the IPCC believes (say 1.6 C per doubling), then we certainly get more than just “a few years”.

      3. They believe the “missing heat” is now going into the deep oceans. If so the mixing must be more efficient than originally believed. This should give us more than “a few years”. I would think it could give us hundreds or thousands of years given the immense volume and heat capacity of the oceans.

  2. Surely climate sensitivity is defined in terms of surface temperature – so many degrees of warming per doubling of CO2 – so effective heat capacity effects the time constant, not the equilibrium temperature?

    And it is the surface that radiates to space and so surface temperature determines the equilibrium. Deep ocean heating again effects only the time constant not the equilibrium?

    • “so surface temperature determines the equilibrium”
      Pseudo-steady state, not equilibrium, steady state; they are completely different kinetically and thermodynamically.

    • Gareth – re “effective heat capacity effects the time constant” – The deep oceans have such a large heat capacity that the time factor is important. We will run out of fossil fuels, and the excess CO2 they generate will be absorbed into the oceans and transported into the deep oceans, long before the deep oceans can be warmed up enough to have any significant impact on the climate.

      • uncertainty – zero

      • It could simply be the lack of continuity.

      • Pardon an ignorant serf fer askin’ but should Trenberth’s
        missing heat be hidden in the deep, not long gone inter
        space as some surmise, … and should it later emerge
        upon a waiting world, bit by bit, … this year,… a decade
        hence,… a hundred years from terday or more, borne by
        currents ter higher latitudes where in the winter months
        the sun don’t rise, wouldn’t this heat by then be dissipated,
        a bit of a non event, and bit by bit as mist and cloud soon
        be lost in space?
        Bts

    • David Appell

      Roger PIelke Sr:
      “This means this heat is not being sampled by the global average surface temperature trend… Since that metric is being used as the icon to report to policymakers on climate change, it illustrates a defect in using the two-dimensional field of surface temperature to diagnose global warming.”

      http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/

    • Yes. I am thinking of how long it will take to get to the additional 2C that some believe will be catastrophic. So the time frame does matter.

      If the time frame did not matter at all, why would there be this terrible insistence that we must act now?

  3. If you assume that climate sensitivity, however defined, has a value significantly different from zero, then this paper is of interest. If you know that the value of climate sensitivity has never been measured, so no-one has the slightest idea what it’s value is, then this paper is of little interest. Since I believe that the value of climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero, then this paper is of no interest to me at all.

    • Well said Jim. Climate sensitivity is a result of writing a wrong energy balance of the earth. The “main stream science and the General Circulation model” do not account of the potential energy of the atmosphere, which is 50% of the total. When the energy equation is written correctly, climate sensitivity, as defined, vanishes.

    • David Appell

      Climate sensitivity has certainly been measured from paleoclimate data.

      Do you think scientists just haven’t taken their ruler from their pocket and laid it down somewhere?

      • I think you mean your wallet.

      • “Climate sensitivity has certainly been measured”

        With a ruler?

        This is the first time any Warmer has tried (unsuccessfully) to claim CS has been measured by SOMETHING. Rulers measure distance, FYI.

        Andrew

      • David,

        Look what’s you’ve done.
        You should know better than to stress the ‘skeptical’ brain with metaphors.

        Poor Andrew is in a spin.

      • maksimovich

        Indeed they have.The global energy orbital ‘forcing” is insufficient,around a change of 0.1% which is why no GCM can get into or out of an iceage.The obvious constraint on using global metrics.

      • David Appell

        I think you mean your wallet.

        In other words, you don’t know about these measurements and would rather make lame jokes in order to keep your head in the sand.

      • How about this metaphor: Global Warming is a Hoax, ;)

      • David Appell

        Brad:

        Rohling, E.J., et al, 2012: Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity. Nature, 491, 683-691, doi:10.1038/nature11574

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ro09210n.html

      • David Appell

        Hansen, J.E., and Mki. Sato, 2012: Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change. In Climate Change: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects. A. Berger, F. Mesinger, and D. Šijački, Eds. Springer, 21-48, doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-0973-1_2.

      • “making sense” “implications” and “inferences”

        No “measurements” though.

        Andrew

      • OK you keep your ruler in your pocket. l always knew that we were in trouble when scientists could no longer convert Fahrenheit into Celsius.

      • Is that a ruler in your pocket, or are you just happy to see a federal grant?

      • David Appell

        “making sense” “implications” and “inferences”
        No “measurements” though.

        What measurment do you propose, even as a thought experiment?

        Do you really think science only deals with things it can measure with a ruler or a timer?

        What about the g-factor of the electron?
        Whether smoking damages lungs?
        Do you think physicists put the HIggs boson on a scale to determine its mass?
        That they used rulers to measure the expansion rate of the universe?

      • “Climate sensitivity has certainly been measured”

        -David

      • “Climate sensitivity has certainly been measured from paleoclimate data.”

        vs.

        “What measurment do you propose, even as a thought experiment?

        Do you really think science only deals with things it can measure with a ruler or a timer?”

        Of course it’s been measured. Of course we can’t measure it.

        Cognitive dissonance and arrogance frequently go hand in hand.

      • “Climate sensitivity has certainly been measured from paleoclimate data”
        Not when the aerosol changes of more than three orders magnitude are examined.
        Here is temp & Log([CO2]) over the last 400K

        and here is temp & -log[Dust] over the same time period

        Now warmest like yourself like to blame aerosols for the poor fit of temperature with increasing CO2. Here is the last 50 years or so,

        http://metabunk.org/attachments/solar-transmission-jpg.3526/

        So, aerosols are the get-out-of-jail card for climate modelers, but changes of atmospheric dust (and sulphates) in the ice-core record is ignored when people work out climate sensitivity from the ice-cores.
        So David, why do you think that when the atmosphere was full of dust, the Earth was cold, and when there is very little dust, the Earth is warm.
        Another odd thing, when you fertilize the oceanic biosphere with dust, the atmospheric CO2 level drops and when the oceanic biosphere is barren, without transition metal supplementation, CO2 rises.
        One could almost get the impression that atmospheric levels of a major biotic gas reflect a steady state of biotic limited deep ocean mineralization of carbon and carbon inputs from volcanic sources. I would make you doubt that the levels of carbon in various reservoirs are a matter of chemistry and luck.

      • David Appell

        Of course it’s been measured. Of course we can’t measure it.

        So you think science can only meaure those things it can set on a mass balance, set a ruler along side, or put a timer to?

      • David Appell

        Not when the aerosol changes of more than three orders magnitude are examined.

        Those changes are measured via volcanic eruptions.

        The results are then combined, via science.

        Are you seriously suggesting that because we’ve never measured CO2-warming and aerosol-cooling at the same time we ought to just throw up out hands and say we can’t know anything about today’s climate? That we should just wait several millenia to see how it all plays out, and THEN we’ll known the climate sensitivity?

      • David, I must say, that you have a way with words. Robert, were he here, would say the same thing.

      • David, we have not tried hard enough to understand how the climate really works. We just fed the super duper computers with incorrect equations, tried to simulate past climates or volcanic events and then claim that we understand what is going one. We do not understand how the climate works. We do not agree on the data taken today, not to mention data of past climates.

      • David Appell

        We just fed the super duper computers with incorrect equations,

        OK, I’ll play along: what is “incorrect” about them, and which equations do you think should be used instead?

      • Harry Read Me… something like that.

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 7:33 pm |

        What about the g-factor of the electron?
        =============
        Google is your friend here David, see:

        http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v130/i3/p852_1

        Complete description of the experiments is in the abstract.

      • David Appell

        Google is your friend here David, see:

        You completely missed the point.

        WHich was, there is no “g-factor ruler” you lay alongside an electron to read off its magnetic moment. It’s inferred from a variety of measurements.

      • David Appell

        tom wrote:
        Harry Read Me… something like that.

        I love when a responder bails out of the argument. =win

      • “Are you seriously suggesting that because we’ve never measured CO2-warming and aerosol-cooling at the same time we ought to just throw up out hands and say we can’t know anything about today’s climate?”

        You really are a fool. A complete and utter buffoon.
        If ‘climate science’ we a science, then the description of how atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric particulates would apply to 1900-1950 as they did 5,000, 25,000, 100,000 and 400,000 years ago.
        During the last 400, 000 years the levels of atmospheric aerosols have altered by three orders of magnitude, whereas in the last 100 years the levels of altered by less than one order of magnitude. However, the climate modelers make great use of aerosols in their models to arrive at a 1.5-3 degree range of climate sensitivity; to use their stupid terminology ‘aerosols’ have a strong ‘forcing’. However, when analyzing the ice-core data, the ‘forcing’ of aerosols is very low indeed.
        The discrepancy between the ‘forcing’ of aerosols in models to explain the thermometer record and the ‘forcing’ of aerosols in models to explain the ice-core isotope record is the difference between science and ‘climate science’.

      • David Appell

        During the last 400, 000 years the levels of atmospheric aerosols have altered by three orders of magnitude.

        Really? Where can I find that data, say, for 400,000 years ago, and for 1945-1975 CE?

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
        Google is your friend here David, see:

        You completely missed the point.

        WHich was, there is no “g-factor ruler” you lay alongside an electron to read off its magnetic moment. It’s inferred from a variety of measurements.
        =================
        And the “paleoclimatic” measurements are of what, exactly? And they are calibrated how?

        I assert it is you who have missed the point: the g-factor is inferred from DIRECT MEASURMENTS MADE IN REAL TIME.

        Paleo climatology is not.

      • David Appell

        And the “paleoclimatic” measurements are of what, exactly? And they are calibrated how?

        Did you read the papers I referenced? (Be honest.)

        I assert it is you who have missed the point: the g-factor is inferred from DIRECT MEASURMENTS MADE IN REAL TIME.

        So is paleoclimate data — it measures things like isotopic abundances NOW, and not THEN. (This is trivially true.)

        Do you think the acceleration of the expansion of the universe measures supernova as they exist *NOW*, or at them existed *THEN*. (Hint: they don’t exist “NOW”)

      • David, that’s rubbish. The NOAA claimed that CO2 caused the temperature rise, when actually Malenkovitch cycles where increased solar incidence caused temperature rise. When temperatures fell faster by decades and centuries than CO2 it is apparent that CO2 did not cause nor support higher temperatures. Nevertheless they declared that “climate sensitivity” to CO2 could be determined by these data.

      • David Appell

        David, that’s rubbish. The NOAA claimed that CO2 caused the temperature rise, when actually Malenkovitch cycles where increased solar incidence caused temperature rise.

        Without quoting what I wrote, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Try again.

        But first, list the periods of the 3 Milankovitch cycles, in years.

      • ‘Man is the measure of all things.’

    • David Young

      Jim, I think its pretty indisputable that climate sensitivity is a lot different from zero. I normally don’t respond to incorrect interpretations of radiative physics, but the green house effect is pretty solid.

      The real question is what is the magnitude of the feedbacks. Unfortunately, I think GCM’s don’t help us much on this. Surely observationally constrained estimates are superior.

      David Appell hasn’t followed the rule many use here. Ignore those who aren’t worth the time.

      • David, you write “The real question is what is the magnitude of the feedbacks ”

        I disagree. The greenhouse effect is, I believe, real. But the magnitude is utterly unknown. Until we can do a controlled experiment, and measure how much effect adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels changes global temperatures, we have no idea of what any estimate means; none whatever. Since we cannot do controlled experiments on the atmosphere, we cannot mesasure climate sensitivity, and we have no idea what the value of climate sensitivity is.

        As to my guess that the value is indistinguishabkle from zero, no-one has mesasured a CO2 signal in any temperature/time graph. Hence I believe CO2 has a negligible effect.

        As to David Appell’s claim about paleo data, we cannot resolve the time in this data, so we cannot prove that it is CO2 causing the rise in temperature. It could be the rise in temperature causing the increase in atmospheric CO2. We just don’t know, though the data indicates it is the latter.

      • David Appell

        The greenhouse effect is, I believe, real. But the magnitude is utterly unknown.

        What would the Earth’s temperature be with no greenhouse gases in its atmosphere?

        What is its temperature with GHGs in the atmosphere?

        What is the difference?

      • David Appell

        no-one has mesasured a CO2 signal in any temperature/time graph.

        What is temperature?
        How would you measure the *Sun’s* influence on it?

      • David Appell, you write “What would the Earth’s temperature be with no greenhouse gases in its atmosphere?”

        Who cares. You have not read what I wrote. What counts is the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels.

      • David Appell you write “How would you measure the *Sun’s* influence on it?”

        Who cares. What matters is that no one has measured a CO2 effect.

      • David Appell

        Jim Cripwell: You said the greenhouse’s effect is “unknown.” So apparently you care.

        So I’m asking what is the difference in the Earth’s temperature between one with an atmosphere that has no GHGs and one that does.

      • David Appell

        Who cares. What matters is that no one has measured a CO2 effect.

        So you believe it’s impossible to measure the temperature of a planet with a Sun shining on it, versus one without a Sun?

      • David Appell

        What matters is that no one has measured a CO2 effect.

        What would be the temperature of the Earth with the Sun shining on it but without GHGs in its atmosphere?

        What is the temperature of the Earth with the Sun shining on it when there are today’s GHGs in its atmosphere?

        Why isn’t the difference a measurement of the CO2 effect?

      • All gaseous CO2 is a GHG but not all GHGs are CO2. Think about that for a little bit, David, and then I’ll write it on the Blackboard a hunnert times for you.
        ===============

      • David Young,

        “Jim, I think its pretty indisputable that climate sensitivity is a lot different from zero…

        The real question is what is the magnitude of the feedbacks.”

        Unless someone has redefined climate sensitivity, the term includes the magnitude of the feedbacks. They are not separate questions.

      • Dear David,
        Climate sensitivity results from assuming that the energy balance of the earth is d(m cp T)/dt= Solar energy in-Solar energy out, or the atmosphere is irrelevant in the energy balance. Only trace GH gases are. This is untrue. The correct equation is d(m cp T)/dt + m g dz/dt= Solar energy in-Solar energy out. This yields a considerably different differential equation. The former gives climate sensitivity as defined. The second does not. Climate sensitivity is a result of a wrong energy balance. It does not exist in the real world.

      • David Appell

        “Solar energy-out?” No, sorry — that’s just bad physics.

  4. The average high temperatures, for the months of May, Jun, Jul, Aug and Sep in Saudi Arabia are, 38, 41, 43, 42 and 40 degrees centigrade.
    The population pyramid of Saudi Arabia is here

    and this data indicates that Saudi Arabia has a growing population, indeed, the population growth rate is %1.5 per annum.
    Given that Sherwood and Huber (2010), indicate that at temperatures above 35C, metabolic heat dissipation becomes impossible for humans being and other mammals, resulting hyperthermia and death, we can take it that the population of Saudi Arabia consists of blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system, who are the force behind a worldwide conspiracy against humanity that David Ike has attempted to alert us about.
    If however the people in Saudi Arabia, the 162,000 cows, 869,000 camels, 1.8 million sheep & goats and more than 150,000 horses & Donkeys are indeed mammals, then I believe that Sherwood and Huber are not biological scientists and have plucked this, 35C death to mammals, figure out of their asses.

    • Doc, actually it was 35C wetbulb or 95F with 100% relative humidity, kinda like a lukewarm steam bath.

      • Gee. Shanghai has had that weather for about a month straight. I went jogging in it. Sweated a lot. No other ill effects to report.

      • How about a 35 C dewpoint (100% humidity)? I somewhat doubt that would be observed for any sustained period. You wouldn’t be able to sweat.

    • Doc, BTW, even with the pulled out of the arse 35C Twb, the climate sensitivity would have to be on the order of 10 to 12 C for Tdb. It is a bit fanciful to say the least.

      • One wonders if they have though about the transition from zero humidity to 100% humidity on the worlds deserts. If you can transport 60 grams per cubic meter of water from the Australian coast to the interior, you are going to have tropical rain forests blossoming and trapping 100′s GtC in the process.

  5. According to my recent findings global warming started in 1990 (or data fiddled since) and at standstill for the last 16 years, the rest can be attributed to Natural Variability associated with the geomagnetic Ap index.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-LT.htm

    Larger values of the Ap index are usually due to geomagnetic storms.

  6. The idea that the extreme alternatives are the most important in making decisions on climate policy is certainly widely held.

    I mentioned in a recent comment Weitzman’s Dismal theorem that was an extreme example of such thinking as it was supposed to prove that the expectation value of damages diverges (is infinite) and therefore justifies mitigation at any cost. Weitzman’s proof of the theorem has, however, been criticized by others.

    While I do largely agree that the extreme cases are most important in principle, I cannot see that it would be possible to make real use of that observation. There are so many successive issues that must be resolved before rational decision making may be based on that approach. It’s certainly worthwhile to study all these issues as there’s much to learn by that. Even so the real goal is very far.

    • One problem is that the economic consequences of decarbonization also have a distribution in which we can plausibly imagine improbable extreme negative outcomes.

  7. Judith Curry,

    When Sherwood & Huber (2010) wrote that: “Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals” the word “should” raised my curiosity. It seemed like more their speculation than having researched the facts.

    Heat stress in both dry and humid environments has been an ongoing interest of armed forces all over the world.

    Sawka et al at the US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine has a summary of Human Adaptation to Heat and Cold Stress.

    http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-076///MP-076-$KN4.pdf

    Adaptation is induced by brief exposures which effects metabolic, circulatory and water balance. Adaptations to 47 C (117 F) have been induced.

    So the 35 C number as an upper limit to human/mammalian survival struck me as not only not accurate, but would substantially impact their calculations regarding catastrophic changes and addresses to some degree your query regarding:

    1) calling out the need to actually define ‘catastrophic’ and understand the limits of adaptation.

    Right now I’m freezing, so I’ll get up, put some light jacket on, and exercise for a while. I’m pretty knowledgeable about cold stress adaptation.

    • See reply by captd above. 35 C at near 100% (over warmer tropical areas for example) is not survivable by mammals, but it might be interesting to see how long someone can stay in a steambath like that. Currently the warmest tropical oceans are 30 C, so we won’t see these levels unless the climate warms significantly.

      • JimD, “Currently the warmest tropical oceans are 30 C, so we won’t see these levels unless the climate warms significantly.”

        Right, “sensitivity” would have to be 10 to 12 C and the 35C wb would need to be prolonged. It is a very skinny tip of the fat tail used for effect.

      • The peak of the Eocene apparently had deep ocean temperatures 14 C warmer and CO2 levels around 2000 ppm 50 million years ago. I believe only small mammals existed then.

      • JimD, “The peak of the Eocene apparently had deep ocean temperatures 14 C warmer and CO2 levels around 2000 ppm 50 million years ago. I believe only small mammals existed then.”

        There was no Antarctic Circumpolar Current in the Eocene. Best estimates of “sensitivity” based on current ocean heat transport are no higher than 4.5 C per doubling and that is stretching the fat tail. Realistic estimates are currently less than 2.5 C per doubling. You are running from reality to paradoxville.

      • The Chinese government mandates cessation of manual labor when temperatures exceed 40C. That’s why Chinese summers are filled with a string of ‘offical’ 39C readings. Humidity varies but throughout much of the tropics is quite high.

        So I guess the billions living in this zone are actually zombies…

      • Right, during the Eocene only small mammals existed, like Malfelis and Patriofelis, 200 lb, 6 foot long ‘cats’ that ate cow sized proto-rhinoceroses and tapirs, and uintatheres.

        http://lazy-lizard-tales.blogspot.com/2012/09/prehistoric-rhinos-underrated.html

        The Eocene was the time the mammalian diversity exploded.
        There were big marsupials too.

      • Yes, I probably should have qualified that with saying that the Arctic latitudes had crocodile type creatures in dense forests, so indeed, the cooler latitudes may have been more habitable. It was a different world.

      • And where does the great majority of human beings live? In Siberia and Alaska or in China, India, Indonezia, Africa and Brazil (and also Florida), where average temps are above 40 deg for some months ?
        Mankind has voted with it’s feet

  8. David L. Hagen

    Consider Economic and Climatic Fat Tails
    It appears that both climate and economic fat tails are necessary to argue massive financial expenditures to mitigate remote climate effects.
    See Ross McKitrick on:

    THE DISMAL THEOREM: I have released a Discussion Paper entitled “Cheering Up the Dismal Theorem” which critiques the basis of the Weitzman (2009) argument that people should, in principle, be willing to spend an arbitrarily large amount of current income to prevent a catastrophic loss of consumption due to the risk of a large future climate change event. It turns out there are lots of Discussion Papers floating around criticizing various aspects of the Dismal Theorem, so many so that journals are already considering the topic somewhat done to death even though the critiques are mostly not yet published. Mine differs from the others in that I don’t try to argue that the basic structure of the argument needs to be tweaked. Instead I am arguing that Weitzman’s main result depends on an approximation term that can be replaced with its exact counterpart, and if this is done the results no longer go through.

    Cheering Up The Dismal Theorem DISCUSSION PAPER 2012-05

  9. Yet another attempt to deal with the “pause.” This one representing a nice judo style flip of the skeptic’s embrace of uncertainty.

    “Economic analysis is sensitive to the probability of extreme warming, and high values of the climate sensitivity are only one of the factors that lead to rapid warming. As we have shown, uncertainty about the effective heat capacity also matters a great deal for economic analysis, and this uncertainty greatly amplifies the economic consequences of uncertainty about the shape of the tail of the climate sensitivity distribution.”

    This sound like we may be seeing a pivot from “sensitivity,” to the “pipeline” that is holding all the “missing heat” as the focus of the CAGW debate. Data suggesting sensitivity is lower than expected must be wrong because all the excess heat is “hidden” somewhere in the climate system. The problem is the “pipeline” argument as originally envisioned by the warmists, the oceans are where it’s at, is more like an essentially bottomless pit. (which would explain why Gavin Schmidt abandoned that formulation.) The pipeline argument will only become problematic when the warmists figure out a way to claim the pipeline is full, and the heat is about to be released. Hence “”effective heat capacity.”

    When the “pipeline” reaches “capacity” we will have a tipping point that “greatly amplifie[s] economic consequences.” Nice spin here. We have both “it’s worse than we thought” and the precautionary principle in one sentence, without actually using either hackneyed term.

    Oh, and the reason “catastrophic” is so ill-defined in the climate debate, is that the consensus has been fighting for a decade to deny there is any such thing as CAGW. “We never said catastrophe.”

    Why define a term that is irrelevant to the debate?

    And “understand[ing] the limits of adaptation?”

    First we got the merging of climate and weather to protect research budgets. Now we will see blurring of the meaning of “catastrophic” so they can merge adaptation and mitigation, and keep alive the drive for decarbonization.

    • very good points, I hadn’t thought of the ‘tipping point’ argument to get around the thermodynamics of heat release

    • It begs the question: what was in the pipeline in the 70s when late 20th century warming started.

  10. Really, Dr. Curry… how many of the posts you have introduced in the last several months have anything worth remembering in them?

    Andrew

    • More than can be said for your comments.

      • John Carpenter

        Oh, I see Michael is back for more juvenile food fighting rather than hangin out at the e-salon where folks talk climate science.

      • Is everything so exclusively binary for you??


      • John Carpenter | July 31, 2013 at 9:46 pm |

        Oh, I see Michael is back for more juvenile food fighting rather than hangin out at the e-salon where folks talk climate science.

        And Carpenter just sits there like a complicit stooge as krank commenters such as Greg House and Chief Hydro run around stinking up the place.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I quite often wonder about the application of moderation here. I have stopped wondering about the sanity of the Webster.

  11. This is what you need to push the alarmist line, when the polar bears and the satanic-mill smokestacks and the hard sell and soft sell have not worked

    You can always leave the punters floundering in verbal molasses: dense, ugly, manipulative language, like a bad computer translation of some already bad German text.

  12. “JC comments: There are a number of interesting points in this paper, two that I find most significant are: … focus on effective heat capacity (I agree this is a highly important and relatively neglected parameter”
    =================================================

    Judith, CO2 has extremely low effect on heat capacity of the air because of it’s minuscule concentration. It would be like 0.0001C.

    You should focus on physical impossibility of the so called “greenhouse effect” (warming by back radiation). You went to high school before the AGW madness started, where you must have been taught that no body could be warmed by it’s own heat. The back radiation warming is exactly that. The second thing you certainly know is that when looking at yourself in a mirror you do not feel the back radiation warming on your face. It is time to put aside climate science and start thinking about physics. I hope this can help: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/19/friday-funny-reflections-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-1367119. I also recommend reading the whole discussion.

    • “where you must have been taught that no body could be warmed by it’s own heat”

      Have you ever put a jacket on when it’s cold?

      • Are you suggesting that a jacket can warm a body, Michael?

      • David Appell

        Are you suggesting that a jacket can warm a body, Michael?

        Yes, he is. Are you suggesting it doesnt’?

      • The same jacket, Michael, would keep you from overheating more or less, if the air temperature around you were higher than your body temperature.

        Jackets, house insulations, thermoses etc. do not warm, they are only barriers.

        “Greenhouse gases” are said to warm by back radiation, which is equal to reflecting (a portion of) radiation of a source back to it. This can not work for physical reasons, see my link above.

      • Greg,

        What!!!

        You mean that my jacket, despite being cooler than my body temperature can ‘warm’ me?
        Maybe by reducing cooling, leading to a higher equilibrium temp?

        Amazing!

        Astounding!!

      • willard,

        Forgive me for breaking the 2nd skeptical Law of Thermodynamics; thou shallt not warm.

      • David Appell

        “Greenhouse gases” are said to warm by back radiation, which is equal to reflecting (a portion of) radiation of a source back to it. This can not work for physical reasons, see my link above.

        It isn’t “reflection” — it is absorption and emission. And the phenomenon has been measured:

        “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

        “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006

        https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

      • David,

        ‘measured’ with your infamous ‘ruler’?

        Think of poor Andrew!

      • Michael said | July 31, 2013 at 8:02 pm |: “Maybe by reducing cooling, leading to a higher equilibrium temp?”
        ================================================

        Michael, sending radiation back to it’s own source can neither reduce cooling nor cause warming nor increase warming of the source. This is actually the same effect, which is supplying the source with energy by means of back radiation, and this can not have any effect on the temperature of the source for physical reasons. It does not matter either, whether the radiation is reflected or absorbed/emitted.

        The assumption that back radiation can have a warming effect on the source by supplying it with energy leads to the absurd result, namely to creation of energy out of nothing, see my link above.

      • David Appell

        Michael, sending radiation back to it’s own source can neither reduce cooling nor cause warming nor increase warming of the source.

        What exactly do you think happens to the radiation that is directed back towards a source?

        Do you think it just disappears??

      • David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 8:30 pm |: “What exactly do you think happens to the radiation that is directed back towards a source? Do you think it just disappears??”
        ==============================================

        What we know for sure is that back radiation can not have a warming effect on the source, because the assumption of the opposite leads to absurd results: endless warming and creation of energy out of nothing.

        There are some theoretical explanations of what exactly might happen there around, but I am only interested in the issue of physical impossibility of the “greenhouse effect”.

      • David Appell

        What we know for sure is that back radiation can not have a warming effect on the source,

        Do you agree that that radiation will hit the source?

        What, then, happens to that radiation when it hits “the source?”
        How does this radiation not warm the source?

        Do you think it carries a little sign saying, “I cannot warm?”

        Can you point to any experiment at all that shows this?

      • k scott denison

        Michael | July 31, 2013 at 7:06 pm | Reply
        “where you must have been taught that no body could be warmed by it’s own heat”

        Have you ever put a jacket on when it’s cold?
        ====================
        How much warmer is a corpse wearing that same jacket Michael?

        How about if I put the jacket on the corpse and set the corpse in the sun, will the corpse be warmer than without the jacket?

        If I put the jacket on and then die, will I remain “warmer”?

        Or perhaps does the jacket only delay the loss of temperature my body will experience?

        Very poor analogy; and David buys right in.

      • David Appell

        How much warmer is a corpse wearing that same jacket Michael?

        Do you think a corpse doesn’t emit energy?

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:04 pm |
        How much warmer is a corpse wearing that same jacket Michael?

        Do you think a corpse doesn’t emit energy?
        ===============
        So, David, are you saying if one puts a corpse at 72F in a room at 72F, and the. Puts a jacket on the corpse its temperature will go up?

        Really?

      • David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 8:52 pm |: “Do you agree that that radiation will hit the source? What, then, happens to that radiation when it hits “the source?” How does this radiation not warm the source? Do you think it carries a little sign saying, “I cannot warm?” Can you point to any experiment at all that shows this?”
        =====================================

        Look, David, in the post on WUWT I linked above I did assume all you want, namely that back radiation hits the source and warms it. Then, unfortunately for the back radiation and the warmists movement, the result was that the warming would never stop and energy was created out of nothing. This proves that the initial assumption was false.

        About experiments, if you proved that 2+2 is not 5, you do not need an experiment to prove that 2 billions cars + 2 billions cars is not 5 billions cars, do you?

      • k scott denison

        Or, David, are you saying if I take two corpses at 72F and put them in a room at 72F, one in a jacket, the other not, and then let sun into the room directly shining on the corpses that the temperature of the one in the jacket will be higher?

        Really?

      • David Appell

        Look, David, in the post on WUWT I linked above I did assume all you want, namely that back radiation hits the source and warms it. Then, unfortunately for the back radiation and the warmists movement, the result was that the warming would never stop and energy was created out of nothing. This proves that the initial assumption was false.

        I don’t know about any posts at WUWT (and wouldn’t trust it if I did). I’m simply asking how a photon of infrared radiation, that has been emitted downward by CO2 in the atmosphere, “knows” not to warm the Earth when it hits it?

        How does that work, exactly? How does the photon (or Earth) know to disregard it?

        And what experimental evidence supports that claim?

      • David Appell

        So, David, are you saying if one puts a corpse at 72F in a room at 72F, and the. Puts a jacket on the corpse its temperature will go up?

        This is a special case. No, two bodies at the same temperature do not change the temperature of either.

        But put the corpse in a freezer at 20F.

      • David Appell

        Michael, sending radiation back to it’s own source can neither reduce cooling nor cause warming nor increase warming of the source.

        What property of the photon tells the source where it came from?

        Do you really think all the photons in the Universe are wandering around with little tags saying where they came from, so that if they hit their source it knows not to cause warming, but if it hits somewhere else it can cause warming???

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:19 pm |
        So, David, are you saying if one puts a corpse at 72F in a room at 72F, and the. Puts a jacket on the corpse its temperature will go up?

        This is a special case. No, two bodies at the same temperature do not change the temperature of either.

        But put the corpse in a freezer at 20F.
        ================

        So put the corpse with a jacket on in a freezer at 20F and its temperature will increase, is that what you’re saying?

        Try again. Put two corpses at 72F, one with a jacket and one without, in a freezer at 20F. Which one will have the higher temperature after, say, 2 days?

      • k scott denison

        David (and Michael), here’s a hint at where you are going wrong with your “jacket analogy”: wavelengths matter sometimes, but not usually to a jacket.

      • David Appell

        Try again. Put two corpses at 72F, one with a jacket and one without, in a freezer at 20F. Which one will have the higher temperature after, say, 2 days?

        It depends on where the corpses came from. Perhaps one was in very deep freeze at 3 K.

        You are unnecessarily complicating the situation. All objects emit energy. If some of that energy is reflected back to them, what do you think happens to that energy? Do you think it just disappears?

      • David Appell

        wavelengths matter sometimes, but not usually to a jacket.

        So you think the jacket is measuring the wavelength of the radiation incident upon it, and ignoring it (i.e not absorbing it) depending on the value it measures??

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
        Try again. Put two corpses at 72F, one with a jacket and one without, in a freezer at 20F. Which one will have the higher temperature after, say, 2 days?

        It depends on where the corpses came from. Perhaps one was in very deep freeze at 3 K.
        ==========
        Now you are demonstrating an inability to read in addition to an inability to reason.

        How exactly can a corpse at 72F have come from the deep freeze at 3K? Or are you implying that “freeze conditioning” a corpse to 3K, then letting it come to 72F somehow affects its thermal properties?

        Be careful, you are dangerously close to demonstrating extreme ignorance.

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
        wavelengths matter sometimes, but not usually to a jacket.

        So you think the jacket is measuring the wavelength of the radiation incident upon it, and ignoring it (i.e not absorbing it) depending on the value it measures??
        ====================

        Nope, and your ignorance is now in full display.

        Hint: the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of CO2 has something to do with wavelengths.

      • David Appell says: “I don’t know about any posts at WUWT (and wouldn’t trust it if I did). I’m simply asking how a photon of infrared radiation, that has been emitted downward by CO2 in the atmosphere, “knows” not to warm the Earth when it hits it? …What property of the photon tells the source where it came from? …Do you really think all the photons in the Universe are wandering around with little tags saying …”
        =====================================

        David, I referred to the discussion on WUWT I linked above, because what you are asking here has already been answered there, you counter argumentation is typical.

        You do not need to “trust” anything or agree automatically, just read it for your information and in order to avoid duplication.

        This is the link, again: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/19/friday-funny-reflections-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-1367119

      • David Appell

        I can’t keep up with all your scattershot examples.

        If object A has a coating that reflects heat, and object B doesn’t, then of course object A will be warmer than object B, but whether it’s true after “2 days” or not depends on the exact nature of the coating. It’s impossible to say for sure.

        Are you implying that it you were trapped in a freezer, you don’t think it matters if you have a coat on?

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
        Try again. Put two corpses at 72F, one with a jacket and one without, in a freezer at 20F. Which one will have the higher temperature after, say, 2 days?

        It depends on where the corpses came from. Perhaps one was in very deep freeze at 3 K.

        You are unnecessarily complicating the situation. All objects emit energy. If some of that energy is reflected back to them, what do you think happens to that energy? Do you think it just disappears?

        ============

        You do know that both corpses will drop to 20F, right? And theat the only possible difference is the TIME it takes for them to drop to 20F, right?

        Or more precisely, both the corpses AND the air in the freezer will equilibrate to some temperature above 20F unless one continues to remove heat from the freezer to keep it at 20F.

      • David Appell

        Hint: the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of CO2 has something to do with wavelengths.

        1. If you want a reply, stop the name calling.
        2. If you want to talk about the greenhouse effect, stop talking about coats.

      • David Appell

        Greg House: You’ll have to make your point in your own words, without refernce to WUWT, a site I don’t trust to add 2 and 2.

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
        I can’t keep up with all your scattershot examples.

        If object A has a coating that reflects heat, and object B doesn’t, then of course object A will be warmer than object B, but whether it’s true after “2 days” or not depends on the exact nature of the coating. It’s impossible to say for sure.

        Are you implying that it you were trapped in a freezer, you don’t think it matters if you have a coat on?
        =================
        I’m implying that to an object trapped in a freezer that DOES NOT HAVE AN INTERNAL HEAT SOURCE, having a jacket on makes no difference to the final temperature of the object. Hence why I continue to use a corpse as an example.

        And you have demonstrated clearly that you grasp talking points but not the science.

      • David Appell

        I just said that.

        If you’re in a freezer, would you rather have a coat on, or not?

      • David Appell

        Hence why I continue to use a corpse as an example.

        So you think a corpse doesn’t emit energy?

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:44 pm |
        Hint: the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of CO2 has something to do with wavelengths.

        1. If you want a reply, stop the name calling.
        2. If you want to talk about the greenhouse effect, stop talking about coats.
        ===============
        Ah, so you are finally getting the point. Yes, the “greenhouse effect” and a jacket are NOT the same. Yet when Michael started using the jacket as an analogy there you were defending him as if the two were the same.

        Really hurts the old credibility.

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:50 pm |
        Hence why I continue to use a corpse as an example.

        So you think a corpse doesn’t emit energy?
        ===========
        Of course it does. Yet, putting a jacket on a 72F corpse and putting it into a 20F freezer will NOT stop the corpse’s temperature from dropping to 20F. It may DELAY the drop, but will not STOP the drop.

      • k scott denison

        So, if the corpse ends up at 20F, how is it the jacket warms the corpse? (Or me for that matter?)

      • David Appell

        Yet when Michael started using the jacket as an analogy there you were defending him as if the two were the same

        I have no idea what this means.

        Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or the CO2 doesn’t absorb it?

      • David Appell

        Yet, putting a jacket on a 72F corpse and putting it into a 20F freezer will NOT stop the corpse’s temperature from dropping to 20F. It may DELAY the drop, but will not STOP the drop.

        So you agree the insulator reduces heat loss.

        Except this example does not apply to the Earth, since it has a constant supply of energy coming in.

      • David Appell

        So, if the corpse ends up at 20F, how is it the jacket warms the corpse? (Or me for that matter?)

        Are you seriously asking me if, and how, a jacket keeps you warm??

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 7:49 pm |
        Are you suggesting that a jacket can warm a body, Michael?

        Yes, he is. Are you suggesting it doesnt’?

        ==========

        A jacket CANNOT warm a body (cf the corpse analogy). It can keep a living human (with an internal heat source) from cooling more than without a jacket. But warm the human? Nope.

        Yes, the earth emits infrared radiation. And it cools less because of it. Now, what happens when clouds change?

      • I bought a gas heater to warm me house and put insulation
        batts,… bats( ?) in me roof to slow down heat loss.
        Bts

      • David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:45 pm |: “Greg House: You’ll have to make your point in your own words, without refernce to WUWT, a site I don’t trust to add 2 and 2.”
        ========================================

        David, I refer you exactly as you wish to my own words, it was my own comment on WUWT and my own answers to the counter argumentation there. Therefore I suggest you read it first and the whole discussion too. It will not bite you.

        And please, I have nothing to do with the policy of that site, I only comment there sometimes, like here and on other blogs.

      • k scott denison

        David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:59 pm |
        Yet, putting a jacket on a 72F corpse and putting it into a 20F freezer will NOT stop the corpse’s temperature from dropping to 20F. It may DELAY the drop, but will not STOP the drop.

        So you agree the insulator reduces heat loss.

        Except this example does not apply to the Earth, since it has a constant supply of energy coming in.
        ===========

        No, I don’t agree the insulator reduces heat loss. It reduces the RATE of heat loss. BIG difference. You need to be more precise in what you say.

      • David Appell

        A jacket CANNOT warm a body (cf the corpse analogy). It can keep a living human (with an internal heat source) from cooling more than without a jacket.

        Exactly.

        And the Earth has a constant energy source: the sun. And its “jacket” keeps it warmer than without it.

      • David Appell

        Greg House: if you have a point to make, then make it, without sending me all over the place to read things.

      • David Appell

        No, I don’t agree the insulator reduces heat loss. It reduces the RATE of heat loss.

        There is no such thing as “heat.” There is energy, which is the flow of heat. “Heat” is only defined insofar as it flows.

      • This man’s bull is constant, an ‘opeful.
        =======================

      • What an awesome little sub-thread!!

        The sky-dragons are back to entertain with their utter BS.

        Someone said they were extinct.

      • This man’s bull is constant, an ‘opeful.

        Kim (kipling) dreams of red bulls in greenfields

      • Go West, Young Man, but don’t get to Gallipoli.
        =====================

      • David,

        Kudos to you for such perseverence and patience.

  13. “The issue of effective heat capacity is looming very large at present, owing to arguments regarding sequestration of heat in the deep ocean. I will try to cook up a thread on that topic in the coming week”

    How about the heat capacity of carbon dioxide and how it varies with temperature? At 25C it is not very different from the other atmosphere gases N2 and O2. Yet the vociferous appetite for heat of CO2 is at the centre of the global warming science and debate. Modelling can only be as accurate as this parameter is known. The average global distribution of the many possible states of the CO2 molecule around the world at the average world temperature of about 13C could explain the present and past pauses and help predict the future..

    That is not to say that the temperature profile of the oceans above the depths, which depends upon slight variations of water density and salt content is not important. It is, and may explain the second rise in average global temperature between 1970 and 1999.

    • CO2 absorbs IR, and so becomes energized.
      It will then collide with nitrogen and oxygen and during the collision some fraction of the heat is transferred to the bulk gasses. Thus, heat, in the form of IR photons is transferred from molecules of CO2 to the mostly nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere.
      The heat is not from CO2 absorbing IR from the surface and then reradiating IR, so half goes up and half goes down. The heat capacity of CO2 is unimportant. An easy way to think of it is to shine a bright light on pure water and a similar sized vessel containing black ink. The dyes absorb the energy of the white light and this is transferred to the water. With the same amount of light flux, the water containing the dye will heat faster.

      • Doc: I agree with most of what you write, but don’t agree that heat capacity of CO2 is unimportant. Your water and ink analogy works because you have two different coloured fluids. By the same analogy CO2 has many different colours and they all absorb IR differently. Continuing your analogy, the bifferent colours of co2 depend on temperature and temperature changes in the troposphere. Hence the on/off behaviour and ‘pauses’ in actual climate. Does this make sense to you?

  14. Of course the guys from London School of Economics have to use the DICE model of Nordhaus to evaluate the future. They have determined that the economic value of climate mitigation depends sensitively on the slim possibility of extreme warming. Looking at that fat tail of sensitivity models I might have come to the same conclusion without the impressive math they used. Mind you, I am not criticizing their work because I think they really believe in the importance of what they have accomplished. Someone might as well do it for the rest of the mainstream workers. What I am sorry about is that they got stuck doing all that work for an idiotic project. There is no greenhouse warming now and there has been none for 15 years. Nor, according to Ferenc Miskolczi, is there any chance of it returning in the future. What has been called greenhouse warming in the past is either natural warming, misidentified, or a falsification intended to show warming where none existed. The latter happened in the eighties and nineties when we were introduced to a so-called “late twentieth century warming.” Nobody could find a natural cause for it and that was taken as proof that the warming was man-made. I compared it to satellite temperature values and discovered that satellites knew nothing about it. In the satellite record the eighties and the nineties were a non-warming zone. I said so in my book when it came out [1] in 2010 but nothing happened for two years. Then, last fall, I accidentally discovered that GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC had all decided to give up using this fake warming and align their eighties and nineties with the satellite data. It was done secretly and no reason was given for it. I consider this concerted action tantamount to an admission that they knew that warming was fake. The satellite data for the eighties and nineties includes an 18 year no-warming zone. Added to the current no-warming zone and allowing for the super El Nino of 1998 and its step warming to squeeze in between them, this leaves no space for any greenhouse warming since 1979. The total length of no-greenhouse warming now becomes 34 years, not 15 years which is the length of the current no-warming period. This is far beyond the period that is considered sufficient to start questioning the official version of global warming dogma. And this situation just about nullifies the value of the hard work put in by the authors of this article.

    [1[ Arno Arrak, “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change” (CreateSpace 2010).

    • David Appell

      There is no greenhouse warming now and there has been none for 15 years.

      This is an idiotic claim. How hard is it to understand that the heat is lately going into the ocean?

      http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/global_warming_really_is_happe.html

      • With your Guest Opinion at The Oregonian, I mostly agree with you in that the global atmospheric temperatures might be being effected by the Oceans differently than before. That the net heat transfer situation between the two, is now flattening atmospheric temperatures. We might say the Oceans are now retaining more of their heat and some sources indicate that it is, though the data is sparse but getting better. It’s my understanding that the more they mix their layers, the more cold water they put on the surface, which pulls our atmospheric temperatures in a downward direction.

        The Oceans ability to indirectly take heat from the atmosphere (retain more of its heat), would be a very good thing. That would mean a lot for stability.

      • David Appell

        The Oceans ability to indirectly take heat from the atmosphere (retain more of its heat), would be a very good thing. That would mean a lot for stability.

        Really?
        How do you know this?
        Why didn’t that heat stay in the ocean during the 1997-98 El Nino?
        What might happen with the next El Nino?

      • HADSST Global from 1998-2012 is negative, but that is a little unfair.
        However, HADSST Global from 2001-2012 clearly shows half a degree of cooling per century.
        Want a link to HADSST?
        I always try to be helpful to the beginner.

      • I don’t know this. But it’s harder for me to believe that the Oceans cannot vary the amount of heat they give up to the atmosphere. A nice simplification someone wrote was Sun > Oceans > Atmosphere. The Oceans take up a lot of shortwave radiation, Solar. I believe the simplification still shows significant energy movements. If the sea surface temperature varies, shows more cold to the air, I’d guess the atmosphere would be effected.

        El Nino understanding is a work in progress for me. If the Oceans are layered based on temperature nearer the surface (300m?) and if that stability is not upset, El Nino. If that stability is upset, cold water comes to the surface. La Nina. To a certain point and with exceptions, the Oceans set up in layers based upon temperature.

        To answer your question, It will be Hot. The El Nino year of 1998 says to me, the Oceans are powerful.

      • http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:3/from:1980

        Some engineer can tell me what I am doing wrong with the plot perhaps. You can see the big 1998 spike. It tells me that El Nino can be powerful. The graph is showing a rise of 0.3 and then a reversal of that rise, in a very short time, in a not insignifact thing, the surface of the Oceans.

      • You can also calculate the linear trend which shows 0.4 degrees in 3 decades for the ocean. Not insignificant.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:3/from:1980/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:3/from:1980/trend

      • David Appell

        The heat capacity of the ocean is 1000 times that of the atmosphere, so a change in temperature there can be very significant.

        By the way, I think your 4 degrees/3 decades is far too high for the ocean. The actual number is about 1/100th of that, averaged over the entire ocean.

      • That was 0.4 degrees in 3 decades, for the ocean surface, which is reasonable.

      • Lets adjust Jims graph to see what the observations are in waterworld (sh)

      • As I showed, the longer term trend makes a nonsense of the pause.

    • David Appell

      For the surface, I agree. I thought mean the ocean volume.

  15. Judy, perhaps an interesting reference is my paper with Gerard Roe, which is cited in the paper above. Ours is “Climate sensitivity: should the fat tail wag the policy dog?” Published in Climatic Change in April, ungated version here: http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/GerardWeb/Publications_files/RoeBauman_FatTail.pdf

    • David Appell

      Try to keep up — Trenberth’s comment was made several years ago, and since then new data has come in and analyses have been done. See his pubs on his Web site.

    • maksimovich

      the range from the climateprediction net experiments is −1 K to about 8 K eg Stainforth 2005 Ghil 2008.

      the implication that uncertainty (read error) should obey Gaussian statistics is a very longbow to draw and has significant problems in its premis (Zaliapin and Ghil 2010,2011)

  16. You know that for certain do you? Explain how you *know* this to be true. I don’t even think Professor “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” Trenberth, claims certainty.

  17. the good Lord made: if heat increases -> air expands ->cooling increases also – if heat decreases -> air shrinks ->cooling INSTANTLY decreases. The ”self adjusting mechanism” is infallible. THAT’S ”SENSITIVITY”

  18. warmist not interested in overpopulation explosion are not genuine / honest.

  19. JC comments: There are a number of interesting points in this paper, …

    • calling out the need to actually define ‘catastrophic’ and understand the limits of adaptation

    Yes. We need to know this. Clearly life thrived when the planet was warmer, so warmer is better than now for life (overall). There are winners and losers during transition but more winners than losers.

    So the issue is the rate of change. if there is going to be a sudden change I’d prefer a change to warmer rather than to colder. What are the probabilities of a sudden change, to warmer or to cooler, without man’s GHG emissions and with man’s GHG emissions. Without man’s GHG emissions I suspect there is a much higher probability to a change to cooler. We are in a cold house phase and past the peak of the current interglacial. The trend is to cooler, with abrupt changes.

    It seems to me, anything we do to reduce this probability may be a good thing.

    • JC comments: There are a number of interesting points in this paper, …

      • focus on effective heat capacity of the climate system (I agree this is a highly important and relatively neglected parameter

      The issue of effective heat capacity is looming very large at present, owing to arguments regarding sequestration of heat in the deep ocean. I will try to cook up a thread on that topic in the coming week, in the mean time I would appreciate your suggestions of references.

      I see the heat content issue as another distraction to keep making excuses to keep the science being funded. What is most important, and most uncertain, is the damage function. What does it matter what the heat capacity since we have next no understanding of the damage function? And there is next to no work published on it, just 17 studies that are of any use to economic analyses according to Tol. Nordhaus agrees: “The major issue at this stage is that the database for impact studies continues to be relatively small.

      • David Appell

        And what, pray tell, is the “damage function.”
        Do you think people have just been avoiding it for all these years? Or that maybe it’s a very, very difficult function to calculate.
        Your calculations of it are where?

      • Detail the damages of the last 1.5 deg C. rise in temperature, and anticipate the damages for the next temperature rise of 1.5 deg C. Negative damages, and positive benefits abounded and will abound.

        Granted, it is difficult to disentangle the benefits from temperature rise from all the other benefits we’ve had with advancing civilization and cheap energy, but why should the entanglement be any different in the future?

        Well, a pathological and destructive viral sociological phenomenon could infect the body politic. Oh, well, builds herd immunity if it doesn’t kill us, and it’s more likely to just kiss us, good and plenty.
        ===============

    • Economic analysis is sensitive to the probability of extreme warming,

      What does ‘extreme warming’ mean? Greenland warmed rapidly and life lovedc it. Life lives locally. It seems to thrive during warming periods and die out during cooling periods. So what it the evidence that rapid warming is bad?

      It would be valuable to place a greater emphasis on exploring uncertainty about the probability of very high transient temperature changes directly, which would entail a more inclusive discussion of the underlying physical uncertainties that accompany a rapidly warming world.

      True. But there is no point in doing this work unless the uncertainty in the damage function is greatly reduce d. It really is the great uncertainty in all the speculation about catastrophic climate change.

      A secondary conclusion relates to the importance of the damage function in economic analysis. As we saw in section 3, with one damage function the expected value of the policy was rather insensitive to the probability of extreme warming, while another damage function makes the economic analysis hypersensitive.

      Why is this a secondary consideration? By his own words the damage function is trumps all else: “with one damage function the expected value of the policy was rather insensitive to the probability of extreme warming, while another damage function makes the economic analysis hypersensitive.

      … each damage function implicitly defines what level of warming is considered catastrophic, and uncertainty about extreme warming plays a profoundly different role in economic analysis depending on how we define `catastrophic’. For all of the focus on the economics of catastrophic climate change, surprisingly little attention has been paid to this issue.

      [My bold]

      The damage function is highly uncertain. Nordhaus shows that the uncertainty in the damage coefficient causes by far the highest uncertainty in the economic analyses, (ECS is second). ‘A Question Of Balance’ Table 7-2, p130: http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

    • So warmer is better than colder, but is hotter better than cooler? Words are everything, aren’t they.

      • maksimovich

        Gaia likes it cold be scared be very scared ,

      • Shiver in fright and ice.
        =========

      • Ah, the Pro-CAGW crowd,

      • If the capital C is for copacetic instead of catastrophic, you might have a point. Remember, warming sustains more total life and more diversity of life.

        Hey, thanks, Copacetic Anthropogenic Global Warming; I like it a lot.
        =======================

      • “Remember, warming sustains more total life and more diversity of life.”
        – Koldie

        Where did this silly talking point come from??

        Clearly, the sahara will suport more life when it’s hotter, right?

      • Michael, you write “Clearly, the sahara will suport more life when it’s hotter, right?”

        Not at the moment, but modern technology might make a difference. There is already a successful salt water fish farm operating in the Sinae, and a greenhouse operating outside Adelaide; and a second facility in Doha is under construction.. The problem with this technology at the moment, I believe, is cost. There is a very high capital cost for construction, but comparatively low operating costs.

      • Jim,

        I don’t think Koldie was referrng to technology.

  20. The heat emissions we are generating from energy use are melting a trillion tons a year of glaciers. This is providing cooling for the atmosphere but is adding to the rise in ocean levels currently at one inch in nine years, and will rise faster with time.

    • David Appell

      How does melting ice cool the atmosphere?

      • Heat is fungible, like many things.
        ===========

      • David Appell

        So you think that when ice melts in your freezer, your freezer is cooler as a result?

      • Somehow, when I put beer and ice in my cooler, the beer gets colder and the ice melts. Mere correlation of course.

        One could say the heat from the beer warms the ice, rather than the ice cools the beer. But the result is still the one I want.

      • Cooler nor it woulda been. The heat that is melting the ice is not warming the freezer. David, your rage is blinding you to the obvious. You could chill a bit. I meant it when I said you should be worked into a frenzy, but now I feel sorry for you and regret my delight.
        =============

    • David Appell

      One could say the heat from the beer warms the ice, rather than the ice cools the beer.

      Why do you think there is a difference?

      • The rabbit found dozing in the refrigerator woke to the woman’s astonishment and querulous querying with ‘Well, it’s a westing house isn’t it?’
        =================

      • I don’t think there is a difference. Which was the point of the comment. I was making fun of your comment immediately above, which is why it was posted as a response to that comment.

        I just substituted beer for air (much as I did through most of college.).

        For someone who spends lots of time condescending to other people, you’re a bit thick, arentcha?

    • Philip is right. The atmosphere is presently cooling, not warming, as the mainstream science incorrectly asserts. The upper half of the atmosphere is cooling at the rate of 1.5 degrees/decade, whereas the lower half of the atmosphere is warming by 0.1 degrees/decade.

  21. David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 9:59 pm |: “So you agree the insulator reduces heat loss.”
    ==============================================

    David, this is false.

    An insulator is just a barrier, like typically between warmer and colder air or liquids. An insulator also reduces heat gain by conduction and covection, depending upon on what side.

    As for radiation, David, an insulator or a reflector can never reduce heat loss, that’s the point. This is physically impossible. The assumption of the opposite leads as a result to creation of energy out of nothing, which is absurd and therefore proves the assumption false.

    • David Appell

      As for radiation, David, an insulator or a reflector can never reduce heat loss, that’s the point. This is physically impossible.

      Funny — once I slept atop Blood Mountain, GA when it got down to about 10 F at night. That night I wrapped myself in a reflecting rescue blanket.

      Why did I do that?

      • Would a rescue reflect your blanket beliefs?
        ============

      • David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 10:17 pm | “…once I slept atop Blood Mountain, GA when it got down to about 10 F at night. That night I wrapped myself in a reflecting rescue blanket. Why did I do that?”
        ======================================

        David, you did the right thing, otherwise we wouldn’t have the pleasure reading your invaluable comments.

        However, if you are assuming that you were warmed by back radiation, then it is false, because back radiation can not affect the temperature of the source for physical reasons.

        A blanket without a reflective coating on the inside would have done the job as well, maybe even better, because the reflective coating might have been a better conductor, thus contributing to a faster cooling inside.

        You’d better forget all those misleading analogies warmists like so much and start thinking about physics behind the alleged “greenhouse effect”. Physics, David, proves it impossible.

      • David Appell

        However, if you are assuming that you were warmed by back radiation, then it is false, because back radiation can not affect the temperature of the source for physical reasons.

        You keep avoiding my fundamental questions.

        Does “back radiation” consist of photons?
        If so, what property of those photons specifies where they came from?
        When those photons hit a surface, how does the surface know if they are “back radiation” or not? What is unique about thosed photons to tell it that?
        What experimental evidence says that “back” photons do not warm the object they impact?

        Please stop avoiding these questions.

      • David Appell

        Why do you think they make the blankets reflective, versus out of the cheapest material at hand?

      • David,
        Maybe you just wanted to get away from a cell…

        http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

        and did not feel like reading.

      • David Appell: I’ve been trying to follow this. Are you saying Longwave Radiation heats what it hits such as Water Vapor? Don’t worry, I am not an expert. If the Water Vapor then had energy and it’s colder than it’s surrounding, does it now emit Longwave radiation, in all directions?

      • David Appell

        Are you saying Longwave Radiation heats what it hits such as Water Vapor?

        Yes. If longwave radiation exists that is the same as the absorption frequencies of water vapor, the water vapor will absorb it and increase its internal energy, until that energy state decays and the water vapor molecule emits that energy.

      • Some interesting emails right there:

        Bankers work in teams, and the ethic there is: you are with us or you’re against us. Speaking out makes you vulnerable. If you have a guilty secret hidden somewhere, they’ll find it and expose you.

        This isn’t just the bonus culture. This is about tribal bonding, about belonging and sticking with your mates. Your sense of worth begins to be formed by what you do. It is often the first question people ask: what do you? At that time [before the bank failed], when I answered that question, I was a superstar.

        http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jun/28/barclay-libor

      • David Appell, “Funny — once I slept atop Blood Mountain, GA when it got down to about 10 F at night. That night I wrapped myself in a reflecting rescue blanket. ”

        Nice and comfy night under the stars right?

  22. No more blanket statement
    The Tallest Man on Earth slumbers:

  23. David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 10:36 pm |: “Does “back radiation” consist of photons? If so, what property of those photons specifies where they came from? When those photons hit a surface, how does the surface know if they are “back radiation” or not? What is unique about thosed photons to tell it that? What experimental evidence says that “back” photons do not warm the object they impact? Please stop avoiding these questions.
    =========================================

    OK, David, I ‘ll answer your questions and then in the next comment I’ll repost my comment I linked to above, just because you seem to be the main contributor here.

    First, neither photons not gases not Earth surface can think or know anything, they do not have brains, therefore your questions are ridiculous, because they suggest something that does not exist, namely the ability of those things to think. You could have equally asked yourself “if I through a stone, how does it know it should come back to the mother Earth and not fly away to the Moon?” It is physics, David, not psychology.

    So, whatever you imagine those living things like photons, surface and so called “greenhouse gases” decided to do or not, forget it and just stick to physics.

    As for physics, it it easy to demonstrate analytically that the “greenhouse effect is impossible”, no experiment is necessary. Still, you can ask yourself, why when looking at yourself in a mirror you do not feel the heat from the alleged back radiation warming effect on your face.

    • David Appell

      First, neither photons not gases not Earth surface can think or know anything, they do not have brains…

      Of course. I am asking what property photons have that somehow indicates their source, and how the source reacts to those properties.

      It is some new quantum number? What?

      The interaction of photons with matter is called quantum electrodynamics. QED is the most successful theory ever created — it has never failed in its predictions, some of which are to 11 significant figures.

      In none of these calculations does the source of the photons matter. A photon is a photon, no matter where it came from.

      So what do you know that the world’s physicists don’t know?

    • David Appell

      As for physics, it it easy to demonstrate analytically that the “greenhouse effect is impossible”, no experiment is necessary.

      Please show me this demonstration.

    • David Appell

      Still, you can ask yourself, why when looking at yourself in a mirror you do not feel the heat from the alleged back radiation warming effect on your face.

      Does this radiation carry energy? (Yes.)
      What happens to this energy when it strikes your face?

      • David Appell writes:

        “Lacis, A.A, G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330, 356-359”

        “For the doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct no-feedback
        responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2° and 1.3°C, respectively, the ~4°C surface
        warming implies respective feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5).” – Lacis et al 2010.

        The above I think is from the below.

        “Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So or doubled CO2. This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth’s surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3°C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.” – Hansen et al. 1984

        Thank you. I appreciate your comments. I think something I was wondering about has become clearer. Look at the assumption Lacis made. If the 1.2 and 1.3 were half what they were, the forcing would be double to get to the about 4 C surface warming. I believe he was commenting on what Christy said. Am I being vague enough?

        So if the effect of CO2 weakens, then its forcing strengthens to compensate. It’s like saying we are not sure, but if it is weak, then it forces strong, but some combination gets us to our desired answer. The weaker CO2 is in step one, the stronger it is in step two. And the end result is always the same.

        When I read on Skeptical Science about CO2′s effect, they said it’s linear. And isn’t that what is going on in the above? Have they discovered some new law using a climate model?

        I must be missing something here. Are they making CO2 do the job in a linear way without diminishing returns? Something doesn’t seem right to me. It’s the perfect formula to make the argument.

        CO2′s step one forcing is X
        CO2′s step two feedback is Y
        4 / X = Y
        Very small changes in CO2 would cause massive change in the feedback.

        This is not my thought. I ran across the argument I think, but I didn’t quite grasp it. I can’t find it again, so I cannot source it. I’d appreciate anyone pointing out my mistakes here.

      • Please strike my: “I believe he was commenting on what Christy said. Am I being vague enough?” I wish I could find where I first read this. Let’s not blame Christy for my mistakes.

  24. As I said before, back radiation can not have any warming effect on the source, either when it is produced by a perfect reflector or by a colder body. I’ll start with the reflector case, it is similar in case of emission/absorption by a colder body.

    The main problem the “greenhouse effect” proponents can not overcome is this. If we have a body held initially at a stable temperature (like by an internal battery)and then introduce a perfect reflector on the one side of the body and assume that the reflected radiation warms the body (“greenhouse effect”), then the warmed body (at a higher temperature than initially) would also radiate to the reflector more energy than initially. Therefore more reflected energy would come to the body than initially and this energy would warm the body even more. The body would then radiate even more energy to the reflector (in accordance to it’s higher temperature) and so on. It would never stop, the warming would be endless without any additional input of energy. The other side of the increasingly hotter getting body would very soon radiate away more energy, than there is in the system body-reflector, which is physically absurd and proves the initial assumption (“greenhouse effect” or warming by back radiation) false.

    Now let’s illustrate it with numbers. So, we have a flat very thin 1m² black body initially held by it’s internal battery at a stable temperature in vacuum, so that it constantly radiates 800 W/m²according to it’s temperature, which is 400 joules per second from each side (we neglect the radiation from the very thin sides to simplify the calculation). There is absolutely no other source of energy in the neighborhood. To further simplify the calculation we’ll do it in 1-second intervals.

    Now we put a perfect reflector of the same form and shape as our black body very very close to it so that what our body radiates from one side comes perfectly back to it, and we assume there is the “greenhouse effect”, of course (according to the “greenhouse effect” our black body absorbs this reflected radiation and gets warmer).

    So, the reflector reflects 400 back to our body, the body gets warmer accordingly and radiates (at a higher temperature than initially) 800+400=1200, which means 600 to the reflector and 600 away to the deep deep space (600+600=1200). Not that bad jet, but…

    The reflector reflects now 600 back to our body (because our body radiates 600 to the reflector, see above), and the “greenhouse effect” makes our black body absorb those 600 and get warmer accordingly. At an even higher temperature now our black body radiates 1200+600=1800, which means 900 to the reflector and 900 away to the deep deep space (900+900=1800).

    Now it is really bad for the “greenhouse effect”, because the 900 per second our body radiates away is more than the system body-reflector has at it’s disposal. This is physically impossible and proves the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” false.

    (By the way, if we proceed this way, we’ll see that the “export” of energy accelerates, we’ll get 600, 900, 1350, 2025 and so on.)

    The calculation in case of another black body instead of a reflector is similar and leads to the same conclusion.

    P.S. The method used above is known as “reductio ad absurdum”. Wikipedia describes it as “a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate [...] that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.”

    • Greg House, so you’re heating a body and inserting a reflector to prevent any heat escaping and are surprised that the body then continues to heat up ad infinitum. This is not an analogy for back radiation. There you heat something, but let heat escape, then put in some insulation to let heat escape at a lower rate, but still escape, then the body warms to a new equilibrium. That’s the greenhouse effect.

      • Jim D | July 31, 2013 at 11:08 pm | : “Greg House, so you’re heating a body and inserting a reflector to prevent any heat escaping and are surprised that the body then continues to heat up ad infinitum. This is not an analogy for back radiation.”
        =========================================

        You seem to have completely misunderstood the example. And please, do not call radiation “heat”.

        In my example radiation does escape, only one side of the body is facing the reflector. Second, the absurd heating up ad infinitum and exporting energy ad infinitum is the result of the assumption of “greenhouse effect” my calculations are based upon, so it does exactly this: proving the assumption (the “greenhouse effect”) false. And, of course, it is back radiation that comes from reflector, the reflector does not radiate at 0K, it does not even get warmer, it is not an additional source of energy at all.

      • Greg House, it is an “insulator” effect, if you don’t like the term “greenhouse” effect. Insulators work by the same principle as the way the atmosphere insulates the surface from cooling to space.

      • David Appell

        And, of course, it is back radiation that comes from reflector, the reflector does not radiate at 0K, it does not even get warmer, it is not an additional source of energy at all.

        So you think that if you put a perfect reflecter around an object, it would heat up to infinite degrees?

        Tsk tsk.

      • Jim D | July 31, 2013 at 11:26 pm |: “Greg House, it is an “insulator” effect, if you don’t like the term “greenhouse” effect. Insulators work by the same principle as the way the atmosphere insulates the surface from cooling to space.”
        ====================================

        I see, you do not get it.

        I assumed your “effect” and demonstrated that it leads to physically absurd consequences.

        Hence your “effect” is… false, right. Non-existent.

      • David Appell

        I assumed your “effect” and demonstrated that it leads to physically absurd consequences.

        Would you please think for a minute?

        Do you really believe that if you put a perfectly reflecting sphere around an object that it will all heat up to infinity?

        Don’t you think, then, that there is something wrong wtih your analysis?

      • David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 11:28 pm |: “So you think that if you put a perfect reflecter around an object, it would heat up to infinite degrees?”
        =======================================

        No, I don’t. It is the assumption of your “greenhouse effect” that leads to this absurd result, thus proving the “greenhouse effect” absurd.

        I know, it looks good, the “greenhouse effect”, but it is absurd, as you can see. No “greenhouse effect”.

      • David Appell

        I know, it looks good, the “greenhouse effect”, but it is absurd, as you can see. No “greenhouse effect”.

        Then why is the Earth’s surface temperature (288 K) higher than its emission temperature (255 K)?

      • Greg House, you don’t seem to know how insulation works. That is not my fault. Since when has insulation led to infinite heating? It reduces the heat loss of its interior surface.

      • David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 11:41 pm : “Do you really believe that if you put a perfectly reflecting sphere around an object that it will all heat up to infinity? Don’t you think, then, that there is something wrong wtih your analysis?”
        ======================================

        I think that you have real issues with fundamental logic, because you can not tell apart a)what I think happens in reality and b)what I think happens happns hypothetically if we assume existence of the “greenhouse effect”.

        The second thing is not real. It is a logical product of your absurd “greenhouse effect”, do not mix those 2 different things up.

      • David Appell

        I think that you have real issues with fundamental logic, because you can not tell apart a)what I think happens in reality and b)what I think happens happns hypothetically if we assume existence of the “greenhouse effect”

        False — it is your assumptions that are false, of how the greenhouse effect works.

        In fact, your assumptions about how blackbodies and electromagnetic radiation works that is the real problem. You seem to think that an object surrounded by a perfectly reflecting mirror will heat up to an infinite temperature, which is clearly absurd.

      • Greg House should be buddies with David Young who said in another recent comment:

        “I’m not even going to rehash the problem with global conservation of energy as a constraint, its a very weak one as anyone who has computational experience knows.”

        There is some sort of mental block in these deniers, as they cannot reason about simple problems of energy balance.

      • David Appell | July 31, 2013 at 11:57 pm |: “You seem to think that an object surrounded by a perfectly reflecting mirror will heat up to an infinite temperature, which is clearly absurd.”
        =======================================

        It is not what I think, it is your absurd “greenhouse effect” working, exactly as you want it to work. Absurd, right.

      • David Appell

        Greg House: Your false ideas imply that universe should be at an infinite temperature.

        If object A emits and heats up object B, which emits and heats up object A even more, which heats up object B…. then it doesn’t end until all objects are at an infinite temperature.

        Which clearly is not true.

        Hence, your basic idea is wrong.

        It’s absurd to have to explain this to you.

      • David Appell | August 1, 2013 at 12:28 am | “Greg House: Your false ideas imply that universe should be at an infinite temperature. If object A emits and heats up object B, which emits and heats up object A even more, which heats up object B…. then it doesn’t end until all objects are at an infinite temperature. Which clearly is not true. Hence, your basic idea is wrong.”
        =======================================

        Right, this is wrong. But this is not my idea, it is my logical implementation of your absurd “greenhouse effect”.

        Get it now?

      • David Appell

        It is certainly not the implementation of the greenhouse effect, nor does it describe how two objects influence one another.

        Each blackbody gives off radiation according to its temperature, and at the same time absorbs the radiation incident on it. This happens to each body simultaneously, not to one and then the other, ping-ponging back and forth, until they reach equilibrium.

        Your entire physical picture is incorrect.

      • David Appell

        By the way, the greenhouse effect is easily measured:

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

      • David Appell | August 2, 2013 at 12:42 am |: “It is certainly not the implementation of the greenhouse effect, nor does it describe how two objects influence one another. Each blackbody gives off radiation according to its temperature, and at the same time absorbs the radiation incident on it. This happens to each body simultaneously, not to one and then the other, ping-ponging back and forth, until they reach equilibrium. Your entire physical picture is incorrect.”
        =========================================

        Your “simultaneously, not to one and then the other, ping-ponging back and forth” misses the point and is therefore irrelevant. The body in my example is in the process of the hypothetical warming, caused by the alleged “greenhouse effect”. The body can not be at different temperatures at the same time. So, it gets warmer, radiates more accordingly and gets more reflected back to it, gets even warmer, radiates more accordingly and gets even more reflected back to it and so on, endless.

        Equilibrium can not be reached under the assumption of the “greenhouse effect”, that’s the point. Please, read my example again and try not to mix up reality with what would happen, if the alleged “greenhouse effect” were true, namely absurd endless warming and creation of energy out of nothing.

      • David Appell | August 2, 2013 at 12:42 am |: “It is certainly not the implementation of the greenhouse effect,”
        =========================================

        What I demonstrated was exactly implementation of the IPCC’s “greenhouse effect”. The “greenhouse effect” as the IPCC described it in their first report is this: “[...]about half of the incident solar radiation [..] is absorbed at the Earth’s surface This radiation warms the Earth’s surface which then emits energy in the thermal infrared region [...], constituents in the Earths atmosphere are able to absorb this radiation and subsequently emit it both upwards to space and downwards to the surface. This downward emission of radiation serves to further warm the surface, this warming is known as the greenhouse effect” (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml, p.47-48) It is exactly “warming of the source by back radiation” concept.

      • David Appell

        The body can not be at different temperatures at the same time.

        What body??

        Let’s distill this down to its basics: two blackbodies A and B, with temperatures Ta and Tb.

        Each exists. Each radiates according to its temperature. Each receives radiation — energy that gives it its temperature.

        The two bodies will come to equilibrium, at which point Ta=Tb.

        It’s that simple. Obviously they are not both going to end up with infinite temperatures, as in your conception.

      • David Appell

        I noticed you ignored the direct evidence of the greenhouse effect:

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

      • David Appell

        The “greenhouse effect” as the IPCC described it in their first report is this:

        The IPCC is correct. Your understanding of the physics is incorrect.

      • David Appell | August 2, 2013 at 8:59 am |: “two blackbodies A and B, with temperatures Ta and Tb. Each exists. Each radiates according to its temperature. Each receives radiation — energy that gives it its temperature. The two bodies will come to equilibrium, at which point Ta=Tb. It’s that simple. Obviously they are not both going to end up with infinite temperatures, as in your conception.”
        ===========================================

        If your “each receives radiation” implies that colder bodies supply warmer bodies with energy, then this assumption is false, because it leads to endless mutual warming and creation of energy out of nothing, which is absurd and physically impossible.

        In reality without the absurd “greenhouse effect” the two bodies will come to equilibrium indeed. But, again, if we assume the “greenhouse effect”, then they will not, which is absurd and proves the “greenhouse effect” non-existent.

        I do not have a “conception”, I only hypothetically implemented your “greenhouse effect” and demonstrated that it is absurd.

      • David Appell

        If your “each receives radiation” implies that colder bodies supply warmer bodies with energy, then this assumption is false,

        So you think photons carry an indicator of the temperature of their source, so the second body knows whether that photon should warm it or not?

        All empirical evidence says they certainly do not.

      • David Appell

        because it leads to endless mutual warming and creation of energy out of nothing, which is absurd and physically impossible.

        Your entire conception of the situation is wrong.

        You are imagining, it seems to me, a situation where body A emits radiation, warms body B which then emits radiation, which impacts body A and warms it further, etc, back and forth.

        That’s not what physically happens.

        Instead, bodies A and B exist at the same time, in equilibrium, with equal temperatures. If A is an atmosphere and B the surface, let a small amount of GHG be introduced into A. These GHG molecules absorb upwelling IR, and emit some of it downward. This downwelling IR warms the atmosphere beneath it (increasing its temperature slightly) and also the surface.(increasing its temperature slightly). The surface emits a little more upwelling IR which is characteristic of its temperature, which is now the same temperature as the atmosphere above it. Equilibrium has been reestablished.

      • David Appell

        Again you are ignoring the direct evidence of the greenhouse effect:

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

      • David Appell | August 2, 2013 at 5:57 pm |: “All empirical evidence says…”
        =======================================

        If someone claims empirical evidence of back radiation warming effect, then it is either mistake or a lie or a combination of both.

        Such an effect is impossible for physical reasons.

        It is like claiming empirical evidence for 2+2=5.

      • David Appell | August 2, 2013 at 6:06 pm |: “Your entire conception of the situation is wrong. You are imagining, it seems to me, a situation where body A emits radiation, warms body B which then emits radiation, which impacts body A and warms it further, etc, back and forth. That’s not what physically happens.”
        =============================================

        Right, this is not what happens in reality, but this is what “happens” if we assume the “greenhouse effect”.

        I have told you twice, do not mix up the reality and the assumption of the “greenhouse effect”, but you still do not get it. This is a simple logical issue.

        Again, the point is, that the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” leads to contradictions to reality, thus proving this “greenhouse effect” non-existent.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Greg,

        You can see in this simple energy schematic – http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif – on the right side both upward and downward IR. It is a static representation of a very dynamic process. I would take it as approximately correct in terms of the directions of energy flows in the system if not the absolute quantification.

        The source of the energy is the Sun which heats the surface which in turn emits energy in IR. Some CO2 at any time absorb some IR and then emit again in all directions. There is a net flow of energy to the surface in SW and from the surface in IR. There are a couple of other flows to the atmosphere from the surface especially latent heat. It is complicated as well by reflected energy. But more CO2 equals more scattering of IR photons.

        Energy is conserved and net energy flows from warmer to cooler.

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm |: “You can see in this simple energy schematic – http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif…”
        ===========================================

        Look, you can formulate the “greenhouse effect” in words or make a graphic illustration of this notion, it still remains absurd and impossible for physical reasons, see my explanation above.

      • David Appell

        Right, this is not what happens in reality, but this is what “happens” if we assume the “greenhouse effect”.

        You don’t need to introduce the greenhouse effect (whose direct measurement you are still avoiding), you just need to talk about a system with two blackbodies in it. Your conception implies they should both end up at infiinite temperature.

        Ergo, your conception is wrong.

      • David Appell

        If someone claims empirical evidence of back radiation warming effect, then it is either mistake or a lie or a combination of both.

        Back radiation — which is nothing magical, just radiation from the atmosphere — isn’t what is being meaured in the link I gave. But it, too, has been measured:

        “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

      • David Appell

        Look, you can formulate the “greenhouse effect” in words or make a graphic illustration of this notion, it still remains absurd and impossible for physical reasons, see my explanation above.

        Amazing — even when presented with direct experimental evidence, you are unwilling to alter your misconceptions.

        Whatever you’re doing, it certainly isn’t science.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Well – I gave it a shot. The only ‘physical reason’ you need to worry about is that CO2 absorbs IR and emits in all directions. Work it out from there.

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 2, 2013 at 7:19 pm |: “Well – I gave it a shot. The only ‘physical reason’ you need to worry about is that CO2 absorbs IR and emits in all directions.”
        =======================================

        Right, physics ends where the notion of “greenhouse effect” starts and “greenhouse effect” beats physics. LOL.

        The “greenhouse effect” is not just “that CO2 absorbs IR and emits in all directions”. The essential part of it (as presented by the IPCC, see above) is that so called “greenhouse gases” send a part of this radiation back to the source (surface) thus supplying it with additional energy and this should have a warming effect on the surface. Exactly this back radiation warming effect is physically impossible, as I demonstrated above.

      • David Appell

        You have yet to provide an explanation for the many observations of the greenhouse effect, both on the surface and at the top of the atmosphere, that are in agreement with your (mis)conceptions about physics.

      • David Appell | August 2, 2013 at 6:45 pm |: “You don’t need to introduce the greenhouse effect (whose direct measurement you are still avoiding), you just need to talk about a system with two blackbodies in it. Your conception implies they should both end up at infiinite temperature.”
        ============================================

        Well, the fictional “greenhouse effect” has already been introduced in our lives by the IPCC&Co., so we have to deal with it. And again, it is not my conception. I only let the “greenhouse effect” work hypothetically and demonstrate that it leads to physically impossible results.

        As for “a system with two blackbodies in it”, if in my example above we replace the reflector with another black body initially at 0K and still assume warming by back radiation (“greenhouse effect”), we will get similar absurd physically impossible results: endless mutual warming and creation of energy out of nothing.

      • David Appell

        Uh, the greenhouse effect is about 200 years old and far predates the IPCC.

      • David Appell

        You cannot introduce a body at 0 Kelvin — that violates the 3rd law of thermodynamics. Try again.

      • David Appell | August 2, 2013 at 6:51 pm |: “Amazing — even when presented with direct experimental evidence, you are unwilling to alter your misconceptions.”
        ===========================================

        Let me tell you again, that a “direct experimental evidence” of something physically impossible can only be a mistake or a lie or a combination of both. Like a “direct experimental evidence” that 2+2=5.

        If it was politically important, there would be enough people claiming they counted personally many times and yes, 2+2=5!, look at this diagram! now give us your money and your freedom!

      • David Appell

        Let me tell you again, that a “direct experimental evidence” of something physically impossible can only be a mistake or a lie or a combination of both

        There is a third possibility: you are wrong and millions of scientists over almost 200 years are right.

        Or do you now you deny the existence of basic experimental data?

        What data do you have that is superior to it, then?

      • David Appell

        (That you also don’t know the 3rd law of thermodynamics speaks poorly for your case.)

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Well no – the molecules shoot photons in all directions which include down. It doesn’t actually warm the surface – just reduces the rate of cooling especially over the oceans. Specifically it reduces the net IR loss from the surface. The atmosphere cannot warm the surface because it is cooler than the surface – just marginally changes the net flow of IR photons.

        Thus the oceans warm a little until losses increase again to compensate for the changed net IR flux.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        BTW I didn’t say it ended with CO2 molecules and IR – I said the greenhouse effect started there.

        2 plus 2 David?

        A hand is five
        another is five
        So what do you get,
        adding five plus five?

        A butterfly.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n-otbQDWXQ

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 3, 2013 at 12:15 am |: “It doesn’t actually warm the surface – just reduces the rate of cooling”
        ===============================================

        This disclaimer “just reduces the rate of cooling” can not save the “greenhouse effect”.

        Essentially it claims an energy supply to the source by back radiation. So, if the source is in the process of cooling it would slow down cooling, but if the source is in the process of warming it would increase the rate of warming. And, like in my example above, if the source is initially at a stable temperature, it would cause warming of the source. Now, please, read it carefully: in all those 3 cases the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” leads to creation of energy out of nothing, which is physically absurd and impossible.

        So, again: energy supply from cold to warm or by back radiation is physically impossible. The calculation is similar to the one I presented above.

        In case you have some difficulties to understand it, please note that slowing down cooling of a body means that the body radiates more energy away than otherwise when getting from T1 to T2, because it radiates longer in this process. I can make a detailed calculation, if necessary. But still the point is that my example above demonstrates physical impossibility of energy supply by back radiation, so we do not need to go through all possible setups, a single one above is sufficient to prove the whole notion false.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I could draw you a picture – but it wouldn’t be as good as the one I started with. The ‘source’ is not the surface but the sun and power flux needs to be balanced (conservation of energy) at both toa and at the surface – approximately given some planetary or ocean and surface warming or cooling. So the flow is from the Sun to the surface to the atmosphere and back out to space again. An increase IR photon scattering in the atmosphere impedes the power flux from the surface to the atmosphere. Assuming the energy from the sun going to oceans or land doesn’t change there must be surface and ocean warming.

        I always advise against inventing a new physics. It’s like those sites that ‘prove’ Einstein incorrect. Could be but you would bet on Einstein for the win.

        Go to a site – or several – from reputable educational institutions and assume that they get these very basic things right in principle.

        http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 3, 2013 at 3:50 am |: “The ‘source’ is not the surface but the sun … It’s like those sites that ‘prove’ Einstein incorrect.”
        ========================================

        Come on, this is so primitive, your “not the surface”.

        The IPCC concept of the “greenhouse effect” states clearly that the “greenhouse gases” receive radiation from the surface and send a part of it back to the surface. So, according to them it is the Sun and the back radiation that warms the surface. This is exactly the case of alleged back radiation warming the source. I can’t believe you do not know that, it is on the picture you referred to. And now it is just the Sun? Unbelievable.

        It does not matter for the back radiation effect, what else warms the source. In my example above it is a battery. Please focus on the back radiation warming effect that leads to absurd results.

        And note that Einstein had nothing to do with your absurd “greenhouse effect”. Do not hide behind his name.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Far from hiding behind Einstein I was merely suggesting that you might think twice before inventing a novel and quite misguided physics. obviously not.

        Yes it works just like I said. CO2 emits IR photons in all directions including down. And as this is where I started – I will say good bye now.

      • David Appell

        Kiehl and Trenberthg BAMS 1997 have a great diagram that summarizes energy flows and energy balance. FIg 7 pg 206. The figure is reproduced here:

        http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/

      • David Appell

        So, according to them it is the Sun and the back radiation that warms the surface.

        Which is why the surface is warmer (288 K) than it would be if just the Sun were involved (roughly 255 K) — a fact you have yet to acknowledge or provide an alternative explanation for.

      • David Appell

        And, like in my example above, if the source is initially at a stable temperature, it would cause warming of the source.

        Here is *exactly* where you go wrong.

        If the source is initially at a stable temperature, the radiation it receives equals the radiation it emits.

        From where does it receive radiation? From (in the case of climate) from the sun and from the atmosphere. The sun is a constant. The atmosphere is also at a stable temperature, according to the radiation it receives and the radiation it emits. Equilibrium all around.

        Your mistake is that you ignore the initial equilibrium and imagine the atmosphere entering the picture as a new object at 0 K. It is not. It exists in equilibrium with the surface.

      • David Appell

        As for “a system with two blackbodies in it”, if in my example above we replace the reflector with another black body initially at 0K and still assume warming by back radiation (“greenhouse effect”), we will get similar absurd physically impossible results: endless mutual warming and creation of energy out of nothing.

        Just curious: are there other well known scientific principles you have come across, disagreed with, and decided your conception is right and the vast scientific community is wrong?

      • David Appell | August 3, 2013 at 1:39 pm |: “Just curious: are there other well known scientific principles you have come across, disagreed with, and decided your conception is right and the vast scientific community is wrong?
        =====================================

        The vast scientific community has never confirmed the absurd “greenhouse effect”, except for lairs, political activists or let’s say a few mislead persons. I am not surprised that you resorted to this propaganda trick.

      • David Appell | August 3, 2013 at 1:25 pm |: “Which is why the surface is warmer (288 K) than it would be if just the Sun were involved (roughly 255 K) — a fact you have yet to acknowledge or provide an alternative explanation for.”
        ========================================

        It is not a fact. It is the result of a false calculation the warmists like so much. They halve the solar power which is equal to the assumption that the temperature of the dark side of the Earth is 0K, which is absolutely absurd, and this way the produce a much lower mean temperature. A dirty trick.

        I suggest you focus on physics in my demonstration above, instead of distracting the readers. There is no need to discuss every trick and propaganda warmists use. Demonstrating absurdity of the “greenhouse effect” is sufficient.

      • David Appell

        It is not a fact. It is the result of a false calculation the warmists like so much. They halve the solar power which is equal to the assumption that the temperature of the dark side of the Earth is 0K, which is absolutely absurd, and this way the produce a much lower mean temperature.

        And you, I’m sure, have a better calculation, right?

        (Actually, the solar power is divided by 4, which merely averages it out over the entire surface area.)

      • David Appell

        The vast scientific community has never confirmed the absurd “greenhouse effect”

        As I’ve already pointed out, it is easily measured from space:

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

        and can also be measured at the surface:

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

        But by all means, keep ignoring inconvenient evidence that shows the fallacies of your idea.

      • David Appell | August 3, 2013 at 5:12 pm |: “(Actually, the solar power is divided by 4, which merely averages it out over the entire surface area.)”
        ==========================================

        Right, but I was talking about 1 specific part of that calculation, namely the one where they in fact assume that the dark side of the Earth is at 0K temperature, which is absurd, and so they get much lower mean temperature.

        Now tell me that calculation was not a hoax, just an innocent mistake.

      • Chief Hydrologist | August 3, 2013 at 4:48 am |: “Yes it works just like I said. CO2 emits IR photons in all directions including down. And as this is where I started – I will say good bye now.”
        ====================================

        CO2 might emit, but the IPCC&Co. go beyond that and maintain that CO2 produces warming/slowing cooling by sending back radiation back to the source (Earth surface). Exactly this alleged warming effect is physically impossible, see the demonstration above.

      • David Appell

        Right, but I was talking about 1 specific part of that calculation, namely the one where they in fact assume that the dark side of the Earth is at 0K temperature, which is absurd, and so they get much lower mean temperature.

        The assumption is that the planet loses energy from its entire surface, which has area 4*pi*radius^2, and that it receives the disk of energy pi*radius^2*(1-albedo)*solar constant from the sun. This leads to a factor of 4.

        That is completely different from assuming 0 K.

      • David Appell

        CO2 might emit, but the IPCC&Co. go beyond that and maintain that CO2 produces warming/slowing cooling by sending back radiation back to the source (Earth surface).

        So now you think some photons carry no energy.
        Einstein would disagree.

      • David Appell

        PS: Still waiting for you to show the world the “correct” way to do the calculation.

      • David Appell | August 3, 2013 at 6:39 pm |: “The assumption is that the planet loses energy from its entire surface, which has area 4*pi*radius^2, and that it receives the disk of energy pi*radius^2*(1-albedo)*solar constant from the sun. This leads to a factor of 4.”
        ========================================

        There is no “disk of energy”, this is total crap, sorry.

        The whole planet receives energy from the sun, in a simplified calculation first one side, then the other. Both get equally warm and cool gradually. Cutting the solar power in half just because there are 2 sides is equal to the assumption that the other side receives nothing thus staying at 0K. Absolutely absurd.

      • David Appell

        There is no “disk of energy”

        There is a disk of energy (in cross section) that impacts the planet, of area pi*radius^2.

        (Um, you do realize this calculation of the planetary temperature is just an *approximation*, right? The temperature of the planet wasn’t properly calculated until Manabe and Wetherald did it in 1967.)

        Still waiting for your enlightened calculation.

      • Greg House, “Right, but I was talking about 1 specific part of that calculation, namely the one where they in fact assume that the dark side of the Earth is at 0K temperature, which is absurd, and so they get much lower mean temperature.

        Now tell me that calculation was not a hoax, just an innocent mistake.”

        There is no such assumption all they are assuming is the sunlight is absorbed on the sunlit side and not on the dark side. You are losing bad and to David Appell of all people. Take another look at the Stephens’ energy budget.
        The average solar at the surface is 165Wm-2 and 75Wm-2 in the atmosphere over a 24 hour period. So for day only it would be 330Wm-2 at the actual surface and 150Wm-2 in the actual atmosphere. Since the system is supposed to be in equilibrium, at night the surface would lose 330 Wm-2 and the atmosphere 150Wm-2. The 330 Wm-2 is the DWLR energy and the 150Wm-2 is the “Greenhouse” effect. If the atmosphere can’t hold some energy there would be no atmospheric/greenhouse effect.

        Since the atmosphere holds for some time 150Wm-2 from solar, the 330 absorbed from the surface minus 150 equals 180Wm-2 which would be the effective radiant layer (ERL) if there were only dry gases in the atmosphere. There is more than dry gases, you have 88Wm-2 of latent cooling due to water vapor averaged over a 24 hour period. If all of that latent energy were gained in the day, 166Wm-2 it would have to be lost at night to maintain equilibrium which would create most of the 180 Wm-2 ERL and you also have 24 Wm-2 sensible over 24 hours or 48 in and 48 out for equilibrium for a total of 166+48=214Wm-2 which is the closer to actual ERL energy.

        None of this requires CO2 so far only that the atmosphere has some heat capacity. CO2, O3, CH4 etc. add to the atmosphere’s ability to transfer heat improving its heat capacity it you like or increasing DWLR if you don’t.

        There is the added joy of the atmospheric window which is 20 +/- 4Wm-2 which increases the apparent ERL to 234 +/-4 Wm-2 and the fact that this cartoon of the “greenhouse effect” has +/-17Wm-2 at the “surface” which is poorly defined. Because the “surface” is poorly defined, the obsolete Earth Energy Budgets by K and T with sometimes F estimate the atmospheric window to be 40 Wm-2 +/- a gnat’s butt which Appell is more likely to site.

        Since the no climate scientist left behind policy is still in force, don’t expect the K and T with sometimes F Earth Energy Budgets to get corrected in our lifetime.

      • David Appell

        Cutting the solar power in half just because there are 2 sides is equal to the assumption that the other side receives nothing thus staying at 0K.

        Again, that is not the assumption.

        The assumption is that the planet radiates equally from its entire surface area. This is not a bad assumption, since the temperature difference between the day and night sides, and between the equator and high latitudes (up to 60 N/S), is usually ~10% or less.

      • captdallas 0.8 or less | August 3, 2013 at 7:12 pm |: “all they are assuming is the sunlight is absorbed on the sunlit side and not on the dark side.”
        ==============================================

        Right, and this is the dirty trick to get as a “result” a much lower mean temperature and then claim “it must be the “greenhouse effect””. In reality, the whole Earth, both sides of it adsorb the sunlight, not just one. The Earth is rotating, sorry.

        Anyway, this bogus calculation of mean temperature does not matter at all, because for purely physical reasons the “greenhouse effect” is impossible, see the demonstration above. Back radiation can not have any effect on the temperature of the source.

        Just stick to physics and forget all the propaganda about “vast majority” etc.

      • David Appell

        In reality, the whole Earth, both sides of it adsorb the sunlight, not just one.

        The rate at which the entire planet receives energy is pi*radius^2*(1-albedo)*solar_constant.

        The planet is spinning fast enough that the temperature difference between the day-side and the night-side is relatively small.

        The rate at which the planet radiates energy is surface_area*sigma*T^4, again, assuming the surface has a constant temperature.

        This leads to the well-known relation

        sigma*T^4 = (1-alpha)L/4

      • David Appell

        Anyway, this bogus calculation of mean temperature does not matter at all, because for purely physical reasons the “greenhouse effect” is impossible,

        That’s funny, because people have measured it from both top and bottom.

        What is it you think they were actually measuring?

      • Greg House, “Anyway, this bogus calculation of mean temperature does not matter at all, because for purely physical reasons the “greenhouse effect” is impossible, see the demonstration above. Back radiation can not have any effect on the temperature of the source.”

        It is confusing, misleading and inaccurate, but other than that it is fine :) Still the atmosphere is capable of retaining energy for some period of time. Changing the composition of the atmosphere changes the amount and period of time the energy can be retained. That is the effect of having an atmosphere. Using a day versus night budget changes the “look” but there is a net difference, more standard physics or using the gross, bigger numbers to play with, atmospheric physics. Since there is neither a simple day/night or “average” there is no simple convention that could be universal.

        The mistake the Sky Dragons make is to confuse the two. It would be better to highlight the obvious errors, like the 18 to 20 Wm-2 that K&T are double counting or the “surface” to atmosphere ratio which is the reason for their double counting. Without that double counting they can’t get over 1.6C per doubling of atmospheric forcing/retained energy. Since the atmosphere can only hold so much energy, CO2 is limited by the specific heat capacity which is fixed by the composition, mass and gravity above the effective radiant layer. Below the ERL water vapor can add mass and latent energy. So you have a greenhouse inside a hot house with most of the energy controlled by water/water vapor and ice. That does not mean the CO2 can’t have any impact, just that the impact is less than half of the “ideal” scary estimates that the no scientist left behind policy seems to like. .

      • David Appell

        That does not mean the CO2 can’t have any impact, just that the impact is less than half of the “ideal” scary estimates that the no scientist left behind policy seems to like.

        Not really. The effect of CO2 is nominally about 25% of the GHE:

        Lacis, A.A, G.A. Schmidt, D. Rind, and R.A. Ruedy, 2010: Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science, 330, 356-359

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

        However, if water vapor were the only GHG in the Earth’s atmosphere, its surface temperature would be below 0 C, even without the ice-albedo feedback, which would likely induce a icehouse state. The same is true if the atmosphere consisted only of CO2. It takes both water vapor and CO2 to bring the planet to a habitable temperature. So simply saying CO2 is less than half the GHE isn’t the whole story.

      • captdallas 0.8 or less | August 3, 2013 at 8:30 pm |: “Still the atmosphere is capable of retaining energy for some period of time. Changing the composition of the atmosphere changes the amount and period of time the energy can be retained. That is the effect of having an atmosphere.”
        ========================================

        This is correct, but just “having an atmosphere” is not the “greenhouse effect” as it is presented by the IPCC.

        Thermal properties of various gases are well known and have nothing to do with this absurd “greenhouse effect”. In it’s present concentration CO2 might be responsible for a very little difference in heat capacity of the air, like 0.001K.

        Again, what the IPCC&Co. claim is warming effect by back radiation on the source (Earth surface). I can’t believe that you missed that despite having commented on this topic for years. So, please try not to obfuscate the issue of the “greenhouse effect” and just stick to physics.

      • Greg House, “CO2 might be responsible for a very little difference in heat capacity of the air, like 0.001K.”

        Right, but below the ERL the additional CO2 can transfer more energy to O2, N2 and H2O because there is more CO2. Above the ERL CO2 can transfer more energy via both collision and radiant means. It will have some impact which is still limited by the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere. So instead of the average Tmin being at 4 am it may be at 4:15 am.

        I figure an additional 3.7 Wm-2 of atmospheric forcing/heat retention to be about 0.8 C. Callandar estimated it to be about 1.6C. Arrhenius on take two estimated 1.6C, but they were both at a lower temperature period and didn’t have all the fun gadgets we have now.

        BTW, an atmosphere is required for a greenhouse effect and CO2 is not required for a GHE. Without CO2 we would still have O3 and H2O plus some nifty Nx stuff.

      • captdallas 0.8 or less | August 3, 2013 at 9:09 pm |: “Right, but below the ERL … Above the ERL… “
        =======================================

        Look, first I’d like to express my opinion about this “ERL” thing: total crap, an unscientific word salad. Now, I am not going to discuss it, because it is not what the IPCC say. Governments refer to the IPCC reports, not to people selling this ERL thing, so only the IPCC’s “greenhouse effect” is politically relevant, not this “ERL”, and I am not going to waste time on irrelevant things.

        I also noted that some warmists being unable to defend their absurd “greenhouse effect” (warming by back radiation) sometimes try to replace it with another fiction.

      • David Appell

        So, please try not to obfuscate the issue of the “greenhouse effect” and just stick to physics.

        Yes, let’s stick to physics. Yours implies that a system consisting of two blackbodies should reach an infinite temperature.

        Do you have any experimental evidence to back that up?

      • David Appell

        How much longer are you going to avoid the evidence (measurements) that demonstrate the existence of the greenhouse effect?

    • David Appell

      Greg: Here I thought you had some big new theory, and all you have is a misunderstanding of energy conservation — a belief that reducing the rate of energy loss is not the same thing as an energy gain.

      I have learned, the hard way, not to deal with quacks and crackpots. This is where I must apply that lesson.

      • Indeed, David, it seems to me you spend most of your time on blogs arguing with the least credible participants.

      • It only looks that way. Plenty of commenters sit back and toss off vague and ambiguous generalities, too non-specific to criticize. However when they actually open their mouths andstart arguing numbers and theory, you can see the emerging krackpot. The most credible participant is thus exposed as the least credible.

        That’s what I find time and time again
        So care to open up your mouth miker613 ? It may reveal your inner quack.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Mike – hey that’s what I do – you’d think I would learn my lesson. I must admit I have been sitting back an giggling like a girl at David and Greg.

      • Appell’s logic: 2+2=4, therefore we’re all going to fry.

      • David Appell

        Whether we “fry” or not depends on climate sensitivity and how much carbon we emit. Those are separate questions from whether the GH effect exists — it certainly does.

      • So the GH effect exists? Well, golly gee, never would have guessed had you not told me!
        I suppose you thought you had me there…

      • Yea, It’s true that all the climate blogs except the most careful are infested with wingnuts and flamers. That’s unfortunately true even at Real Climate where you find Susan Anderson and Ray Ladbury, for example. Climate Audit and The Blackboard are exceptions generally, thanks to sober proprietors who take things seriously. So, the sober will adopt a reasonable strategy. Mine is to ignore the wing nuts.

  25. Catastrophic temperature change will only happen as the earths temperature crosses the phase change threshold i.e 0C or 100C,
    Catastrophic climate change will only occur at present in a cooling world

    Mike Junceira

  26. The way I read it, the effective heat capacity is the surface warming for a given forcing in a transient climate. For rapid global warming, the deeper ocean can’t respond very fast, and only the surface layers warm fast. The effective heat capacity increases with the time scale of the warming, as the ocean can absorb more of the heat given longer to do it. The land also only has a thin layer of a meter or so that responds quickly, meaning it has a low heat capacity. So the idea is that faster warming is possible if the forcing is changing on a short time scale compared to the deeper ocean’s response time.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Tell you what. Why don’t you don’t you do some reading rather than pulling it out of your arse?

      http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

      • As I said, the effective heat capacity depends on the effective response layer of the ocean. Schwartz knew this. Hansen and Spencer have similar concepts. Sounds like you disagreed with what I said when it agrees with the paper you quoted.

      • The problem with the Schwartz paper was that his derived 5-year time scale and shallow 100 m ocean response were not realistic representations of the ocean response on the century time scale. Much deeper layers can warm in a century.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        ‘A useful result from the energy balance model is a relation between the rate of change of the total global heat content H and the rate of change of global mean surface temperature T, Eq (3), which allows the effective heat capacity of the system to be estimated empirically as….’

        Let me know when you get to this.

      • I would look at responses to this in several articles such as

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/

        A 5-year time scale for the ocean is the reason for his low derived sensitivity. Sensitivity and time scale are not so easily separated in a simple one-layer model. Hansen has said in reality multiple timescales exist to provide the response function over time.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Yes I read that post and a few other follow up science pieces in the literature as well. You still managed not to understand heat capacity and pontificate for all you’re worth.

      • CH, while you prefer to believe Schwartz that the ocean has one response time scale and a fixed heat capacity of 100 m layer, I don’t think it is that simple. That is an oversimplified view that misled Schwartz. He later corrected it and almost doubled his sensitivity estimate, but still using the simple approach.

      • Thank you Chief.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:50

        Every 30 years going back, Break Points. About 1910, about 1940, about 1970 about 2000.
        This is fun.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I didn’t say I believe anyone. I said you hadn’t understood the concept of effective heat and were pontificating again.

        I don’t actually believe that sensitivity to one parameter in a multiply coupled nonlinear system that shifts every 30 odd years means very much. No matter who is doing it.

    • So as Mick Jagger said, Time is on my side. I’d like see an Earth’s Energy Budget diagram including the heat sink of the Oceans. I going to steal one from Bob Tisdale, “How inappropriate to call this planet “Earth,” when it is clearly “Ocean.” – Arther C. Clarke. How can we predict what they are going to do with their heat next?

    • Chief Hydrologist

      No worries – Ragnaar

    • Actually the land has high heat capacity, there is just not enough heat coming in to bother more than the top metre. Land being denser than water has more mass to heat up per cubic whatever hence a higher heat capacity.

  27. Chief Hydrologist

    I wrote recently about the 1998/2001 ‘Momentous Pacific Climate Shift’ – and the 1976/1977 ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift’ before then.

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/29/uncertainty-lost-in-translation/#comment-354883

    These happened over a 1000 years at least in ENSO proxies at about 30 year intervals – so it is safe to assume that they will continue this century. So climate shifts around 2030, 2060 and 2090 – to quite unpredictable outcomes. In this context it is difficult to see how ‘sensitivity’ to a single parameter in a multiply coupled non-linear system has too much to say about how climate will evolve this century.

  28. A nice discussion on the role of heat capacity can be found in the early postings of Isaac Held:

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/11/3-transient-vs-equilibrium-climate-responses/

    is the first of those. The following ones continue to discuss similar issues.

  29. The LSE working paper is a dressed up version of the precautionary principle. In theory, the risk of an infinite cost (climate catastrophe) should justify an infinite precautionary expense. But economics doesn’t work with singularities like infinities. For example, the Alvarez’ theory that the Chixilub impact wiped out the dinosaurs is probably true. So there is some probability that it could happen again and wipe out mankind, an infinite cost with a finite probability. But that does not justify spending a nickel (let alone the world’s GDP) on mitigation–even though NASA occasionally tries to sneak some asteroid funding into its budget.
    In practice, large but still finite sums have to be multiplied by meaningful probabilities of occurrence. Here we run into two root problems. First, as Peter Lang points out above, the loss function describing possible catastrophic cost (theC in CAGW) is ill defined. That is inherent, as the fact that Saudi Arabia remains populated in the summer vividly points out. Or the flaws in crop yield studies, one aggregiously misrepresented flawed example dissected in a post here previously. Second, the small probability of the climate sensitivity tail is ill defined, except that anything above about 5-6C really is zero, and about 3-4C appears to be the Emmian peak above present which the world appears to have survived just fine–even polar bears.
    Alarmists make the imagined C costs very high (60% reduction in crop yields) when the human impact reality is small or negligible even for 3-4C.. And they make the probability of occurance high, when even crude assessments of effective heat capacity make the probability vanishingly low.

    All this is what- if shape shifting from the more important question of what might be probable, and therefore worth considering maybe doing something about. As the pause lessens AGW compared to natural variability, CAGW potential cost declines even faster, as does its probability. So the precautionary principle becomes more shrill, but less persuasive.

    • Understanding the difference between CAGW and an asteroid strike is key to mitigation strategy:

      Say we observe an asteroid the might impact Earth in 2050 and wipe life off the planet. I say “might” as let us assume there are some skeptics who show that orbital models can err. Let’s say a strike is 5% likely (to correspond to a the probability of a CAGW scenario)

      Here, it would make sense to heed the precautionary principle. We should make great expenditures to mount any and all defenses we can. before the forecasted judgement day. The key here is that the risk is discrete, and instantaneous.

      Fortunately, CAGW does not work like that. To get to even +2.0C you first have to get to +0.2C. And that should take a decade. It is gradual, with no discrete point of impact. If you look at where on the forecast we sit in 2013, the preceding 20 years should have been too difficult to distinguish (noise overwhelms signal) a harmless linear rise in temperature log(CO2) from convex feedback driven CAGW. The next 20 years should show us which track we are on.

      But the idea we have to act now, or are condemned to never being able to reform in the future is just false in this debate. What really should be discussed is what is the benefit of having a 2013 green energy infrastructure vs one built in 2030. (Benefit to society, not green energy companies) Counter-intuitively, AGW’s gradualism combined with the immaturity of proposed new technologies seem to make it the type of risk that can’t be hedged with investments today.

      • David Appell

        But the idea we have to act now, or are condemned to never being able to reform in the future is just false in this debate.

        Your analogy fails, because climate cannot be turned around on a dime. Today’s emissions don’t fully manifest themselves for decades, because the ocean is a huge heat reservoir, because ice will continue to melt even if carbon emissions went to zero tomorrow, and because the extra carbon we put in the atmosphere will remain part of the carbon cycle for at least 100,000 years.

      • “Today’s emissions don’t fully manifest themselves for decades,”

        From my understanding, models indicate the length of time which a forcing manifests in this system is basically proportional to the magnitude of positive feedback. As positive feedback is understood as the sum of an infinite series of succesive rounds of feedback eg 1W GHG -> .9W clouds -> .8W Moisture -> .7W Clouds, etc…

        So, if feedback is low then it does not take a decade to establish (close to) equilibrium. If feedback is high it could. We will need to see rapidly rising temperatures from this point forward to make high feedback plausible, and thus make decade temp lag plausible. Or the models could be wrong…

        Also, we’re not condemned to have CO2 in the atmosphere for 100,000 years! C’mon David, there is hard carbon capture like the proposed plant in Antarctica that sequesters atmoshperic CO2 as dry ice. If there is a dire CAGW scenario facing us, that would make the cost/bene for that project worthwhile. There are also many manner of ‘soft’ carbon capture plans as well – just ask Mr Gore, I’m sure he runs a few companies that deal in these offsets.

        Furthermore, there is SRM that would allow us to keep temperature stable for probably two decades with very little side effects. And don’t tell me “we don’t know how if it works” – If you think you know climate sensitivity, you can certainly establish SRM as it duplicates volcano effects – something we KNOW cools the planet. As an activist might say – “You can’t deny basic physics”

      • David Appell

        C’mon David, there is hard carbon capture like the proposed plant in Antarctica that sequesters atmoshperic CO2 as dry ice.

        Such schemes are very expensive — trillions per year — with no known place to safely put the carbon. See

        “Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27.

        http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf

      • David Appell

        C’mon David, there is hard carbon capture like the proposed plant in Antarctica that sequesters atmoshperic CO2 as dry ice.

        This plan is presented here:

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0110.1?af=R

        Notice their plan only sequesters 1 GtC/yr, while the world now emits about 11 GtC/yr (including land use changes). That’s a lot of energy production they’d need (their plan is to use wind farms), and a lot of dry ice you’d need to store. It’d be a huge industrial undertaking; they don’t give a cost (perhaps wisely).

        It’s nice out-of-the-box thinking, though.

      • ‘nice out-of-the-box thinking’. Check the nice archives, David.
        =================

    • Well said Rud. There are lots of things we can do if sensitivity turns out to be high, which is looking increasingly unlikely. There are geo-engineering solutions that could be employed. The difference between skeptics and warmists who are panicked is the difference between optimists and pessimists. You will see this in Matt Ridley for example who sees a wide field for innovation in energy generation. You see the opposite in James Hansen who started in climate science when he was working on Venus and wanted to make sure we didn’t have the same problem. Hansen wants to find the worst and naturally finds it. The problem here is that catastrophes seem to have a natural place in the human imagination. That was true in Biblical times, it was true in 1600, and its true today. The end is near is a predictable feature of human history. Paul Ehrlich comes to mind.

      • David Appell

        There are geo-engineering solutions that could be employed.

        All of which have potentially large side effects or unforeseen consequences. Contrarians complain we don’t understand climate well enough to detect a 15-yr surface hiatus, but are all set to go monkeying around with the global climate as if they *do* understand it then.

      • David Appel, Those kinds of contrarians are known as hypocrites.

        Foo Young singling out Hansen as a doomer is odd, because Hansen has some confidence in nuclear, yet the potential catastrophic consequences of nuclear is high.

      • And it’s waste heaps are still mountain high. Waste not…want not.

  30. The credibility of the fat tails hypothesis is greatly enhanced when we consider that fat tails are a generic consequence of scaling processes. In this context, the meaning of fat tails is more precise than that used in the article Judith cites: here it means power law fall-offs in probability distributions (in the article, they suppose “lognormal” distributions which are usually refered to as “long” but not “fat” tailed). Since there are three main scaling regions to consider (weather, macroweather and climate, see my blog “Macroweather, not climate, is what you expect”, Climate Etc.), it is not surprising that temperature fluctuations at monthly and longer scales are power laws. Empirical estimates of the power law exponents are about 5 (Lovejoy and Schertzer 1986, http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Annales.Geophys.all.pdf and Lovejoy and Schertzer 2013: The weather and Climate: emergent laws and multifractal cascades, 496pp, Cambridge U. Press. http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/Cambridge.TOC.16.1.13.pdf). This means that fluctuations of amplitude ten standard deviations will occur with probabilities only 10**5 times less often than fluctuations of one standard deviation. This is a huge amplification of probability with respect to Gaussian fluctuations for which the corresponding number would be about 10**23.

  31. Paul Vaughan

    The assumptions economists & climate “scientists” make about probability distributions (PDFs) are PURE FANTASY.

    Every time I see repeated mention of “PDF” in an article here, I realize the fantasy-misconceptions are so deeply engrained, there’s effectively 0% chance of rehabilitation.

    For a number of years I was responsible for indoctrinating students from other fields in the paradigms of statistical inference. I graded 1000s upon 1000s of exams (a thoroughly boring & at times painfully tedious responsibility).

    It’s a very, very rare prof that encourages students to think deeply about what can go wrong with false assumptions underpinning stat inference.

    The best example I can think of: a genius biology prof who knew his (real world) field conditions so acutely well that he was suffering no academic delusions. He led a weekly 3 hour roundtable discussion on the topic “population biology”. It turned out to be a philosophically deep exploration of fatally intractable weaknesses of untenable stat inference assumptions, as well as by far the most deeply philosophical experience I had during 14 years of university work & education.

    That’s the introduction to stats needed by students from other fields. A more deeply philosophical stats foundation empowers students lifelong to see gaping holes AT THE BASE of elaborate systems of (very often deeply corrupted in practice) “objective reasoning”.

    The second greatest stats mentor I ever had made students realize that formal inference never (this is a blog so I’m stressing this to provoke careful thought) makes significance any clearer than it already is from sensible graphical methods such as those emphasized by Cleveland. “Too much of this p-value stuff” was the common sense message that came through loud & crystal clear.

  32. Paul Vaughan

    TEST

    • Paul Vaughan

      The assumptions economists & climate “scientists” make about probability distributions (PDFs) are PURE FANTASY.

      Every time I see repeated mention of “PDF” in an article here, I realize the fantasy-misconceptions are so deeply engrained, there’s effectively 0% chance of rehabilitation.

      • Paul Vaughan

        For a number of years I was responsible for indoctrinating students from other fields in the paradigms of statistical inference. I graded 1000s upon 1000s of exams (a thoroughly boring & at times painfully tedious responsibility).

        It’s a very, very rare prof that encourages students to think deeply about what can go wrong with false assumptions underpinning stat inference.

      • Paul Vaughan

        The best example I can think of: a genius biology prof who knew his (real world) field conditions so acutely well that he was suffering no academic delusions. He led a weekly 3 hour roundtable discussion on the topic “population biology”. It turned out to be a philosophically deep exploration of fatally intractable weaknesses of untenable stat inference assumptions, as well as by far the most deeply philosophical experience I had during 14 years of university work & education.

        That’s the introduction to stats needed by students from other fields. A more deeply philosophical stats foundation empowers students lifelong to see gaping holes AT THE BASE of elaborate systems of (very often deeply corrupted in practice) “objective reasoning”.

      • Paul Vaughan

        the rest of my comment is being blocked, so it ends in truncation

      • no idea what is going on with the spam filter, apologies

      • Paul Vaughan

        apology accepted
        maybe just delete this botched tree
        somehow the comment now appears above
        (btw interesting phase-discontinuity in that time series)
        cheers

  33. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?