The shifting crusts and volcanic eruptions, oscillations of solar activity on multi-Decadal to Centennial and Millennial time scales with variations in gamma radiation and the role of the big planets, Saturn and Jupiter — and a changing North Pole and variations in the magnetosphere — all are a part of a holistic process that is the Earth’s climate.
kim, they will not even acknowledge the difference between a steady state and equilibrium, so you have no chance of getting them to understand they have a living planet.
Thanks, Wagathon, for summing up the ways various parts of the solar system are connected.
a.) Scientists measured the physical connections;
b.) Religionists could feel the spiritual connections
Both groups were right – http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339 – but unable to cooperate for the benefit of society after vaporization of Hiroshima on 6 July 1945 fused politics and science together as tightly as religion and science had been fused together at the time of Copernicus and Galileo.
We’ve what an American-deficiency causes. Look at Iran since 1979… the people there lost their freedom. Europe turned away from Americanism. How’s that going for them? Leftists and the MSM carried a pogrom out against George Bush for eight years. Look what has happened to the country… division, a liberal fascism.
This will, again, lead to record Arctic Ocean Effect Snow in the fall, winter and spring. The end is near for earth getting much warmer on this warming cycle. This powerful negative feedback to warmer temperatures will cool us again until it allows the Arctic to freeze and cut off the Arctic Ocean Effect Snow.
If the Arctic could again get ice free, we would have the level of snow that created the major ice ages. The current level of stability is such that we cannot get that warm. We are strongly limited to the temperature range that we have had for the past ten thousand years. Warm Oceans and open Arctic is a necessary part of the well bounded cycle of warm and cold that humans have enjoyed during the past ten thousand years. Ice does retreat in the cold times and Ice is replenished in the warm times. Look at the weather around the Northern Hemisphere right now.
I would agree with more snow in fall, but by December or so, sea ice area levels are already “recovered” to about a million square to “normal” and I would not expect much increased snow in January, February or even spring.
The early snow does move the jet stream and promote snow further south, such is happening now in Europe, Asia and North America. It is well after fall and the snow is still falling.
Jet stream had been moving polewards before, so it would be back to “normal”.
Cristina L. Archer and Ken Caldeira
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L08803,
doi:10.1029/2008GL033614, 2008
published 18 April 2008
“This is the first study to analyze historical trends of jet stream properties based on the ERA-40 and the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis datasets for the period 1979 to 2001. We defined jet stream properties based on mass and mass-flux weighted averages. We found that, in general, the jet streams have risen in altitude and moved poleward in both hemispheres.”
“At this point we can’t say for sure that this is the result of global
warming, but I think it is,” says Caldeira. “I would bet that the trend
in the jet streams’ positions will continue. It is something I’d put my
money on.”
With all the snow that is falling and with all the snow that has already fallen in the U.S., Earthweek went all the way to Moscow to get a small snow story that does not come up on their website. It was in the printed newspaper.
I clicked on the Moscow story and did get the Greenhouse Emissions Story.
They do avoid cold and snow stories because that is not consistent with their Alarmist Warmest Policies. http://www.earthweek.com/
This was supposed to be the Snow in Moscow Story. http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130208/ew130208a.html
Click quick or they may fix the mistake.
You can look at the ice core data and by simple inspection you can see the it does snow more when oceans are warm and then earth cools. http://popesclimatetheory.com/page11.html
Here it is well into February and the snow is still falling in historic proportions. It is snowing more because the oceans are warmer. That is the reason Earth cannot get too hot. It snows less when oceans are cold and frozen and that is why Earth cannot get too cold.
On the same page they say we will need to feed the polar bears because they will not be able to find food. http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130215/ew130215a.html
The extreme Alarmism comes through again and again the Alarmism is not supported by actual facts.
And then they have the story below that says that polar bears are going to starve because earth is going to get too warm. That is opinion. The three stories above are fact. What are you going to believe? Is life is more abundant and is food for bears more available when it is warm or when it is cold?
When it is warm and the oceans are open is when it snows to bring the next cold period. The oceans are warm and the snow is falling. Warm ocean time is a normal and natural part of a well bounded cycle.
I am pleased to see that Earthweek actually does some snow and cold stories, but their starving polar bear story is not believable along with the other three stories.
Last weekend, I had an interesting discussion with Steven Mosher, Andrew Adams and Jim D. Just when the dialogue was getting interesting, one by one they disappeared from the topic. Which was a pity.
My point is that because it is impossible to measure radiative forcing or climate sensitivity, the IPCC has no scientific basis on which to base their statements in the SPMs that there are probabilities of >90% or >95% that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes effects, such as a rise in global temperature.
Jim D. indicated that there was such a basis, but I would like to read what the IPCC actually says about this. It is essential in scientific reports that any conclusions reached must be justified in the body of the report. So, presumably, these scientific reasons for the statements in the SPMs are somewhere in the AR4; and more specificly, in the AR5, since the draft indicates that the same sort of claims will be made when the new SPMs are agreed.
I cannot find this in either the AR4 or the draft of the A5. This does no mean it is not there; it may be that I am looking in the wrong place. Can anyone help me, and direct to me where in the AR4 or AR5, the IPCC justifies the probabilites it mentions in the SPMs?
Jim D you write “Are you looking for a basis that changing CO2 changes radiative forcing, or that changing radiative forcing causes a temperature change?”
Neither. I am looking, as I have clearly stated, for the scientific basis, written in either or both the AR4 and AR5, on which the IPCC claims in the SPMs, that there is a >90% or >95 % probability that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global temperatyres to rise, or whatever the exact wording is.
Jim Cripwell, the WG1 report entitled “The Physical Science Basis” is the scientific basis you asked for, as you may be able to tell from its title. It is 1000 pages with references. Now, you may want a condensed climate-science-for-kids version with lots of pictures and no long words or references to look up, but there is no shortcut to reading about the science if you are really interested in it.
He didn’t say there was no scientific basis. He said it was impossible to measure sensitivty or radiative forcing. Impossible is word best avoided but sensitivity hasn’t been measured yet because you first have to somehow control for CO2 and that might never be accomplished. We don’t have an instrument network that can measure radiative forcing 24/7 across the globe like we do average temperature of kilometers long column sections in the atmosphere.
You go to war with the instruments you have not the instruments you wish you had. Don’t make claims that your instruments can’t back up.
Fair enough, and I cannot disagree with you. I am blind to the evidence; but that is because I cannot find it. It MUST be in the AR 4, or else the AR 4 is not a work of science. Scientific reports MUST justify EVERYTHING that is in the conclusions. So, I want to read what the IPCC has written on the subject, and then my eyes will be open, and I will no longer be blind. But I cannot find WHERE the IPCC has written up the justification, and that is why I am asking for help from people like yourself who should know where I ought to be looking.
Max, I think Mosher is confusing Tyndall with greenhouse with AGW. The “scientific basis” is for the Tyndall effect, which really isn’t in controversy. Getting from there to AGW and then to CAGW takes some serious gymnastics.
“It is possible to measure it and it has been measured.”
I must have missed when climate sensitivity was measured and became empircal fact instead of a controversial number somewhere between 1C and 5C. So what exact number did it turn out to be, Stevie boy?
hes been directed to the evidence many times, as have the rest of you. empirical evidence. empirical measurements. To say otherwise is akin to arguing that black is white and white is black. That is what his argument amounts to he asks for evidence and measurement. I’ve pointed him at it many times and he and you pretend otherwise. I see no point in continuing. he asked. I delivered. done
hes been directed to the evidence many times, as have the rest of you.
Where?
Where is the evidence summarised, top down, like engineering documentation. like it has to be for a court case, and for informing policy decisions?
AR4 and AR5 are largely political, activist, spin. They are not what is required for an objective documentation of the evidence. So, if not them, then where is the evidence documented? What are you referring to?
What is:
1. Climate sensitivity?
2. the damage function?
3. the rate the world can/will decarbonise?
Where is the supporting, uncontested evidence for these?
There are a lot of words in the 1000+ AR4 WG1 report, but none of these words cite specific empirical evidence that would corroborate the notion that adding hundreds of ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere would result in a perceptible increase in global temperature.
It’s just not there. It’s all model stuff (which is NOT empirical evidence).
And simply saying that it is there will not make it so.
Point to the page, which cites specific empirical evidence (i.e. from actual real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation).
Look the evidence has been pointed out to Cripwell on so many occasions that you have to be blind to miss it. So go look for it.
1. The empirical evidence for the addition Forcing that GHGs impose.
He’s been directed to the the physical theory. he’s been directed to
to the practical applications. he’s been directed to the validation studies
and the field experiements. There is no evidence that he read any of it.
2. The empirical evidence for the change in temperature over time. Delta C.
3. the empirical evidence for the change in forcing over time. Delta Watts.
he’s been given the definition of sensitivity; delta C / delta watts.
What he seems to be stuck on is the notion that sensitivity is something you can measure directly. A simple example: take the speed of sound.
The speed of sound is x feet per second. We measure the feet, we measure the time. And we say the speed of sound is X feet per second.
We dont directly measure ‘speed’. its a ratio of two other metrics. distance and time. Sensitivity is the change in C per a change in watts.
You measure Delta C: you measure delta Watts. and there you go.
we measure sensitivity all the time. Now it happens to be complicated because you can measure it over short times and longer times. And its complicated because the accuracy of measures can be narrow or broad depending on your time scale. But that does not mean it hasnt been measured. You play golf, you hit a big drive. you take 300 strides to reach your ball, you’ve measured the distance. You could have used a yardstick, or range finder, or GPS or a mark 2 eyeball. In all cases you measured it. Sometimes with more accuracy, sometimes with less. never with perfect accuracy.
So, we have measured sensitivity. Every measurement of it tells us that Jim is wrong. Its not zero.
he is also wrong that it must be in Ar4. That is not what I directed him to, so he is once again blind. his intellect is indistinguishable from zero.
Steve, Jim Cripwell hasn’t shown any evidence that he knows any science relevant to this. He is still at the starting line when the debate has moved on.
JimD, my impression in 2009 was that Jim was attached to the starting line with a piece of elastic. You’d get so far with him then…ping!…back to: “It’s not science because it’s not testable…” etc. Maybe the elastic has got shorter and tauter since then.
I would like to invite you to participate in an online debate and questionnaire designed to gather information about public’s awareness, perceptions and opinions on geoengineering.
Your participation would be of great value to our research.
Details of the project (as well as the guidelines for participating) can be found in the Geoengineering Debate Website https://sites.google.com/site/geoengineeringdebate/
Thank you very much for your participation.
To change climate by goeengineering is the stupidest idea in the history of science. It is dumb. First understand the climate as you understand Newton Laws. We have not yet reached there. The climate is extremely complex. We cannot predict El Nino. We cannot predict La Nina. We don’t know what causes the warming and cooling 60 year cycles.
It is a pure waste of time. Do something productive. Produce food. Produce shelter. Produce what people need everyday. Don’t waste resources in fixing a problem that does not exist. The globe warms. The globe cools. It does need to be at constant temperature.
Girma, Kim, Wagathon, Faustino,
Define “constant temperature,” for God’s sake!
Given that life has existed on Earth for billions of years, one can assume that its temperature remained within the living range all of this time. So, thinking of the temperature range existing in the universe, I’d still say it can be considered quite constant, after all. Don’t you?
I agree that geoengineering is a dumb idea. But do you think that your above opinion is smarter?
Everything seems “extremely complex” until you get how it works. Then, you have this AHA moment and wonder why didn’t you think of this before.
Once the real forcing mechanisms are assessed, global climate proves to have a simple and coherent behavior. It puzzled everybody for so many years because climate change has a 60-year cycle with two patterns, not just with one. Plus, everybody looks at the warming phases, when in reality they are constant with 0.48C over 30 years. The actual warming occurs during warming bumps within the cooling phases, where nobody looks.
I dare you to continue to think “The climate is extremely complex” after you get the whole explanation at the Convergetics blog.
Gene @ 7.42: I made no comment on constancy of temperature. Since Girma said that “The globe warms. The globe cools,” I thought that he had missed a “not” from “It does need to be at constant temperature.”
As a non-scientist, it seems to be that the relatively modest variation in global temperatures over many millions of years suggests that there are moderating factors in play which tend to constrain it to this range, and that until we fully understand these mechanisms, we shouldn’t endeavour to direct them. And probably not even then.
Geo engineering: Wicked bad idea. With our level of understanding anything attempted (or currently being attempted) is just monkeys playing with the controls of a nuclear power plant.
I’d second the perceptions and opinions expressed here, i.e. that attempts to “geoengineer” our planet’s climate are a waste of time and money (actionable proposals made so far show that we are unable to really change our planet’s climate at will, no matter how much money we throw at it).
In addition, we have no notion of the unforeseen negative consequences of these “geoengineering” actions.
Each GE scheme should be accompanied by a robust cost/benefit analysis with a complete due diligence report on any unforeseen negative consequences that could conceivably occur.
Only if the cost/benefit analysis shows an unequivocal advantage and if there are absolutely no conceivable unforeseen negative consequences, should one even discuss geoengineering.
Bob Tisdale counters on WUWT: “It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast, when the those values were regularly exceeded 70 to 80 years ago.
Alarmists will take any opportunity to claim manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, and now the upcoming New England Blizzard. It’s often easy to illustrate the errors in their claims. Another example is the Russian heat wave of 2010 which Trenberth and Fasullo tried (and failed) to attribute to the warming of sea surface temperatures. Refer to the post here.
Alarmists, of course, will continue to make unfounded claims, and I will be happy to show how ridiculous those claims are.”
Spot Tisdale’s logical fallacy:
“Anyone who has followed my posts over the past 4 years about the natural warming of satellite-era sea surface temperatures understands there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming. That is, the data indicates Mother Nature, not manmade greenhouse gases, was responsible for the warming over the past 31 years.”
The statement is simply, ” there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming [of satellite-era sea surface temperatures]”
Can you cite any empirical data (not model runs or hypotheses) that “indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming”?
Let’s hear it, lolwot (or admit that there is no “logical fallacy” in Tisdale’s statement).
“there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming. That is, the data indicates Mother Nature, not manmade greenhouse gases, was responsible for the warming over the past 31 years.””
The logical error Tisdale is making in the above text is arguing that the lack of indication in the data for X means X isn’t true.
That doesn’t logically follow.
Climate skeptics of all people should know this. If I said Lack of mechanism for the Sun to explain recent warming would that ring a bell? Does “nothing in the data to indicate that the Sun played any part in the warming” mean the Sun had no role? (interestingly Tisdale’s analysis would surely say Yes it had no role because I bet he can’t find a solar indicator in the sea temperature data anymore than he can find GHG indicator.
Which brings me to the general overarching error Tisdale makes in his “it’s ENSO, not GHGs” argument. He claims “nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming” but that begs the question what *is* Tisdale expecting manmade greenhouse gas warming to look like in the data?
From what I can tell he expects something like a simplistic gradual and constant warming across all regions. If he doesn’t find that, or finds some kind of pattern correlation with ENSO, then he immediately jumps the the conclusion ENSO did it and GHGs are not responsible (and supposedly the Sun too).
But who is to say regional warming patterns caused by global GHG warming (or solar warming) wouldn’t be complicated with different regions warming at different rates because the nature of a planet warming involves a flow of energy and GHGs (and the Sun) are just part of that?
There is the absurdity too. Is Tisdale really arguing the rise in GHGs had no warming effect whatsoever? Is he a skydragon?
lolwot 2/8/13 2:28 pm
Just so. The only warming within the last 33 years was a step warming introduced by the super El Nino of 1998. Its cause was the huge amount of warm water this super El Nino carried across the ocean. It raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years and then stopped. This, and not some imaginary greenhouse effect, was the cause of the very warm first decade of our century. The nine warmest years of Hansen sit on top of the warm platform created by this step warming but there has been no warming during these years at all. He is also delusional about 2005 being warmest – it is just average. His other warmest year is 2010 which is an El Nino peak year. He shows it warmer than 1998 which is another delusion. He tries to use these two years to claim warming in the 21st century but it does not work like that. Global mean temperature of ENSO oscillations is determined by the center point between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. The center point of the El Nino of 2010 and the La Nina of 2009 lines up perfectly with the rest of the sixteen year no-warming platform of the twenty first century.
Using Tisdale’s own method there is no solar signal in the data. I’ve seen his graphs of ocean temperature sloshing and it doesn’t exhibit a solar signal.
So according to you we should conclude from this that the Sun had no role in the recent warming. And to cover over the obviously logical fallacy all we have to do is use some BS excuse about null hypothesis = Sun didn’t do it. In other words unless TIsdale’s method can find a solar signal we are justified in concluding (and I mean concluding, there seems to be no sense of uncertainty here) that the Sun played NO role in recent warming.
Someone page Scafeta and tell him he’s wasted all his time. All he had to do was look at ocean temperatures…
Perhaps in this context of the lovable Sun, where you aren’t blinded by hate of all things IPCC, you might “get” why Tisdale’s argument is logically flawed.
I have asked you to show me the empirical evidence for a perceptible CO2 signal in the past temperature record.
You are apparently unable to do this, but respond with:
So you think rising CO2 causes ZERO warming?
So you are a skydragon? You don’t accept the greenhouse effect?
The hypothesis of the “greenhouse effect” is great, and I can “accept” this hypothesis based on the empirical data which show CO2 absorption of LW energy. But these data do not provide empirical evidence that increased ppms of CO2 in our atmosphere will actually lead to perceptible global warming of our climate.
And the empirical evidence do not show a real correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but rather a cyclical temperature record with 30-year warming and cooling cycles superimposed on an overall warming of 0.75C since 1853 :
Atmospheric CO2 was pretty flat until after WWII and has increased at a fairly constant exponential rate of 0.4-0.5% per year since measurements started at Mauna Loa in 1958. The most recent decade has the largest increase in atmospheric CO2, but slight cooling instead of warming.
So there is no apparent empirical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
It is quite apparent to me from the data at hand that something else beside human GHG emissions is driving our climate.
““It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast, when the those values were regularly exceeded 70 to 80 years ago.”
Its easy.
Since the temperature is a result of BOTH GHGs and internal variation, its dead simple to see that over short terms
1. GHG + natural varition >0 OR
2 GHG = natural variation <0
The value is time dependent. So early with natural variation high and GHGs lower, and later with GHG high and natural variation low can look like the same thing, however, over many cycles of natural variation the underlying GHG signal becomes clear
Steven Mosher | February 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
I have to tell you that ocean temperatures off the New England coast have nothing to do with GHG but are determined by the changing flow pattern of the Gulf Stream. There is no doubt that it has changed over the last century because ocean currents started to bring warm water into the Arctic at the turn of the twentieth century, and the only source of warm water in the North Atlantic is the Gulf Stream. This is important because warm water reaching the Arctic today is the only reason why the Arctic is still warming while the rest of the world is not. Some of those billions used for climate research should be dedicated to closely tracking currents in the North Atlantic because it is not just the Arctic but the climate of Europe that depends on this.
How many cycles and what are the fundamental frequencies of those cycles? Are we anywhere close to monitoring these changes for many cycles? Why do you believe natural climate variations are periodic?
I would agree with that view, but given that the increase of global SST since the previous cyclical high in the 1940s is only 0.3K (and only 0.2K without the overwriting of meta data), this “signal” can be discarded.
You answer a statement that “It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast” with the statement:
Since the temperature is a result of BOTH GHGs and internal variation…
Huh?
That’s a hollow statement, Mosh, based on a leap of faith. What empirical evidence can you cite that demonstrates that it was not ALL a result of internal variation (and forcing)?
The only warming within the last 33 years was a step warming introduced by the super El Nino of 1998. Its cause was the huge amount of warm water this super El Nino carried across the ocean. It raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years and then stopped.
Given that many of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last decade, I have a hard time understanding why one discrete event caused a “step change” in temperatures. How did that El Nino change the global climate so that afterwards, temperatures remained on average warmer than they had been previously?
Joshua | February 8, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Glad you brought up that point because I have to explain some skulduggery. First, my analysis of satellite temperatures shows that from 1979 to 1997 there were a series of global ENSO oscillations, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while the mean temperature did not change for 18 years. This was published in my book in 2010 but is universally ignored. Instead of a temperature standstill in the eighties and nineties what is shown is a phony “late twentieth century warming” which does not exist. At the end of this period the super El Nino of 1998 appeared. It really was super, and its temperature peak was twice as high as any El Ninos that preceded it. Like I said, it brought so much warm water across the ocean that a step warming followed. This, and not an imaginary greenhouse warming is the cause of the very warm first decade of our century. There was no more warming after the step warming was over and that lack of warming has lasted from that time until today. Met Office figures it sixteen years and from satellites I count at least twelve. Hansen counts as many as nine record years there and wants to leave the impression that global warming is responsible. In actual fact those years are warm because they sit on the high platform created by that step warming, not because of any warming since. But he is not satisfied with that and includes two totally phony high points – 2005 and 2010 – to prove that warming is continuing. 2005 is a total fabrication and is indistinguishable from other years around it. 2010 is the peak year of the 2010 El Nino. It is high but he has a nerve to show it higher than 1998 which is a lie. The mean temperature of the ENSO oscillation is determined by the midpoint between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. It so happens that the midpoint of the 2010 El Nino and the 2008 La Nina lines up exactly with the no-warming temperature level of the twenty-first century, confirming that we are still in a no-warming mode. As to how a singular event could have such large consequences, at the moment that is just an empirical observation. There are some facts but they are only a partial explanation. First, I did not expect the high temperature level to persist but it seems to have become permanent. Second is that this super El Nino is an outlier, something that is rare, that you might see only once in a century. Checking some older records a possibly similar one could have happened in 1877 but I have no information about it. Thirdly, we do know that El Ninos cross the ocean from west to east along the equatorial countercurrent, run ashore in South America, spread out along the coast north and south, and warm the air above. The warming is due to the fact that the water they carry comes from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the warmest water on earth. But what sets it apart is its size and I had a hard time explaining where its energy comes from. I had some weird thoughts but now I favor a storm surge that coincided with a regular El Nino wave. I could be wrong of course and some of those billions budgeted for climate research ought to be applied to this problem. This is actually not the only step warming we know about – there was another one in 1976 which was associated with the phase change of the PDO. Together they account for almost all temperature rise since the seventies, leaving nothing for the greenhouse warming to do. To get the full information, get my book. It is called “What Warming?” and Amazon has it.
Please take into consideration my lack of technical background…
In actual fact those years are warm because they sit on the high platform created by that step warming, not because of any warming since. …. First, I did not expect the high temperature level to persist but it seems to have become permanent.
I am, being skeptical in nature, dubious of causal explanations for observed phenomena if they aren’t at least accompanied by plausible explanations (even if those explanations are not “proven”). We tend to find the associations and correlations that confirm our biases. One way to control for bias confirmation is to offer mechanistic explanations for those associations and then test the mechanistic explanations.
Now certainly, we can find associations that disconfirm certain hypotheses even if we can not find associated and tested mechanisms that confirm alternative hypotheses. But that a lack of sound mechanistic explanations leaves a lot open.
For example, I can certainly see where it would be theoretically possible to show that the only warming that occurred is that which is associated with a “step,” and that no other warming is present. I’m not sure that you’ve reached that bar, but even if you have, you would have to provide a plausible mechanistic explanation to show that AGW and “step changes” in temperature are mutually exclusive. Perhaps there are ways that increased buildup of CO2 causes warming that manifests as “steps changes.”
At any rate, w/o any plausible explanation for why discrete phenomena would cause a persistent change of state (rather than a temporary change that ends once those discrete phenomena are over and done with), I’m left being skeptical about your theory.
Joshua | February 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Don’t worry about your technical background, just use your brain. Those phenomena that you are dubious about are experimental observations and they can’t be questioned. You are right to demand an explanation but unfortunately all these high-powered “climate” scientists who are swimming in research money refuse to take notice of what I say. Apparently they think that “denialist” science should not get any kind of publicity, good or bad. The step warming is of course bad for them and not likely to support their theories of warming. They have a huge research effort but it either goes to proving that AGW exists or for circumstantial observations of the effects of their alleged warming. Despite years of these efforts they have yet to come up with a breakthrough that proves AGW. Their research is world wide and is extremely well funded. Hansen of NASA, for example, controls more than a billion dollars that Uncle Sam gives him as research money. I introduced several other important concepts in my book that also should be further investigated. The fact that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties is one example I mentioned before. It goes against Hansen’s claim in 1988 that AGW had started. As I mentioned previously global mean temperature did not change for 18 years. I determined it by putting dots at the midpoints of El Nino peaks and La Nina valleys as I described and then connected the points. This gave me a straight horizontal line. I had previously applied the same technique to GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 temperature curves, both of which show the same peaks and valleys as the satellites do. In both cases, connecting the points gave a straight line sloping up which indicates warming. I knew it was a phony warming but they both were peddling it as fact. Until last fall, that is, when the new issues of GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 datasets became available. As of August 8th for GISTEMP and September 29th for HadCRUT3 their global mean temperature in the eighties and nineties has miraculously become a horizontal straight line, just like the satellites show. There was no announcement and nobody would know it if they did not use my technique of determining the mean that I outlined above. Must be that somebody knew about my book and got cold feet about what they were doing with temperature. Clearly the ability to make such sophisticated changes to the record implies that they did know about it. It is also a cross-ocean coordinated action which widens the scope for the original phony data source. As to showing that step warming is the only possible warming, this is not my claim. I only said that this goes back to the seventies. In the early part of the twentieth century there was a steady period of warming that started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940. There was no sudden increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 which rules out the greenhouse effect as a cause. Furthermore, it is quite impossible for greenhouse effect to stop as suddenly as it did in 1940. What happened in 1940 was the beginning of the severe cooling associated with World War II. Its aftereffects continued after the war and the next real warming did not begin until 1976, as I mentioned. The likelihood is that the early century warming had a solar origin. As to the greenhouse effect that is supposed to be the cause of AGW, it does not exist. Ferenc Miskolczi showed in 2010 that atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation was constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. This substantial amount of carbon dioxide did not increase the absorption of radiation by one whit. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed
I notice that Arno Arrak is directly contracting the skeptic claim that global warming stopped in 1997. According to him it never started. Just one step jump in 1997-1998.
I also notice the interjection by lorne50 above, who (probably unknowingly) contradicts arno arrack. Lorne50 admits there was a warming over the period 1970 to 1998. Ie not simply a step change in 1997-1998 as Arno Arrak (wrongly) claims.
Arno claims: “First, my analysis of satellite temperatures shows that from 1979 to 1997 there were a series of global ENSO oscillations, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while the mean temperature did not change for 18 years”
His claim is false.
According to the skepticalscience trend calculator, GISTEMP temperature data has a trend of 0.093C +- 0.123C/decade warming over the period 1979 to 1997.
Arno claims the “mean temperature did not change”, ie he’s claiming a precise value of 0C/decade. Yet the data does not support such a precise value. Arno has ignored the uncertainty in the data, uncertainty which includes for high rates of warming (eg as much as 0.216C/decade warming over the period).
It’s a shame he wrote such an obvious error into a book!
It just struck me that Arno’s claim about no warming in the 80s and 90s (except one jump in 1997/1998) contradicts skeptic claims that high solar output of the late 20th century caused the warming in recent decades.
Because Arno is arguing there WAS NO warming in recent decades, just a large jump in 1997/1998, which runs contrary to an expectation of gradual warming expected from elevated solar output, which must surely be an expectation of HIS given he expects likewise nothing but a gradual warming from elevated CO2.
But did solar output spike upwards in 1997/1998? No. So Arno must be arguing the Sun had no role in any of the warming since 1970.
It’s funny how skeptics manage to keep these conflicts hidden from sight. You see the Tisdales, Arnos and Scafetas attacking CO2 as a cause, but you never see them attack each other’s claims.
You never read something like this on WUWT:
“The problem with the Sun causing any warming since 1970 is that we’d expect GRADUAL warming from a warmer Sun, but there was no gradual warming, just a single spike in 1997/1988.”
You NEVER see that kind of argument, because it’s not in their interest to come up with it and deploy it. It’s all about attacking “IPCC” ideas, discrediting each others doesn’t help that.
Politicians of course wish to continue funding climate change alarmism but even the New York Times apparently has better things to do with its dollars than continue to parrot the hysterical ravings of government climate change toadies and summarily closed down its environment desk in January. Some call it a shame. Some call it a scam. Hell, the whole damn scam is a shame.
I share your anger, but as a liberal democrat I have an extra burden to haul around…shame and embarrassment. With respect to global warming, I think of the NYT’s, as a fortress of ignorance and elitism which eventually must be stormed, like the Bastille in 1789. That will be a day to celebrate.
I think it is a bigger shame that the liberal democrats spent 8 years demonizing George Bush for doing nothing more than standing up for America with his whole heart and standing. It was GW who stood up to the UN and the superstitious crowd and the purveyors of fear from the Left like that lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen square with nothing but the courage in his heart to exercise free will, represent the unrepresented, and to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists that had been chosen at that point in time in the evolution of society to try to run the board.
Ah wag, I respect you, but I have to thank you for once again reminding me why I am who I am, politically speaking. If GWB did something good, it was totally by accident. BUt why fight, we were getting along so well…
Just a little lesson in basic logic. If I say that I love “you guys,” it would not mean that I love “ethnic slurs.” “Slurs” ≠ “guys.” “Guys” ≠ “slurs.”
i love Judith’s fanatically rightwing “denizens” because they are so laughably clueless that they unknowingly discredit themselves through the use of terms like “chinaman” (and through making inane arguments such as we’d have to talk to someone who has both lived as a free person in the inner city and a slave to understand whether anyone rational would choose to give up their individual freedom and basic civil rights in order to live like “well-cared for” dogs).
I searched the WG1 portion of AR4 (using the ‘find’ function in Adobe Reader, 989 pages or so) to locate the documentation for ‘90%’ and ‘very likely’, as stated in the SPM. There is no documentation — no set of details justifying that particular probability and eliminating others. I suspect many non-climate scientists think the claim is a formal confidence interval. No wonder there is such a wide range in public opinion.
Suholt, you write “no set of details justifying that particular probability and eliminating others.“
Thank you very much indeed. That is what I suspected. But the warmists will never agree that the IPCC report could be so fatally flawed.
But the larger issue is that similar claims are in the draft of the AR 5. Should we not be clamoring for these statements to be taken out of the AR 5 since they are completely unscientific. And they shouild be removed BEFORE the IPCC mounts it`s publicity campaign after it has got international agreement on the SPMs of the AR 5.
I wouldn’t worry much about it at this point, Jim. The catastrophic global warming hypothesis is on life support and the prognosis for recovery is not good. Another few years of pause and she’s dead, Jim.
“The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming.”
Afraid not David, don’t watch TV except for live sport and current affairs. Too much advertising and too many media agendas (even in current affairs).
Like what you post David, shows a very strong intellect and a gift with words. Someone said recently that you are like a laser beam but I lean towards the illumination of a searchlight, more coverage that way.
Yes kim, I think we’ve all heard that quote once or twice before. Perhaps now might be a good time to work up some new material for the act. Before the heckling starts…
lw, I’ve never clicked on one of your links for fear of going bind, but if that’s about January of this year being in the top few for warmth, that’s a pretty slim reed… given no additional warming in the last 16 years. Tell you what though, when we start seeing actual cooling month to month and you insist it doesn’t mean anything, I’ll remind you of your post.
Looking carefully at that UAH plot you link, Jan 2013 seems to be the hottest January in the entire record except for Jan 2010 (during a strong El Nino). That’s interesting.
That’s an interesting link. All I would add is that the US ~2% of the Earth’s surface, and this is a sample from just 7 monitoring stations. Stranger still is the apparent lack of effects on climate indicators.
Yes BBD. The laws of physics as you understand them may be different in restricted locations such as those 7 peculiar weather stations located within the 2% of earth’s landmass taken up by the United States. Possibly extra terrestrials who can do anti-gravity and make endless energy from crystals and pyramids and whatnot broke out of Area 51 and took up residence at those weather stations just to mess with our heads. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!
I said it was an interesting study, but given the extremely coarse sampling over a tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface and the *absence* of any effect on climate indicators, there isn’t much else we can say.
You’re just cross because every time you and I have a discussion about climate you get shown up as a know-nothing. Only you can fix that. How about actually reading some of those university-level textbooks you think are the only permissible references here?
Does anyone here have a hypothesis that explains how the surface can be receiving more downwelling energy yet not increase in temperature?
I seem to recall someone who has a wacky notion that if there’s water available to evaporate on the surface then the increased energy is taken up as latent heat of vaporization and transported to the cloud deck. The fellow also says that the cloud deck should rise in response about 100 meters per CO2 doubling.
Anybody know who that is? ;-)
In politics follow the money. In climate follow the water.
A big reduction in cloud cover over land can’t be cause for comfort, especially with specific humidity decreasing.
On a detail in the paper, they say 30 ppm CO2 is only 0.14 W/m2, where I think it is more like 0.4 W/m2. I don’t know why they think it should be so small.
I don’t omit things for lack of care. There’s a limit to how much sleep & exercise I will sacrifice for volunteer work. Long-term, sufficient, guaranteed-secure pay & pension is the only thing that could potentially free me of Pareto Principle operations.
AAM = atmospheric angular momentum
This is primarily about the midlatitude westerly wind belts — oscillations of intensity & mean latitude — decadal waves washing poleward from the equator, accumulating in multidecadal aggregate.
By the way — a substantial announcement:
I’ve just confirmed and extended this. Gravely serious parties capable of going against the mainstream grain to help correct its fundamental misdirection: you will find clean, painfully beautiful results if you extend this to the semi-annual timescale. (More details as scarce time/resources permit…)
“The body is not so good at detecting low levels of oxygen but is really good at detecting high levels of carbon dioxide,” Wemmie says.
And so Feinstein, Wemmie and their colleagues administered a new test to SM, along with a pair of twin sisters with similar brain lesions from the same rare disease. All three volunteers were exposed to high concentrations of the gas.
The researchers thought that the patients would be insensitive to the test. “We were pretty shocked when exactly the opposite happened,” Wemmie says.
A few seconds after inhaling the gas, SM started to wave her hand towards the mask covering her face, crying “help me!” to a nearby experimenter. After the mask was removed, SM’s skin was flushed, her nostrils flared and her eyes were wide open.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/01/170877971/fear
Linked from, Fear: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Large scale changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation result in shifts in standing waves in the climate system. People are used to thinking of these in terms of the AMO, PDO, etc – but theses are all intrinsically linked as nodes in a climate network.
‘It is intriguing to note a shared rhythm among the following: successful synchronizations of high-frequency indices, shifts between periods of alternating character of interannual variability, and the stadium-wave’s multidecadal tempo. This similar pacing suggests possible stadium-wave influence on synchronizations of interannual-to-interdecadally-varying indices within the climate network. Future research is required to determine the exact significance of these episodes.’
But these ‘standing waves’ in the climate system change the global distribution of cloud and rainfall. The change in global refelected shortwave is much less than the reported change in US cloud. This is because the current patterns predispose the US to drought while other regions – Australia, Indonesia etc – see very much increased rainfall.
These current patterns suggest a cool global mode over the next decade or so and in increase in global cloud cover. Indeed – more cloud is on the cards for the next millenium.
‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim
You are all sorts of a fool and are simply demonstating the breadth depth of your ignorance. I’ll tell you what – if I wan’t to be stalked by a clueless wanker like you I’ll ask.
In the meantime I would suggest that the best course would be to keep your mouth shut in the hope that people will not realise just what an idiot you are.
I wasn’t aware I needed permission from the babbler to point out that he’s babbline. Is it another new nanny law from your wacky leaders down under?
By the way, I’m pretty sure stalking doesn’t apply on a single blog. It’s not like I’m hunting you down like a coyote all over the internet or phoning you and hanging up and things of that nature. Get a grip, babble boy.
Big dave – you’re really a bugged out nincompoop with no ability to read or resson at all. The stalking you have already admitted. It consists of dropping as a matter of policy with inane and contentless dipsh_t droppings.
I think I suggested that if I wanted < some cackling crone in a dress and red shoes to pollute the space – I would ask. In the meantime if you have nothing meaningful to say then stfu.
I am so over Americans who think they can insult my country. With people like you it is no wonder at all that the US is a dysfunctional and failing society with about as much economic future as North Korea. As far as I can see you will continue to vote yoursleves bread and circuses until China forecloses on the entire country. We have an alliance but it is not one that we put any store in anymore. We don’t expect the US to be capable of or willing to project anything but incompetence and buffoonery. There is nothing that America succeeds in anymore but bluster and bs. It is all slipping away and you don’t know how to get it back but still continue this faded charade of American exceptionalism. Every one is laughing at you but you don’t see what a joke you have become. Uncle Sam now wears a red nose and big red shoes – that’s pretty funny.
“We don’t expect the US to be capable of or willing to project anything but incompetence and buffoonery.”
All hat, no cattle. One US aircraft carrier group could swat your navy like a fly. Stealth aircraft would take out your air force and land defenses the next day then American kids barely old enough to shave would sit in Langley remotely flying predator drones taking out targets at will. You wouldn’t last a week. We both know that.
‘That raises the question of how vulnerable U.S. aircraft carriers might be to attack by the Chinese air force and navy. The United States has built its maritime force structure around a handful of giant supercarriers, which have been deployed repeatedly to deter Chinese military action against Taiwan. But with China’s double-digit economic growth fueling a rapid buildup of long-range weapons, many experts have begun to doubt the wisdom of deploying U.S. carriers anywhere near the Middle Kingdom in wartime.
Obviously, there are many reasons why China would want to avoid a war, especially one involving use of nuclear weapons. But accidents happen, and the credibility of U.S. security guarantees to regional allies hinge on how effective naval forces might be in a future conflict. Since all the geographical advantages lie with China, it is crucial to know whether the six or seven carriers that America could deploy quickly to the Western Pacific would survive a Chinese onslaught. If they are vulnerable, the war might be over very soon.
Your problem then becomes how to deploy aricraft in the region. Although you can be assured thatwe have sophisticed air to air and ground to air defence if any get through. Certianly sufficient to knock out clumsy drones in any quantity. We also have the most sophistacated early warming system on the planet. We can see things coming almost before they’re launched. We are not Pakistan.
Then there is the question of regional linkages. China amongst many others would not like to see their supply chains interuppted. The nuclear theat is a toothless tiger.
You have lost every war for the past 60 years – as I say buffoonery and incompetence coupled with bluster is no substitute for strategic thinking.
‘The Air Force’s bomber troubles stretch a long way back. The last bomber to be developed and purchased without huge cost overruns was the B-52, which began development in the late 1940s. Twice in subsequent decades the Air Force launched a new bomber program in order to replace the now-classic B-52, only to see costs rise and production terminated early. Seventy years after its design was conceived, the B-52 remains America’s most numerous strategic bomber.’
The so caled stealth bombers are limited to 20 – and you can’t afford squat either as replacement or to increase the number. You need to keep 19 of the 20 in reserve to bomb China – only there are only 2 working at any one time. They are slo, clumsy and vulnerable to passive radar – of which we have plenty of home grown examples. http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Directory.php?Location=Home:Home
It seems increasingly likely that we are on the wrong side of strategic alliances. Better fix that.
Based on my experience, Dave is in a very small minority of Amricans regarding opinions and attitudes towards Australia and its citizens. Generally speaking, most Americans I know have your country high on their list of places they want to visit. And everyone I know who has been there only has positive things to say about the people. (Only negative I’ve ever heard is about the cost of living. Your beer prices are shocking to an American.)
I keep in mind that Dave is a Marine. Now we in the Navy love our big little brothers in the Corps. Though we don’t like to let them know it, we are pretty proud. (My son is a Marine and I’m proud as hell about that.) But we also understand that every now and then they are not fit to be let out in public. Dave, for all of his other virtues, can regularly illustrate where the jar in jarhead comes from. There is nothing of value to be gained in arguing with a jarhead.
You two do yourselves no favors with idiotic poop flinging..
Au contraire. I think It is truly inspirational how well chief has stoically stood up to insulting rhetoric. Think of all he has endured. Surely we can understand how, in the face of such a onslaught, his tolerance might wear a smidgeon thin on rare occasion?
After all, he’s only human. At least he hasn’t allowed his terrible, terrible abuse (oh, the humanity!) to lower the high standards he sets for himself.
And consider Chief’s brilliant insight and logic. Clearly, now that he has put his foot down, Springer’s insulting behaviors will cease immediately. It’s not as if Chief is indulging in similarly insulting behavior – that would only perpetuate the insult exchange.
Thnaks for your 2 bits Josh – you’re always welcome to waffle on with your usual nonsense. Something to do with I do it too was it? Don’t forget mommy mommy.
Not going to contest the strategic assessment – Sheriff Dave and his drones? Didn’t think so.
I started a new blog http://convergetics.org in which I advance that climate change is natural and cyclic. To demonstrate that the apparent illogical temperature variation since 1880 is in fact a coherent superposition of two climate patterns, I use the climate graph displayed on the CRU homepage.
Did you know that Earth isn’t just warming; it’s also shaking more? Since the 80s, major earthquakes are 58% on the rise. A 3-year per decade comparison that includes the most recent earthquake data shows that there have been 317 earthquakes of magnitude 6 and higher during 1980-1982, number which increased to 501 (58% more) during 2010-2012. Decadal increase is a little smaller: There have been 1085 major earthquakes of magnitude 6 and higher in the 1980s, 1492 earthquakes (38% more) in the 1990s and 1611 earthquakes (48% more) in the 2000s. See the statistics.
A magnitude 6 and higher means a major earthquake, which is so damaging that you don’t need a seismograph to detect it. So, it’s something else.
Want to try again?
I lived in southern California for 20 years. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You won’t notice a mag 6 more than 100 miles away unless you happened to see a light fixture hanging from the ceiling start to swing a tiny bit.
Did you click on the link? It’s from Wikipedia: Richter magnitude scale. And the seismologist who wrote is explanation is of the same kind as the IPCC climatologists who needed 16 years to “see” the warming pause. Incidentally, I observe earthquakes since the 70s…
g, do you think the sun’s geomagnetic forces have any vulkanic effect on earth or is this Mother Gaia doing her own thing?
This is going to be of another post, but since you asked, the short answer is no and no, for the simply reason that all aspects of Sun’s activity and the various manifestations of Earth’s activity (warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc.) are together consequences of a cosmic phenomenon. If you ask why wasn’t it explained before, it’s because the present science is so fragmented that nobody could connect the dots until now. When I had realized that today’s scientists can no longer see the forest for the trees, I have created Convergetics, the overarching science that converges fields of natural science to gain more knowledge.
Well let’s see. I have the US Geological Service agreeing with me on one hand and an anonymous commenter on a blog disagreeing with me on the other hand.
Who should I believe? Decisions, decisions…
Crazy as it sounds I’m going with the USGS. ROFLMAO
Nevermind. I see you updated the link associated with your handle to a new incarnation of convergetics.
Think you’ll get more traction with “wordpress” removed from the URL?
And why didn’t you do the usual thing which is “This site has moved to blahblahblah.com. Please update your links.” instead of just turning the old blog into a dead end with all the content gone?
Think you’ll get more traction with “wordpress” removed from the URL?
No, it’s because I never used it. I just wanted to know how WordPress works. Besides, I have my own server that hosts the three Convergetics: com, org and net.
And why didn’t you do the usual thing which is “This site has moved to blahblahblah.com. Please update your links.” instead of just turning the old blog into a dead end with all the content gone?
Thanks! I just forgot to modify the website in my user settings. Now, the error is corrected.
Well let’s see. I have the US Geological Service agreeing with me on one hand and an anonymous commenter on a blog disagreeing with me on the other hand.
Well, let’s see. In the first paragraph of your reference, you read:
Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.
Now, let’s verify if this affirmation is true at the right place, on the USGS Earthquake Facts and Statistics Graphs. So, go and see the statistics at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center and do the math, or on my blog at http://convergetics.org/detailed-earthquake-statistics/, where the math for earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater is easier to calculate. Either way, you will find the following decadal statistics: 105 in 1880-89, 153 in 1990-99 and 144 in 2000-09. Now, the numbers for the three years par decade are: 37 in 1880-82, 47 in 1990-92, 44 in 2000-02 and 58 in 2010-12.
Now, please tell me: When earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater were 58 in 2010-12 vs 37 in 1880-82, which is 57% earthquake increase, would you call that “earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant?”
Besides, the second paragraph starts with “A partial explanation may lie in the fact that…” so the author agrees that there is still another part which isn’t easy to explain. Which one is bigger?
And btw, the anonymous commenter is the president of the Convergetics Research Center, and had predicted the present warming pause back in 2001, when nobody even dreamed about it. (The details are on my blog.)
Here I find the following
Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability).
Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of
significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the
data.
It seems to me that both these claims cannot be true. Either Beenstock and Reingewertz are wrong in their analysis, or the IPCC is wrong in the AR4.
It might be instructive to hear what the denizens of Climate Etc. think.
The Beenstock & Reingewertz 2010 analysis to which you referred is a bit of an embarrassment for CAGW proponents, because it clearly concludes
“Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data”.
.
“We carry out robustness checks using new reconstructions for solar irradiance from Lean and Rind (2009), for globally averaged temperature from Mann et al. (2008) and for global land surface temperature (1850–2007) from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study.”
The conclusions reached are essentially the same:
“We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period.”
They add this sentence for clarification:
“The fact that since the mid 19th century Earth’s temperature is unrelated to anthropogenic forcings does not contravene the laws of thermodynamics, greenhouse theory, or any other physical theory. Given the complexity of Earth’s climate, and our incomplete understanding of it, it is difficult to attribute to carbon emissions and other anthropogenic phenomena the main cause for global warming in the 20th century.”
Of course, this work was all published after AR4, but I wonder how IPCC will handle it in its AR5 report.
Good question, Max. Many people would like to know the answer to that and many other similar questions as to how IPCC AR5 will deal with information that seems to be undermining their scare campaign.
A more important question is when will governments reduce funding for propping up the scare campaign?
When will they realise that the world’s governments are not going to sign up to international treaties, protocols, whatever, that will seriously damage the well-being of their citizens?
Look, the problem with this analysis is you have to accept that polynomial cointegration actually tells you something. If you look at it as a model, can it predict future temps? If you accept it as a model…. Well, I wonder where the skepticism is about models that many ‘skeptics’ seem to have. Why accept this model and not a GCM?
GCM are chaotic without a doubt. The uncertainties of inputs and couplings and the nature of the governing equations mean that there is no single deterministic solution – and the limits of ‘irreducible imprecision’ is unknown.
That method is good for detecting certain types of correlations and totally unable to detect certain others. Interdependencies that have a trend as their principal signal are always a problem for statistical methods. Trends may be very strong evidence but judging their significance requires other approaches. Thus we can conclude from that paper only that one method didn’t provide evidence, not that the causal relationship could not be true and even very strong.
Most times it is the skeptics’ lot that simply being right is about as good as it gets because the skeptic generally is not in it for the reward and most folks do not like learning they were to too stupid, ignorant, greedy or fearful to accept the truth. The transition from the skeptic who questions the consensus to a public that accepts the skeptic’s truth oftentimes takes time.
Remember how Fulton persisted in his folly and Dr. Barry Marshall drank H. pylori cocktail and vindicated science by vomiting on the accepted knowledge of his peers? Imagine a frail and doped Nietzsche glaring at the paper inches from his nose through blistering eyes as he scribbled about the coming of The Dude. Feel the suffering of Socrates, Jesus and George Bush who refused to sign away America’s future at Kyoto.
Funny thing is, at the moment we were first able to accurately measure ocean temperatures, using satellites, global warming stopped. Argos data is collected aboard the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES). “We must face the fact that the earth is now cooling.” (Craig Loehle, “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Stocks, and Ocean Cooling,” Energy and Environment Vol. 20, 2009)
2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. = global cooling
Cite your sources. I am aware of a number of calculations to 700m – but this doesn’t give cause to dismiss the deeper integrations. Historically – it was considered that 700m was sufficient to capture most change but it appears not to be the case.
…only if you have no understanding of convection and the natural workings of a swirling vortex that makes cold water atop hot water a physical impossibility.
It’s the cold water on top that causes a swirling vortex. That much in irrepresible. Capturing it in a mathematical formula presents some difficulties but observing it is easy. And, reality trumps dogma.
Following Natural forces have have been terminated and real-time magnetosphere and SPACE WEATHER SIMULATION ended because the lease on the supercomputer for the real-time simulation expired and government funding will not be immediately available. The future of the world is now in the hands of schoolteachers who can develop more accurate and practical space environment models and humanity’s only hope is if they are able to resume the real-time simulation of nature in the near future. Godspeed.
Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.
And, oh yes, based on the latest and greatest the heat content of the ocean is still rising
Funny thing is, at the moment we were first able to accurately measure ocean temperatures, using satellites, global warming stopped. Argos data is collected aboard the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES). “We must face the fact that the earth is now cooling.” (Craig Loehle, “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Stocks, and Ocean Cooling,” Energy and Environment Vol. 20, 2009)
Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.
And, oh yes, based on the latest and greatest the heat content of the ocean is still rising
Satellites that provide the most accurate data we have tell us the oceans are cooling and have been for more than a decade. Some scientists predict global cooling for decades more–perhaps for the next 30 to 70 years. The globe may experience another ice age before the end of the century. No one really knows. We could be on the precipice of another ice age now and we wouldn’t know that now–only looking back would we know where we were. The Earth has been locked in ice age conditions for more than 80% of the time over the last one million years.
Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.
Some, not Eli of course, would realize that lower troposphere temperatures are not and should not be the same as “surface” temperatures, especially when the “surface” is a few meters below the “surface”.for 70% of the “surface” Since the lower troposphere temperatures are dependent on the rate of heat loss from the core thermal mass, they would tend to reflect changes in the system and amplify those changes being the density of the lower troposphere is lower than the “surface”.
The LTL, MTL and TST would be a poor man’s version of a Watt meter. Since the LTL is cooling slightly, it could indicate that someone picked the wrong “surface” :)
You can’t measure a total SYSTEM response by looking at 7 locations.
Also, since sensitivity, ECR, is defined as the total system responce when the system reaches equillbrium, you cant learn anything from a decades worth of data. the issue is inertia. Now, as you know applying a forcing of horse power increases the speed of vehicle. If you apply that forcing, and your tires spin and you go nowwhere for a second, you would not conclude that the sensitivity to that forcing was zero. Firest you have to overcome inertia. In the case of the planet that would be overcoming the inertia of the oceans. That more than decades before you can see a response.
Plus you screwed up and didnt cite the net forcing. No hope for you.
Steven Mosher | February 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm:
“…you cant learn anything from a decades worth of data. The issue is inertia…”
Or so you say. But James Hansen did not think much of it in 1988 when he told the Senate that anthropogenic global warming had started. His presentation was prepared in 1987 when he had only ten years warming to report. It so happens that there was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and early seventies and people were worried about a a new ice age, not warming. The warming that Hansen depended upon was a step warming associated with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976 which raised global temperature by 0.2 degrees Celsius and was over by 1980. From that point until 1997 there was no warming – just ENSO phases, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while global mean temperature stayed the same. He gave his presentation first in November 1987 but it was a bust – media just ignored it. Chairman of the Senate committee was Tom Wirth, a buddy of Al Gore, and he set about to take corrective action. It was cold in November so he asked the Weather Bureau what the warmest day of the year was. It was June 23rd so he set up a new hearing for that day. He also made sure TV stations all knew about it. Night before the hearing he went out, opened all the windows and turned off the air conditioning. It worked. The next day TV cameras were there in double digits, and it was so warm that everybody had to wipe the sweat off their foreheads. In his presentation Hansen showed dangerous model temperature projections up to 2019 and frightened his audience. He claimed that the warming they were experiencing was global warming but it turns out that 1988 was just the peak year of the 1988 El Nino, one of five El Ninos in the eighties and nineties. His talk was all over the evening news that day and was a strong influence towards establishing the IPCC that same year. And of course, payola had to follow, in the form of a Heinz Foundation award a year later. Six months after his talk the El Nino peak had passed and the La Nina that followed pushed down global temperature by 0.4 degrees from what it was in 1988.
The author’s speculation sounds like a combination of David and Chief’s answers to me. I would think that 13W/m2 over 16 years should be noticable in temperature and humidity even if it is just a regional effect. You can’t warm the world unless you warm regions.
steven fundamentally untrue. All you need to do is look at the distribution of station trends over time to realize that even over long periods ( 30 years plus) that some regions can cool while others warm and the global average goes up. dont forget climate is complex.. ha.
and its not 13 watts, so get the figures right.
homogeneous warming is the least likely result, not the most likely
” Annual anomalies of total surface net radiation from 1996 through 2011 are shown in Figure 3. The network mean as well as the means of the individual stations generally increase over the entire period. A linear least squares fit to the network mean reveals a +8.2 Wm−2 per decade increase, which amounts to about +13 Wm−2 over the entire period.”
Call it 12 if that makes you feel better. It still remains mysterious.
Homogenous warming is the least likely, I agree. So where should we look for the most likely place for warming to occur? Where the Watts are increasing at a rate considerably above the average expected? I’m very suprised you don’t find the results of the study interesting and counter-intuitive.
I didn’t ask for total system sensitivity, Steven. I asked for sensitivity using those 7 stations.
But I see your point. Using just 7 stations is akin to using just instrument records where the instruments are located mostly in CONUS and Western Europe. You know, like BEST. Undersampling is undersampling.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek by the way. It’s fun to push your buttons.
“Humanity needs access to abundant, affordable energy as the basis on which to improve all our lives. It would be better still if that energy were not as polluting as the current main energy sources, coal and oil. Recent pollution problems in the Chinese capital, Beijing, are testament to the need for clean energy. The trouble is that the technologies available to us at the moment are too expensive and unreliable to take the place of fossil fuels. Instead of beating ourselves up about our eco-footprints, we should be devoting our collective energies to the research and development required to produce clean energy economically.”
So what do got?
Nuclear energy- obvious choice.
Natural gas- another obvious.
Is there problem? Not really.
The only problem I see is we should want cheaper energy.
Fusion energy is been pie in sky- but the government paid
people working on this have not given up. But since they are being
paid despite getting no result, that could the reason they aren’t
giving up.
What else is there other than fusion?
What geothermal energy on massive scale.
Instead drilling small holes, make a tunnel.
Go underneath the surface a few miles.
Could you combine digging deep and fusion?
Use fusion bombs for energy.
1 MT is 5600 terajoules {10^12 J} Or
5600000000 megawatt [MW] or 177 MW for
a year. Or at $10 per MW hour it is 15.5 million
dollar worth of energy. US made 70,000 warheads
and Soviets made more of them.
And 70,000 time 15.5 million is 1.08 trillion.
The Soviets never had 1 trillion dollars, and US didn’t
spend trillion dollars making them. US over decades
have spent far more money securing and storing
them than US spent to making them. So somewhere
around 1/100 or 1/1000th of this price. So cheap
energy IF you use this energy at low cost.
Of course such an idea is politically unlikely.
Of course it’s political unlike IF done on Earth-
A country willing to leave the Outer Space treaty
[easy to do] could do this on the Moon. But probably
want a lot of water or something that captures the
energy- Moon does not have oceans of water. It’s
got small lakes “worth of it”- billions of tonnes. And
the current value of billion of tonnes on the Moon is
worth far more than 1 trillion dollars. So at least in the
near term [before 2100] if went to bother to mined the
lunar water, you sell it for far more money.
On the dry planet Mars, you have trillions of tonnes
of water. If might use [somehow] nuclear bomb to mine
the water- it is thought to be a lot under the surface.
But anyhow, not gonna to work for Earthlings even if
some of them were willing to leave their blue marble.
Of course North Korea or some other political pariah
could do it. Even China could it. At least they could have
technological potential of doing it- not sure they have
ability to do it so bordered on being safe.
Oh here we go:
“7 (Crazy) Civilian Uses for Nuclear Bombs” http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/yourfriendatom/
Not I what was talking about- but interesting history on
fracking:)
Many of you treat these issues as black or white, yes or no, on or off. Our hostess keeps making the uncertainty point. All of the evidence says the signal (AGW) is weak, while the noise (natural climate variability) is strong. All the science in the world is not going to change that fundamental. Nor can models. There are, however, far more certain, stronger signal with less noise related things that should be getting the attention that hypothetical CAGW should not. Hopefully Dr. Curry will agree to host more posts on them.
Many of you treat these issues as black or white, yes or no, on or off. Our hostess keeps making the uncertainty point. All of the evidence says the signal (AGW) is weak, while the noise (natural climate variability) is strong.
I guess you want to offer a challenge to the “Chief” of unintentional irony, eh?
Don’t you think this is getting little old Joshua? I would be a little that dogmatic but the evidence certainly seems to be that CO2 is a minor contribution to recent warming.
Fo instance – ‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period.’ http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
Strong warming in SW and less strong cooling in IR. But there is much more.
The models are of course chaotic. There is no single deterministic solution and the topology of the solution space – to put it in the proper chaotical jargon – is unknown.
‘In this commentary, I will discuss the question “If somebody were to discover that climate variations in the past were stronger than previously thought, what would be the implications for estimates of climate sensitivity?” Pick your favorite time period – Little ice age, Medieval Warm Period, Last Glacial Maximum or Cretaceous – the issues are the same. In considering this question, it is important to keep in mind that the predictions summarized in the IPCC reports are not the result of some kind of statistical fit to past data. Thus, a revision in our picture of past climate variability does not translate in any direct way into a change in the IPCC forecasts. These forecasts are based on comprehensive simulations incorporating the best available representations of basic physical processes. Of course, data on past climates can be very useful in improving these representations. In addition, past data can be used to provide independent estimates of climate sensitivity, which provide a reality check on the models. Nonetheless, the path from data to change in forecast is a subtle one.’ to quote from raypierre – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/natural-variability-and-climate-sensitivity/
And to compare this to James McWilliams.
‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Despite raypiere’s assurances – the lack of a single deterministic solution for any of these comprehensive simulations suggest caution in assessing the potential spread and accepting the results. McWilliams cites a posteriori solution behaviour as a plausibility criteria for ensemble members. The chosen solution is one amongst many possible solutions.
I would doubt that food and fuel are insurmountable technological problems – but agree as well that we would do well to get on with these and other urgent environmental and social problems
Cheif. How do you argue chaos out of one side on your mouth and then express certainty about the role of c02 out of the other side.
This is an epsitemology question.
I’ve considered it. Both(many) elements in climate, deterministic, chaotic, even tempero-spatially so. No epistomological contradiction.
===================
‘I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all’
What was the question mosh?
Epistawhat? Sounds like something that happens after a few too many beers at the Great Western.
The data is of course one thing. To the extent that it can be depended on – we have some notion of the global energy budget contraints.
dS/dt = energy in – energy out
Where dS/dt is the rate of instaneous change in global energy storage and energy in and out are average unit energies over a period.
Or ARGO – if we can rely on the data we basically know whether dS/dt is positive or negative – regardless of abrupt shifts in climate.
We all have perfect 20/20 hindsight – if we can rely on the data. The question about whether or not I expressed certainty seems to rely on interpretation. What I said was that the evidence suggests. The reliability of the data brings in question of epistemic uncertainty that should not be overlooked. But the data is the data we have.
The models and the future are subject to aleatoric uncertainty.
Chief’s equation (dS/dt = Ein – Eout) was criticized by WebHubTelescope because simple dimensional analysis shows it cannot be true.
So I looked into it.
The hydrological mass balance eq. is:
(1) S = I – Q, where I & Q are volumes (L3)
The continuity equation is:
(2) dS/dt = I – Q, where I & Q are volumetric flow rates (L3/T)!
It seems clear to me that Chief has incorrectly analogized his energy storage equation from (2) overlooking the change in dimensions. The proper analogy to flow-rate is power.
The proof is in the calculation of average energy. The energy function should be integrated with respect to time and then divided by the time period. Whereas Chief simply divides by time.
Chief will not agree to Peter Lang as arbitrator. How about you?
No. The equation that I gave was a simple energy budget:
dS/dt = Ein – Eout
Where S is the planetary energy content and Ein and Eout are the rates of unit energy in and out respectively. The terms of the equation are defined precisely – and the units are a consequence of the definition of terms.
Unit energy is the Wattage for 1 second – and the answer is in Joules. 1 Watt for 1 second is 1 Joule. The rate is the average number of Joules/second over a period.
The energy conservation equation where the change is evaluated over a period is:
ΔS (J) = Ein (J) – Eout (J)
The change in energy in the global system is the difference between energy in and energy out in the period. You simply divide by the period to get the rate of change of S and the average of unit energy in and out in the period to get the differential form.
dS/dt (J/s) = Ein (J/s) – Eout (J/s)
Where… Exactly the same form as the hydrological equation – but you forgot the delta in both cases and neglect the dependecne of energy on both power flux and time. .
The more interesting part is that ARGO, SORCE and CERES can be interrogated to look at the sign of energy imbalances and even to assign cause between albedo, IR and solar intensity – albedo is especially a critical problem in climate science. But in fact if you had a good estimate of S – you could close the budget fairly precisely.
So it is not really the simple energy budget that is problematic – the formula is absolutely correct – based on the 1st law – and perfectly defines the energy budget of the planet. I am afraid it is webby that is the problem.
Where S is the planetary energy content and Ein and Eout are the rates of unit energy in and out respectively.
Then Instead write it: dS/dt = Pin – Pout
The terms of the equation are defined precisely – and the units are a consequence of the definition of terms.
Unit energy is Joules (the Watt-second). Unit power is Watts (or Joues/second)
To calculate average energy, integrate the energy function with respect to time and divide by the time period.
The more interesting part is that ARGO, SORCE and CERES …
Yes. I agree. In fact I am looking forward to it. However, there is still the question as to the limitations of mass balance storage equations when used to represent energy balance storage. What do you say?
The left hand axis is in Watts/m^2. The formal definition of Watt is:
kg·m^2·s^-3
And the formal definition of Joule is:
kg·m^2·s^-2
A Watt is a Joule/s and a Joule is a Wattxs as you said but there is no such animal as unit power. There is power flux and unit energy.
So if we have 1361.5 W/m^2 – this is 1361.5 J/m^2 as unit energy – that is the power flux for a period of 1 second. We like to talk about energy rather than instantaneous power flux when thinking about energy conserved, heat, work, etc.
If you look at the graph – you will see that energy in declines in the Schwabe cycle to 2009 or so and then increased again. So up to 2009 there was a cooling solar trend – warming a little after. But the energy in needs to be adjusted for the Earth’s geometry. Divide it by 4 – so the actual change is fairly minimal. Energy out seems to change much more.
Thank you for your patience and persistance. I have found some errors in my earlier comments. Nevertheless the essence of the complaint remains. Please correct using basic physics/math. I will then return to the kiddie pool.
(1) The hydrological mass balance equation for transient sotrage is about volume, i.e. potential energy.
(2) The continuity equation for hydrological transient mass storage is about mass flow, i.e. kinetic energy.
(3) The continuity equation as used to describe energy storage is about energy flow, hence power.
Energy is irrelevant to the hydrological equation of storage – it is about conservation of mass.
The 1st order differential equation of hydrological storage is about rates of change in storage and inflow and outflow.
As I have said three times now – if you want to look at energy you need to look at Bernoulli’s equation which has terms for kinetic and potential energies and pressure.
Momentum has to do with momentum. The Poynting flux again has to do with unit area but involves power flux – but the energy transfer is the power flux over a period.
The mass continuity equation has nothing to do with energy as I said. If you want to look at energy – I said four times now – use Bernoulli’s.
This is starting to resemble a conversation with a drunk or an idiot. My patience is at an end. Bye.
“All of the evidence says the signal (AGW) is weak”
So what’s your interpretation of Nic Lewis’s recent paper that estimated 1.7C per doubling of CO2? We stand to more than double CO2 (equiv) and 1.7C is a LOT of global warming. It’s about double of 20th century warming. How then can the AGW signal be weak when it stands to cause more warming than nature typically has over past millenia?
Of course you could argue Nic Lewis’s paper is wrong….but I wonder what alternative sensitivity value you are thinking about. Surely even a 0.5C sensitivity to doubling CO2 would leave CO2 as the probable biggest driver of 21st century global temperature.
Simple enough. Sensitivity is theory. Signal is reality. But if sensitivity is another word for prediction then it is just nonsense, predicting what cannot be predicted. Yet it is used this way, among five other ways. In short the concept of sensitivity is so screwed up it is meaningless.
Like utopean social engineering attempts throughout history,
geo-engineering , engineering the BIG solution for perceived
dangerous warming of the planet, demonstrates the folly and
presumption of would- be platonists.
Geo engineering solutions to perceived AGW warming from CO2
such as sprinkling mineral filings in oceans may reduce vast
amounts of iron appears to be this kind of folly. Never mind
if this alters the balance of the oceans.
And never mind that the science is far from ‘settled.’ Numerous
threads on Climate Etc have raised arguments that counter
alarmism about atmospheric warming and need for a drastic action.
For examplle:
*Doubling of CO2 seems unlikely to be catastrophic.Professor
Lindzen estimates climate sensitivity, based on ERBE data,at about
* .5 degrees. Institutions like the IPCC are now reducing their
previous much higher guestimates.
*As CO2 continues to rise temperatures have not. In the last
15/16 years temperatures have plateaued.
And never mind that denizens have pointed out a moderate
warming is desirable for people living in cold latitudes an for their production offood. Plants love CO2. Can’t get enough of it. :)
And never mind that IF we need to reduce CO 2 we can by
beneficial and less drastic means than BIG planning geo-
engineering or social engineering. We’ve had a couple of
denizens here present vids on win-win conservation projects
as local pragmative initiatives. We’ve had Freeman Dyson’s
insights and estimates re increasing soil biomas to sequester
*all* the carbon we may need to sequester from the artmosphere.
Let’s here it fer adaptible, pragmatic humans responding in a free
society to what comes up, black swan or what-ever.
Using your logic, building cities is “geoengineering” (and, therefore, “folly”). As was pulling ourselves out of the abject poverty and misery of a world before we had access to reliable, inexpensive energy from fossil fuels (and was, therefore, also “folly”). As a matter of fact, exhaling CO2 is also “geoengineering”, and breathing is, therefore, also “folly”.
Duh!
It’s time to get serious, man.
“Geoengineering” is willfully attempting to change our planet’s climate by actions, which have no other overriding useful purpose – and, you are right, this is “folly”.
“Like utopean social engineering attempts throughout history,
geo-engineering , engineering the BIG solution for perceived
dangerous warming of the planet, demonstrates the folly and
presumption of would- be platonists.
Geo engineering solutions to perceived AGW warming from CO2
such as sprinkling mineral filings in oceans may reduce vast
amounts of iron appears to be this kind of folly. Never mind
if this alters the balance of the oceans.”
Large government project involving iron fertilization of oceans
no doubt would be folly.
Government sponsored projects [including
no government money being necessarily involved – but political sanction and incentives {useful laws passed} but not necessarily involving government providing a pay check] which involves iron fertilization of oceans
could a good idea. So not something done on a large scale, until such time as more scientific knowledge can be discovered regarding this.
Same applies to Methane ocean deposit mining. Like the Japanese are doing- only we *could* do better than how Japanese are doing it. Or if not better, at least trying different approaches to problem involved [give the Japanese some scientific competition [both parties will benefit from such competition].
Now iron fertilization could change the ocean. But changing the ocean is not in itself bad. Other than do something about global CO2 levels, we could increase ocean productivity. Also probably run across stuff concerning which could said to be unexpected- we could learn something about the ocean we don’t already know.
Plus iron fertilization is not exclusively something that human do, nature
is and has dumped lots of stuff into the ocean. Nature *has* and *is* doing iron fertilization of the ocean. If you throw dirt into the ocean, you are doing iron fertilization- Iron is a common substance on Earth- it’s everywhere.
So a large volcanic eruption could be doing a significant amount of iron fertilization of the ocean. Black smokers constantly spewing it’s black stuff [which could be largely iron] can be doing iron fertilization on smaller and local scale.
So, exploration. Rather than production. Maybe production, later. maybe production will be mostly about increasing fish stocks.
You are assuming the solar energy remains active as the 20th century. The more common is a less active sun. When the solar energy drops, the GMST and the CO2 concentration will also drop. That is what happened during the Little Ice age.
I’ll ignore the rest of your post, as advised by you, but this blooper caught my eye:
Surely even a 0.5C sensitivity to doubling CO2 would leave CO2 as the probable biggest driver of 21st century global temperature.
Assume you meant “20th century” rather than “21st century” (since it has cooled since the beginning of the 21st century (January 1, 2001).
But let’s do a sanity check on your statement.
In 1901 atmospheric CO2 stood at around 290 ppmv (according to IPCC, based on ice core records)
In 2000 it was 369 ppmv (according to Mauna Loa measurements).
At 0.5C ECS we should have seen warming at equilibrium from CO2 of:
0.5C * ln(369/290) / ln(2) = 0.17C
Over the 20thC we actually saw around 0.65C (HadCRUT3 and IPCC)
So CO2 would have “caused” 27% of the observed 20thC warming at 0.5C ECS (assuming “equilibrium” was reached), and CO2 was NOT the biggest driver of global temperature.
Of course, if we assume “equilibrium” was not reached (as IPCC does), then the %age would be even lower.
So your statement does not pass the “sanity check”.
Wow, that is awefully certain.. you realize that at .5 you cannot explain de glaciation. So, if sensitivity = .5C, then you cant get out of an ice age.
but, we have gotten out of ice ages… therefore?
lindzen is falsified. You have no choice but to reject his theory. Feynman says so, as does Popper
You are falling into the old logic trap of “we can only explain this if we assume…” (commonly known as “argument from ignorance”).
Why must 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (which is what is being discussed) be above 0.5C to “explain de glaciation”? Could’ve been many other things we (including you) do not yet understand.
Sorry, Mosh, that’s a poor argument. Come with something better.
By definition,Climate is a long term state. It has to include all seasons and so has to be of years in duration. It has to include permanent anthropogenetic effects such as have occured in the 2oth and 21st centuries.and permanent urban heat island effects which raise the temperature of many cities and sometimes their sorrounds. So producing a climate graph from actual daily measurements which fluctuate wildly is essentially a proces of selecting the right arithmetical averaging process. I find the eleven year central moving average is about right, but does have the disadvantage that we are always five and one half years behind knowing today’s smoothed temperature. But you can always estimaye whether the temperature has gone up or down during the last 5 1/2 years.
During the 20th and 21st centuries we have had several different global average climates. Between 1910 and 1940 we had a stedily increasing temperature (0.5C total), then after 1940 temprtature fell equally rapidly but eventually rose again reaching the 1940 level again in 1980. After 1980 temperature rose again to about 2000 and has remained constant on average since.
I have written a narrative of these changes on my website above.
hes been directed to the evidence many times, as have the rest of you. empirical evidence. empirical measurements. To say otherwise is akin to arguing that black is white and white is black. That is what his argument amounts to he asks for evidence and measurement. I’ve pointed him at it many times and he and you pretend otherwise. I see no point in continuing. he asked. I delivered. done
What a pile on crap Steve people me included have asked you for the paper to prove that man’s little bit of CO2 compared to Nature’s is what is driving this little warming . Where is your proof I’ve asked you this alot and get the same as up comment NOTHING ,”I gave it before” NO you never !!!
He’s listened and played along with l’s brilliant chamber orchestra endlessly going over ‘Lukewarming, and Do Something About It’.
The gorgeous strains of the melody crash against the icewall of a cooling world, and the rock of understanding that warmer would have been better, in all plausible cases.
=========
I contend that the lower “moist” thermal gradient (lapse rate) is primarily due to intra-atmospheric radiation. Carbon dioxide plays a small part in this, though water vapour does most of it. The gradient is reduced and the whole thermal plot rotates around a point which might be only about 4Km up in the atmosphere. But this leads to lower surface temperatures. Hence water vapour has a negative feedback, not positive as they claim. This is a crucial point, because they say the effect of carbon dioxide is increased significantly by the assumed positive feedback.
Radiation can only transfer heat from warmer regions to cooler regions. Above the tropics in calm conditions the thermal gradient is a fairly uniform 6.5C/Km throughout the 17Km high tropopause.
So all heat transfer by radiation is upwards to cooler regions. Energy makes its way out of the atmosphere more quickly when water vapour is in abundance, because the radiation process is more effective when there are more radiating molecules.
Hence radiated energy makes its way upwards at the speed of light in a random path between (mostly) water vapour molecules. Whenever it heads back down to lower layers of water molecules or the warmer surface, it cannot transfer heat and it merely gets immediately re-emitted in a “pseudo scattering” process described in my March 2012 paper on Radiated Energy on the Principia Scientific International website.
So the maximum daytime temperatures are cooler when moisture is present than they would otherwise be if there were no water vapour and energy is thus trapped in a slow moving non-radiative process involving convection.
How do you explain Tisdale’s observation that all the ocean surface warming has been in the Indian, the North Atlantic, and the Arctic oceans and everything else has been flat or cooling? CO2 isn’t perfectly mixed but it spreads out pretty well. Better than water vapor. Why wouldn’t it warm more evenly?
‘deep water upwelling’
right. Cold water, which began its life as melt water in the polar regions decides to go against the density gradient and makes its way to the surface, whilst the warm brine of the sea surface decides to go for a sink.
There is no point in attempting to understand the energetics for these huge transfers of mass and heat around the Earth, all one needs to do is throw down, ‘deep water upwelling’, like a crooked cop throws down a Uzi after an illegal shooting,
Yes, east ocean margins have deep water upwelling at mid-latitudes due to prevailing wind-driven currents. This is what keeps cooler water coming up to the surface.
Well sure, but except for the ITCZ/Kelvin wave upwelling this happens all around the edges. It is driven by wind and Ekman transport and that cold water just wants to sink again at the earliest opportunity. The Indian and North Atlantic oceeans enjoy their fair share of this upwelling. The Arctic does not, probably because the ice is a slipsheet for the wind.
Candidly, I don’t believe CO2 is radiatively warming the oceans significantly. The lack of IR permeability and thermal stability are huge theoretical obstacles. Even the “GHG thermal mass” theory propounded by Willis and Roy Spencer requires the atmosphere to warm proportionately. It hasn’t been.
Adding the observation that the Indian, North Atlantic and Arctic oceans account for all of the surface warming is yet another contraindication.
On the other hand, if I knew all the answers, I wouldn’t be wondering why the atmosphere has steadfastly refused to recieve additional enthalpy from the oceans for the last 16 years as the ocean surface has continued, on average, to warm.
Quite a lot of the Pacific as well is influenced by more or less upwelling. Upwelling is a major driver of hydrological, biological and climatic variability.
You can see her the ‘V’ of cold water that is the signature of the cool Pacific Decadal Mode. Look closely in the central Pacific and you can see lines of cold aligned north to south. This is cold water rising in the equatorial zone driven by Ekmann transport pushing warm surface water away from the equator – Coriolis forces arising from the spin of the planet. Upwelling is probably too simple a notion – just shorthand for a number of processes in play. I find Bob ignores all of these other forces as ENSO drivers.
It’s not only those areas which are warming anomolously*. Andaman Sea, Southern North Sea, Lake Tanganyika. Crious how the warming CO2 hovers over those parts of the planet which are being sbjected to major oil and srfactant polltion. Enough light oil comes down the Siberian rivers to equal an Exxon Valdez every four weeks.**
How is the Med doing? I’ve seen it reglarly for the last few years and it’s polltion levels are astronomic, bt it has always been bad so maybe the effect has satrated.
Come on Mosh, do the southern North Sea. And the blip, do the blip. I can do the blip. Can you?
JF
Insert smiley here. And scatter yoos where appropriate, my keyboard has failed.
*If there is sch a word.
**OK, for rgb@dke, that’s four weeks, five hours and some minutes. Insert another smiley here.
WordPress blog question: some time ago, WP wouldn’t let me post here on Climate Etc unless I opened a blog. I didn’t want a blog, so called it “notablog” (I’ve since discovered that this isn’t original), adding “might be one one day.” Some time later, I added some papers of mine to it, so that if I referenced a paper in a post, I could link to it.
However, when I go the blog, the URL comes up as “http://climateetc.wordpress.com/ ” I don’t know how this happened, I don’t want to masquerade as Judith, and If I’m going to post, I’d like it to be with a name linkable to me rather than Judith. Lots of posters here seem cluey on WP (unlike me), any advice? Thanks.
If you want to change the title of the blog (the text displayed in the title bar of a web browser and displayed in the header for most themes) instead, you can do so under General Settings
Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.
The Thermohaline, sublime movement like stars in
the night sky. Always perturbation, always interaction.
In rhe ocean depths, mysterious conveyer belt currents
flowing like great arteries, up welling and down welling
to imperatives of salinity and heat.
Would this apply to a politician who happened to know a bit about climate science too? Or is it just a general thing? Is it better for US politicians to claim, rather like Manuel in Fawlty towers, “I know nothing”.
Americans do tend to think that Kerry, Soros , Pelosi etc are leftists rather than enlightened capitalists because they (you) don’t have the real thing in the USA to anywhere near the same extent as in Europe. It partly the system there that allows the wealthy to spend their way into Congress.
You’ll remember the controversial remarks made about the British National Health Service. Do you know who is given the credit for getting it started against all the odds when the UK was broke after the war? Read up on this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
Tempt, I was 14 when Bevan made the 1956 Suez speech quoted on Wikipedia:
“We are stronger than Egypt but there are other countries stronger than us. Are we prepared to accept for ourselves the logic we are applying to Egypt? If nations more powerful than ourselves accept the absence of principle, the anarchistic attitude of Eden and launch bombs on London, what answer have we got, what complaint have we got? If we are going to appeal to force, if force is to be the arbiter to which we appeal, it would at least make common sense to try to make sure beforehand that we have got it, even if you accept that abysmal logic, that decadent point of view.
“We are in fact in the position today of having appealed to force in the case of a small nation, where if it is appealed to against us it will result in the destruction of Great Britain, not only as a nation, but as an island containing living men and women. Therefore I say to Anthony, I say to the British government, there is no count at all upon which they can be defended.
“They have besmirched the name of Britain. They have made us ashamed of the things of which formerly we were proud. They have offended against every principle of decency and there is only way in which they can even begin to restore their tarnished reputation and that is to get out! Get out! Get out!””
The speech was not untypical of the era, with a high-level of principled debate which could not be imagined in modern Australia, and is rarely seen in Britain. The shift is one of the reasons I despair of recent politics.
Wagathon. Look. John Kerry is a member of the US ruling class. He’s the richest person in the US Senate. It’s not in his interest to be a leftist.
Enlightened capitalism certainly is in his interest, though. It ensures that the US ruling class don’t go the same way as the pre-revolutionary Russian and French ruling classes and he’s sensible enough to know that.
That may seem unlikely now but if the zealots of the US tea party ever were allowed to have their way with the US economy, it would seem much less unlikely very rapidly.
Not so… Rand, for example, did not believe an enlightened chauvenism served the interests of women. Rand believes in free will. For Rand it’s real and there’s nothing smug about it. And where does that lead. For starters it means the Left hates Rand the atheist and for ONE reason only.
Rand would choose Bush over Stalin every time. And Rand would choose science over the superstition and ignorance of the masses every time too. Now that the nihilism of the Leftists and their liberal Utopianiam has reached its zenith in the West whatever once had value is now worthless and truth doesn’t matter anymore.
Who do you prefer George Washington or Mao Tse-Tung? I think the answer is simple:
■ If you are a Tibetan Buddhist monk, you prefer a God-fearing protector of personal and religious freedom like George Washington
■ If you are a tenured professor in liberal fascist academia, then Ward Churchill is more inspiring than Winston Churchill, the mass murderer Mao is your philosopher, and Bush-haters Castro and Chavez are your comrades.
“John Kerry is a member of the US ruling class. He’s the richest person in the US Senate. It’s not in his interest to be a leftist.
Enlightened capitalism certainly is in his interest though.”
This is one of the funniest things I have read here in a long time.
The fact that many leftists are rich is nothing new. Being a “leftist,” ie a progressive, is about power. Wealth is perfectly acceptable among the leftists themselves. Look at George Soros. Nancy Pelosi is rich as well, and there is hardly anyone in the Congress further left than she is.
Fascism in the 30s and 40s (you may have read about it) was all about the rich getting in bed with the leftists who wanted centralized power over the economy. “Enlightened” capitalism is just another way of saying the same thing.
Once someone like Soros gets his, it is so much easier to buy government officials and use the awesome power of the state to get what he wants, rather than competing against other entrepreneurs.
Fascism, crony-capitalism, the Blair/Clinton “third way,” social democracy, “enlightened” capitalism, they are all just ways of describing the same thing – trying to centralize power in the government, while somehow keeping the wealth generating aspects of a free market. hen they get the best of both systems – incredible wealth and enormous power. The fact that the great unwashed will live in misery, and the whole thing will ultimately implode. You can’t make an omelot without breaking a few billion of other people’s eggs.
It can work for a while. Shoot, the pure socialist/communist Soviet Union lasted for almost 80 years, and it was built on the dying carcass of Czarist Russia. Who knows how long out current crop of progressives will take to crash the western economy if they remain in power? Could be months, years, decades or longer.
Gore isn’t a leftist because he’s gotten so rich? Please…stop it…my sides are splitting!
Americans do tend to think that Kerry, Soros , Pelosi etc are leftists rather than enlightened capitalists because they (you) don’t have the real thing in the USA to anywhere near the same extent as in Europe. It partly the system there that allows the wealthy to spend their way into Congress.
You’ll remember the controversial remarks made about the British National Health Service. Do you know who is given the credit for getting it started against all the odds when the UK was broke after the war? Read up on this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
My grandfather was campaign manager for bevan during many of his parliamentary campaigns and helped him to become an mp. Mind you in those days in ebbs vale a monkey in a red rosette would be elected. Bevan, like benn, was a man of considerable principle
Oh there are definitely those much further left than Gore, Pelosi and Soros. But for progressives like yourself, anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is a conservative. I remember once Tamino described Obama as a Chicago School conservative. Explaining leftism to a progressive is like explaining water to a fish. It’s hard for y’all to get a proper perspective.
I would say I was further to the right than Chomsky.
My philosophy would not be to destroy capitalism but negotiate the best possible deal with the capitalists and at the same time use the power of the democratic system to force big corporations to comply with their social responsibility. They don’t exist just for their shareholders.
You can call it what you like but its basically how things work in Europe and Australia. The Australian working class have negotiated a pretty good deal for themselves. There’s close to full employment. Everyone who genuinely wants a job can find one. There’s health and safety laws for the workplace, minimum wages and conditions, guaranteed award wages to cover for working on public holidays etc. Long service leave etc Its not the done thing to hire and fire. If workers lose their jobs they are entitled to compensation. Workers would typically have 5 weeks paid holidays per year. Sometimes even at extra pay.
Australia’s richest woman, Gina Reinhardt, who owns a fair chunk of the Australian mining industry was griping that Australian workers were greatly overpaid recently. She mentioned some pittance amount she got away with paying her Zambian workers. I would say it’s fair to say that most Australian miners are happy with her owning the wealth she does providing they earn what they do too. That’s the quid pro quo. But if that were to change and any attempt made to slash their wages then there could be conflict.
Rinehart was talking about productivity and there is obviously a need to consider productivity in a high income society. The high dollar doesn’t help – compounded by increases in spending and borrowing. Over the past few years structual deficits have been built into the Australian economy and now that revenue growth is not as strong the deficit is growing wider. The increased borrowing feeds into a stronger dollar and more pressure on productive enterprise.
We would do well to continue to pull back spending and take interest rates down further. It is a matter of rational capitalism and not magic pudding.
“You can call it what you like but its basically how things work in Europe and Australia.”
Yes, ask the Spanish, Greeks, Italians, Portugese, Californians, Illinoisans et al how it is working. As I said, statism/fascism/social democracy may not destroy an economy right away. As I noted, the Soviet Union lasted for about 8 decades, and was even considered a super power for much of that time.
But just as a with a patient with cancer can appear to be perfectly healthy as the disease spreads through, and eats away at his internal organs, the end is inevitable, if you don’t get rid of the cancer.
It took about 80 years, and the cold war with the U.S. for the Soviet economy to finally fall under its own weight. Imagine if Europe, in addition to supporting an unsustainable welfare state for the entire populace, also had to pay for its own defense the last 40 years.
You progressives think that re=packaging your tried and failed policies makes them somehow more palatable. Global warming becomes climate change, which becomes climate disruption. Progressivism becomes liberalism, which becomes progressivism, which becomes “fairness” and “for the children.” Socialism becomes fascism, becomes the “third way” becomes democratic socialism.
But its always the same snake oil. And it is a cancer. The healthier the patient, the longer it can survive. But just as a cancer always spreads through the body if unchecked, so too central planners always seek more power over the economy and the polity.
Ever heard of the maxim – power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? It’s one of those conservative principles you all try so hard to discard.
I’ll use this discussion as a hook for my latest letter to The Australian:
“Further to Terry McCrann’s excellent piece (“Elite reveals tax-grab tendencies,” 9-10/2), government has NO right to private citizens’ assets. The population recognises that some things may be better done collectively, and that a democratically-elected, accountable, government may be the best means to achieve some of them. However, the scope of and funding for government are not theirs by right, they depend on a voluntary compact with the people. Politicians and bureaucrats who forget this are in breach of trust, and are not worthy of their privileged, taxpayer-funded, positions. They are our servants, not, as many appear to think, our masters.”
In Nye Bevan’s era, there were many politicians driven by principle and belief and regard for people’s well-being. That was still true in Australia’s Hawke government years (1985-91). There are few now, and those driven by belief tend to be ideological Left/Greens who do not have the people’s welfare at heart, and whose beliefs are misguided. Happy days.
I think the article was pretty explanitory on that. Unfortunately, we Americans are not the most language friendly folks in the world. There isn’t much emphasis on learning a second, let alone third or forth language. I have 3 degrees yet nothing more than 3 years of high school German.
Perhaps because of this lack of focus, Americans can exhibit a tendency to either make fun of or distrust someone speaking another language. Hell, we expect people to speak English when we visit their countries. Add to this a subset of folks who love French bashing – a hobby the French are pretty good at providing material for – and you get the story you link to. Kerry simply does not want to kick off his tour as State with yapping about his speaking French. No big deal.
In over a month now, no one on this blog has put forward a valid argument or suggested a valid mechanism which would explain how sufficient energy gets into the surface of Venus.
Give it some thought before reading my explanation here …
Sufficient energy? Like your highly questionable 10W/m^2?
The atmosphere of Venus is reasonably well understood. Not by you obviously. You think that high pressure and a gravitational field induces a high temperature in solids liquids and gases. You must think its very hot at the bottom of the sea. I do tend to think its pretty cold down there.
But maybe that’s not right? I must admit that I’ve never been there so I’ve never been able to measure the temperature. Do you think ‘they’ are lying to us? It could all be part of the big lie about climate change which ‘they’ must have been planning for years! That would explain it of course.
The ocean does not present you with any valid way of rebutting what I am saying, and that, by the way, has nothing to do with pressure. The 10W/m^2 is based on an estimate by the Russians who have “been” there in probes dropped onto the surface to measure the Sun’s radiation and the temperature. I have explained why the thermal gradient in the ocean is as observed in other comments, especially on Roy Spencer’s blog, and you will find more detail in my next paper soon to be published. It may help those with a genuine desire to understand, unlike yourself it seems.
Meanwhile you might like to explain why a study has found that, in this real world, water vapour cools and inland cities with high rainfall have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than those with a drier atmosphere above.
Backradiation does not warm Earth or Venus [or anywhere].
Sunlight does not directly warm the atmospheric gases on Earth
or on Venus.
It is true some people do think backradiation does warm earth,
and these people would probably say it does not matter how a
surface is warmed, but rather that any warm surface will cause backradiation.
It’s also true that a few people seem to think the sunlight directly
warms the CO2 gases on Earth, though the majority of the
deluded think it the warmed Earth surface which is radiating at
longwave infrared that is being affected by the CO2.
It seems to me that the sunlight is mostly warming liquids or
solids. And on Earth the ocean absorbs the most amount of
energy. And on land, sunlight warms the solid surfaces like sand, dirt,
and sidewalks which if in sunlight long enough will warm to the highest temperatures. And if you have a damp sidewalk it remain fairly cool
until such time as it dries up.
And seems the air of the atmosphere is warmed by the surfaces of liquids and solids, though the vast liquid known as oceans mostly warms the air by evaporating into a gas and as gas warms other gases.
Water maximum temperature is limited in how warm the sunlight can heat it, this limit is around 35 C, land surface can become hotter and warm air as much around 50 C.
If Earth was at Venus distance from the Sun, the most the sunlight could
warm water would be around 50 C. On land, the surfaces that warmed to about 70 C on Earth, at Venus distance would warm over 100 C. Such warmer surfaces could warm the air to around 70 C or higher.
When you go to elevation of Venus where the air pressure is equal
the Earth’s air pressure, the air temperature is about 70 C.
“Sunlight does not directly warm the atmospheric gases on Earth
or on Venus.”
Of course it does. Look at any energy diagram for Earth. What do you think the Venus atmosphere is made of? It’s over 96% carbon dioxide – quite able to absorb in the 2.7 micron band, and others like the 15 micron band which is also included in insolation, though I don’t expect you to believe me.
What “it seems” to you is a figment of your imagination, not based on real world physics.
“Of course it does. Look at any energy diagram for Earth. What do you think the Venus atmosphere is made of? It’s over 96% carbon dioxide – quite able to absorb in the 2.7 micron band, and others like the 15 micron band which is also included in insolation, though I don’t expect you to believe me.”
So of the 1363 watts per square at Earth distance.
CO2 is indicated absorb *some* of solar spectrum
between 2000 nm and 2250 nm [2.0 to 2.25 micron].
The intensity between 2000 nm and 2250 nm is
about, .2 watts per nm. So this totals is less than
50 watts per square meter for all the solar energy
between 2000 to 2250 nm.
And CO2 is absorbing about at most 20% of this total.
So you talking at most at about 10 watts of the 1363 watts
per square meter.
The 2700 nm is not shown on graph, but at earth distance
even a very wide band at 2700 and 15,000 nm, could at best total
to about 1 watt per square meter.
So the amount energy you talking about is less than
1 % of the solar flux.
And yes, I don’t think gas is directly warmed by sunlight.
BUT even we assume this is true- if CO2 absorbed of this
portion of solar spectrum and converted 100% of it into the kinetic energy of the gases- it’s insignificant amount of energy.
BPE has a figure of 16.8 watts per square meter for the solar radiation reaching the Venusian surface which I agree is lower than many would expect. Still, his figures end up being not far off the ones I worked out previously even though he’s obviously been much more thorough in his method.
I haven’t had time to digest everything he’s said but I’d just make a couple of points:
The GH effect isn’t just about back radiation from the surface of the planet. If solar energy is absorbed in Venusian clouds and reradiated as IR then that too will be radiated in all directions and warm the Venusian surface.
Even a small amount of heat can produce a high temperature if that heat is trapped . Consider putting an electrical heating element in a thermos flask filled with water. Apply a few watts of power and the water will eventually boil. Heat on the surface of Venus is also effectively trapped by the opaque nature of the Venusian atmosphere to IR radiation.
“Given that equation and those figures, F = 237 watts per square meter for the Earth.
Where did the figure of 1/4 come from? Well, Earth receives sunlight on its two-dimensional cross-sectional area (πR2), but its surface area (4πR2) is three-dimensional.”
Of course Earth doesn’t actually receive sunlight on two-dimensional cross-sectional area (πR2}, rather it actually receives sunlight on a
(4πR2) divided by 2.
Thinking of Earth receiving sunlight as flat disk is only a convenient
way of looking at it. The disk does indicate the max amount sunlight intersecting Earth. And from the is maximum amount of sunlight it is trying to determine how much of the sunlight energy is being captured.
So saying amount captured is total amount times .250 times .306.
So for say 100. It’s 7.65 captured. Or 7.65% of sunlight is captured.
Or 7.65% of sunlight is converted into heat.
Which actually is probably pretty close, but doesn’t tell you the temperature of Earth.
The 237 watts is say how sunlight is warming an average square meter constantly. Say you have something that could store 80% of sunlight.
Meaning 12 hours of sunlight and 80% of the energy is held or build up during the 12 hours. And solar pond is best I can think of which could get close to this [[at least in terms manageable portable scale]]. So I want to compare a place which gets about 237 watts times say 1.25. So 296 watts per square meter with constant sunlight.
How far is this away from the Sun?
Mars distance gets 600 watts per square meter.
So it’s some distance further from the the Sun than Mars is.
So I have space rock and it’s always pointed so it has one side is
facing the Sun. I put a solar pond like thing on the lit surface [the water must kept at a pressure [say 1 atm] so has it has transparent cover].
Now it seems possible that the solar pond would actually be warm enough to have liquid water, but it seems very unlikely the temperature
could reach as high as 10-20 C. And this is constant sunlight with somewhere around 80% sunlight being absorbed. And obviously there losses [I am heating the space rock a little bit and radiating the rest of the energy into space.
But where on Earth would the same solar pond have similar temperature. At 30 degree latitude it should average temperature
of 60 to 70 C. And I would say it would have to be poleward of 50 latitude.
So I would say the Earth does only convert only about 10% of the total sunlight from TOA into heat. Which means if Earth were colder it take awhile gain heat, but once warmer each night loses heat, which regained during the day. So this is the daily and seasonal heat budget.
But it say less about what the temperature of Earth is.
Earth’s Climate is all about the region around tropics which receives
most of solar energy. Somewhere between 30 latitude north and south getting 70- 80% of solar energy reaching the earth surface and converting more than 50% of it into heat.
OK I read up to this totally incorrect statement …
“The major mechanism by which Earth’s surface cools itself is by radiating about 371 watts per square meter”
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Of all the energy transferring from Earth’s surface to the atmosphere, two-thirds is by non-radiative processes, and one-third by radiation.
It you want to believe this greenhouse propaganda, that’s your choice, but every time you make a wrong statement in physics, I will draw your mistake to the attention of the silent readers.
Do you, tempterrain, really believe that the relatively cold clouds of Venus can radiate to the surface (apparently better than the Sun can) and add more thermal energy, thus heating a surface which is hundreds of degrees warmer than the clouds themselves. ?????????
And yet Doug, you fail to explain the excess dueterium in the atomosphere of Venus, and untill you do that, your theories that explain the temperature of Venus go into the dustbin where they belong.
Only the greenhouse effect can satisfactorily explain the excess dueterium.
Garbage. You explain why you think so, but if you fail to use correct physics (which you will) then you too will be exposed for your own travesty of physics – just like tempterrain and many before him on many climate blogs. Be the next!
Why Venus does not have a “runaway Greenhouse Effect”
Carbon dioxide has already almost saturated the Venus atmosphere – over 96/5%. Yet the temperature of the Venus surface can be calculated from the level of Solar insolation, the force of gravity, the specific heat of CO2 and not much else. The amount of incident Solar radiation has been measured from the surface and found to be about 10% of what earth’s surface receives. So that’s is all the energy that can be returned to the atmosphere from which back radiation is then supposed to multiply the energy by over 1,000 times, ending up with far more intensity than the Sun has outside the planet. It would take over 16,000W/m^2 to support the temperature of over 730K, even at the poles which receive less than 1 W/m^2 of direct Solar radiation.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can just as easily radiate energy away. It can’t transfer any heat whatsoever to a warmer surface. If you say it only slows cooling, then how did the Sun heat it to >730K in the first place so that cooling could be slowed?
No, there is a totally different mechanism involved, as in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms.”
.
Doug,
Can you explain how Venus came to have all that carbon dioxide?
The excess deuterium (spelled it right for a change) is evidence that Venus had a significant amount of water in its atmosphere at one time. That and the slow progression of the sun along the main sequence that increased the incoming energy from the sun and the increased greenhouse effect from the water vapor that did Venus in.
Nothng wrong with the physics of the greenhouse effect, it is your misunderstanding of physics that is the problem.
And Doug, you keep forgetting to include the energy absorbed by the atmosphere before it gets to the surface, might change your calculations in a significant way.
You are wrong, get over it.
BobIf you had read my paper on Planetary Surface Temperatures you would know full well that I am aware that the atmosphere of Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide, plus a little nitrogen and not much else of significance. The historic record of how deuterium (heavy hydrogen) caused the release of carbon dioxide from the surface is irrelevant. There is indeed plenty of carbon dioxide absorbing about 98% of the direct incident solar radiation (in the 2.7 micron band especially) and there’s also those clouds absorbing quite a bit. But the clouds are hundreds of degrees colder than the 720K surface, and most of the absorption is in the upper troposphere. So why is the troposphere colder at the top than at the bottom? How does the thermal energy go from a much less hot atmosphere to the far hotter surface? That is the process I’m asking you to explain, and which I may well be the first to explain with correct physics.
So Bob you think I have forgotten about the incident insolation absorbed by the Venus atmosphere. Here’s a quote from my paper …
… the temperature gradient is established naturally in the atmosphere, quite independently of whatever energy is coming from the surface. Clearly there is nowhere near enough energy from the surface of Venus, and possibly not enough even on Earth to warm the very base of the atmosphere.
Each atmosphere is quite capable of absorbing incident Solar radiation. Carbon dioxide, for example, can absorb in the 2 micron band. Thus there is no doubt that enough energy could have been absorbed quite easily over the life of each planet, and probably much more quickly than that.
As the energy is absorbed the more dense regions at the base are able to hold more molecules each with more kinetic energy, and so a higher temperature is measured there. As molecules move between collisions their trajectory must be influenced by the force of gravity, just as happens with any object in flight. This creates a greater propensity for more molecules to accumulate in lower regions of the atmosphere, but numbers are also limited by pressure considerations, and so kinetic energy will propel some molecules upwards. Equilibrium is established between these upward and downward tendencies and, as a result, a uniform temperature gradient is established.
Strictly speaking, the process does not have to involve individual molecules travelling relatively long distances, because the KE is passed from one to another in collision processes. It was originally thought that this diffusion process would ensure uniform temperature at all levels in a closed container. However, entropy must be maintained and this means that the sum (PE+KE) will remain constant for any particular molecule between collisions. The diffusion process “equals out” the above sum, not just KE. Hence, when equilibrium is established, we do indeed observe uniform entropy and temperature in any horizontal plane (because PE is constant) but in a vertical plane what we observe is uniform entropy, and this necessitates a temperature gradient because KE (which determines temperature) must vary with PE in order to keep the sum (PE+KE) constant.
The only alternative would be a naturally developed entropy gradient rather than a temperature gradient. This is about as implausible as it would be for an object not to accelerate when falling in a vacuum.
Now the interesting consequence is that the base of the atmosphere on Venus must therefore have become hot naturally of its own accord and actually heated the surface by both radiation and conduction at the interface. So, just as on Earth, the temperatures are close.
“Doug,
Can you explain how Venus came to have all that carbon dioxide?
The excess deuterium (spelled it right for a change) is evidence that Venus had a significant amount of water in its atmosphere at one time. ”
So the evidence is as according to wiki?
“Some evidence for this scenario comes from the extremely high Deuterium to Hydrogen ratio in Venus’ atmosphere, roughly ~150x that of Earth, since light hydrogen would escape from the atmosphere more readily than its heavier isotope, Deuterium” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
So what does earth have?
“An atmospheric deuterium emission of 330 R (1 R=106 photons cm−2 s−1) is observed for a tangent altitude of 110 km during Spacelab 1 mission launched on 28 November 1983. The (D/H) ratio of 3×10−4 is slightly enriched over the seawater value of 1.6×10−4.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v309/n5971/abs/309771a0.html
Venus:
“Using the high-resolution mode of the Inter-national Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE), we measured hydrogen Lyman-α-emission but found only an upper limit on deuterium Lyman-α-emission, from which we inferred a D/H ratio of less than 2–5 x 10−3. This is smaller by a factor of 3–8 than the D/H ratio derived from measurements by the Pioneer Venus Large Probe, and may indicate either a stratification of D/H ratio with altitude or a smaller overall ratio than previously thought.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6216/abs/338567a0.html
So 150 times 3×10^−4 or 1.6×10^−4. Is 4.5 10^-2 or 2.4 x 10^-2.
And Venus is 2–5 x 10^−3.
Or Venus has upper limit of about 15 times more deuterium not 150 times more than Earth.
And it seems there could many reasons, other than Venus once had ocean which could explain this difference.
Our Moon over billions of years has had hydrogen deposited in the regolith from solar wind. Here is reference: http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/ResourcesNearEarthSpace/resources15.pdf
[which won’t allow me to cut and paste a quote but it gives general info] . So says could 10^16 grams hydrogen from Sun in lunar regolith.
So around 10 billion tons of hydrogen.
90 billion tons of H20 has 10 billion tons of H2.
And billion tons of water is 1 cubic km of water.
This pretty small change in terms planetary quantities, but it seems that Venus atmosphere could capture more solar wind gases than the Moon- because Venus has no magnetic field, it’s closer to the Sun, and gases should better than fine dust at capture. Plus in process of capturing these gases from solar wind, it should favor collecting Deuterium, in same mechanism that with escaping Hydrogen gas from a planet, should favor Deuterium not escaping.
And finally Venus atmosphere has less hydrogen compounds then Earth’s atmosphere and ocean and thereby dilutes the amount deuterium in the ratio [and earth’s has strong magnetosphere blocks much of this solar wind].
Anyhow, lots of reasons why Venus has higher Deuterium and of course one the simple aspect of hydrogen exposed to sunlight [a huge fusion reactor] creates Deuterium. Low Deuterium ratio is found in hydrogen which has the least exposure to neutrons.
The earths total ice area is grossly estimated about
Greenland 2*10^6 km2
Arctic sea ice 10*10^6 km2 (average over a year)
Antarctica: 14*10^6 km2
Antarctic sea ice: 9*10^6 km2 (average over a year)
Mountain glaciers elsewhere neglected
Sum: 35*10^6 km2
Black carbon on ice is almost entirely assembled in the arctic and for simplicity I assume first, that all black carbon is on the Arctic multi year ice only.
The multi year sea ice recently was about 2-3*10^6 km2 plus Greenland is about 4.5 mill km2. This is about 13% of the total ice area.
The surface forcing of snow and ice on multi year ice in the Arctic is then 0.13W/m2/ 0.13 = 1.0 W/m2.
Above wikipedia link says:
“Soot deposition increases surface melt on ice masses, and the meltwater spurs multiple radiative and dynamical feedback processes that accelerate ice disintegration,” according to NASA scientists Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Larissa Nazarenko.[77] As a result of this feedback process, “BC on snow warms the planet about three times more than an equal forcing of CO2.”
Therefore I multiply the forcing by 3, which gives a total black carbon forcing on arctic mutli year ice of:
3*1.0 W/m2 + 0.97 W/m2 = 3.97 W/m2, by far the biggest forcing of all.
(If I assume that there is 5 times more black carbon on multi year ice than on Arctic non multi year ice, I would arrive at 3.22 W/m2).
Ridin’ down the high-way, mis-nomered free-way,
Direction’s been determined by a bunch of
Central planners. You may come to a junction, arrive
At a round-about, even take a fork-in-the-road, but
It won’t do- yer-any-good fer choices have
Been made, and how can yer presume ter decide
Fer yerself. Jest-keep-drivin’ in the zone and direction and at
The designated traffic-speed allowed.
Reminded me of one of my all time favorite songs…kinda:
Chewing on a piece of grass
Walking down the road
Tell me, how long before we all melt, Joe?
Some people say this town will not see more snow
It’s our fault, I know
Consensus Highway in the sunshine
Where the days are longer
The nights are warmer than our time
We’re gonna burn I know
‘Cause the free wind is blowin’ heated air
And the days are hotter ev’rywhere
Gaia’s crying in despair
Addlepated lizards in the air, in the air
Did di di di dit …
Wishin’ for a falling star
Waitin’ for just any rain
Sorry boy, but we’ve been hit by acid rain
Aw, come on, Joe, we’re all gonna die in flame
Oil’s to blame
Sorry my son, just the same
Consensus Highway in the sunshine
Where the days are longer
The nights are warmer than our time
We’re gonna burn I know
‘Cause the free wind is blowin’ heated air
And the days are hotter ev’rywhere
Gaia’s crying in despair
Addlepated lizards in the air, in the air
Over on the thread on Sensitivity, tempterrain, Peter Martin, claimed
@@@@@
I’d extend that slightly. It makes no policy difference if there is a significant possibility that S will exceed 2.5 degC.
Is anyone saying that there isn’t a significant possibility that it might?
@@@@@
I claim that there is no significant probability that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atrmosphere from curreentg levels will exceed 2.5 C. But Peter maintains, and I agree, that I dont qualify as “anyone”. I am one of Peter’s nobodies. Had Peter said NO possibility, I would have had to agree with him, since no-one has any idea what the CS of CO2 is. But he added “significant”.
Are there any other denizens of CE who will join me in the claim that there is no significant probability that the CS of CO2 aded to the atmosphere from current levels is greater than 2.5 C?
….two unintended consequences are what for some decades I have been calling “the risk compensation effect”.”
..”In one sense the war has indeed been lost. The myth of the efficacy of seat belts and seat belt laws is now so deeply entrenched that it appears to be immune to evidence. It is routinely advanced in support of other safety regulation, such as compulsory cycle helmets, as an example of the efficacy of measures that compel people to be safer than they voluntarily choose to be…”
The use, and/or efficacy, of carbon offsets come to mind after reading Dr. Adams post.
This just in from EIA. Note catastrophic prediction, for those who object to the CAGW acronym.
“Dear Climate-L colleagues,
I am pleased to announce that this year’s edition of IEA’s “Electricity in a Climate Constrained World” has been published, providing key data and policy analyses on the electricity sector’s climate change challenge. More details are provided below.
Best regards
Christina Hood
Environment and Climate Change Unit, IEA
Electricity in a Climate Constrained World
Each of the last several years has seen a fresh record high in global carbon dioxide emissions, and scientists say if this trend continues the planet will suffer a catastrophic increase in temperature. With electricity generation responsible for about half of recent growth in emissions, a new IEA book looks at ways the power sector can keep up with an improvement in global living standards while minimising the risk of drastic climate change.
In Electricity in a Climate Constrained World, IEA experts consider potential solutions ranging from the design of a Chinese emissions trading programme to stand-by consumption of networked appliances to carbon capture and storage.
The book lays out the reasons electricity generation must get cleaner, and do so quickly. Higher temperatures will affect all aspects of human life, including the very electricity sector that emits so much of the cause of climate change.
In general, the solutions are well-known: increased energy efficiency, greater research and development of low-carbon energy production, and putting a realistic price on carbon. The problem lies in squaring these imperatives with the demand for energy that comes from a richer and more populous world.
Each of the 10 chapters in Electricity in a Climate Constrained World provides specific and detailed information on the book’s mission to help the electricity sector reduce its impact on global temperatures. Some of them apply to particular countries, such as the examination of Brazil’s potential for generating electricity from the by-products of sugarcane, while others monitor the entire sector, like a consideration of how different policy approaches to reducing emissions can work together. Chapters included are:
1- “Saving electricity in a hurry: an update” revisits how countries have dealt with electricity shortfalls, such as the post-Fukushima limitations in Japan. Building on IEA analysis in 2005, looks at best practice for emergency energy-saving programmes, the tools officials can use to cut energy use quickly and how such measures can lead to sustained energy savings.
2- “How can we make an Internet-surfing microwave oven go to ‘sleep’?” looks into the role of smart appliances in increasing household power consumption. Within ten years, there will be about 100 billion devices hooked to the Internet, machines that now run at full power while awaiting online instructions.
3- “State-owned enterprises and their domestic financial base: two keys to financing our low-carbon future” analyses the importance of mobilizing the “quasi-public” sector to invest in low-carbon infrastructure.
4- “From deregulation to decarbonisation of the electricity sector” looks back at changes in the power industry with an eye to reconciling climate-change and industrial policies.
5- “An emissions trading system for China’s power sector” examines how the state-controlled industry can successfully adopt a trading system that will especially less CO2 from smaller and less-efficient coal plants.
6- “Managing policy interactions in the electricity sector for least-cost climate response” shows how the right mix of multiple approaches can significantly reduce the cost of cutting emissions
7- “Tracking clean energy progress in the electricity sector” assesses the transition so far in moving towards a low-emissions approach to electricity production and consumption.
8- “The role of electricity storage in providing electricity system flexibility” addresses the opportunities and problems of different methods of storing electricity when it is sunny or windy and then recovering that power after the sun sets or the air is still.
9- “Potential for bioelectricity in Brazil from sugarcane residual biomass” considers the full potential of using bagasse, which is left over from processing sugarcane, to potentially triple its share in the country’s power mix.
10- “Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: the negative emission concept”, sees a potential win-win situation in generating electricity from biomass and then storing the CO2 underground. Strict standards will be necessary to advance policies supporting this controversial option.
Detailed charts and summaries at the end of the book assess the relationship of electricity and carbon emissions by global region, listing the latest data on electricity output and emissions; CO2 intensity; end-uses; the share of low-carbon technologies; and additions in power generation capacity.
Electricity in a Climate Constrained World is now on sale and may be ordered from the IEA Bookshop. Please send a request by email to books@iea.org, or click here. Accredited journalists who would like to speak with one of the report’s authors, or who would like to receive a review copy of the report, are invited to send a request by e-mail to IEAPressOffice@iea.org.
Climate and Electricity Annual 2011, the previous edition in the series, can now be downloaded here for free. It contains eight more analyses by IEA experts on critical topics for electricity-sector decarbonisation.”
No I am not joking. Most of us look at what is going on in China thru a ‘Western’ lens. I.E. We assume most of the coal is being consumed in the electricity sector as it is in the west.
We assume all coal plants in China are baseload, as they are in the west…but since they have almost no natural gas most coal plants in china are actually ‘peakers’.
That gives us a lot of ‘nonsense’ that various people toss about. i.E. IIRC Peabody multiplies 4 million tons/GW for coal fired plants in China…a reasonably accurate rule of thumb in the US where coal fired plants are mostly baseload…but a worthless metric in China where 60% of generating capacity are ‘peakers’ just as in the US, the difference being ‘Chinese’ peakers are coal fired vs natural gas fired in the US or Europe.
Of course Peabody’s efforts to ‘reassure’ it’s share holders of a robust future coal market then bleed into the ‘climate concerned’ literature and we end up with ‘confirmation’.
A propaganda match made in Hell to be sure. Peabody needs to reassure it’s shareholders and issues ‘optimistic’ projections of China’s coal consumption in the electricity sector…then Climate Alarmists…needing to underscore the ‘need for urgent action’ then confirm it with some nonsense of their own.
China is actually doing reasonably well at controlling coal consumption in the electricity sector. In 2012 renewable’s made up 90+% of the growth in electricity consumption.
Most of the coal in China is not being consumed in the electricity sector. Only about half is being consumed in the electricity sector.
Most of the coal in China is being consumed in steel, cement, chemicals and residential heating.
They have a building boom going on. Continued growth in coal consumption in China is therefore predicated on an acceleration of the building boom going on in China.
Unfortunately, their population growth is very close to non-existent now. In addition there is a lot of room for ‘process improvement’ in their cement industry.
How one accelerates and sustains a building boom where the rate of building already exceeds population growth is beyond my ability to comprehend. Maybe someone at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac can explain it.
Climate alarmists and coal companies seeking to reassure their shareholders have ‘magically’ concluded that this is what will happen.
I would note that Peabody coal is trading at about 1/3 of it’s 2008 peak. If they were going to be making ‘real money’ in China somehow I think their stock would be doing better.
Harry, I am well aware of patterns of coal use in China; in fact I had a client looking at buying power plants there. I used to track coal fired power for Electricity Daily. The building boom may or may not level off but they have just begun to consume electricity. Moreover most power generation is done at the municipal level where the national government has little control. But my point was that the speech you cited in no way means China is capping coal consumption by government action. Economics may cap it but not the central government.
Renewables always grow strongly when they are negligible.
Kim, they are building entire cities and not just a few. An economic miracle, an industrial revolution, rising out of poverty, something we should celebrate but complain about instead.
Kim, keep in mind that we were promised a trillion dollars worth of “infrastructure” in exchange for the “stimulus”, and got bupkis instead. There just isn’t any demand for cement in the US. This isn’t like the 1930s, when we got some actual construction out of the “stimulus” deal.
It’s a shovel-ready government program. The weather event-naming department is also working on regulations for naming whirlwinds, tempests, squalls and really cloudy days.
When disaster strikes it takes more not less energy. Why would the Left cause a man-made disaster by making what you need in a diisaster more expensive?
Today it highlights a billboard that asks a question:
Who do you believe:
(1) “Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come.” Al Gore
or
(2) “We can’t attribute any single event to global warming.” Barack Obama
Apparently it never occurred to either the billboard creators or Anthony, that the questions do not present a requirement of picking one statement in contrast to the other. Typically, climate scientists have said that while a specific event like Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change, an extreme event like Sandy is a sign of things to come.
At least some of Anthony’s crew picked up that the two statements are not necessarily in conflict. Gotta give them credit for that.
Once again the old question: With more energy in the system(if) will weather become more extreme or will the diminished difference between the poles and the equator mean less extreme weather.
In either case, the change won’t likely exceed historical(paleontological?) ranges.
=============
Kim, actually with the same amount of energy entering the system but less energy leaving, the overall energy flux must be less – meaning less extreme weather.
Or am I missing something?
When 60 mph rear-ends 55 mph there is much more energy in the system than when 60 mph rear ends 10 mph. Yet, the dent will be smaller (unless it all goes off the road , that is), because the differential is smaller.
No eagerness to defend Gore here. He’s a blowhard of the first order. I have disagreed with his politics since he first gained prominence, and grew to have a dislike for his personality (even if I try not to indulge in personality politics). What I do find amusing, however, is how obsessed some “skeptics” are with their hatred of Gore; Yet another example of the rhetorical excess of climate combatants like Watts.
Joshua, I see nothing like that, rather a well-placed disdain for someone who feels qualified to make pronouncements on climate, while very publicly demonstrating his woeful ignorance about the temperature of the Earth’s interior.
Typically, climate scientists have said that while a specific event like Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change, an extreme event like Sandy is a sign of things to come.
That’s precisely the foolishness WuWT is pointing to.
We take you at your word when you say your technical depth on the topic is limited.
No need to exhibit it by indicating that Sandy in anyway is a human induced event or reflects in anyway what we will experience as a result of human activities.
Three signs of a climate activist:
1) Thinks Big Oil is spending billions to keep the truth of climatic disaster from us.
2) Considers Stephen Lewandowski to be a credible researcher.
3) Points to every news generating weather event as proof of human induced climate change.
Ehrlich (ar’likh)
-n. A spectacularly wrong prediction. (e.g. The tabloid’s year end psychic predictions all turned out to be Ehrlichs.)
-v. 1. To not pan out. (e.g. The ponzi scheme started out fine, but then it Ehrliched.)
2. To not admit a mistake. (e.g. The drunk who caused the five car pileup Ehrliched.)
-adj. Wrong, incorrect. (e.g. The Mayan Calendar end of the world prediction turned out to be Ehrlich.)
I’ve arranged to send the climate back to when it was good. This is being done through an array of taxes, regulations etc based on non-Kardashian models. But I have a prob, so I’m asking around. Here’s the question I’ve been posting.
I still can’t get a date, not even ballpark, for when the climate, especially our Oz climate, was stable/normal/non-extreme. Any ideas, anybody? I’m so disappointed when I’m told that such-and-such an event is the worst or most extreme in a hundred years. Being a redneck doofus, I assume that means we’ll have to wind the clock back further than a hundred years to return to the good old stable times. Clever people see the word “worst” and conclude that something is new, but I see the word “ago” and assume that something is therefore not new.
For example, a hundred years “ago” in my region of Oz we were setting monthly heat and drought records which still stand. If I roll back over 150 years, the Darling River had stopped flowing. If I roll back over 200 years, there was that horror El Nino of the early 1790s. (It was like this year’s heatwave but not relieved by rain after a mere few days. It went on and bloody on.) In between we had wet times, but I’m a bit concerned at going back to the serial storms of the 1970s or the flood catastrophes of the 1890s and 1950s.
Help! I have ordered my Time Machine but don’t know what year to set it for!
Well, we here in the northeast just got 30+ inches of snow last night. Biggest storm ever recorded here in our town. Been digging out all day, helping neighbors, still many side streets with no way to get out yet. Just another extreme weather event that will be used to say ‘this is the new normal’ by those who promote alarmism. Gone are the days days of ‘weather isn’t climate’. So we live in the new normal age…. I dunno if that’s true or if its just ‘back to normal’.
John, back when you were having the mother of all blizzards, in 1888, Sydney had a year so dry the record stands to this day. When the Long Island Express ripped through your north east in 1938 (160 mph, Cat 5, landing as 3) eastern Oz was on the verge of its most lethal natural disaster, the ’38-39 heatwave, which just exceeded the death toll from our heatwave of 1895-96.
Beth, as you know, my goal is to become a hipster intellectual, speak fluent irony, talk like a bad German translation, quote Kahneman etc. Looks like I’ll be voting for Barack, which is a good start.
But they won’t be taking my parachute pants. From these cold dead legs…
KK[Keith Kloor]: I question if there is really this breach of trust between the climate science community and the general public. Again, the average person is probably not paying much attention to these fractious debates between skeptics and a subset of the climate science community. I mean, every profession gets dinged by its share of controversies. The foundation for anthropogenic global warming rests on numerous solid pillars, which you agree with. So how is that a batch of intemperate emails and a decade-old scientific controversy over the hockey stick can rock this foundation, which is what you seem to be arguing?
JC [Judith Curry]: Evidence that the tide has changed include: doubt that was evidenced particularly by European policy makers at the climate negotiations at Copenhagen, defeat of a seven-year effort in the U.S. Senate to pass a climate bill centered on cap-and-trade, increasing prominence of skeptics in the news media, and the formation of an Interacademy Independent Review of the IPCC. Concerns about uncertainty and politicization in climate science are now at the forefront of national and international policy. There is an increasing backlash from scientists and engineers from other fields, who think that climate science is lacking credibility because of the politicization of the subject and the high confidence levels in the IPCC report. While these scientists and engineers are not experts in climate science, they understand the process and required rigor and the many mistakes that need to be made and false paths that get followed.
Further, they have been actively involved in managing science and scientists and in assessing scientists. They will not be convinced that a “likely” level of confidence (66-89% level of certainty) is believable for a relatively new subject, where the methods are new and contested, experts in statistics have judged the methods to be erroneous and/or inadequate, and there is substantial disagreement in the field and challenges from other scientists. The significance of the hockey stick debate is the highlighting of shoddy science and efforts to squash opposing viewpoints, something that doesn’t play well with other scientists. Energy Secretary and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu made this statement in an interview with the Financial Times:
First, the main findings of IPCC over the years, have they been seriously cast in doubt? No. I think that if one research group didn’t understand some tree ring data and they chose to admit part of that data. In all honesty they should have thrown out the whole data set.
But you don’t need to be a Nobel laureate to understand this. I have gotten many many emails from scientists and engineers from academia, government labs and the private sector. As an example, here is an excerpt from an email I received yesterday: “My skepticism regarding AGW has been rooted in the fact that, as an engineer/manager working in defense contracts [General Dynamics], I would have been fired, fined (heavily) and may have gotten jail time for employing the methodology that [named climate scientists] have used.”
One reason is a simple and and relates to a quite mild correction I made. That the difference between figures being quoted on crude oil was the inclusion in one of natural gas liquids and not in the other. Webby insisted that the difference was biofuels – which didn’t figure in either. A simple point and so began the usual song and dance of obfuscation and misdirection. Webby complains that I am a larrikin – anti authoritarian. I am sure that if he had any I would defer. But as I have explained – the larrikin hero is our most sacred ideal of nationhood. It is an ideal of honesty, fair play, respect for women and care for children, a lack of pretence and an unflinching egalitarianism. The Aussie larrikin has only contempt for obfuscation and prevarication.
Odd as well – this repetitive sockpuppet plaint. Everyone knows who I am – i was made clear up front. Biosketch. Robert styles himself in the blogosphere as a Chief Hydrologist. ‘Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.’
Of late I have dropped the handle to see if the level of civility from such as the webnutcolonoscope improved. Unfortunately not in my dealing with webby in particular – so I have slipped back into the old and comfortable sockpuppet. I have said this to him. How often do I need to say these things to avoid the idiotic repetition of pointless complaints? Btw – I can neither confirm or deny that I am Captain Kangaroo – it is a closely guarded secret of the climate war privy only to a few on a need to know basis – and cowgirls with lassos.
The complaint about the simple energy equation is odd indeed. Because we are talking differentials energy is obviously in units of Joules per second – or unit energy. There is a similar hydrological equation of storage.
dS/dt = I – Q
Where dS/dt is the change in storage in a reach, I is inflow and Q is outflow. I and Q are expressed in terms of m3/s and not m3 – it doesn’t any sense at all unless you have time varying quantities on both sides of the equation. Does this need to be stated explicitly in such a simple formulation? I don’t think so – it is obvious that we are dealing with time varying quantities because it is a differential equation.
Having studied both engineering – with a major in hydrology – and environmental science. You may assume that I am familiar with dimensional analysis. So we have several pointless and repetitive quibbles, and lies and prevarication – all of which I find contemptible for a lack of manly virtues. Which being Australian and egalitarian we apply to women as well. A larrikin girl is a force of nature.
This is such a simple idea of the change in energy in the system – effectively global warming or cooling – results from an energy imbalance at TOA. By all means convert your power flux to energy terms by multiplying by time – but don’t bother to prevaricate and obfuscate any more. Derive the diffrentil for yourself in energy terms and express it how you will.
The equation is a complete description of the global energy budget – simple aye. You can use ARGO to determine whether dS/dt is positive or negative and SORCE TSI and CERES trends to look at why.
FUD will not work – only honesty and good faith in the long term.
dS/dt = Energy in – Energy out …by the 1st law of thermodynamics.
I suppose you are capable of understanding simple 1st order differential equations? dS/dt is the change in energy stored in the global system as a result of an energy imbalance at TOA – which I believe is the standard explanation.
The ineptitude of the Chief is clear. He can’t even get a simple differential equation dimensionally correct.
On the left hand side he has something per unit time, while on the right hand side he has energy units. He posts this over and over again, without ever correcting it. ,
The worst part is that he tries to hide his mistake by commenting in a different thread, thinking that no one would be able to track down the offending math.
If you want an example of a major league scientific poseur and multiple sockpuppet troll, the chief is your go-to guy. I like the way his Aussie Larrikin buddies like Ianl8888 stick up for him.
Not sure what ‘S’ represents in hydrology (but probably not entropy or Siemens). Regardless, WHT still has a point. One of the dS/dt equations has units of power, the other of energy.
would dS be change in storage? Like a change in hydraulic head? Still I don’t get the volume units for I & Q. Shouldn’t there also be time in the denominator?
Please do not flame me. I admit to being not even remotely the expert you are. OTOH I did ace fluid dynamics at the university level. What am I missing here?
It really shows the difference in the levels of abilities on this site. We have guys like Pekka, Nick Stokes, and Mosh willing to dive into the physics while all the skeptics look on like frightened kittens.
And then old Chief comes is and says with mock authority:
“I suppose you are capable of understanding simple 1st order differential equations? “
And then he completely messes up the one and only equation that he has ever posted here, and one that he has repeatedly copied-and-pasted for the last couple of years. This is also the one equation that he never corrects, even though we always tell him that it is not dimensionally correct.
Where ΔS is the change is energy stored in the climate system over any perod. This is a statement of energy conservation.
We can divide both sides by time to get:
dS/dt (J/s) = energy in (J/s) – energy out (J/s)
The equation is a complete description of the global energy budget. You can use ARGO to determine whether dS/dt is positive or negative and SORCE TSI and CERES trends to look at why.
Now let’s get back to the hydrological equation of storage.
ΔS (m3) = inflow (m3) – outflow (m3)
Where ΔS is the change in hydrologic storage in the river reach or a pond or dam. We can again divide by time to get:
dS/dt (m3/s) = inflow (m3/s) – outflow (m3/s)
The webster simply confuses the issue as usual. He has not the slightest clue about anything very much – and is loud and obnoxiously insulting invariably. The differential is derived in the usual way and expressed in a standard notation. He makes much of something that is implicit in the derivation and goes off on some ridicuous crusade about dimensions.
The formula is conceptually correct. The change in energy storage in the climate system – effectively warming or cooling – is equal to the difference between energy in and energy out in any period. This is an idea that is the core of AGW. Now he may think about this in any way he likes – but to wilfully continue to spread confusion is beyond the pale.
It is a way of thinking about trends in TOA radiant flux, total solar irradiance and atmospheric and ocean heat content.
It is ok to look at an impoundment’s net change in static energy as simply the change in volume. But when you “average” the volume change by dividing by the time period, I would think you are calculating the power. Still looks messed up to me. How about we let Peter Lang settle this?
Also, I just went through all 13 chapters of hydrologic equations in this book. And so will have to cut you at least some slack.
It’s weird, but some symbols may have different meanings, depending upon context. For example, Q may be transport rate with (expected) dimension volume/time. Or it may be runoff depth (9.3). Even weirder, even in the same context (such as runoff depth) the dimensions may not be consistent you can use either mm OR mm/hr(!) provided all units are consistent within the same calculation.
No it’s not.
The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval.
When you write:
dS/dt = Energy in – Energy out
That is fundamentally and conceptually incorrect.
No wonder you don’t understand that a net radiative imbalance will lead to heating of the earth.
You don’t seem to understand any of the fundamental principles of physics.
This is a statement of energy conservation and shows the warming or cooling of the planet (ΔS) as a function of energy imbalance at TOA.
The power flux is defined as Watts or Watts/m2. Unit energy is defined as the power flux for 1 second. 1 Watt for 1 second is 1 Joule in SI units. I realise Americans are staunch defenders of imperial units – and so miss some of the easy connections that in the ‘Système International d’unités’.
Power is a flux at any one time – energy is a product of the power flux over a period of time.
Joule (J) – energy, work, heat – dimensions are kg⋅m2⋅s^−2
Watt (W) – power, radiant flux – dimensions are kg⋅m2⋅s^−3
Multiply 1 Watt by 1 second – and you get what?
It is amazing that the webster – who I thought was an electrical engineer – can get such basic definitions of power and energy wrong. No wonder he has problems with what is a simple statement of energy imabalance.
But the energy imbalance is not the contrived one of some 0.85 W/m2 – but the real one that is seen in data at top of atmosphere.
Here is the ccean heat content – http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/key_figures/OHC_update.jpeg – so we presume that the energy imbalance is positive in the period. SORCE is negative a little. So the change comes from energy out. This is as both reflected shortwave and emitted longwave. The big change in the period is in reflected shortwave. Ergo – it is clouds that have changed the energy balance in the period.
As I discussed with mosher earlier – the epistemic problem is the reliablitity of the data – but the data is what it is.
Surprise me webby – let’s see what new lies and prevarication will emerge.
Your hydrological equation represents the change in gravitational potential energy due to a change in impoundment volume. Set one or another of inlet or outlet to zero, put a turbine in the other and let things flow.
As gravitational potential energy is converted into rotational kinetic energy, the instantaneous power delivered to the turbine (not counting inefficiencies) will be dS/dt, no? But that is what you are calling average energy.
btw all Americans are schooled in SI units. Engineers and scientists work in them. Conversions to English units, if required, is done in the last step by applying a conversion factor.
OK Chief, now that you have the definition dimensionally correct, you can go get a job as a cashier. Understanding how to make change is a big part of the skill set.
The storage is the difference in areas between two graphs. Zero at some time in the future – increasing while the inflow is greater than the outflow – and decreasing when outflow is greater than inflow. It is a flood hydograph – so not constant but varies through a storm. In this case the objective is to reduce downstream flooding by routing a storm flow through a temporary water storage.
Yes. I found this form of the temporary storage eq some 6 hours ago.
S = 0.5 t ( qi − qo )
where:
S is the temporary storage volume
t is the base time of the inflow hydrograph
qi is the peak inflow rate
qo is the peak outflow rate.
And my immediate thought was this: q is flow rate (m3/s). Given constant pressure, power is proportional to flow rate.
Granted this is my first exposure to hydrologic storage equations. But how would one calculate the dissipated power in this case? See? You would calculate your “avg. net energy” (difference the qs and divide by time). Then multiply by contant conversion factor and voila. dissipated power. Something like that.
The formula you cite is one used to approximately determine the size of detention basin needed to reduce a flood peak.
It is the first step in design and not one that I would generally use. I would just totally guess and run it through a rainfall/runoff model with a basin routine.
Try Bernoulli’s Principle – ‘can be derived from the principle of conservation of energy. This states that, in a steady flow, the sum of all forms of mechanical energy in a fluid along a streamline is the same at all points on that streamline. This requires that the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy remain constant. Thus an increase in the speed of the fluid occurs proportionately with an increase in both its dynamic pressure and kinetic energy, and a decrease in its static pressure and potential energy. If the fluid is flowing out of a reservoir, the sum of all forms of energy is the same on all streamlines because in a reservoir the energy per unit volume (the sum of pressure and gravitational potential ρ g h) is the same everywhere.’
The change in storage is the volume at one time less that volume some time later. This is equal to the difference between inflow and outflow – in m3 or whatever Americans use for volume – in the period.
The differential is simply a convention that allows other things to be done – such as analytically solving it for certain configurations or numerically solving it using the Runge-Kutta 4th order scheme or any of a number of numerical methods.
I think I will leave the energy budget at – ΔS = Energy in – Energy out – in future. As there is only a mixture of anomalies and absolute values that are quite likely to be wrong – no actual calcualtion is possible. Only the trend in SORCE-TSI, CERES and ARGO is your friend.
and you realise by now that energy is a the product of power flux and time.
So we can do the calculus transformation and divide both sides by time.
dS/dt (J/s) = Average unit Energy in (J/s) – Average unit Energy out (J/s)
But that is a bit clumsy – so let’s say –
dS/dt (J/s) = Energy in (J/s) – Energy out (J/s) – in the expecttion that there can be no one clueless enough to say something like – ‘energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval’.
The differential gives us some clues as to what sort of operations can be performed to give meaningful results. I have of course a job as an engieer and environmental scientist. And you are utterly pathetic.
The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval…
You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.
Again and again and again we get nonsense, prevarication and obfuscation from this person. He finally agrees to the simple notion of the global energy budget – and then goes into a rant about missing heat. I show him the data and how it is understood in terms of the global energy budget and he calls me a mad man. The pattern is familiar and unfortunate.
The guy is both a fool and a fraud. Anyone disagree?
So you tried to fix it and now all you can do is create recursive links to yourself.
You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.
Where exactly did that heat come from – the sun was cooling in the period -http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Energy in declined?
So energy out must have declined either as reflected shortwave or emitted infrared. Guess which one?
This data is the best that we have ever had – and to reject any of it wholesale is just stupid. For instance – should we accept that net radiant flux at TOA is increasing and not that reflected short wave decreased and IR did nothing?
This is simply a matter of understanding the simple energy budget and seeing which way the power flows.
‘To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.’
What can you do with such a putz. I quote Macbeth and he goes of on some tangent about gravatars and mad men. He is of course the idiot telling a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Instead of anything relevant and sciency in response he simply calls me a mad man.
Christ – the ignorance of this turd on legs is astonishing.
Should be here – confusion reigns and it seems quite deliberate.
The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval…
You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.
Again and again and again we get nonsense, prevarication and obfuscation from this person. He finally agrees to the simple notion of the global energy budget – and then goes into a rant about missing heat. I show him the data and how it is understood in terms of the global energy budget and he calls me a mad man. The pattern is familiar and unfortunate.
The guy is both a fool and a fraud. Anyone disagree?
Pure projection. Chief has answers for everything yet can’t do dimensional analysis correctly. I will document the atrocity on the field guide to climate clowns.
I can’t believe that Google Scholar has indexed the comments section of sites such as this one, WUWT, and other crackpot enclaves.
and you realise by now that energy is a the product of power flux and time.
So we can do the calculus transformation and divide both sides by time.
dS/dt (J/s) = Average unit Energy in (J/s) – Average unit Energy out (J/s)
But that is a bit clumsy – so let’s say –
dS/dt (J/s) = Energy in (J/s) – Energy out (J/s)
– in the expecttion that there can be no one clueless enough to say something like – ‘energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval’.
The dimensions are simple to the level of triviality. Surely it is a matter of trying to confuse something simple. Although his definitions of power and energy above are just so wrong as to be incredible for something so basic. Such unbelievably basic errors – such a narrow exposure to scientific literature – and behviour in such poor taste and bad faith.
I have been forthcoming and honest – but have wasted enough time and energy with this person.
It’s ok to use a hydrological approach for energy balance calculations. However, when analogizing the temporary storage equation you made a couple of mistakes.
Look at two forms of the eq.
(1) S = t ( qi − qo ) /2
(2) ΔV = (vin -vout )/2
In (2), it is easy to see that the proper way to calculate temporary storage (analgous to energy) is to average by dividing by two, NOT TIME!
Yes, it indeed looks like the chief invented his own set of units to describe S. It has the units of mass * length^2 / time.
Never ran into that one before, perhaps Chief’s space cadets have seen it in some alternate universe.
It’s ok to use a hydrological approach for energy balance calculations. However, when analogizing the temporary storage equation you made a couple of mistakes.
Look at two forms of the eq.
(1) S = t ( qi − qo ) /2
(2) ΔV = (vin -vout )/2
In (2), it is easy to see that the proper way to calculate temporary storage (analgous to energy) is to average by dividing by two, NOT TIME!
Gee I will have to go back to hydrological school and explain how they are all wrong.
The first form – as I have explained – is an approximation used for initial design. It desn’t mean anything in terms of a physical description.
The second is simply incorrect. We are not averaging but simply taking a value at t1 and subtracting a value at t2 to get the difference.
If the global heat content is x Joules at r1 and y Jules at t2 – the change (delta) is x – y.
So we have – let’s stick with energy –
ΔS = energy in – energy out
Each of these has units of Joules. Now we can leave it like that and it is perfectly OK. Or we can divide by time to express it as a 1st order differential equation. The differential is obtained by considering time in the usual way – we really want to divide by time. The units would all be Joules/s in that case. Either way it is a simple statement of energy conservation. You can then use ocean heat content and SORCE and CERES data to answer the question of whether the world is warming or cooling – from 2 different angles ocean heat and energy imbalance – and whether it is due to total solar irradiance, reflected shortwave or emitted infrared. It is simply a way of thinking rigorously about the planetary energy budget and trends in energy. An actual calculation is not possible because of the vagaries of data – but it is still instructive and the data is improving all the time.
If you want to look at hydraulic energy – look at Bernoulli’s Principle as I have said above. There are factors of kinetic energy, potential energy, pressure and density to be taken into account to look at energy in a flow. Velocity is just one factor in the hydraulic energy equation – so your ‘analogy ‘ is not even close.
As for webby – I suppose I can waste a little more time.
Yes, it indeed looks like the chief invented his own set of units to describe S. It has the units of mass * length^2 / time.
Never ran into that one before, perhaps Chief’s space cadets have seen it in some alternate universe.
The wildly inaccurate characterisation from webby is quite astonishing. I can only think it is deliberate BS or some strange aberration of reasoning. Either way – it is not worth considering. I advise you to ignore it.
By the way – the equations are not analogies. Both are continuity equations. Hydrology is conservation of mass and the energy budget is conservation of energy. They have the same form and both are derived from 1st principles.
CH: dS/dt = average energy in – average energy out
The LHS is measured in Joules/second (Watts), the RHS in Joules.
The equation cannot be correct (and isn’t correct). (Hint: not average energy in/out, but average energy in/out per second )
The total energy in a period is divided by time to get an average – so the units fall out as J/s. If you have 3 Joules for 3 secinds and 5 Joules for 3 seconds – the average is 4J/s.
Kim @ 5.15pm, ‘Erlich’s twitter feed, Kim? More like cawing of crows
in immemorial elms:
‘Light thickens
And the crow makes wings to the rooky wood.
Good things of day begin to droop and drowse,
While night’s black agents to their preys do rouse.’
Surely there’s a line from Malcolm. I’m jes gonna have to go look. For sure, this CAGW has been an illegitimate grab for power. Let me count the tragedies.
=================
Magic pudding, Chief H? Yer don’t hafta be an Einstein ter know
there’s – no- such – thing – as – a – free – lunch.
( Say, why do I have this compulsion ter hyphenate?)
Beth, that’s “each one to his own acute inflammatory arthritis,” the pain of wwhich leads to the sufferer’s bloviation, regurgitation etc, depending on their innate tendencies.
Could it be that that the climate controversy is now over, at least as far as policy is concerned?
“Luke-warmers”, when pressed for a 90% confidence figure for Climate Sensitivity will usually give a value somewhere in the range of 1.2C to 2.4C.
In giving this, they are stating that it is likely that if we continue business as usual up to 2050, the planet is going to cross the 2C increase threshold at some point in the future.
The 2C threshold has been set as something to be avoided, since it is projected to mean that hundreds of millions of people will be subjected to water problems (droughts and floods), with 30% of species, including corals, at risk of extinction. There will be problems with food production. Some regions may gain, but others will lose. Damage from floods and storms will increase, especially around the coast, and there will be major health effects.
Of course, some lukewarmers will then begin to argue that the effects of a 2C increase have been wrongly forecast on the alarmist side, or that the precautionary principle can be set aside.
On the other hand, other lukewarmers may well agree that we should continue with the decarbonisation programme that is already started in many countries and localities.
This is not to call an end to the fun for the climatologists. There is still plenty to argue about, but as far as policy goes, someone should tell the policy makers the good news that the reasonable climate skeptics are now on the side of decarbonising the world economy.
docrichard you write “Could it be that that the climate controversy is now over, at least as far as policy is concerned?”
No, definitely not. Those of us who believe in the scientific method, insist that the only proper values for climate sensitivity must be based on empirical data; hypothetical, meaningless estimations, which are the basis for the numbers which you have quoted, are useless; for any purpose, but particularly for advising politicians.
Such little empirical data as we have gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity for CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels is indistinguishable from zero.
Jim
I do not know of any work that concludes that climate sensitivity is zero. Do you?
It would imply that any factor heating the global climate by 1C would end up cooling it by 1C. It is difficult to put forward a mechanism for that.
Empirical, observational works, of which there have been a few recently, come up with a CS of between 1C and 2.4C.
Bishop Hill, a well-known contrarian blogger, covers this figure here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/1/climate-sensitivity-and-the-stern-report.html
He has a blanket ban on any work that involves a computer model.
dr, you make the beginner’s mistake with Jim. He specified ‘indistinguishable from zero, empirically, so far’. You read something different.
=============
docrichard, you write “I do not know of any work that concludes that climate sensitivity is zero. Do you?”
Sort of. It is basically my own idea; I can never publish it, but I post it regularly on Climate Etc., and any other blogs I can. So far, no-one has convinced me that I am wrong. I have been unable to find any measurable CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. This does not mean that one does not exist; merely that I cannot find one. Beenstock and Reingewertz analysed this sort of data using advanced statictical techniques (which I dont understand), and concluded that there is no CO2 signal.
IF, and it is a mighty big IF, but if there is no measurable CO2 signal against the background noise of natural variability, then it is axiomatic from simple signal to noise ratio physics, that the effect of CO2 on global temperatures cannot be measured. The way I put it, there is an indication from the limited empirical data we have, that the climate sensitivity of CO2, added to the atmosphere from current levels, is indistinguishable from zero
But that is the extent of my reasoning. It is very basic and very simple, but I am convinced by it
Manacker
Atmospheric physicist, whether mainstream or contrarian, are agreed that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a global temperature rise of about 1.2C. Climate sensitivity estimations are concerned with the response of the climate to this 1.2C increase.
I know that many do not believe in the greenhouse effect, do not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and do not believe that CO2 has increased in concentration since 1750. I’ve not found that meaningful dialogue is possible with these beliefs.
Heh, dr, no wonder you don’t find much meaningful dialogue with that triad. There are vanishingly few such absolute adherents, yet you ‘know’ that many do not believe a,b,c.
===================
Manacker said “An equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.2C to 2.4C does NOT result in warming exceeding 2C.”
In that 2C is included in the probability range, policy makers must plan for that contingency.
A critical point that his agoraphobia will never allow him to savor is that had policymakers planned for a 2C rise, they inevitably would have made a disaster of the temperature rise.
==============
No, Doc. You are lumping luke-warmers in with the wrong crowd, trying to stir them in with climate zealots. The fact is that feedbacks on the 1 degree no-feedbacks case mooted by the warmists are decidedly negative but you have to read the thermodynamics text and work the problems to know that. Luke-warmers are those who believe CO2 may have some small effect on climate with only a slight probability of discernible harm but several important benefits. They are a hedge against warmism which is not science but a barely concealed political agenda.
Yes, to decarbonising the world economy, BUT, only if we do it so there is an increase in global GDP growth rate, not a decrease! I’ll repeat that because, many CAGW alarmists don’t want to hear it, or try to pretend it was not a critically important caveat by those wanting rational policies.
Yes to decarbonising the world economy, IF and ONLY IF, the chosen policies will produce an increase in GDP growth rate, not a decrease in GDP growth rate!
The policies that have been advocated by the CAGW alarmists for the past 20 years, and are still being advocated by them, will not work in the real world. They will not be accepted. There is a better way, but the CAGW alarmists, who are mostly of Left / Socialist / ‘Progressive’ ideological persuasion, are implacably opposed to rational policies. So progress is blocked, and has been for at least 20 years, and I’d suggest 50 years.
The activist climate scientists and CAGW alarmists argue the world should implement treaties / protocols / legally binding agreements to targets and timetables with penalties for breaches. They want a regulatory approach with UN type organisations administering and policing the agreements. They want global carbon pricing regimes (e.g. carbon tax, cap and trade, emissions trading schemes0.
However, it seems that the people advocating these schemes, have not properly considered the consequences of such schemes. What is the probability that the world can agree to a Treaty, a Protocol, or whatever to price carbon? Have they understood the assumptions that underpin the proponents’ claims that carbon pricing is the least cost way to reduce GHG emissions?
One of the main assumptions underpinning the economic analyses is that a carbon price must be universal/ If it is not universal, it will not succeed. The reason is that the cost for the particpants increases greatly as participation rate decreases. For example, if only 50% of GHG emissions are included in the scheme the cost penalty for the participants is estimated to be 250% (Nordhaus, ‘A Question of Balance’ p198 http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf ). That means, for example, 100% of the 195 countries must capture 50% of emissions in their pricing scheme, or 50% of countries must include 100% of GHG emissions. No exemptions. All 23 Kyoto greenhouse gasses must be included and all emissions sources must be included. That is where an international emissions pricing scheme would have to end up.
Not only that, but the 195 countries must maintain the system, in unison, for 100 years and beyond. For example they must all raise the carbon price or reduce the number of permits, or whatever is the agreed mechanism, in unison periodically for 100 years and beyond.
We need to recognise these real issues before we embark on this policy approach. Many people do, but the advocates don’t want to even consider it. They seem to want to ignore it.
It amazes me that the advocates for carbon pricing think it is realistic, given real world politics, diplomacy and economic constraints?
If the world is not going to implement a top down, UN regulatory approach, such as price carbon – and 20 years of failed climate conferences shows it is not likely to do so – why would Australia or other countries be silly enough to believe they can lead the world by example (that’s the usual reason given for Australia’s carbon tax and ETS?
How much will it change the climate if Australia and a few other countries price carbon?
What will be the economic cost to the world from reducing GDP? What is the human cost of such a policy? These questions cannot be dismissed, because rationalist are very well aware of the answers.
The World Economic Forum “Global Risks 2013” says the greatest risks facing the world in the next decade are “Major systemic financial failure”, “Chronic fiscal imbalances” and “Severe income disparity”. Carbon pricing would reduce GDP growth rate and increase these risks facing the world.
There is a better way. It’s the freer market approach. An example of such an approach is to remove the regulatory impediments that have been imposed on nuclear power as a result of 50 years of anti-nuclear activism (by the same Left ideologues who are the proponents of carbon pricing and UN regulatory approach).
I will say that fossil fuel reduction will rectify far more than AGW, namely:
Ocean acidification
Peak oil (which still exists, despite the increasingly desperate forays into Extreme Energy)
Acid rain (which is still a problem)
Air pollution, which still has major health effects
Energy security – UK dependence on imports of energy, which also has an impact on:
Balance of payments/Trade deficit (a major problem in the UK)
Fuel poverty, which will be ameliorated by conservation efforts, reducing fuel bills
Unemployment and recession (jobs will be created in the energy conservation and renewables sectors)
I take your point, getting a universal global agreement seems a long way off, but I have found that political agreement always takes much longer than a rational being would hope for.
On the positive side, there is an increasing shift towards renewable energy, and carbon taxes are being introduced in some more enlightened countries.
You lucky fella, dr; you’re gonna get a greener world from more CO2 and perhaps a little warmer too, unless Nature has an unexpected say in the matter. How wonderful to be so hopeful.
=====================
I could paste in an equally long reply, but that might be seen as antisocial.
If you want short comments, you’ll need to simply accept the short points I make without substantiation. If that’s how you prefer comments, here goes:
I will say that fossil fuel reduction will rectify far more than AGW
You’ve missed the important caveat. Your statement is true ONLY IF there is a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels. Without a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels, reducing fossil fuels will do enormous damage to human welfare and to the environment. This explains: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity
So we need cost competitive alternatives to fossil fuels. Pricing GHG emissions or regulating them so they make energy more expensive is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
I take your point, getting a universal global agreement seems a long way off, but I have found that political agreement always takes much longer than a rational being would hope for.
Pricing carbon is irrational, not rational. Therefore, it will not succeed. This should be clear by now. Over Twenty years of failed climate conferences should be all the evidence to convince any rational person. The rational approach is to remove the irrational constraints we’ve placed on energy markets over the past 50 years, especially those that make nuclear power far more expensive than it should and could be.
On the positive side, there is an increasing shift towards renewable energy,
No. Mandating and subsidising renewable energy is the opposite of rational policy. It is a classic example of irrational policy. It is one of many examples of irrational policies that have caused emissions to be higher than they would have been if we’d alolowed rational policies. It is an example of why progress is blocked.
We live in hope.
The impression I’ve gained from your comments is you live in the dream world of the Greenies.
By the way, I am not persuaded that 2C warming is negative on balance. The ‘Damage Function’ is highly uncertain and, despite my asking repeatedly, none of the CAGW alarmists have been able to show otherwise. [I expect it is exaggerated to the high side]. To understand what I am asking about regarding the ‘Damage Function’, read the sub thread of comments starting here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/12/open-thread-weekend-6/#comment-285236
YES to replacing new coal-fired electrical power plants with either nuclear or natural gas, where this makes economic sense.
A power plant sitting on top of a coal mine obviously should be coal-fired, just as power plants in regions with abundant natural gas (especially those generating peak power) should be gas-fired.
But this still leaves a lot of the growth in electrical power generation that could come from nuclear (which is competitive today in most cases). And this represents over 50% of the total fossil fuel use today.
Fuel for transportation is another story. Hydrogen from nuclear is way too expensive (and has serious safety problems). Cost effective bio-fuels do not exist today. So we are stuck with fossil fuels, and cannot yet “decarbonize” this part of the economy.
It appears reasonable that the world will gradually move away from fossil fuels for all those applications where economically viable alternates can be found; but this will not result in a total “decarbonization” of the world economy.
And, as you write, a (direct or indirect) carbon tax will accomplish nothing positive (and a lot of negative for the end consumers who eventually have to pick up the tab).
I believe we agree, but I just wanted to make sure by spelling it out a bit more clearly.
OK. At the more recent estimates of 2xCO2 ECS there is no problem from anthropogenic global warming itself.
But let’s go through your list of “hobgoblins” (Mencken), which would support “decarbonizing” our economy, one-by-one.
– Ocean acidification
CO2 levels have been much higher in the past with no adverse effect on marine life from ocean acidification.
– Peak oil (which still exists, despite the increasingly desperate forays into Extreme Energy)
A WEC 2010 report concludes there is still around 85% of all the fossil fuels that EVER existed left on our planet. At present usage rates, this will last us almost 300 years.
– Acid rain (which is still a problem)
Clean up coal flue gas and problem is solved.
Air pollution, which still has major health effects
Ditto. Also install black carbon filters for all diesel motors. Problem solved
– Energy security – UK dependence on imports of energy, which also has an impact on:
Balance of payments/Trade deficit (a major problem in the UK)
UK apparently has a large reservoir of shale gas (and oil?). Drill, baby, drill and frac, baby, frac!
– Fuel poverty, which will be ameliorated by conservation efforts, reducing fuel bills
Whazzat? (A carbon tax will increase not reduce fuel bills).
– Unemployment and recession (jobs will be created in the energy conservation and renewables sectors)
A pipe dream, doc. More jobs will be lost from decarbonization than gained.
So much for you list of imaginary hobgoblins.
If there is no “C” in “CAGW” anymore, as a result of latest much lower estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, then there is no good reason to “decarbonize” EXCEPT where this makes economic sense (as Peter Lang has already stated).
I agree the World does not have viable alternatives available to substitute for all fossil fuels now.
But I believe we will have viable alternatives that are cheaper than fossil fuels, and better on all the key criteria, in the future. We probably will not substitute for 100% of fossil fuel use but will substitute sufficient to stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations increasing, and perhaps reduce them (if that is what we find is necessary (we don’t know yet)).
I believe your comment is pointing out that I did not clearly state the time scales over which decarbonisation of the global economy will or could take place. I expect the global economy will be sufficiently decarbonised, to satisfy whatever turn out to be the requirements, by not later than 2100 and quite likely well before that.
I feel, if it is shown to be important to do so (we are not there yet), the world can reduce global GHG emission by around 50% by soon after mid century with nuclear power replacing most fossil fuels for electricity generation and cheap, low-emissions electricity replacing some fossil fuels for transport and heating. (The transport fuels may be produced using cheap low emissions electricity). There will, of course, be many other technologies involved that we have no idea about now.
I agree we really have no idea what the future may bring. There are many risks and opportunities facing humanity other than GHG emissions.
Yes, to decarbonising the world economy, BUT, only if we do it so there is an increase in global GDP growth rate, not a decrease!
I’d agree with you that this will happen before 2100, not to 100%, but maybe to 75% or 80%, with the remaining fossil fuels lasting us indefinitely at the lower consumption rate (primarily as feedstocks for petrochemicals, fertilizers, etc.).
And building cost-competitive nuclear power plants instead of new coal-fired plants could become a big part of this decarbonization process, provided we can get the anti-nuke green lobby groups and frightened politicians out of the way.
Geo-engineering is a non value added waste of money involving possible unforeseen negative consequences. And a carbon tax (direct or indirect) is stupid, as it also adds no value. So we need to vote politicians who support this sort of rubbish out of office.
Until then, I’d sat natural gas is a non-polluting, low-carbon fuel that seems to be increasingly available world-wide in shale deposits, so let’s go for it, both as a source of peak load electrical power and as a motor fuel.
I agree with all your points, but not to keen to push for natural gas replacing coal for electricity generation (except where it is cheaper, which is not the case in Australia). I’d prefer to keep natural gas for more valuable uses in the future and simply wait until nuclear is cheaper than coal and go straight to nuclear for electricity generation. Australia cannot do much until the costs of nuclear come down. And that it is largely dependent on the US removing the impediments to low cost nuclear power.
The US President could make it happen. Bush and Cheyney removed many of the impediments which were blocking the US from having low cost oil and gas. Removal of the blocks enabled the oil and gas industry to give the USA cheap and abundant gas (and some more oil). Obama or the next US President could do the equivalent for low-cost nuclear. It will be easier, because the issue is mostly with the NRC and involves the government’s design approval process and its lack of focus on cost of electricity.
RE your 4th pragraph – none of that has or is happening. Much of it is based on model projections, with little to no scientific research identifying the mechanisms by which they will occur.
As for us “seeing serious perturbations of the climate” – we’ve always seen such perturbations. And the evidence is indicating that if anything, they are decreasing, not increasing.
The only people who are on the side of decarbonization are the environentalist activists, the folks who believe there are far too many people living on the planet and the gullible. Which are you?
Too much hot air about global warming – researcher
“Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.”
Steve McIntyre has always been a voice of sanity and reasonableness. It’s a pity he’s been so vilified by the activist climate scientists and CAGW zealots. He did what the paid climate scientists should have been doing all along – i.e. checking and trying to reproduce all the important results.
“Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.”
It sounds like McIntyre is admitting human emissions WILL lead to thermageddon, he’s just saying it will take twice as much emissions to achieve thermageddon than the models show.
And that’s comforting how? Skeptics like Willis Eschenbach seem to think we’ll find twice as much to emit just fine, so what exactly stands between business as usual and thermageddon?
Is the Eschenbach/McIntyre strategy for saving human civilization to rely on hope and luck? surely not!
Girma
The article is not clear, but if Steve McIntyre means warming is only half of what the climatologists think, and they expect 2-4C in response to doubling of CO2, if follows that Steve expects 1-2C. This touches the 2C threshold which is seen as the boundary of what is humanly tolerable.
This is my point – the reasonable sceptics are now in agreement with the climatologist community – human greenhouse gases are taking us somewhere where we do not want to be going.
“which is seen as the boundary of what is humanly tolerable.” Nonsense. A leading German climate scientist was asked to provide a number which could be used to simplify debate and campaigning. He picked 2C as a nice, easy number, compatible with IPCC-projected increases for the not-to-distant future. He admitted in a lengthy Der Spiegel interview that there was no scientific basis for this number, no identifed tipping-points or runaway thresholds, it just served the CAGW polemicists purposes. The number has nothing to do with what is “humanly tolerable,” as must be obvious given that humans exist in temperatures ranging from about -50C to +60C. 2C is neither here nor there.
I don’t have the article, but it was posted in translation at no-tricks-zone.
In this instance, you are coming from a no-facts-zone.
At the new, lower, observation-based estimates for 2xCO2 ECS, there is no threat from CAGW (i.e. we will not reach the 2C warming limit seen as possibly problematic).
Steve McIntyre article cited by Girma, 10/2 @6.18am, supports Jim Cripwell’s stated problem re the absence of empirical evidence
showing the effect of .Co2 on global temperatures. SM says:
‘The onus is on the people arguing it’s a big problem, to really show
in an engineering quality report that it is a big problem.’
As Girma notes, McIntyre thinks global warming is likely to be half
what the models are predicting.
I’m sure that you are aware of the recent observation-based studies, which show that 2xCO2 ECS is a bit less than half the previously model-predicted range of IPCC.
These have been the topic of earlier threads. Links have been cited.
If you missed these and are truly interested in learning something new, I’ll be glad to cite links.
For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’, you’ll be overjoyed to know that yesterday’s extent is greater than on the equivalent day in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2007 and 2006.
Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?
If not, why not?
And since unusual heavy snow in Southern UK in the last three years was blamed by the Met Office on the melting of the Arctic Ice, can we also assume that we’ll soon be back to the conditions where our children won’t know what snow is?
I have never been at all interested in Arctic Sea Ice extent and can’t see what all the fuss is about – one way or the other. Sea ice is nasty cold stuff and apart from a little chap called Pipaluk when I was a kid, I don’t give a stuff about polar bears.
And I remember pictures of the subs at the North Pole when I was young – so it doesn’t bug me to know that the ice is thin or disappeared.or not.
Which is why I prefaced my remarks with
‘For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’.
But I am very interested in doom;laden predictions of imminent Thermocalypse. It is sooooooo much fun pointing out when they don’t come true.
Year to year variations mean little, especially like last year’s when it was an unusual weather event that strongly contributed to the melt. If we start seeing many more of these arctic hurricanes (or whatever it was) then it may be clear proof of a change in weather patterns. No one disputes that the arctic is warming and that summer ice extent has gone down. It is the catastrophic nature that is contested and whether it will be exponential (tipping points and all that). It is quite interesting that the rates are more rapid both for increase and decrease for the thin ice forming and melting, although it is not surprising once you reflect on it for a few seconds. As always, we need to watch for another ten years to see if there is a 30 year cycle (we only have satellite data since 1979) and see if the ice does recover during the summers. If we have a few summers where the ice gets back to the average and stays there, it should be reassuring to those predicting catastrophe. One would think.
“Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?”
I at least understand that the anomaly in February tells us nothing about whether summer decline is continuing.
So frickin obvious. Why do you tools come up with such easily falsified arguments? It’s like you didn’t even check previous years to see all the instances where the anomaly has been high in winter and yet it’s not made a blind bit of difference to the summer decline.
Although I don’t blame you for not taking Latimer’s comment seriously. It is absurd enough to be a wind up. But it wasn’t. He was serious. So was manacker.
You do not have any earthly notion of how Arctic (or Antarctic) sea ice will look in September 2013. Nor do I. Nor does Latimer Alder. Nor do the so-called experts in NSIDC.
Just checking….there seems to be a popular meme amongst the dogmatic anti-AGW’ers that more snow means that AGW is a fraud, or if you are of the CGC mindset, that’s it’s a sign of the catastrophic cooling that is coming.
‘Just checking….there seems to be a popular meme amongst the dogmatic anti-AGW’ers that more snow means that AGW is a fraud, or if you are of the CGC mindset, that’s it’s a sign of the catastrophic cooling that is coming’
Well since i don’t fall into either of those categories, we can safely discount your ‘argument’ so far.
As a reminder, the question is this
‘Since unusual heavy snow in Southern UK in the last three years was blamed by the Met Office on the melting of the Arctic Ice, can we also assume that we’ll soon be back to the conditions where our children won’t know what snow is?’
You can take it as read that we all agree that snow is a form of precipitation. And purely semantic arguments are not persuasive.
that more snow means that AGW is a fraud, or…that’s it’s a sign of the catastrophic cooling that is coming.
They simply have concluded that AGW is not the principal driving force of our climate, since there is no robust empirical correlation between GHG concentrations and global temperature or climate.
So AGW has nothing to do with a) more snow or b) less snow.
And, despite the past decade of slight cooling, there is no reason to fear “catastrophic cooling” in the future (although history has shown us that cooling would definitely be worse for humanity than a continuation of the long-term warming trend we have seen since 1850).
Arctic sea ice is continuing its seemingly interminable decline, and it looks like the loss could be contributing to the recent spate of cold winters over northern Europe and North America.
Researchers are still unsure about how important sea-ice loss is to winter weather. The fluctuating weather that Europe and the Americas have experienced since December last year is a reminder that many different factors are at play.
Jiping Liu at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta crunched data on ice and weather from the last three decades and found a link between the extent of Arctic sea ice and cold, snowy winters in the regions immediately to the south.
“The study adds weight to growing belief that Arctic sea ice is driving an increase of cold winters,” says Adam Scaife of the UK Met Office. His team has also found evidence to support such a link.
Is it real or just another computer-generated hobgoblin?
I’d guess it’s more the latter (especially since Met Office predicted “snowless winters” for the UK due to AGW a few years ago).
Michael, you misunderestimate my guess. Max re-iterates my main point, that degree for degree, cooling is more catastrophic than warming.
===================
In the interests of accuracy I should point out that this was said by David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. He is not directly associated with the Met Office – but only by their joint work on the HADCRU datasets.
For those of you unfamiliar with the CRU, they got some not entirely favourable publicity during what became known as the Climategate affair. A selection of e-mails from and to the workers there came into the public domain, and did not paint a flattering picture of the integrity of their working methods. And if you need a tutorial in how not to run a professional IT shop, try the delightful ‘Harry_Read_Me’ file associated as well
the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Michael wrote: “Less ice,more precip – what could be a link?”
——————————————————————————-
Let me just add two words to that: “Less summer ice, more winter precip – what could be a link?”
‘NE England has had a 25% (IIRC) reduction in snow days over the last 20 or so years.’
Citation please.
And don’t forget to show the total amount of snow. ‘Snow days’ tells us something about the lumpiness of its distribution..but the discussion s about total amount, not lumpiness.
It is amazing how some “skeptics” can make the same facile arguments over and over without ever learning from their mistakes:
Most CAGW skeptics do NOT believe (as you write)
Manacker – how do you know what most “skeptics” believe w/r/t what was being argued? In point of fact, you don’t. But here’s what we do know: The “skeptics” we find here, and at places like WUWT represent a tiny fraction of “skeptics” overall. Folks who are actively engaged, such as you are, are outliers. Yet in an un-skeptical fashion, you insist on over and over – on the basis of what a relative handful of “skeptics” believe – extrapolate to pontificate about what “most ‘skeptics'” believe.
And in fact, even among the outlier group that you extrapolate from in a facile manner to characterize the larger group of “skeptics,” we often see crowing about unusual wintery weather – as if that refutes the theory of AGW.
But I will give you some credit. Unlike in the past, when you have un-scientifically and un-skeptically characterized the opinions of “skeptics” in a monolithic fashion – at least this time you used a qualifier. Even though you did so in support of a facile argument, progress is progress. I am impressed, and I have full confidence that given long enough, you may actually get to the point where you won’t make facile characterizations of “skeptics” beliefs.
Joshua wrote: “And in fact, even among the outlier group that you extrapolate from in a facile manner to characterize the larger group of “skeptics,” we often see crowing about unusual wintery weather – as if that refutes the theory of AGW.”
——————————————————————–
What about the very large group of alarmists who we very often see crowing about any unusual weather – as if it constitutes proof positive of AGW.
Latimer, you write “For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’,”
I have a nit to pick. I am obsessed with total sea ice extent; Arctic plus Antarctic. But I am not obsessed with Arctic sea ice extent. I think this total sea ice extent does tell us quite a lot about what is happening to global climate. The two different polar sea ice extent anomalies are negatively correlated, with a very high degree of certainty. And I have to ask myself why? The only explanation that I have seen that makes sense, is clouds.
Now, when the sun shines, the albedo of clouds is much higher than the albedo of the earth’s surface, just about everywhere, EXCEPT the Antarctic. Here the expanse of ice over the Antarctic continent has a higher albedo than clouds. So it is to be expected that if total cloud cover varies all over the world, it will affect the Arctic and Antarctic in opposite ways; just what we observe.
That is the issue which I would like to see more discussion of.
Why do SH clouds increase ice extent mostly in the areas where increased winds are driving the ice pack away from the shoreline, which creates open water, which freezes. RInse repeat. In some of the areas where winds are not regularly driving the ice pack out, your same clouds appear to be shrinking ice extent.
JCH, I have no idea what you are talking about. I made a very general observation, with no details. I would like to see much more discussion. But what you wrote makes no sense to me.
Dont expect Cripwell to read your evidence or if it reads it to understand it, or if he understands it to remember it, or if he reads understands and rememebers to admit it. There is no evidence that his intelligence is distinguishable from zero.
Latimer Alder,
All in all, I suppose no one should be surprised when no one puts up his hand when someone asks about racism at ClimateEtc. Posts at ClimateEtc on the North, and developing economies, remain condescending and ignore indigenous knowledge and experience; however I honestly do not believe that is the intention.
On the other hand, Latimer, your ignorant comments about pressures of climate change in the North continue to express blatant indifference to the point of the final frontier of racism, which hopefully we won’t have to put up with in future relations between nations.
Martha’s world view is determined by a confused, jumbled up version of Marxism. Everything is class based, now re-packaged as race/gender/sexual orientation. Any discussion that rejects the latest socialist cause du jour is by definition racist, or sexist, or LBGTist etc….
‘Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?’
Dunno what question you thought you were answering, but it sure wasn’t that one.
Latimer Alder said “I have never been at all interested in Arctic Sea Ice extent and can’t see what all the fuss is about – one way or the other. Sea ice is nasty cold stuff and apart from a little chap called Pipaluk when I was a kid, I don’t give a stuff about polar bears. And I remember pictures of the subs at the North Pole when I was young – so it doesn’t bug me to know that the ice is thin or disappeared.or not. Which is why I prefaced my remarks with ‘For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’.
But I am very interested in doom;laden predictions of imminent Thermocalypse. It is sooooooo much fun pointing out when they don’t come true”.
My response in regard to this to was “Latimer Alder, All in all, I suppose no one should be surprised when no one puts up his hand when someone asks about racism at ClimateEtc. Posts at ClimateEtc on the North, and developing economies, remain condescending and ignore indigenous knowledge and experience; however I honestly do not believe that is the intention. On the other hand, Latimer, your ignorant comments about pressures of climate change in the North continue to express blatant indifference to the point of the final frontier of racism, which hopefully we won’t have to put up with in future relations between nations.”
The point is not ‘skepticism equals racism’ (Max).
Neither of you seem to have been brought up with historical or geographical knowledge and it shows, as evidenced in many of your comments that erase the existence of other societies, along with ecosystems. It is time for such punditry to be examined for its racism, separately from skepticis about climate change.
So the real point is ‘anything Martha doesn’t agree with equals racism’?
If it’s anything else you might want to be a little less cryptic. Lesser mortals don’t have your astounding ability to detect the hidden racist meaning of every word.
As I haven’t a formal wife I can’t tell you whether I have stopped beating her or not. I may not have eaten my 5 portions of vegetables today, nor
was I especially nice to an old chum who supports the football team that had the effrontery to beat my guys yesterday.
But in my defence, I took the dog for a walk and cleaned my teeth properly this morning. And was especially charming to the lady in the supermarket who took my money for a cut-price cabbage (no food wasted in my household!)
I think you’ll have to start smoking something a little stronger than is your normal habit before you are able to find any evidence that I have ‘erased the existence of other societies’ and I wish you luck in finding an audience for your ‘examination of such punditry’
I can assure you that it won’t be me, and I very much hope that no public body would be foolish enough to spend taxpayers hard-earned money on assisting you in such a pointless endeavour.
It’s stated to be NH data. It shows a stronger early 20thC warming and mid 20thC cooling than the more recent record, but it is common knowledge that these records get “corrected”, “variance adjusted” and “manipulated(?) ex post facto, so one should not be too surprised at this.
The green is specific volume. It would extend all the way to zero percent, I just highlighted the likely operating region. That is just the latent or fuel cycle at one atmosphere which would produce about 25 Joules per gram of dry air energy transfer. To be sustained, the inlet air would have to at least maintain that transfer rate. With enough fuel/air provided, the energy transfer could increase.
If it followed that path, a portion of the condensation would provide evaporative cooling of the inlet air and “enrich” the fuel air mixture, like a venturi creates a local lower pressure that would increase uptake of say, water vapor?
The fun part is the turbulent layer created by the roughness of the forest. There would be more laminar flow at the cloud base and more turbulent at the canopy. Yet another pressure differential.
There’s choices of flushes and flashes @ the Bish’s.
=============
Are you trying to beat about the bush?
Science and spirituality are the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of society.
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2422
The shifting crusts and volcanic eruptions, oscillations of solar activity on multi-Decadal to Centennial and Millennial time scales with variations in gamma radiation and the role of the big planets, Saturn and Jupiter — and a changing North Pole and variations in the magnetosphere — all are a part of a holistic process that is the Earth’s climate.
The biome, with responses running the time scale from seconds to way past millenia and beyond. Not quite to infinity and beyond, though.
=============
a five year mission then, we boldly go…
kim, they will not even acknowledge the difference between a steady state and equilibrium, so you have no chance of getting them to understand they have a living planet.
Thanks, Wagathon, for summing up the ways various parts of the solar system are connected.
a.) Scientists measured the physical connections;
b.) Religionists could feel the spiritual connections
Both groups were right – http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2339 – but unable to cooperate for the benefit of society after vaporization of Hiroshima on 6 July 1945 fused politics and science together as tightly as religion and science had been fused together at the time of Copernicus and Galileo.
We’ve what an American-deficiency causes. Look at Iran since 1979… the people there lost their freedom. Europe turned away from Americanism. How’s that going for them? Leftists and the MSM carried a pogrom out against George Bush for eight years. Look what has happened to the country… division, a liberal fascism.
Despite the clamor, many believe we are Happy Hominans:
http://skepticalswedishscientists.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/best-year-ever/
While others think we are sheeple:
http://personalliberty.com/2013/02/05/sheeple-another-look-at-a-sad-breed/
Can we tell the difference? The hero in George Orwell’s futuristic novel surrendered. http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
http://www.earthweek.com/2011/ew110902/ew110902b.html
This will, again, lead to record Arctic Ocean Effect Snow in the fall, winter and spring. The end is near for earth getting much warmer on this warming cycle. This powerful negative feedback to warmer temperatures will cool us again until it allows the Arctic to freeze and cut off the Arctic Ocean Effect Snow.
If the Arctic could again get ice free, we would have the level of snow that created the major ice ages. The current level of stability is such that we cannot get that warm. We are strongly limited to the temperature range that we have had for the past ten thousand years. Warm Oceans and open Arctic is a necessary part of the well bounded cycle of warm and cold that humans have enjoyed during the past ten thousand years. Ice does retreat in the cold times and Ice is replenished in the warm times. Look at the weather around the Northern Hemisphere right now.
I would agree with more snow in fall, but by December or so, sea ice area levels are already “recovered” to about a million square to “normal” and I would not expect much increased snow in January, February or even spring.
The early snow does move the jet stream and promote snow further south, such is happening now in Europe, Asia and North America. It is well after fall and the snow is still falling.
Wasn’t the sun supposed to have moved the jet stream…?
Jet stream had been moving polewards before, so it would be back to “normal”.
Cristina L. Archer and Ken Caldeira
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L08803,
doi:10.1029/2008GL033614, 2008
published 18 April 2008
“This is the first study to analyze historical trends of jet stream properties based on the ERA-40 and the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis datasets for the period 1979 to 2001. We defined jet stream properties based on mass and mass-flux weighted averages. We found that, in general, the jet streams have risen in altitude and moved poleward in both hemispheres.”
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/cms/carcher/my_papers/Archer_Caldeira_GRL_2008.pdf
And another FAIL in climate science:
“At this point we can’t say for sure that this is the result of global
warming, but I think it is,” says Caldeira. “I would bet that the trend
in the jet streams’ positions will continue. It is something I’d put my
money on.”
With all the snow that is falling and with all the snow that has already fallen in the U.S., Earthweek went all the way to Moscow to get a small snow story that does not come up on their website. It was in the printed newspaper.
I clicked on the Moscow story and did get the Greenhouse Emissions Story.
They do avoid cold and snow stories because that is not consistent with their Alarmist Warmest Policies.
http://www.earthweek.com/
This was supposed to be the Snow in Moscow Story.
http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130208/ew130208a.html
Click quick or they may fix the mistake.
You can look at the ice core data and by simple inspection you can see the it does snow more when oceans are warm and then earth cools.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page11.html
Here it is well into February and the snow is still falling in historic proportions. It is snowing more because the oceans are warmer. That is the reason Earth cannot get too hot. It snows less when oceans are cold and frozen and that is why Earth cannot get too cold.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=snow+news&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=snow+news&sc=8-9&sp=-1&sk=
http://www.bing.com/search?q=snow+news+in+russia&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=snow+news+in+russia&sc=0-13&sp=-1&sk=
http://www.bing.com/search?q=snow+news+in+europe&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=snow+news+in+europe&sc=0-14&sp=-1&sk=
Mama Bear Earth.
Earthweek prints this story showing that Arctic Mammals, fish and birds are doing well with the warming.
http://www.earthweek.com/2012/ew120511/ew120511b.html
On the same page they say we will need to feed the polar bears because they will not be able to find food.
http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130215/ew130215a.html
The extreme Alarmism comes through again and again the Alarmism is not supported by actual facts.
This is a revised version of the post above. Earthweek had some bad links and I was waiting for a fix.
Earthweek has this story about Moscow’s Snow: Deepest in 100 Years
http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130208/ew130208d.html
And this story about Snow-Covered Britain:
http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130208/ew130208x.html
And this story about Arctic Wildlife Populations Growing as Climate Changes
http://www.earthweek.com/2012/ew120511/ew120511b.html
And then they have the story below that says that polar bears are going to starve because earth is going to get too warm. That is opinion. The three stories above are fact. What are you going to believe? Is life is more abundant and is food for bears more available when it is warm or when it is cold?
http://www.earthweek.com/2013/ew130215/ew130215a.html
When it is warm and the oceans are open is when it snows to bring the next cold period. The oceans are warm and the snow is falling. Warm ocean time is a normal and natural part of a well bounded cycle.
I am pleased to see that Earthweek actually does some snow and cold stories, but their starving polar bear story is not believable along with the other three stories.
Last weekend, I had an interesting discussion with Steven Mosher, Andrew Adams and Jim D. Just when the dialogue was getting interesting, one by one they disappeared from the topic. Which was a pity.
My point is that because it is impossible to measure radiative forcing or climate sensitivity, the IPCC has no scientific basis on which to base their statements in the SPMs that there are probabilities of >90% or >95% that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes effects, such as a rise in global temperature.
Jim D. indicated that there was such a basis, but I would like to read what the IPCC actually says about this. It is essential in scientific reports that any conclusions reached must be justified in the body of the report. So, presumably, these scientific reasons for the statements in the SPMs are somewhere in the AR4; and more specificly, in the AR5, since the draft indicates that the same sort of claims will be made when the new SPMs are agreed.
I cannot find this in either the AR4 or the draft of the A5. This does no mean it is not there; it may be that I am looking in the wrong place. Can anyone help me, and direct to me where in the AR4 or AR5, the IPCC justifies the probabilites it mentions in the SPMs?
Are you looking for a basis that changing CO2 changes radiative forcing, or that changing radiative forcing causes a temperature change?
Jim D you write “Are you looking for a basis that changing CO2 changes radiative forcing, or that changing radiative forcing causes a temperature change?”
Neither. I am looking, as I have clearly stated, for the scientific basis, written in either or both the AR4 and AR5, on which the IPCC claims in the SPMs, that there is a >90% or >95 % probability that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global temperatyres to rise, or whatever the exact wording is.
Jim Cripwell, the WG1 report entitled “The Physical Science Basis” is the scientific basis you asked for, as you may be able to tell from its title. It is 1000 pages with references. Now, you may want a condensed climate-science-for-kids version with lots of pictures and no long words or references to look up, but there is no shortcut to reading about the science if you are really interested in it.
there is a scientific basis.
you are blind to evidence.
there is no rational discussion with you.
He didn’t say there was no scientific basis. He said it was impossible to measure sensitivty or radiative forcing. Impossible is word best avoided but sensitivity hasn’t been measured yet because you first have to somehow control for CO2 and that might never be accomplished. We don’t have an instrument network that can measure radiative forcing 24/7 across the globe like we do average temperature of kilometers long column sections in the atmosphere.
You go to war with the instruments you have not the instruments you wish you had. Don’t make claims that your instruments can’t back up.
Steven, you write “there is a scientific basis.”
Fair enough, and I cannot disagree with you. I am blind to the evidence; but that is because I cannot find it. It MUST be in the AR 4, or else the AR 4 is not a work of science. Scientific reports MUST justify EVERYTHING that is in the conclusions. So, I want to read what the IPCC has written on the subject, and then my eyes will be open, and I will no longer be blind. But I cannot find WHERE the IPCC has written up the justification, and that is why I am asking for help from people like yourself who should know where I ought to be looking.
He didn’t say there was no scientific basis. He said it was impossible to measure sensitivty or radiative forcing.
It is possible to measure it and it has been measured.
Steven Mosher
You are misunderstanding Jim Cripwell.
He is asking for more than simply statements of faith from you that “there is a scientific basis”.
He is looking for “empirical evidence” to support the notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 will have a perceptible effect on global temperature..
You tell him, “you are blind to evidence”, but you do not cite the empirical evidence he is requesting.
Steven, if there REALLY is “evidence”, why don’t you simply present it to Jim Cripwell and be done with it.
(And fer crissakes don’t tell me you’ve “already done that”.)
Ball’s in your court, Mosh.
Max
Max, I think Mosher is confusing Tyndall with greenhouse with AGW. The “scientific basis” is for the Tyndall effect, which really isn’t in controversy. Getting from there to AGW and then to CAGW takes some serious gymnastics.
Steven Mosher | February 8, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
“It is possible to measure it and it has been measured.”
I must have missed when climate sensitivity was measured and became empircal fact instead of a controversial number somewhere between 1C and 5C. So what exact number did it turn out to be, Stevie boy?
manacker | February 8, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
“You tell him, “you are blind to evidence”, but you do not cite the empirical evidence he is requesting.”
Expecting evidence to be presented? Who do you think you are some kind of Johnny Cochran of Climatology? If the model don’t fit you must acquit!
hes been directed to the evidence many times, as have the rest of you. empirical evidence. empirical measurements. To say otherwise is akin to arguing that black is white and white is black. That is what his argument amounts to he asks for evidence and measurement. I’ve pointed him at it many times and he and you pretend otherwise. I see no point in continuing. he asked. I delivered. done
Sleep on it. A hundred mattresses deep.
========
Where?
Where is the evidence summarised, top down, like engineering documentation. like it has to be for a court case, and for informing policy decisions?
AR4 and AR5 are largely political, activist, spin. They are not what is required for an objective documentation of the evidence. So, if not them, then where is the evidence documented? What are you referring to?
What is:
1. Climate sensitivity?
2. the damage function?
3. the rate the world can/will decarbonise?
Where is the supporting, uncontested evidence for these?
Link please?
Steven Mosher
Aw, c’mon Mosh. You are beating around the bush.
There are a lot of words in the 1000+ AR4 WG1 report, but none of these words cite specific empirical evidence that would corroborate the notion that adding hundreds of ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere would result in a perceptible increase in global temperature.
It’s just not there. It’s all model stuff (which is NOT empirical evidence).
And simply saying that it is there will not make it so.
Point to the page, which cites specific empirical evidence (i.e. from actual real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation).
Don’t just beat around the bush, Mosh.
Max
Jim has been playing this game for many years. e.g.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=776&page=18
Look the evidence has been pointed out to Cripwell on so many occasions that you have to be blind to miss it. So go look for it.
1. The empirical evidence for the addition Forcing that GHGs impose.
He’s been directed to the the physical theory. he’s been directed to
to the practical applications. he’s been directed to the validation studies
and the field experiements. There is no evidence that he read any of it.
2. The empirical evidence for the change in temperature over time. Delta C.
3. the empirical evidence for the change in forcing over time. Delta Watts.
he’s been given the definition of sensitivity; delta C / delta watts.
What he seems to be stuck on is the notion that sensitivity is something you can measure directly. A simple example: take the speed of sound.
The speed of sound is x feet per second. We measure the feet, we measure the time. And we say the speed of sound is X feet per second.
We dont directly measure ‘speed’. its a ratio of two other metrics. distance and time. Sensitivity is the change in C per a change in watts.
You measure Delta C: you measure delta Watts. and there you go.
we measure sensitivity all the time. Now it happens to be complicated because you can measure it over short times and longer times. And its complicated because the accuracy of measures can be narrow or broad depending on your time scale. But that does not mean it hasnt been measured. You play golf, you hit a big drive. you take 300 strides to reach your ball, you’ve measured the distance. You could have used a yardstick, or range finder, or GPS or a mark 2 eyeball. In all cases you measured it. Sometimes with more accuracy, sometimes with less. never with perfect accuracy.
So, we have measured sensitivity. Every measurement of it tells us that Jim is wrong. Its not zero.
he is also wrong that it must be in Ar4. That is not what I directed him to, so he is once again blind. his intellect is indistinguishable from zero.
Steve, Jim Cripwell hasn’t shown any evidence that he knows any science relevant to this. He is still at the starting line when the debate has moved on.
JimD, my impression in 2009 was that Jim was attached to the starting line with a piece of elastic. You’d get so far with him then…ping!…back to: “It’s not science because it’s not testable…” etc. Maybe the elastic has got shorter and tauter since then.
I would like to invite you to participate in an online debate and questionnaire designed to gather information about public’s awareness, perceptions and opinions on geoengineering.
Your participation would be of great value to our research.
Details of the project (as well as the guidelines for participating) can be found in the Geoengineering Debate Website https://sites.google.com/site/geoengineeringdebate/
Thank you very much for your participation.
To change climate by goeengineering is the stupidest idea in the history of science. It is dumb. First understand the climate as you understand Newton Laws. We have not yet reached there. The climate is extremely complex. We cannot predict El Nino. We cannot predict La Nina. We don’t know what causes the warming and cooling 60 year cycles.
It is a pure waste of time. Do something productive. Produce food. Produce shelter. Produce what people need everyday. Don’t waste resources in fixing a problem that does not exist. The globe warms. The globe cools. It does need to be at constant temperature.
It should not, nor can it be, at constant temperature.
==================
Ice Age vs Heat Wave vs Same Ole Same Ole
kim, Girma just accidentally missed the “not”.
Girma, Kim, Wagathon, Faustino,
Define “constant temperature,” for God’s sake!
Given that life has existed on Earth for billions of years, one can assume that its temperature remained within the living range all of this time. So, thinking of the temperature range existing in the universe, I’d still say it can be considered quite constant, after all. Don’t you?
I agree that geoengineering is a dumb idea. But do you think that your above opinion is smarter?
Everything seems “extremely complex” until you get how it works. Then, you have this AHA moment and wonder why didn’t you think of this before.
Once the real forcing mechanisms are assessed, global climate proves to have a simple and coherent behavior. It puzzled everybody for so many years because climate change has a 60-year cycle with two patterns, not just with one. Plus, everybody looks at the warming phases, when in reality they are constant with 0.48C over 30 years. The actual warming occurs during warming bumps within the cooling phases, where nobody looks.
I dare you to continue to think “The climate is extremely complex” after you get the whole explanation at the Convergetics blog.
Gene @ 7.42: I made no comment on constancy of temperature. Since Girma said that “The globe warms. The globe cools,” I thought that he had missed a “not” from “It does need to be at constant temperature.”
As a non-scientist, it seems to be that the relatively modest variation in global temperatures over many millions of years suggests that there are moderating factors in play which tend to constrain it to this range, and that until we fully understand these mechanisms, we shouldn’t endeavour to direct them. And probably not even then.
Geo engineering: Wicked bad idea. With our level of understanding anything attempted (or currently being attempted) is just monkeys playing with the controls of a nuclear power plant.
Whereas with AnthroCO2, undreamt of control rods await to automatically deploy.
==========
Paula Curvelo
I’d second the perceptions and opinions expressed here, i.e. that attempts to “geoengineer” our planet’s climate are a waste of time and money (actionable proposals made so far show that we are unable to really change our planet’s climate at will, no matter how much money we throw at it).
In addition, we have no notion of the unforeseen negative consequences of these “geoengineering” actions.
Each GE scheme should be accompanied by a robust cost/benefit analysis with a complete due diligence report on any unforeseen negative consequences that could conceivably occur.
Only if the cost/benefit analysis shows an unequivocal advantage and if there are absolutely no conceivable unforeseen negative consequences, should one even discuss geoengineering.
Max
Breaking news. Today’s east coast blizzard caused by ocean warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/08/bob-tisdale-shows-how-forecast-the-facts-brad-johnson-is-fecklessly-factless-about-ocean-warming/#more-79145
Bob Tisdale counters on WUWT: “It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast, when the those values were regularly exceeded 70 to 80 years ago.
Alarmists will take any opportunity to claim manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy, and now the upcoming New England Blizzard. It’s often easy to illustrate the errors in their claims. Another example is the Russian heat wave of 2010 which Trenberth and Fasullo tried (and failed) to attribute to the warming of sea surface temperatures. Refer to the post here.
Alarmists, of course, will continue to make unfounded claims, and I will be happy to show how ridiculous those claims are.”
Spot Tisdale’s logical fallacy:
“Anyone who has followed my posts over the past 4 years about the natural warming of satellite-era sea surface temperatures understands there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming. That is, the data indicates Mother Nature, not manmade greenhouse gases, was responsible for the warming over the past 31 years.”
“Willie go round in circles”
I too can draw a straight line on a graph!
There are no errors in my logic, lolwot. More likely, there’s a problem with your ability to grasp the blatantly obvious.
Have a nice day.
lolwot
No “logical fallacy” there at all.
The statement is simply, ” there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming [of satellite-era sea surface temperatures]”
Can you cite any empirical data (not model runs or hypotheses) that “indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming”?
Let’s hear it, lolwot (or admit that there is no “logical fallacy” in Tisdale’s statement).
Max
“there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming. That is, the data indicates Mother Nature, not manmade greenhouse gases, was responsible for the warming over the past 31 years.””
The logical error Tisdale is making in the above text is arguing that the lack of indication in the data for X means X isn’t true.
That doesn’t logically follow.
Climate skeptics of all people should know this. If I said Lack of mechanism for the Sun to explain recent warming would that ring a bell? Does “nothing in the data to indicate that the Sun played any part in the warming” mean the Sun had no role? (interestingly Tisdale’s analysis would surely say Yes it had no role because I bet he can’t find a solar indicator in the sea temperature data anymore than he can find GHG indicator.
Which brings me to the general overarching error Tisdale makes in his “it’s ENSO, not GHGs” argument. He claims “nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming” but that begs the question what *is* Tisdale expecting manmade greenhouse gas warming to look like in the data?
From what I can tell he expects something like a simplistic gradual and constant warming across all regions. If he doesn’t find that, or finds some kind of pattern correlation with ENSO, then he immediately jumps the the conclusion ENSO did it and GHGs are not responsible (and supposedly the Sun too).
But who is to say regional warming patterns caused by global GHG warming (or solar warming) wouldn’t be complicated with different regions warming at different rates because the nature of a planet warming involves a flow of energy and GHGs (and the Sun) are just part of that?
There is the absurdity too. Is Tisdale really arguing the rise in GHGs had no warming effect whatsoever? Is he a skydragon?
lolwot 2/8/13 2:28 pm
Just so. The only warming within the last 33 years was a step warming introduced by the super El Nino of 1998. Its cause was the huge amount of warm water this super El Nino carried across the ocean. It raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years and then stopped. This, and not some imaginary greenhouse effect, was the cause of the very warm first decade of our century. The nine warmest years of Hansen sit on top of the warm platform created by this step warming but there has been no warming during these years at all. He is also delusional about 2005 being warmest – it is just average. His other warmest year is 2010 which is an El Nino peak year. He shows it warmer than 1998 which is another delusion. He tries to use these two years to claim warming in the 21st century but it does not work like that. Global mean temperature of ENSO oscillations is determined by the center point between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. The center point of the El Nino of 2010 and the La Nina of 2009 lines up perfectly with the rest of the sixteen year no-warming platform of the twenty first century.
Arno –
Oops. This:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/08/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-293632
Belongs here.
I sure one of us is thick and it’s not BOB or me, oo my ;>)
lolwot
Your logic is flawed, not Tisdale’s
The “null” hypothesis is that man-made GHGs have had “null” (= zero) impact on the past warming, or as stated in Tisdale’s words:
there is nothing in the data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases played any part in the warming
If you wish to refute this statement, cite the specific data, which indicate that manmade GHGs played a part in the warming.
Real simple, lolwot.
Max
“If you wish to refute this statement, cite the specific data, which indicate that manmade GHGs played a part in the warming.”
So you think rising CO2 causes ZERO warming?
So you are a skydragon? You don’t accept the greenhouse effect?
As to TIsdale’s argument.
Using Tisdale’s own method there is no solar signal in the data. I’ve seen his graphs of ocean temperature sloshing and it doesn’t exhibit a solar signal.
So according to you we should conclude from this that the Sun had no role in the recent warming. And to cover over the obviously logical fallacy all we have to do is use some BS excuse about null hypothesis = Sun didn’t do it. In other words unless TIsdale’s method can find a solar signal we are justified in concluding (and I mean concluding, there seems to be no sense of uncertainty here) that the Sun played NO role in recent warming.
Someone page Scafeta and tell him he’s wasted all his time. All he had to do was look at ocean temperatures…
Perhaps in this context of the lovable Sun, where you aren’t blinded by hate of all things IPCC, you might “get” why Tisdale’s argument is logically flawed.
lolwot
I have asked you to show me the empirical evidence for a perceptible CO2 signal in the past temperature record.
You are apparently unable to do this, but respond with:
The hypothesis of the “greenhouse effect” is great, and I can “accept” this hypothesis based on the empirical data which show CO2 absorption of LW energy. But these data do not provide empirical evidence that increased ppms of CO2 in our atmosphere will actually lead to perceptible global warming of our climate.
And the empirical evidence do not show a real correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but rather a cyclical temperature record with 30-year warming and cooling cycles superimposed on an overall warming of 0.75C since 1853 :
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:1993/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:1983/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1973/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1913/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1883/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1853/to:1882/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1853/to:2012/trend
2003-2012: -0.05C cooling (most recent decade)
1973-2002: +0.5C warming (previous 3 decades)
1943-1972: -0.1C cooling (previous 3 decades)
1913-1942: +0.4C warming (previous 3 decades)
1883-1912: -0.15C cooling (previous 3 decades)
1853-1882: +0.2C warming (previous 3 decades)
Atmospheric CO2 was pretty flat until after WWII and has increased at a fairly constant exponential rate of 0.4-0.5% per year since measurements started at Mauna Loa in 1958. The most recent decade has the largest increase in atmospheric CO2, but slight cooling instead of warming.
So there is no apparent empirical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
It is quite apparent to me from the data at hand that something else beside human GHG emissions is driving our climate.
Max
There is no apparent empirical correlation between solar output and global temperature.
So would you, Manacker, agree that:
“It is quite apparent to me from the data at hand that something else beside the Sun is driving our climate.”?
Would you also agree that there is no empirical evidence that decreased solar output will actually lead to perceptible global cooling of our climate?
lolwot: Based on your replies, have no grasp whatsoever about how data indicate sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content warmed naturally.
““It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast, when the those values were regularly exceeded 70 to 80 years ago.”
Its easy.
Since the temperature is a result of BOTH GHGs and internal variation, its dead simple to see that over short terms
1. GHG + natural varition >0 OR
2 GHG = natural variation <0
The value is time dependent. So early with natural variation high and GHGs lower, and later with GHG high and natural variation low can look like the same thing, however, over many cycles of natural variation the underlying GHG signal becomes clear
Steven Mosher | February 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm | Reply
“over many cycles of natural variation the underlying GHG signal becomes clear”
Or not in the case it wasn’t really there.
Steven Mosher | February 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
I have to tell you that ocean temperatures off the New England coast have nothing to do with GHG but are determined by the changing flow pattern of the Gulf Stream. There is no doubt that it has changed over the last century because ocean currents started to bring warm water into the Arctic at the turn of the twentieth century, and the only source of warm water in the North Atlantic is the Gulf Stream. This is important because warm water reaching the Arctic today is the only reason why the Arctic is still warming while the rest of the world is not. Some of those billions used for climate research should be dedicated to closely tracking currents in the North Atlantic because it is not just the Arctic but the climate of Europe that depends on this.
What the hell are you talking about look’s like C.Y. to me (climate yoga)
How many cycles and what are the fundamental frequencies of those cycles? Are we anywhere close to monitoring these changes for many cycles? Why do you believe natural climate variations are periodic?
I would agree with that view, but given that the increase of global SST since the previous cyclical high in the 1940s is only 0.3K (and only 0.2K without the overwriting of meta data), this “signal” can be discarded.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/07/12/hadsst3/
Steven Mosher
Get serious, man.
You answer a statement that “It’s difficult to claim the recent increases in manmade greenhouse gases are responsible for the warm sea surface temperatures off the New England coast” with the statement:
Since the temperature is a result of BOTH GHGs and internal variation…
Huh?
That’s a hollow statement, Mosh, based on a leap of faith. What empirical evidence can you cite that demonstrates that it was not ALL a result of internal variation (and forcing)?
Max
Steven Mosher: Show me the manmade global warming component in the graph you’re referring to, please.
Stevn Mosher: I’ll save you some time looking for one:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-4.png
It’s from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/october-2012-sea-surface-temperatures-and-anomalies-along-sandys-path-were-not-unusual/
Bob, like cripwell and springer you are beyond hope. Sorry.
Steven Mosher
“You are beyond hope” is a lousy cop-out, Mosh.
It tells me you’ve run out of arguments.
Basta.
Max
Arno –
Given that many of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last decade, I have a hard time understanding why one discrete event caused a “step change” in temperatures. How did that El Nino change the global climate so that afterwards, temperatures remained on average warmer than they had been previously?
Given that you guy’s used 1970 to 1998 as proof of cAGW you shouldn’t talk to much.
Joshua | February 8, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Glad you brought up that point because I have to explain some skulduggery. First, my analysis of satellite temperatures shows that from 1979 to 1997 there were a series of global ENSO oscillations, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while the mean temperature did not change for 18 years. This was published in my book in 2010 but is universally ignored. Instead of a temperature standstill in the eighties and nineties what is shown is a phony “late twentieth century warming” which does not exist. At the end of this period the super El Nino of 1998 appeared. It really was super, and its temperature peak was twice as high as any El Ninos that preceded it. Like I said, it brought so much warm water across the ocean that a step warming followed. This, and not an imaginary greenhouse warming is the cause of the very warm first decade of our century. There was no more warming after the step warming was over and that lack of warming has lasted from that time until today. Met Office figures it sixteen years and from satellites I count at least twelve. Hansen counts as many as nine record years there and wants to leave the impression that global warming is responsible. In actual fact those years are warm because they sit on the high platform created by that step warming, not because of any warming since. But he is not satisfied with that and includes two totally phony high points – 2005 and 2010 – to prove that warming is continuing. 2005 is a total fabrication and is indistinguishable from other years around it. 2010 is the peak year of the 2010 El Nino. It is high but he has a nerve to show it higher than 1998 which is a lie. The mean temperature of the ENSO oscillation is determined by the midpoint between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. It so happens that the midpoint of the 2010 El Nino and the 2008 La Nina lines up exactly with the no-warming temperature level of the twenty-first century, confirming that we are still in a no-warming mode. As to how a singular event could have such large consequences, at the moment that is just an empirical observation. There are some facts but they are only a partial explanation. First, I did not expect the high temperature level to persist but it seems to have become permanent. Second is that this super El Nino is an outlier, something that is rare, that you might see only once in a century. Checking some older records a possibly similar one could have happened in 1877 but I have no information about it. Thirdly, we do know that El Ninos cross the ocean from west to east along the equatorial countercurrent, run ashore in South America, spread out along the coast north and south, and warm the air above. The warming is due to the fact that the water they carry comes from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the warmest water on earth. But what sets it apart is its size and I had a hard time explaining where its energy comes from. I had some weird thoughts but now I favor a storm surge that coincided with a regular El Nino wave. I could be wrong of course and some of those billions budgeted for climate research ought to be applied to this problem. This is actually not the only step warming we know about – there was another one in 1976 which was associated with the phase change of the PDO. Together they account for almost all temperature rise since the seventies, leaving nothing for the greenhouse warming to do. To get the full information, get my book. It is called “What Warming?” and Amazon has it.
Arno –
Please take into consideration my lack of technical background…
I am, being skeptical in nature, dubious of causal explanations for observed phenomena if they aren’t at least accompanied by plausible explanations (even if those explanations are not “proven”). We tend to find the associations and correlations that confirm our biases. One way to control for bias confirmation is to offer mechanistic explanations for those associations and then test the mechanistic explanations.
Now certainly, we can find associations that disconfirm certain hypotheses even if we can not find associated and tested mechanisms that confirm alternative hypotheses. But that a lack of sound mechanistic explanations leaves a lot open.
For example, I can certainly see where it would be theoretically possible to show that the only warming that occurred is that which is associated with a “step,” and that no other warming is present. I’m not sure that you’ve reached that bar, but even if you have, you would have to provide a plausible mechanistic explanation to show that AGW and “step changes” in temperature are mutually exclusive. Perhaps there are ways that increased buildup of CO2 causes warming that manifests as “steps changes.”
At any rate, w/o any plausible explanation for why discrete phenomena would cause a persistent change of state (rather than a temporary change that ends once those discrete phenomena are over and done with), I’m left being skeptical about your theory.
Joshua | February 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Don’t worry about your technical background, just use your brain. Those phenomena that you are dubious about are experimental observations and they can’t be questioned. You are right to demand an explanation but unfortunately all these high-powered “climate” scientists who are swimming in research money refuse to take notice of what I say. Apparently they think that “denialist” science should not get any kind of publicity, good or bad. The step warming is of course bad for them and not likely to support their theories of warming. They have a huge research effort but it either goes to proving that AGW exists or for circumstantial observations of the effects of their alleged warming. Despite years of these efforts they have yet to come up with a breakthrough that proves AGW. Their research is world wide and is extremely well funded. Hansen of NASA, for example, controls more than a billion dollars that Uncle Sam gives him as research money. I introduced several other important concepts in my book that also should be further investigated. The fact that there was no warming in the eighties and nineties is one example I mentioned before. It goes against Hansen’s claim in 1988 that AGW had started. As I mentioned previously global mean temperature did not change for 18 years. I determined it by putting dots at the midpoints of El Nino peaks and La Nina valleys as I described and then connected the points. This gave me a straight horizontal line. I had previously applied the same technique to GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 temperature curves, both of which show the same peaks and valleys as the satellites do. In both cases, connecting the points gave a straight line sloping up which indicates warming. I knew it was a phony warming but they both were peddling it as fact. Until last fall, that is, when the new issues of GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 datasets became available. As of August 8th for GISTEMP and September 29th for HadCRUT3 their global mean temperature in the eighties and nineties has miraculously become a horizontal straight line, just like the satellites show. There was no announcement and nobody would know it if they did not use my technique of determining the mean that I outlined above. Must be that somebody knew about my book and got cold feet about what they were doing with temperature. Clearly the ability to make such sophisticated changes to the record implies that they did know about it. It is also a cross-ocean coordinated action which widens the scope for the original phony data source. As to showing that step warming is the only possible warming, this is not my claim. I only said that this goes back to the seventies. In the early part of the twentieth century there was a steady period of warming that started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940. There was no sudden increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 which rules out the greenhouse effect as a cause. Furthermore, it is quite impossible for greenhouse effect to stop as suddenly as it did in 1940. What happened in 1940 was the beginning of the severe cooling associated with World War II. Its aftereffects continued after the war and the next real warming did not begin until 1976, as I mentioned. The likelihood is that the early century warming had a solar origin. As to the greenhouse effect that is supposed to be the cause of AGW, it does not exist. Ferenc Miskolczi showed in 2010 that atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation was constant for 61 years while the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. This substantial amount of carbon dioxide did not increase the absorption of radiation by one whit. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed
I notice that Arno Arrak is directly contracting the skeptic claim that global warming stopped in 1997. According to him it never started. Just one step jump in 1997-1998.
I also notice the interjection by lorne50 above, who (probably unknowingly) contradicts arno arrack. Lorne50 admits there was a warming over the period 1970 to 1998. Ie not simply a step change in 1997-1998 as Arno Arrak (wrongly) claims.
Arno claims: “First, my analysis of satellite temperatures shows that from 1979 to 1997 there were a series of global ENSO oscillations, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while the mean temperature did not change for 18 years”
His claim is false.
According to the skepticalscience trend calculator, GISTEMP temperature data has a trend of 0.093C +- 0.123C/decade warming over the period 1979 to 1997.
Arno claims the “mean temperature did not change”, ie he’s claiming a precise value of 0C/decade. Yet the data does not support such a precise value. Arno has ignored the uncertainty in the data, uncertainty which includes for high rates of warming (eg as much as 0.216C/decade warming over the period).
It’s a shame he wrote such an obvious error into a book!
Wait, there’s more.
It just struck me that Arno’s claim about no warming in the 80s and 90s (except one jump in 1997/1998) contradicts skeptic claims that high solar output of the late 20th century caused the warming in recent decades.
Because Arno is arguing there WAS NO warming in recent decades, just a large jump in 1997/1998, which runs contrary to an expectation of gradual warming expected from elevated solar output, which must surely be an expectation of HIS given he expects likewise nothing but a gradual warming from elevated CO2.
But did solar output spike upwards in 1997/1998? No. So Arno must be arguing the Sun had no role in any of the warming since 1970.
It’s funny how skeptics manage to keep these conflicts hidden from sight. You see the Tisdales, Arnos and Scafetas attacking CO2 as a cause, but you never see them attack each other’s claims.
You never read something like this on WUWT:
“The problem with the Sun causing any warming since 1970 is that we’d expect GRADUAL warming from a warmer Sun, but there was no gradual warming, just a single spike in 1997/1988.”
You NEVER see that kind of argument, because it’s not in their interest to come up with it and deploy it. It’s all about attacking “IPCC” ideas, discrediting each others doesn’t help that.
Arno,
Paragraph breaks, please.
tg56, the fun, and work, is in making the paragraph breaks yourself. I whistle as I work. All the livelong day.
=================
Politicians of course wish to continue funding climate change alarmism but even the New York Times apparently has better things to do with its dollars than continue to parrot the hysterical ravings of government climate change toadies and summarily closed down its environment desk in January. Some call it a shame. Some call it a scam. Hell, the whole damn scam is a shame.
I share your anger, but as a liberal democrat I have an extra burden to haul around…shame and embarrassment. With respect to global warming, I think of the NYT’s, as a fortress of ignorance and elitism which eventually must be stormed, like the Bastille in 1789. That will be a day to celebrate.
I think it is a bigger shame that the liberal democrats spent 8 years demonizing George Bush for doing nothing more than standing up for America with his whole heart and standing. It was GW who stood up to the UN and the superstitious crowd and the purveyors of fear from the Left like that lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen square with nothing but the courage in his heart to exercise free will, represent the unrepresented, and to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists that had been chosen at that point in time in the evolution of society to try to run the board.
Ah wag, I respect you, but I have to thank you for once again reminding me why I am who I am, politically speaking. If GWB did something good, it was totally by accident. BUt why fight, we were getting along so well…
Bread turned to roses in his climate basket.
================
Some nights Joshua threw them all, some nights only a couple of pair.
=====================
Joshua | February 8, 2013 at 8:56 pm |
Chinaman
I love you guys!
———————————————————————
You love ethnic slurs, boy?
Springer –
Just a little lesson in basic logic. If I say that I love “you guys,” it would not mean that I love “ethnic slurs.” “Slurs” ≠ “guys.” “Guys” ≠ “slurs.”
i love Judith’s fanatically rightwing “denizens” because they are so laughably clueless that they unknowingly discredit themselves through the use of terms like “chinaman” (and through making inane arguments such as we’d have to talk to someone who has both lived as a free person in the inner city and a slave to understand whether anyone rational would choose to give up their individual freedom and basic civil rights in order to live like “well-cared for” dogs).
Joshua, according to Martha, you’re racist. Or something.
============
The alarmists tend to be climatology deniers
They can’t seem to read about precedents –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blizzard_of_1888
I searched the WG1 portion of AR4 (using the ‘find’ function in Adobe Reader, 989 pages or so) to locate the documentation for ‘90%’ and ‘very likely’, as stated in the SPM. There is no documentation — no set of details justifying that particular probability and eliminating others. I suspect many non-climate scientists think the claim is a formal confidence interval. No wonder there is such a wide range in public opinion.
Suholt, you write “no set of details justifying that particular probability and eliminating others.“
Thank you very much indeed. That is what I suspected. But the warmists will never agree that the IPCC report could be so fatally flawed.
But the larger issue is that similar claims are in the draft of the AR 5. Should we not be clamoring for these statements to be taken out of the AR 5 since they are completely unscientific. And they shouild be removed BEFORE the IPCC mounts it`s publicity campaign after it has got international agreement on the SPMs of the AR 5.
I wouldn’t worry much about it at this point, Jim. The catastrophic global warming hypothesis is on life support and the prognosis for recovery is not good. Another few years of pause and she’s dead, Jim.
It’s explained here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-3.html
Sorry wrong link
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html
Thank you lolwot. What I was looking for.
Good grief. I worked in a perfectamundu “he’s dead, Jim” and didn’t get a single chuckle in response.
Tough audience!
Perhaps of interest:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_definitions.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
Still the best in a nutshell summary of the IPCC reports:
GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS
VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS*
Kesten C. Green1 and J. Scott Armstrong2
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
“The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming.”
Is anything of this going to be implemented?: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/16/by-its-actions-the-ipcc-admits-its-past-reports-were-unreliable/#more-67582
Sorry David, my humour senser is too coarse to pick up any faint signal such as “she’s dead Jim” Is that a line in a movie or something?
OMG! You’re kidding, right?
Afraid not David, don’t watch TV except for live sport and current affairs. Too much advertising and too many media agendas (even in current affairs).
Like what you post David, shows a very strong intellect and a gift with words. Someone said recently that you are like a laser beam but I lean towards the illumination of a searchlight, more coverage that way.
One needs to check the basement of the IPCC HQ and find the dartboard with the hole in the “90%” range. Wonder how many times the dart was thrown?
This Sunday, February 10th, is Chinese New Year — the year of the snake. They still have time to change it to year of the Bayesian.
I believe it is the Lunar New Year.
Koreans, Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian, Malaysian, etc all celebrate.
In fact that is why my wife is cooking a special meal for tonight’s dinner.
Look close it’s that fat tail . sarc/off
Clouds flexing their muscles.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018551/abstract
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
========================
Yes kim, I think we’ve all heard that quote once or twice before. Perhaps now might be a good time to work up some new material for the act. Before the heckling starts…
We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
===========================
Some cooling kim
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2013_v5.5.png
Bah, Alabama. Ain’t they God-fearin’ fools over there?
==========
lw, I’ve never clicked on one of your links for fear of going bind, but if that’s about January of this year being in the top few for warmth, that’s a pretty slim reed… given no additional warming in the last 16 years. Tell you what though, when we start seeing actual cooling month to month and you insist it doesn’t mean anything, I’ll remind you of your post.
lolwot
Looking carefully at that UAH plot you link, Jan 2013 seems to be the hottest January in the entire record except for Jan 2010 (during a strong El Nino). That’s interesting.
BBD.
“…… That’s interesting.”
No it isn’t. The second warmest December is in 1987 (For a data set that starts in 1978). Now that is interesting!!
Oh wait a minute neither of them are interesting. My apologies.
HR
The data point is January. And I think I was correct…
steven
That’s an interesting link. All I would add is that the US ~2% of the Earth’s surface, and this is a sample from just 7 monitoring stations. Stranger still is the apparent lack of effects on climate indicators.
Yes, it is odd. Not sure what to make of the no apparent effect part. I suspect it may cause some second looks.
Yes BBD. The laws of physics as you understand them may be different in restricted locations such as those 7 peculiar weather stations located within the 2% of earth’s landmass taken up by the United States. Possibly extra terrestrials who can do anti-gravity and make endless energy from crystals and pyramids and whatnot broke out of Area 51 and took up residence at those weather stations just to mess with our heads. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!
Springer
I said it was an interesting study, but given the extremely coarse sampling over a tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface and the *absence* of any effect on climate indicators, there isn’t much else we can say.
You’re just cross because every time you and I have a discussion about climate you get shown up as a know-nothing. Only you can fix that. How about actually reading some of those university-level textbooks you think are the only permissible references here?
blah blah duh
lying anonymous phuckwad I fart in your general direction
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTT!
Suck it up, shopkeeper.
Dr Curry
Are you ever going to put this offensive clown into moderation?
BBD,
One should not throw stones. Springer may be cruder in his offensiveness, but he’s not particularly more frequent with it than you.
Does anyone here have a hypothesis that explains how the surface can be receiving more downwelling energy yet not increase in temperature?
I seem to recall someone who has a wacky notion that if there’s water available to evaporate on the surface then the increased energy is taken up as latent heat of vaporization and transported to the cloud deck. The fellow also says that the cloud deck should rise in response about 100 meters per CO2 doubling.
Anybody know who that is? ;-)
In politics follow the money. In climate follow the water.
LOL. Where’s the CO2 beef?
Net-LW (up of course) increased too!
A big reduction in cloud cover over land can’t be cause for comfort, especially with specific humidity decreasing.
On a detail in the paper, they say 30 ppm CO2 is only 0.14 W/m2, where I think it is more like 0.4 W/m2. I don’t know why they think it should be so small.
Dr. Curry wrote:
“I have asked Nicholas Watson to send me his papers, I plan on doing a thread on his work in a future post.”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/06/agu-highlights/
Revamping fundamental misconception of the nature of attractor PDFs will be a welcome development if it happens here.
Easy tips from Economics:
Volatility Clustering
http://www.riskglossary.com/link/volatility_clustering.htm
Stochastic Volatility Model
http://www.riskglossary.com/link/stochastic_volatility_model.htm
Example of hierarchically structured cyclic volatility:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn1.png
Another view of the same thing:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
Solar throttling of terrestrial meridional flow:
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
Simple tachometer reading. Lots of things spinning at different rates in a car, but all are coupled and subject to global accelerations.
Paul – Please label your charts with units. It might (or might not) render the charts more meaningful.
I don’t omit things for lack of care. There’s a limit to how much sleep & exercise I will sacrifice for volunteer work. Long-term, sufficient, guaranteed-secure pay & pension is the only thing that could potentially free me of Pareto Principle operations.
I understand and do appreciate your effort.
Jim, I can find time most days to write informal notes, so always feel welcome to ask very specific short-answer questions one or a few at a time.
For example, I don’t know what you mean by AAM.
AAM = atmospheric angular momentum
This is primarily about the midlatitude westerly wind belts — oscillations of intensity & mean latitude — decadal waves washing poleward from the equator, accumulating in multidecadal aggregate.
By the way — a substantial announcement:
I’ve just confirmed and extended this. Gravely serious parties capable of going against the mainstream grain to help correct its fundamental misdirection: you will find clean, painfully beautiful results if you extend this to the semi-annual timescale. (More details as scarce time/resources permit…)
“The body is not so good at detecting low levels of oxygen but is really good at detecting high levels of carbon dioxide,” Wemmie says.
And so Feinstein, Wemmie and their colleagues administered a new test to SM, along with a pair of twin sisters with similar brain lesions from the same rare disease. All three volunteers were exposed to high concentrations of the gas.
The researchers thought that the patients would be insensitive to the test. “We were pretty shocked when exactly the opposite happened,” Wemmie says.
A few seconds after inhaling the gas, SM started to wave her hand towards the mask covering her face, crying “help me!” to a nearby experimenter. After the mask was removed, SM’s skin was flushed, her nostrils flared and her eyes were wide open.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/01/170877971/fear
Linked from, Fear:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Enough to change pH and set off those alarms. CO2 levels not achievable by anthropogenic release.
Convincing evidence for some, though, little doubt.
==============
EPA REALLY Apollo 13, Anyone that got to 18% 18,000,000 ppm that is stupid to put people over that someone should go to jail!!!
Large scale changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation result in shifts in standing waves in the climate system. People are used to thinking of these in terms of the AMO, PDO, etc – but theses are all intrinsically linked as nodes in a climate network.
See for instance – http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/guest-post-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-northern-hemisphere%E2%80%99s-climate-variability-by-marcia-glaze-wyatt-sergey-kravtsov-and-anastasios-a-tsonis/ –
‘It is intriguing to note a shared rhythm among the following: successful synchronizations of high-frequency indices, shifts between periods of alternating character of interannual variability, and the stadium-wave’s multidecadal tempo. This similar pacing suggests possible stadium-wave influence on synchronizations of interannual-to-interdecadally-varying indices within the climate network. Future research is required to determine the exact significance of these episodes.’
But these ‘standing waves’ in the climate system change the global distribution of cloud and rainfall. The change in global refelected shortwave is much less than the reported change in US cloud. This is because the current patterns predispose the US to drought while other regions – Australia, Indonesia etc – see very much increased rainfall.
This is a graph from – Advances in Understanding Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Variability from Satellite Observations Norman G. Loeb et al 2011 – showing cloud and refelectd SW. It is consistent with ARGO to 2000m over the overlapping period and the LW anomaly trend was minimal. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES_MODIS.gif
These current patterns suggest a cool global mode over the next decade or so and in increase in global cloud cover. Indeed – more cloud is on the cards for the next millenium.
‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg
With ENSO and these high latitude circumpolar winds – the ‘stadium wave’ might flow in the other direction.
You’re babbling.
You are all sorts of a fool and are simply demonstating the breadth depth of your ignorance. I’ll tell you what – if I wan’t to be stalked by a clueless wanker like you I’ll ask.
In the meantime I would suggest that the best course would be to keep your mouth shut in the hope that people will not realise just what an idiot you are.
I wasn’t aware I needed permission from the babbler to point out that he’s babbline. Is it another new nanny law from your wacky leaders down under?
By the way, I’m pretty sure stalking doesn’t apply on a single blog. It’s not like I’m hunting you down like a coyote all over the internet or phoning you and hanging up and things of that nature. Get a grip, babble boy.
Big dave – you’re really a bugged out nincompoop with no ability to read or resson at all. The stalking you have already admitted. It consists of dropping as a matter of policy with inane and contentless dipsh_t droppings.
I think I suggested that if I wanted < some cackling crone in a dress and red shoes to pollute the space – I would ask. In the meantime if you have nothing meaningful to say then stfu.
I am so over Americans who think they can insult my country. With people like you it is no wonder at all that the US is a dysfunctional and failing society with about as much economic future as North Korea. As far as I can see you will continue to vote yoursleves bread and circuses until China forecloses on the entire country. We have an alliance but it is not one that we put any store in anymore. We don’t expect the US to be capable of or willing to project anything but incompetence and buffoonery. There is nothing that America succeeds in anymore but bluster and bs. It is all slipping away and you don’t know how to get it back but still continue this faded charade of American exceptionalism. Every one is laughing at you but you don’t see what a joke you have become. Uncle Sam now wears a red nose and big red shoes – that’s pretty funny.
Dorothy Parker cries big blonde tears by the telephone.
===========
Your country insults itself. I merely use it as a convenient prop.
“We don’t expect the US to be capable of or willing to project anything but incompetence and buffoonery.”
All hat, no cattle. One US aircraft carrier group could swat your navy like a fly. Stealth aircraft would take out your air force and land defenses the next day then American kids barely old enough to shave would sit in Langley remotely flying predator drones taking out targets at will. You wouldn’t last a week. We both know that.
Er, get a room you two!
Come into my Casbah!
===========
Tactically – the first thing to take out is the vulnerable aircraft carriers.
This from Fobes this year – http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/01/23/can-china-sink-a-u-s-aircraft-carrier/ – it refers to China but you can be assured that we have sufficient and sophisticated long range missile to knock out any amount of dinosaur aircraft carriers. We have the advantage over China in that we know all your systems.
‘That raises the question of how vulnerable U.S. aircraft carriers might be to attack by the Chinese air force and navy. The United States has built its maritime force structure around a handful of giant supercarriers, which have been deployed repeatedly to deter Chinese military action against Taiwan. But with China’s double-digit economic growth fueling a rapid buildup of long-range weapons, many experts have begun to doubt the wisdom of deploying U.S. carriers anywhere near the Middle Kingdom in wartime.
Obviously, there are many reasons why China would want to avoid a war, especially one involving use of nuclear weapons. But accidents happen, and the credibility of U.S. security guarantees to regional allies hinge on how effective naval forces might be in a future conflict. Since all the geographical advantages lie with China, it is crucial to know whether the six or seven carriers that America could deploy quickly to the Western Pacific would survive a Chinese onslaught. If they are vulnerable, the war might be over very soon.
Your problem then becomes how to deploy aricraft in the region. Although you can be assured thatwe have sophisticed air to air and ground to air defence if any get through. Certianly sufficient to knock out clumsy drones in any quantity. We also have the most sophistacated early warming system on the planet. We can see things coming almost before they’re launched. We are not Pakistan.
Then there is the question of regional linkages. China amongst many others would not like to see their supply chains interuppted. The nuclear theat is a toothless tiger.
You have lost every war for the past 60 years – as I say buffoonery and incompetence coupled with bluster is no substitute for strategic thinking.
‘The Air Force’s bomber troubles stretch a long way back. The last bomber to be developed and purchased without huge cost overruns was the B-52, which began development in the late 1940s. Twice in subsequent decades the Air Force launched a new bomber program in order to replace the now-classic B-52, only to see costs rise and production terminated early. Seventy years after its design was conceived, the B-52 remains America’s most numerous strategic bomber.’
The so caled stealth bombers are limited to 20 – and you can’t afford squat either as replacement or to increase the number. You need to keep 19 of the 20 in reserve to bomb China – only there are only 2 working at any one time. They are slo, clumsy and vulnerable to passive radar – of which we have plenty of home grown examples. http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Directory.php?Location=Home:Home
It seems increasingly likely that we are on the wrong side of strategic alliances. Better fix that.
Exeter, Ajax, Achilles. Oh wait, Kiwis and Pommies. Same same Yanks and larrikins oz.
============
I second Leigh Kelly.
You two do yourselves no favors with idiotic poop flinging.
The limit is when I get some idiotic American insulting my country on a regular basis. Tolerance wears very thin.
Chief,
Based on my experience, Dave is in a very small minority of Amricans regarding opinions and attitudes towards Australia and its citizens. Generally speaking, most Americans I know have your country high on their list of places they want to visit. And everyone I know who has been there only has positive things to say about the people. (Only negative I’ve ever heard is about the cost of living. Your beer prices are shocking to an American.)
I keep in mind that Dave is a Marine. Now we in the Navy love our big little brothers in the Corps. Though we don’t like to let them know it, we are pretty proud. (My son is a Marine and I’m proud as hell about that.) But we also understand that every now and then they are not fit to be let out in public. Dave, for all of his other virtues, can regularly illustrate where the jar in jarhead comes from. There is nothing of value to be gained in arguing with a jarhead.
During WW2 some California cities created Marine-free zones, so civilized people could live in peace.
tim –
Au contraire. I think It is truly inspirational how well chief has stoically stood up to insulting rhetoric. Think of all he has endured. Surely we can understand how, in the face of such a onslaught, his tolerance might wear a smidgeon thin on rare occasion?
After all, he’s only human. At least he hasn’t allowed his terrible, terrible abuse (oh, the humanity!) to lower the high standards he sets for himself.
And consider Chief’s brilliant insight and logic. Clearly, now that he has put his foot down, Springer’s insulting behaviors will cease immediately. It’s not as if Chief is indulging in similarly insulting behavior – that would only perpetuate the insult exchange.
Oh. My sides.
Josh,
Your attempt at satire doesn’t do you any favors either. What is the benefit of appearing juvenile?
tim –
Fair points. There is no rational explanation.
It is not as if I posted a long comment with significant scientific content – http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/08/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-293558 – to be told I am babbling by a turd on legs.
Thnaks for your 2 bits Josh – you’re always welcome to waffle on with your usual nonsense. Something to do with I do it too was it? Don’t forget mommy mommy.
Not going to contest the strategic assessment – Sheriff Dave and his drones? Didn’t think so.
I started a new blog http://convergetics.org in which I advance that climate change is natural and cyclic. To demonstrate that the apparent illogical temperature variation since 1880 is in fact a coherent superposition of two climate patterns, I use the climate graph displayed on the CRU homepage.
Did you know that Earth isn’t just warming; it’s also shaking more? Since the 80s, major earthquakes are 58% on the rise. A 3-year per decade comparison that includes the most recent earthquake data shows that there have been 317 earthquakes of magnitude 6 and higher during 1980-1982, number which increased to 501 (58% more) during 2010-2012. Decadal increase is a little smaller: There have been 1085 major earthquakes of magnitude 6 and higher in the 1980s, 1492 earthquakes (38% more) in the 1990s and 1611 earthquakes (48% more) in the 2000s. See the statistics.
Probably earthquake detection is on the rise rather than earthquakes.
A magnitude 6 and higher means a major earthquake, which is so damaging that you don’t need a seismograph to detect it. So, it’s something else.
Want to try again?
I checked on what the experts have to say. The US Geological agrees with me not you.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
I lived in southern California for 20 years. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You won’t notice a mag 6 more than 100 miles away unless you happened to see a light fixture hanging from the ceiling start to swing a tiny bit.
Did you click on the link? It’s from Wikipedia: Richter magnitude scale. And the seismologist who wrote is explanation is of the same kind as the IPCC climatologists who needed 16 years to “see” the warming pause. Incidentally, I observe earthquakes since the 70s…
g, do you think the sun’s geomagnetic forces have any vulkanic effect on earth or is this Mother Gaia doing her own thing?
===========
Kim,
This is going to be of another post, but since you asked, the short answer is no and no, for the simply reason that all aspects of Sun’s activity and the various manifestations of Earth’s activity (warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc.) are together consequences of a cosmic phenomenon. If you ask why wasn’t it explained before, it’s because the present science is so fragmented that nobody could connect the dots until now. When I had realized that today’s scientists can no longer see the forest for the trees, I have created Convergetics, the overarching science that converges fields of natural science to gain more knowledge.
Hmmm. Ultimate causes are tough to understand because of the time span involved.
========
Well let’s see. I have the US Geological Service agreeing with me on one hand and an anonymous commenter on a blog disagreeing with me on the other hand.
Who should I believe? Decisions, decisions…
Crazy as it sounds I’m going with the USGS. ROFLMAO
http://convergetics.wordpress.com/
What’s up with that, Holmes?
Nevermind. I see you updated the link associated with your handle to a new incarnation of convergetics.
Think you’ll get more traction with “wordpress” removed from the URL?
And why didn’t you do the usual thing which is “This site has moved to blahblahblah.com. Please update your links.” instead of just turning the old blog into a dead end with all the content gone?
No, it’s because I never used it. I just wanted to know how WordPress works. Besides, I have my own server that hosts the three Convergetics: com, org and net.
Thanks! I just forgot to modify the website in my user settings. Now, the error is corrected.
Well, let’s see. In the first paragraph of your reference, you read:
Now, let’s verify if this affirmation is true at the right place, on the USGS Earthquake Facts and Statistics Graphs. So, go and see the statistics at the USGS National Earthquake Information Center and do the math, or on my blog at http://convergetics.org/detailed-earthquake-statistics/, where the math for earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater is easier to calculate. Either way, you will find the following decadal statistics: 105 in 1880-89, 153 in 1990-99 and 144 in 2000-09. Now, the numbers for the three years par decade are: 37 in 1880-82, 47 in 1990-92, 44 in 2000-02 and 58 in 2010-12.
Now, please tell me: When earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater were 58 in 2010-12 vs 37 in 1880-82, which is 57% earthquake increase, would you call that “earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant?”
Besides, the second paragraph starts with “A partial explanation may lie in the fact that…” so the author agrees that there is still another part which isn’t easy to explain. Which one is bigger?
And btw, the anonymous commenter is the president of the Convergetics Research Center, and had predicted the present warming pause back in 2001, when nobody even dreamed about it. (The details are on my blog.)
View the Sexagesimal Hypothesis
I can’t click on a link with the word Sexagesimal in it.
It works for me, but no problem. The link is http://convergetics.org/2013/02/dual-pattern-climate-model/
Checking on the high degree of ceertainly that the IPCC quotes in the SPMs, I was directed by lolwot to
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html
Here I find the following
Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability).
I have also checked Beenstock and Reingewertz at
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
and find
Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of
significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the
data.
It seems to me that both these claims cannot be true. Either Beenstock and Reingewertz are wrong in their analysis, or the IPCC is wrong in the AR4.
It might be instructive to hear what the denizens of Climate Etc. think.
Jim Cripwell
The Beenstock & Reingewertz 2010 analysis to which you referred is a bit of an embarrassment for CAGW proponents, because it clearly concludes
“Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data”.
.
A peer-reviewed update by Beenstock et al. was published in 2012:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf
“We carry out robustness checks using new reconstructions for solar irradiance from Lean and Rind (2009), for globally averaged temperature from Mann et al. (2008) and for global land surface temperature (1850–2007) from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study.”
The conclusions reached are essentially the same:
“We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period.”
They add this sentence for clarification:
“The fact that since the mid 19th century Earth’s temperature is unrelated to anthropogenic forcings does not contravene the laws of thermodynamics, greenhouse theory, or any other physical theory. Given the complexity of Earth’s climate, and our incomplete understanding of it, it is difficult to attribute to carbon emissions and other anthropogenic phenomena the main cause for global warming in the 20th century.”
With the exception of a rebuttal attempt cited on Bishop Hill, I have not seen a statistical rebuttal of this paper to date.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/2/6/batting-back-at-beenstock.html
I doubt whether you will get anything meaningful from the statistical “gurus” here, but let’s see
Of course, this work was all published after AR4, but I wonder how IPCC will handle it in its AR5 report.
Max
Manacker,
Good question, Max. Many people would like to know the answer to that and many other similar questions as to how IPCC AR5 will deal with information that seems to be undermining their scare campaign.
A more important question is when will governments reduce funding for propping up the scare campaign?
When will they realise that the world’s governments are not going to sign up to international treaties, protocols, whatever, that will seriously damage the well-being of their citizens?
Hoping a video of a song with the word “Freedom” does not count as a real comment:
“With the exception of a rebuttal attempt cited on Bishop Hill, I have not seen a statistical rebuttal of this paper to date.”
I think Tamino did a pretty good job rebutting this one, though I don’t have the link.
Also, Nick Stokes has a rebuttle,
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-polynomial-cointegration-and-death.html
Look, the problem with this analysis is you have to accept that polynomial cointegration actually tells you something. If you look at it as a model, can it predict future temps? If you accept it as a model…. Well, I wonder where the skepticism is about models that many ‘skeptics’ seem to have. Why accept this model and not a GCM?
GCM are chaotic without a doubt. The uncertainties of inputs and couplings and the nature of the governing equations mean that there is no single deterministic solution – and the limits of ‘irreducible imprecision’ is unknown.
That method is good for detecting certain types of correlations and totally unable to detect certain others. Interdependencies that have a trend as their principal signal are always a problem for statistical methods. Trends may be very strong evidence but judging their significance requires other approaches. Thus we can conclude from that paper only that one method didn’t provide evidence, not that the causal relationship could not be true and even very strong.
You might not want to go there
Most times it is the skeptics’ lot that simply being right is about as good as it gets because the skeptic generally is not in it for the reward and most folks do not like learning they were to too stupid, ignorant, greedy or fearful to accept the truth. The transition from the skeptic who questions the consensus to a public that accepts the skeptic’s truth oftentimes takes time.
Remember how Fulton persisted in his folly and Dr. Barry Marshall drank H. pylori cocktail and vindicated science by vomiting on the accepted knowledge of his peers? Imagine a frail and doped Nietzsche glaring at the paper inches from his nose through blistering eyes as he scribbled about the coming of The Dude. Feel the suffering of Socrates, Jesus and George Bush who refused to sign away America’s future at Kyoto.
Funny thing is, at the moment we were first able to accurately measure ocean temperatures, using satellites, global warming stopped. Argos data is collected aboard the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES). “We must face the fact that the earth is now cooling.” (Craig Loehle, “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Stocks, and Ocean Cooling,” Energy and Environment Vol. 20, 2009)
ARGOS is a tracking system for various things – http://www.argos-system.org/web/en/43-services.php – ARGO is 3000 odd odd probes deployed to measure temperature and salinity in the world’s oceans.
ARGO does show modest warming’
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=vonSchuckmann-OHC.gif
Attributable to SW in the overlapping period.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=Loeb2011-Fig2.png
2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. = global cooling
Cite your sources. I am aware of a number of calculations to 700m – but this doesn’t give cause to dismiss the deeper integrations. Historically – it was considered that 700m was sufficient to capture most change but it appears not to be the case.
…only if you have no understanding of convection and the natural workings of a swirling vortex that makes cold water atop hot water a physical impossibility.
Rubbish. You can make a theory in terms of the volume of downwelling and – as Newton said – induction always trumps hypothesis. And it matches CERES.
It’s the cold water on top that causes a swirling vortex. That much in irrepresible. Capturing it in a mathematical formula presents some difficulties but observing it is easy. And, reality trumps dogma.
Obviously ideology trumps data in your books.
How much ideology is found in a tornado?
Here’s the data – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=vonSchuckmann-OHC.gif
Here’s how it works.
Notice: End of Reality–
Following Natural forces have have been terminated and real-time magnetosphere and SPACE WEATHER SIMULATION ended because the lease on the supercomputer for the real-time simulation expired and government funding will not be immediately available. The future of the world is now in the hands of schoolteachers who can develop more accurate and practical space environment models and humanity’s only hope is if they are able to resume the real-time simulation of nature in the near future. Godspeed.
Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.
And, oh yes, based on the latest and greatest the heat content of the ocean is still rising
Sparks from the grinding axes caused the warm January?
======================
If global warming has stopped why is the ocean heat content still increasing?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Funny thing is, at the moment we were first able to accurately measure ocean temperatures, using satellites, global warming stopped. Argos data is collected aboard the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES). “We must face the fact that the earth is now cooling.” (Craig Loehle, “1,500-Year Climate Cycles, Broken Hockey Stocks, and Ocean Cooling,” Energy and Environment Vol. 20, 2009)
Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.
And, oh yes, based on the latest and greatest the heat content of the ocean is still rising
We can’t really measure OHC by satellite. This is done by ARGO – as shown in the rabett run.
Although unless we understand TOA radiant flux – we could attribute it all to unicorns as mosher has.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png
Careful Eli,
That sounds like a theory of the conspiratorial sort. You don’t want to find yourself in Prof Lewdowski’s stew pot, do you?
Satellites that provide the most accurate data we have tell us the oceans are cooling and have been for more than a decade. Some scientists predict global cooling for decades more–perhaps for the next 30 to 70 years. The globe may experience another ice age before the end of the century. No one really knows. We could be on the precipice of another ice age now and we wouldn’t know that now–only looking back would we know where we were. The Earth has been locked in ice age conditions for more than 80% of the time over the last one million years.
Now some, not Eli to be sure might note that at the moment we were first able to accurately measure surface temperatures using satellites, global warming also stopped, well stopped until the errors in various algorithms and software (which have still not been fully released) were found. That took over twenty years and it did not help that the two people who constructed the first series have a number of axes on the grinding wheel.
And, oh yes, based on the latest and greatest the heat content of the ocean is still rising
Snide lips sink waterships.
====================
Some, not Eli of course, would realize that lower troposphere temperatures are not and should not be the same as “surface” temperatures, especially when the “surface” is a few meters below the “surface”.for 70% of the “surface” Since the lower troposphere temperatures are dependent on the rate of heat loss from the core thermal mass, they would tend to reflect changes in the system and amplify those changes being the density of the lower troposphere is lower than the “surface”.
The LTL, MTL and TST would be a poor man’s version of a Watt meter. Since the LTL is cooling slightly, it could indicate that someone picked the wrong “surface” :)
Question for Mosher. It’s about this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018551/abstract
where they found surface forcing increased 8 W/m2 per decade at 7 CONUS weather stations yet the temperature didn’t increase.
What’s the climate sensitivity work out to at those 7 locations? [snicker]
You can’t measure a total SYSTEM response by looking at 7 locations.
Also, since sensitivity, ECR, is defined as the total system responce when the system reaches equillbrium, you cant learn anything from a decades worth of data. the issue is inertia. Now, as you know applying a forcing of horse power increases the speed of vehicle. If you apply that forcing, and your tires spin and you go nowwhere for a second, you would not conclude that the sensitivity to that forcing was zero. Firest you have to overcome inertia. In the case of the planet that would be overcoming the inertia of the oceans. That more than decades before you can see a response.
Plus you screwed up and didnt cite the net forcing. No hope for you.
Steven Mosher | February 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm:
“…you cant learn anything from a decades worth of data. The issue is inertia…”
Or so you say. But James Hansen did not think much of it in 1988 when he told the Senate that anthropogenic global warming had started. His presentation was prepared in 1987 when he had only ten years warming to report. It so happens that there was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and early seventies and people were worried about a a new ice age, not warming. The warming that Hansen depended upon was a step warming associated with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976 which raised global temperature by 0.2 degrees Celsius and was over by 1980. From that point until 1997 there was no warming – just ENSO phases, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, while global mean temperature stayed the same. He gave his presentation first in November 1987 but it was a bust – media just ignored it. Chairman of the Senate committee was Tom Wirth, a buddy of Al Gore, and he set about to take corrective action. It was cold in November so he asked the Weather Bureau what the warmest day of the year was. It was June 23rd so he set up a new hearing for that day. He also made sure TV stations all knew about it. Night before the hearing he went out, opened all the windows and turned off the air conditioning. It worked. The next day TV cameras were there in double digits, and it was so warm that everybody had to wipe the sweat off their foreheads. In his presentation Hansen showed dangerous model temperature projections up to 2019 and frightened his audience. He claimed that the warming they were experiencing was global warming but it turns out that 1988 was just the peak year of the 1988 El Nino, one of five El Ninos in the eighties and nineties. His talk was all over the evening news that day and was a strong influence towards establishing the IPCC that same year. And of course, payola had to follow, in the form of a Heinz Foundation award a year later. Six months after his talk the El Nino peak had passed and the La Nina that followed pushed down global temperature by 0.4 degrees from what it was in 1988.
The author’s speculation sounds like a combination of David and Chief’s answers to me. I would think that 13W/m2 over 16 years should be noticable in temperature and humidity even if it is just a regional effect. You can’t warm the world unless you warm regions.
steven fundamentally untrue. All you need to do is look at the distribution of station trends over time to realize that even over long periods ( 30 years plus) that some regions can cool while others warm and the global average goes up. dont forget climate is complex.. ha.
and its not 13 watts, so get the figures right.
homogeneous warming is the least likely result, not the most likely
@steven mosher
‘You can’t measure a total SYSTEM response by looking at 7 locations.’
Why not?
The ‘ocean acidification’ guys have done it with just 5 locations worldwide. To their own satisfaction at least – if not to anybody else’s.
” Annual anomalies of total surface net radiation from 1996 through 2011 are shown in Figure 3. The network mean as well as the means of the individual stations generally increase over the entire period. A linear least squares fit to the network mean reveals a +8.2 Wm−2 per decade increase, which amounts to about +13 Wm−2 over the entire period.”
Call it 12 if that makes you feel better. It still remains mysterious.
Homogenous warming is the least likely, I agree. So where should we look for the most likely place for warming to occur? Where the Watts are increasing at a rate considerably above the average expected? I’m very suprised you don’t find the results of the study interesting and counter-intuitive.
I didn’t ask for total system sensitivity, Steven. I asked for sensitivity using those 7 stations.
But I see your point. Using just 7 stations is akin to using just instrument records where the instruments are located mostly in CONUS and Western Europe. You know, like BEST. Undersampling is undersampling.
I asked the question tongue-in-cheek by the way. It’s fun to push your buttons.
Arno Arrak | February 8, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
re; step change
+1
Might I venture to answer – the question is utterly irrelevant because big dave specialises in meaningless twaddle.
Both things – regional temperature and drought (no clouds Einstein) are caused by the same things – http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html
Write that down dipstick.
“Humanity needs access to abundant, affordable energy as the basis on which to improve all our lives. It would be better still if that energy were not as polluting as the current main energy sources, coal and oil. Recent pollution problems in the Chinese capital, Beijing, are testament to the need for clean energy. The trouble is that the technologies available to us at the moment are too expensive and unreliable to take the place of fossil fuels. Instead of beating ourselves up about our eco-footprints, we should be devoting our collective energies to the research and development required to produce clean energy economically.”
So what do got?
Nuclear energy- obvious choice.
Natural gas- another obvious.
Is there problem? Not really.
The only problem I see is we should want cheaper energy.
Fusion energy is been pie in sky- but the government paid
people working on this have not given up. But since they are being
paid despite getting no result, that could the reason they aren’t
giving up.
What else is there other than fusion?
What geothermal energy on massive scale.
Instead drilling small holes, make a tunnel.
Go underneath the surface a few miles.
Could you combine digging deep and fusion?
Use fusion bombs for energy.
1 MT is 5600 terajoules {10^12 J} Or
5600000000 megawatt [MW] or 177 MW for
a year. Or at $10 per MW hour it is 15.5 million
dollar worth of energy. US made 70,000 warheads
and Soviets made more of them.
And 70,000 time 15.5 million is 1.08 trillion.
The Soviets never had 1 trillion dollars, and US didn’t
spend trillion dollars making them. US over decades
have spent far more money securing and storing
them than US spent to making them. So somewhere
around 1/100 or 1/1000th of this price. So cheap
energy IF you use this energy at low cost.
Of course such an idea is politically unlikely.
Of course it’s political unlike IF done on Earth-
A country willing to leave the Outer Space treaty
[easy to do] could do this on the Moon. But probably
want a lot of water or something that captures the
energy- Moon does not have oceans of water. It’s
got small lakes “worth of it”- billions of tonnes. And
the current value of billion of tonnes on the Moon is
worth far more than 1 trillion dollars. So at least in the
near term [before 2100] if went to bother to mined the
lunar water, you sell it for far more money.
On the dry planet Mars, you have trillions of tonnes
of water. If might use [somehow] nuclear bomb to mine
the water- it is thought to be a lot under the surface.
But anyhow, not gonna to work for Earthlings even if
some of them were willing to leave their blue marble.
Of course North Korea or some other political pariah
could do it. Even China could it. At least they could have
technological potential of doing it- not sure they have
ability to do it so bordered on being safe.
Oh here we go:
“7 (Crazy) Civilian Uses for Nuclear Bombs”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/yourfriendatom/
Not I what was talking about- but interesting history on
fracking:)
Many of you treat these issues as black or white, yes or no, on or off. Our hostess keeps making the uncertainty point. All of the evidence says the signal (AGW) is weak, while the noise (natural climate variability) is strong. All the science in the world is not going to change that fundamental. Nor can models. There are, however, far more certain, stronger signal with less noise related things that should be getting the attention that hypothetical CAGW should not. Hopefully Dr. Curry will agree to host more posts on them.
Rud –
I guess you want to offer a challenge to the “Chief” of unintentional irony, eh?
Don’t you think this is getting little old Joshua? I would be a little that dogmatic but the evidence certainly seems to be that CO2 is a minor contribution to recent warming.
Fo instance – ‘The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period.’ http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html
Strong warming in SW and less strong cooling in IR. But there is much more.
The models are of course chaotic. There is no single deterministic solution and the topology of the solution space – to put it in the proper chaotical jargon – is unknown.
‘In this commentary, I will discuss the question “If somebody were to discover that climate variations in the past were stronger than previously thought, what would be the implications for estimates of climate sensitivity?” Pick your favorite time period – Little ice age, Medieval Warm Period, Last Glacial Maximum or Cretaceous – the issues are the same. In considering this question, it is important to keep in mind that the predictions summarized in the IPCC reports are not the result of some kind of statistical fit to past data. Thus, a revision in our picture of past climate variability does not translate in any direct way into a change in the IPCC forecasts. These forecasts are based on comprehensive simulations incorporating the best available representations of basic physical processes. Of course, data on past climates can be very useful in improving these representations. In addition, past data can be used to provide independent estimates of climate sensitivity, which provide a reality check on the models. Nonetheless, the path from data to change in forecast is a subtle one.’ to quote from raypierre – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/natural-variability-and-climate-sensitivity/
And to compare this to James McWilliams.
‘In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Despite raypiere’s assurances – the lack of a single deterministic solution for any of these comprehensive simulations suggest caution in assessing the potential spread and accepting the results. McWilliams cites a posteriori solution behaviour as a plausibility criteria for ensemble members. The chosen solution is one amongst many possible solutions.
I would doubt that food and fuel are insurmountable technological problems – but agree as well that we would do well to get on with these and other urgent environmental and social problems
Cheif. How do you argue chaos out of one side on your mouth and then express certainty about the role of c02 out of the other side.
This is an epsitemology question.
I’ve considered it. Both(many) elements in climate, deterministic, chaotic, even tempero-spatially so. No epistomological contradiction.
===================
‘I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all’
What was the question mosh?
Epistawhat? Sounds like something that happens after a few too many beers at the Great Western.
The data is of course one thing. To the extent that it can be depended on – we have some notion of the global energy budget contraints.
dS/dt = energy in – energy out
Where dS/dt is the rate of instaneous change in global energy storage and energy in and out are average unit energies over a period.
Or ARGO – if we can rely on the data we basically know whether dS/dt is positive or negative – regardless of abrupt shifts in climate.
We all have perfect 20/20 hindsight – if we can rely on the data. The question about whether or not I expressed certainty seems to rely on interpretation. What I said was that the evidence suggests. The reliability of the data brings in question of epistemic uncertainty that should not be overlooked. But the data is the data we have.
The models and the future are subject to aleatoric uncertainty.
Joshua –
Chief’s equation (dS/dt = Ein – Eout) was criticized by WebHubTelescope because simple dimensional analysis shows it cannot be true.
So I looked into it.
The hydrological mass balance eq. is:
(1) S = I – Q, where I & Q are volumes (L3)
The continuity equation is:
(2) dS/dt = I – Q, where I & Q are volumetric flow rates (L3/T)!
It seems clear to me that Chief has incorrectly analogized his energy storage equation from (2) overlooking the change in dimensions. The proper analogy to flow-rate is power.
The proof is in the calculation of average energy. The energy function should be integrated with respect to time and then divided by the time period. Whereas Chief simply divides by time.
Chief will not agree to Peter Lang as arbitrator. How about you?
Joshua –
I mean will you settle the issue? Neither of can claim that the other is your buddy (yet).
Joshua –
Finally:
Chief’s energy storage eq. should look more like this:
S/Δt = Avg Energy In – Avg Energy Out
Instead of this:
dS/dt = Avg Energy In – Avg Energy Out
No?
Thanks
Blueice
No. The equation that I gave was a simple energy budget:
dS/dt = Ein – Eout
Where S is the planetary energy content and Ein and Eout are the rates of unit energy in and out respectively. The terms of the equation are defined precisely – and the units are a consequence of the definition of terms.
Unit energy is the Wattage for 1 second – and the answer is in Joules. 1 Watt for 1 second is 1 Joule. The rate is the average number of Joules/second over a period.
The energy conservation equation where the change is evaluated over a period is:
ΔS (J) = Ein (J) – Eout (J)
The change in energy in the global system is the difference between energy in and energy out in the period. You simply divide by the period to get the rate of change of S and the average of unit energy in and out in the period to get the differential form.
dS/dt (J/s) = Ein (J/s) – Eout (J/s)
Where… Exactly the same form as the hydrological equation – but you forgot the delta in both cases and neglect the dependecne of energy on both power flux and time. .
The more interesting part is that ARGO, SORCE and CERES can be interrogated to look at the sign of energy imbalances and even to assign cause between albedo, IR and solar intensity – albedo is especially a critical problem in climate science. But in fact if you had a good estimate of S – you could close the budget fairly precisely.
So it is not really the simple energy budget that is problematic – the formula is absolutely correct – based on the 1st law – and perfectly defines the energy budget of the planet. I am afraid it is webby that is the problem.
How about it Josh – want to adjudicate?
C’mon, he’s got blinders and a fat thumb on the scales, but he’s no lady.
================
Hi CH –
Then Instead write it: dS/dt = Pin – Pout
Unit energy is Joules (the Watt-second). Unit power is Watts (or Joues/second)
To calculate average energy, integrate the energy function with respect to time and divide by the time period.
Yes. I agree. In fact I am looking forward to it. However, there is still the question as to the limitations of mass balance storage equations when used to represent energy balance storage. What do you say?
Let’s look at SORCE data.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
The left hand axis is in Watts/m^2. The formal definition of Watt is:
kg·m^2·s^-3
And the formal definition of Joule is:
kg·m^2·s^-2
A Watt is a Joule/s and a Joule is a Wattxs as you said but there is no such animal as unit power. There is power flux and unit energy.
So if we have 1361.5 W/m^2 – this is 1361.5 J/m^2 as unit energy – that is the power flux for a period of 1 second. We like to talk about energy rather than instantaneous power flux when thinking about energy conserved, heat, work, etc.
If you look at the graph – you will see that energy in declines in the Schwabe cycle to 2009 or so and then increased again. So up to 2009 there was a cooling solar trend – warming a little after. But the energy in needs to be adjusted for the Earth’s geometry. Divide it by 4 – so the actual change is fairly minimal. Energy out seems to change much more.
CH –
Thank you for your patience and persistance. I have found some errors in my earlier comments. Nevertheless the essence of the complaint remains. Please correct using basic physics/math. I will then return to the kiddie pool.
(1) The hydrological mass balance equation for transient sotrage is about volume, i.e. potential energy.
(2) The continuity equation for hydrological transient mass storage is about mass flow, i.e. kinetic energy.
(3) The continuity equation as used to describe energy storage is about energy flow, hence power.
Thanks.
Energy is irrelevant to the hydrological equation of storage – it is about conservation of mass.
The 1st order differential equation of hydrological storage is about rates of change in storage and inflow and outflow.
As I have said three times now – if you want to look at energy you need to look at Bernoulli’s equation which has terms for kinetic and potential energies and pressure.
Sorry – are you suggesting that I change a formula that is at the core of quite a lot of hydrology and whose origins are lost in the mists of time?
CH –
Ah. Sorry Chief but you are using the defintion for momentum flux to analyze electromagnetic radiation at the top of the atmosphere.
For that, you need the Poynting flux. It is not power flux. It is energy flux, also known as power.
Bernoulli and mass balance, no go.
Momentum has to do with momentum. The Poynting flux again has to do with unit area but involves power flux – but the energy transfer is the power flux over a period.
The mass continuity equation has nothing to do with energy as I said. If you want to look at energy – I said four times now – use Bernoulli’s.
This is starting to resemble a conversation with a drunk or an idiot. My patience is at an end. Bye.
CH –
“Confusingly the Poynting vector is sometimes called the power flux” – wikipedia.
The Poynting flux of the Poynting vector through a surface is the electromagnetic power” – wikipedia
Photon flow, energy flux.
Mass flow, power flux.
bye
“All of the evidence says the signal (AGW) is weak”
So what’s your interpretation of Nic Lewis’s recent paper that estimated 1.7C per doubling of CO2? We stand to more than double CO2 (equiv) and 1.7C is a LOT of global warming. It’s about double of 20th century warming. How then can the AGW signal be weak when it stands to cause more warming than nature typically has over past millenia?
Of course you could argue Nic Lewis’s paper is wrong….but I wonder what alternative sensitivity value you are thinking about. Surely even a 0.5C sensitivity to doubling CO2 would leave CO2 as the probable biggest driver of 21st century global temperature.
Simple enough. Sensitivity is theory. Signal is reality. But if sensitivity is another word for prediction then it is just nonsense, predicting what cannot be predicted. Yet it is used this way, among five other ways. In short the concept of sensitivity is so screwed up it is meaningless.
Like utopean social engineering attempts throughout history,
geo-engineering , engineering the BIG solution for perceived
dangerous warming of the planet, demonstrates the folly and
presumption of would- be platonists.
Geo engineering solutions to perceived AGW warming from CO2
such as sprinkling mineral filings in oceans may reduce vast
amounts of iron appears to be this kind of folly. Never mind
if this alters the balance of the oceans.
And never mind that the science is far from ‘settled.’ Numerous
threads on Climate Etc have raised arguments that counter
alarmism about atmospheric warming and need for a drastic action.
For examplle:
*Doubling of CO2 seems unlikely to be catastrophic.Professor
Lindzen estimates climate sensitivity, based on ERBE data,at about
* .5 degrees. Institutions like the IPCC are now reducing their
previous much higher guestimates.
*As CO2 continues to rise temperatures have not. In the last
15/16 years temperatures have plateaued.
And never mind that denizens have pointed out a moderate
warming is desirable for people living in cold latitudes an for their production offood. Plants love CO2. Can’t get enough of it. :)
And never mind that IF we need to reduce CO 2 we can by
beneficial and less drastic means than BIG planning geo-
engineering or social engineering. We’ve had a couple of
denizens here present vids on win-win conservation projects
as local pragmative initiatives. We’ve had Freeman Dyson’s
insights and estimates re increasing soil biomas to sequester
*all* the carbon we may need to sequester from the artmosphere.
Let’s here it fer adaptible, pragmatic humans responding in a free
society to what comes up, black swan or what-ever.
Good post Beth, good to see that you’re not just a cowgirl poet with pretty face.
Geoengineering is folly. yes adding C02 to the atmosphere is geo engineering and it is folly.
Nope, unguessed at, automatically deployable, natural negative CO2 feedbacks await. I have seen them, but can’t describe them mechanistically.
AnthroCO2 is our safest and most effective geoengineering, and would we want to make the earth anything but warmer?
==================
Steven Mosher
Using your logic, building cities is “geoengineering” (and, therefore, “folly”). As was pulling ourselves out of the abject poverty and misery of a world before we had access to reliable, inexpensive energy from fossil fuels (and was, therefore, also “folly”). As a matter of fact, exhaling CO2 is also “geoengineering”, and breathing is, therefore, also “folly”.
Duh!
It’s time to get serious, man.
“Geoengineering” is willfully attempting to change our planet’s climate by actions, which have no other overriding useful purpose – and, you are right, this is “folly”.
Max
His bind is that warming is clearly beneficial. The biome eagerly awaits our action.
=========
It’s just pitiful, Max; I lay out ‘I have seen them’ and can’t get a rise out of anyone.
==========
“Like utopean social engineering attempts throughout history,
geo-engineering , engineering the BIG solution for perceived
dangerous warming of the planet, demonstrates the folly and
presumption of would- be platonists.
Geo engineering solutions to perceived AGW warming from CO2
such as sprinkling mineral filings in oceans may reduce vast
amounts of iron appears to be this kind of folly. Never mind
if this alters the balance of the oceans.”
Large government project involving iron fertilization of oceans
no doubt would be folly.
Government sponsored projects [including
no government money being necessarily involved – but political sanction and incentives {useful laws passed} but not necessarily involving government providing a pay check] which involves iron fertilization of oceans
could a good idea. So not something done on a large scale, until such time as more scientific knowledge can be discovered regarding this.
Same applies to Methane ocean deposit mining. Like the Japanese are doing- only we *could* do better than how Japanese are doing it. Or if not better, at least trying different approaches to problem involved [give the Japanese some scientific competition [both parties will benefit from such competition].
Now iron fertilization could change the ocean. But changing the ocean is not in itself bad. Other than do something about global CO2 levels, we could increase ocean productivity. Also probably run across stuff concerning which could said to be unexpected- we could learn something about the ocean we don’t already know.
Plus iron fertilization is not exclusively something that human do, nature
is and has dumped lots of stuff into the ocean. Nature *has* and *is* doing iron fertilization of the ocean. If you throw dirt into the ocean, you are doing iron fertilization- Iron is a common substance on Earth- it’s everywhere.
So a large volcanic eruption could be doing a significant amount of iron fertilization of the ocean. Black smokers constantly spewing it’s black stuff [which could be largely iron] can be doing iron fertilization on smaller and local scale.
So, exploration. Rather than production. Maybe production, later. maybe production will be mostly about increasing fish stocks.
What about Nic Lewis’s recent paper that estimated 1.7C per doubling of CO2?
We stand to more than double CO2 (equiv) and 1.7C is a LOT of warming. It’s about double of 20th century warming.
How then can the AGW signal be weak when it stands to cause more warming than nature typically has over past millenia?
Of course you could argue Nic Lewis’s paper is wrong….but I wonder what sensitivity value you are thinking about.
Surely even a 0.5C sensitivity to doubling CO2 would leave CO2 as the probable biggest driver of 21st century global temperature.
ignore the above comment even more than usual as I meant to add it in reply to a comment further up
You are assuming the solar energy remains active as the 20th century. The more common is a less active sun. When the solar energy drops, the GMST and the CO2 concentration will also drop. That is what happened during the Little Ice age.
lolwot
I’ll ignore the rest of your post, as advised by you, but this blooper caught my eye:
Assume you meant “20th century” rather than “21st century” (since it has cooled since the beginning of the 21st century (January 1, 2001).
But let’s do a sanity check on your statement.
In 1901 atmospheric CO2 stood at around 290 ppmv (according to IPCC, based on ice core records)
In 2000 it was 369 ppmv (according to Mauna Loa measurements).
At 0.5C ECS we should have seen warming at equilibrium from CO2 of:
0.5C * ln(369/290) / ln(2) = 0.17C
Over the 20thC we actually saw around 0.65C (HadCRUT3 and IPCC)
So CO2 would have “caused” 27% of the observed 20thC warming at 0.5C ECS (assuming “equilibrium” was reached), and CO2 was NOT the biggest driver of global temperature.
Of course, if we assume “equilibrium” was not reached (as IPCC does), then the %age would be even lower.
So your statement does not pass the “sanity check”.
Max
no I meant 21st
You ask what sensitivety I’d go with, guess I’d go with Lindzen’s
.5 based on ERBE data, lolwot…
not that I know a lot. so wot I wot is immaterial. )
Wow, that is awefully certain.. you realize that at .5 you cannot explain de glaciation. So, if sensitivity = .5C, then you cant get out of an ice age.
but, we have gotten out of ice ages… therefore?
lindzen is falsified. You have no choice but to reject his theory. Feynman says so, as does Popper
The Fat Lady, Gaia, sings on past all your understanding.
============
Heat from the alien space ships who come to visit every 500,000 years or so.
Steven Mosher
You are falling into the old logic trap of “we can only explain this if we assume…” (commonly known as “argument from ignorance”).
Why must 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (which is what is being discussed) be above 0.5C to “explain de glaciation”? Could’ve been many other things we (including you) do not yet understand.
Sorry, Mosh, that’s a poor argument. Come with something better.
Max
By definition,Climate is a long term state. It has to include all seasons and so has to be of years in duration. It has to include permanent anthropogenetic effects such as have occured in the 2oth and 21st centuries.and permanent urban heat island effects which raise the temperature of many cities and sometimes their sorrounds. So producing a climate graph from actual daily measurements which fluctuate wildly is essentially a proces of selecting the right arithmetical averaging process. I find the eleven year central moving average is about right, but does have the disadvantage that we are always five and one half years behind knowing today’s smoothed temperature. But you can always estimaye whether the temperature has gone up or down during the last 5 1/2 years.
During the 20th and 21st centuries we have had several different global average climates. Between 1910 and 1940 we had a stedily increasing temperature (0.5C total), then after 1940 temprtature fell equally rapidly but eventually rose again reaching the 1940 level again in 1980. After 1980 temperature rose again to about 2000 and has remained constant on average since.
I have written a narrative of these changes on my website above.
A reasoned exercise in thoughtful critical analysis of the climate debate.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/02/07/greedy-bastards-film
OK, I was kidding. Just another exercise in tribal CAGW hysteria, Hollywood style.
Steve
hes been directed to the evidence many times, as have the rest of you. empirical evidence. empirical measurements. To say otherwise is akin to arguing that black is white and white is black. That is what his argument amounts to he asks for evidence and measurement. I’ve pointed him at it many times and he and you pretend otherwise. I see no point in continuing. he asked. I delivered. done
What a pile on crap Steve people me included have asked you for the paper to prove that man’s little bit of CO2 compared to Nature’s is what is driving this little warming . Where is your proof I’ve asked you this alot and get the same as up comment NOTHING ,”I gave it before” NO you never !!!
you too have been given the evidence. go and read.
Hey, I’ve got it all figured out, but you have to read the blogs.
=====================
Steven Mosher
What you refer to is not “evidence”.
It’s simply model simulations, hypotheses and rationalizations.
Bring empirical evidence (Feynman), not just words.
So far you have not done so.
And to claim you have is simply BS.
(And you know it.)
Max
He’s listened and played along with l’s brilliant chamber orchestra endlessly going over ‘Lukewarming, and Do Something About It’.
The gorgeous strains of the melody crash against the icewall of a cooling world, and the rock of understanding that warmer would have been better, in all plausible cases.
=========
Steve sorry sometime’s this stuff just make’ss me mad so really should we stop our planet or help the Poor?
I contend that the lower “moist” thermal gradient (lapse rate) is primarily due to intra-atmospheric radiation. Carbon dioxide plays a small part in this, though water vapour does most of it. The gradient is reduced and the whole thermal plot rotates around a point which might be only about 4Km up in the atmosphere. But this leads to lower surface temperatures. Hence water vapour has a negative feedback, not positive as they claim. This is a crucial point, because they say the effect of carbon dioxide is increased significantly by the assumed positive feedback.
Radiation can only transfer heat from warmer regions to cooler regions. Above the tropics in calm conditions the thermal gradient is a fairly uniform 6.5C/Km throughout the 17Km high tropopause.
So all heat transfer by radiation is upwards to cooler regions. Energy makes its way out of the atmosphere more quickly when water vapour is in abundance, because the radiation process is more effective when there are more radiating molecules.
Hence radiated energy makes its way upwards at the speed of light in a random path between (mostly) water vapour molecules. Whenever it heads back down to lower layers of water molecules or the warmer surface, it cannot transfer heat and it merely gets immediately re-emitted in a “pseudo scattering” process described in my March 2012 paper on Radiated Energy on the Principia Scientific International website.
So the maximum daytime temperatures are cooler when moisture is present than they would otherwise be if there were no water vapour and energy is thus trapped in a slow moving non-radiative process involving convection.
Mosher,
How do you explain Tisdale’s observation that all the ocean surface warming has been in the Indian, the North Atlantic, and the Arctic oceans and everything else has been flat or cooling? CO2 isn’t perfectly mixed but it spreads out pretty well. Better than water vapor. Why wouldn’t it warm more evenly?
deep ocean upwelling
‘deep water upwelling’
right. Cold water, which began its life as melt water in the polar regions decides to go against the density gradient and makes its way to the surface, whilst the warm brine of the sea surface decides to go for a sink.
There is no point in attempting to understand the energetics for these huge transfers of mass and heat around the Earth, all one needs to do is throw down, ‘deep water upwelling’, like a crooked cop throws down a Uzi after an illegal shooting,
Yes, east ocean margins have deep water upwelling at mid-latitudes due to prevailing wind-driven currents. This is what keeps cooler water coming up to the surface.
Well sure, but except for the ITCZ/Kelvin wave upwelling this happens all around the edges. It is driven by wind and Ekman transport and that cold water just wants to sink again at the earliest opportunity. The Indian and North Atlantic oceeans enjoy their fair share of this upwelling. The Arctic does not, probably because the ice is a slipsheet for the wind.
Candidly, I don’t believe CO2 is radiatively warming the oceans significantly. The lack of IR permeability and thermal stability are huge theoretical obstacles. Even the “GHG thermal mass” theory propounded by Willis and Roy Spencer requires the atmosphere to warm proportionately. It hasn’t been.
Adding the observation that the Indian, North Atlantic and Arctic oceans account for all of the surface warming is yet another contraindication.
On the other hand, if I knew all the answers, I wouldn’t be wondering why the atmosphere has steadfastly refused to recieve additional enthalpy from the oceans for the last 16 years as the ocean surface has continued, on average, to warm.
http://www.redmap.org.au/article/upwelling-and-downwelling-in-the-ocean/
Quite a lot of the Pacific as well is influenced by more or less upwelling. Upwelling is a major driver of hydrological, biological and climatic variability.
Bang bang…
You can see her the ‘V’ of cold water that is the signature of the cool Pacific Decadal Mode. Look closely in the central Pacific and you can see lines of cold aligned north to south. This is cold water rising in the equatorial zone driven by Ekmann transport pushing warm surface water away from the equator – Coriolis forces arising from the spin of the planet. Upwelling is probably too simple a notion – just shorthand for a number of processes in play. I find Bob ignores all of these other forces as ENSO drivers.
Doc, it all depends upon how fast and furiously the deep ocean upwells. A little fizz at the top is fast dispersed.
CO2 pellet gun or 105mm Howitzer? I could drone on.
================
Here that is – http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/8000/8703/sst_anomaly_AMSRE_2008105_lrg.jpg
Why should it warm evenly.
Very nice Steve, but the heat going into the oceans is at the top. The ‘cold’ in the oceans comes from the poles.
It’s not only those areas which are warming anomolously*. Andaman Sea, Southern North Sea, Lake Tanganyika. Crious how the warming CO2 hovers over those parts of the planet which are being sbjected to major oil and srfactant polltion. Enough light oil comes down the Siberian rivers to equal an Exxon Valdez every four weeks.**
How is the Med doing? I’ve seen it reglarly for the last few years and it’s polltion levels are astronomic, bt it has always been bad so maybe the effect has satrated.
Come on Mosh, do the southern North Sea. And the blip, do the blip. I can do the blip. Can you?
JF
Insert smiley here. And scatter yoos where appropriate, my keyboard has failed.
*If there is sch a word.
**OK, for rgb@dke, that’s four weeks, five hours and some minutes. Insert another smiley here.
Peter Davies @ 10.31.
Peter, bet yer say that ter all the cowgirl :)
But thx.
Beth the cowgirl.
Plural …cow girlss!
WordPress blog question: some time ago, WP wouldn’t let me post here on Climate Etc unless I opened a blog. I didn’t want a blog, so called it “notablog” (I’ve since discovered that this isn’t original), adding “might be one one day.” Some time later, I added some papers of mine to it, so that if I referenced a paper in a post, I could link to it.
However, when I go the blog, the URL comes up as “http://climateetc.wordpress.com/ ” I don’t know how this happened, I don’t want to masquerade as Judith, and If I’m going to post, I’d like it to be with a name linkable to me rather than Judith. Lots of posters here seem cluey on WP (unlike me), any advice? Thanks.
If you want to change the title of the blog (the text displayed in the title bar of a web browser and displayed in the header for most themes) instead, you can do so under General Settings
Thanks, Gene, I’ve bookmarked the page and will pursue a changed name.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/too-much-hot-air-about-global-warming-says-researcher-rv-1
That is also my estimate:
CLIMATE SENSITIVITY = 1.5 DEG C
The Thermohaline, sublime movement like stars in
the night sky. Always perturbation, always interaction.
In rhe ocean depths, mysterious conveyer belt currents
flowing like great arteries, up welling and down welling
to imperatives of salinity and heat.
Can anyone explain why John Kerry needs to ” play down his language proficiency”?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21392034
Would this apply to a politician who happened to know a bit about climate science too? Or is it just a general thing? Is it better for US politicians to claim, rather like Manuel in Fawlty towers, “I know nothing”.
Being a Leftist means never having to say you’re sorry.
Wagathon, GaryM,
Americans do tend to think that Kerry, Soros , Pelosi etc are leftists rather than enlightened capitalists because they (you) don’t have the real thing in the USA to anywhere near the same extent as in Europe. It partly the system there that allows the wealthy to spend their way into Congress.
You’ll remember the controversial remarks made about the British National Health Service. Do you know who is given the credit for getting it started against all the odds when the UK was broke after the war? Read up on this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
He’s the genuine article.
Tempt, I was 14 when Bevan made the 1956 Suez speech quoted on Wikipedia:
“We are stronger than Egypt but there are other countries stronger than us. Are we prepared to accept for ourselves the logic we are applying to Egypt? If nations more powerful than ourselves accept the absence of principle, the anarchistic attitude of Eden and launch bombs on London, what answer have we got, what complaint have we got? If we are going to appeal to force, if force is to be the arbiter to which we appeal, it would at least make common sense to try to make sure beforehand that we have got it, even if you accept that abysmal logic, that decadent point of view.
“We are in fact in the position today of having appealed to force in the case of a small nation, where if it is appealed to against us it will result in the destruction of Great Britain, not only as a nation, but as an island containing living men and women. Therefore I say to Anthony, I say to the British government, there is no count at all upon which they can be defended.
“They have besmirched the name of Britain. They have made us ashamed of the things of which formerly we were proud. They have offended against every principle of decency and there is only way in which they can even begin to restore their tarnished reputation and that is to get out! Get out! Get out!””
The speech was not untypical of the era, with a high-level of principled debate which could not be imagined in modern Australia, and is rarely seen in Britain. The shift is one of the reasons I despair of recent politics.
Wagathon. Look. John Kerry is a member of the US ruling class. He’s the richest person in the US Senate. It’s not in his interest to be a leftist.
Enlightened capitalism certainly is in his interest, though. It ensures that the US ruling class don’t go the same way as the pre-revolutionary Russian and French ruling classes and he’s sensible enough to know that.
That may seem unlikely now but if the zealots of the US tea party ever were allowed to have their way with the US economy, it would seem much less unlikely very rapidly.
Not so… Rand, for example, did not believe an enlightened chauvenism served the interests of women. Rand believes in free will. For Rand it’s real and there’s nothing smug about it. And where does that lead. For starters it means the Left hates Rand the atheist and for ONE reason only.
Rand would choose Bush over Stalin every time. And Rand would choose science over the superstition and ignorance of the masses every time too. Now that the nihilism of the Leftists and their liberal Utopianiam has reached its zenith in the West whatever once had value is now worthless and truth doesn’t matter anymore.
Who do you prefer George Washington or Mao Tse-Tung? I think the answer is simple:
■ If you are a Tibetan Buddhist monk, you prefer a God-fearing protector of personal and religious freedom like George Washington
■ If you are a tenured professor in liberal fascist academia, then Ward Churchill is more inspiring than Winston Churchill, the mass murderer Mao is your philosopher, and Bush-haters Castro and Chavez are your comrades.
“John Kerry is a member of the US ruling class. He’s the richest person in the US Senate. It’s not in his interest to be a leftist.
Enlightened capitalism certainly is in his interest though.”
This is one of the funniest things I have read here in a long time.
The fact that many leftists are rich is nothing new. Being a “leftist,” ie a progressive, is about power. Wealth is perfectly acceptable among the leftists themselves. Look at George Soros. Nancy Pelosi is rich as well, and there is hardly anyone in the Congress further left than she is.
Fascism in the 30s and 40s (you may have read about it) was all about the rich getting in bed with the leftists who wanted centralized power over the economy. “Enlightened” capitalism is just another way of saying the same thing.
Once someone like Soros gets his, it is so much easier to buy government officials and use the awesome power of the state to get what he wants, rather than competing against other entrepreneurs.
Fascism, crony-capitalism, the Blair/Clinton “third way,” social democracy, “enlightened” capitalism, they are all just ways of describing the same thing – trying to centralize power in the government, while somehow keeping the wealth generating aspects of a free market. hen they get the best of both systems – incredible wealth and enormous power. The fact that the great unwashed will live in misery, and the whole thing will ultimately implode. You can’t make an omelot without breaking a few billion of other people’s eggs.
It can work for a while. Shoot, the pure socialist/communist Soviet Union lasted for almost 80 years, and it was built on the dying carcass of Czarist Russia. Who knows how long out current crop of progressives will take to crash the western economy if they remain in power? Could be months, years, decades or longer.
Gore isn’t a leftist because he’s gotten so rich? Please…stop it…my sides are splitting!
Wagathon and GaryM,
Americans do tend to think that Kerry, Soros , Pelosi etc are leftists rather than enlightened capitalists because they (you) don’t have the real thing in the USA to anywhere near the same extent as in Europe. It partly the system there that allows the wealthy to spend their way into Congress.
You’ll remember the controversial remarks made about the British National Health Service. Do you know who is given the credit for getting it started against all the odds when the UK was broke after the war? Read up on this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
He’s the genuine article.
Temp
My grandfather was campaign manager for bevan during many of his parliamentary campaigns and helped him to become an mp. Mind you in those days in ebbs vale a monkey in a red rosette would be elected. Bevan, like benn, was a man of considerable principle
Tonyb
tempterrain,
Oh there are definitely those much further left than Gore, Pelosi and Soros. But for progressives like yourself, anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is a conservative. I remember once Tamino described Obama as a Chicago School conservative. Explaining leftism to a progressive is like explaining water to a fish. It’s hard for y’all to get a proper perspective.
GaryM,
I would say I was further to the right than Chomsky.
My philosophy would not be to destroy capitalism but negotiate the best possible deal with the capitalists and at the same time use the power of the democratic system to force big corporations to comply with their social responsibility. They don’t exist just for their shareholders.
You can call it what you like but its basically how things work in Europe and Australia. The Australian working class have negotiated a pretty good deal for themselves. There’s close to full employment. Everyone who genuinely wants a job can find one. There’s health and safety laws for the workplace, minimum wages and conditions, guaranteed award wages to cover for working on public holidays etc. Long service leave etc Its not the done thing to hire and fire. If workers lose their jobs they are entitled to compensation. Workers would typically have 5 weeks paid holidays per year. Sometimes even at extra pay.
Australia’s richest woman, Gina Reinhardt, who owns a fair chunk of the Australian mining industry was griping that Australian workers were greatly overpaid recently. She mentioned some pittance amount she got away with paying her Zambian workers. I would say it’s fair to say that most Australian miners are happy with her owning the wealth she does providing they earn what they do too. That’s the quid pro quo. But if that were to change and any attempt made to slash their wages then there could be conflict.
This is the not-so-pretty face of the Australian ruling class. Ms Reinhart thinks ordinary Australians should “spend less time drinking and smoking’ and more time working” beacause Zambians are willing to work for $2 per day.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198868/Gina-Rinehart-Worlds-richest-woman-calls-Australian-workers-paid-2-day
Rinehart was talking about productivity and there is obviously a need to consider productivity in a high income society. The high dollar doesn’t help – compounded by increases in spending and borrowing. Over the past few years structual deficits have been built into the Australian economy and now that revenue growth is not as strong the deficit is growing wider. The increased borrowing feeds into a stronger dollar and more pressure on productive enterprise.
We would do well to continue to pull back spending and take interest rates down further. It is a matter of rational capitalism and not magic pudding.
tempterrain,
“You can call it what you like but its basically how things work in Europe and Australia.”
Yes, ask the Spanish, Greeks, Italians, Portugese, Californians, Illinoisans et al how it is working. As I said, statism/fascism/social democracy may not destroy an economy right away. As I noted, the Soviet Union lasted for about 8 decades, and was even considered a super power for much of that time.
But just as a with a patient with cancer can appear to be perfectly healthy as the disease spreads through, and eats away at his internal organs, the end is inevitable, if you don’t get rid of the cancer.
It took about 80 years, and the cold war with the U.S. for the Soviet economy to finally fall under its own weight. Imagine if Europe, in addition to supporting an unsustainable welfare state for the entire populace, also had to pay for its own defense the last 40 years.
You progressives think that re=packaging your tried and failed policies makes them somehow more palatable. Global warming becomes climate change, which becomes climate disruption. Progressivism becomes liberalism, which becomes progressivism, which becomes “fairness” and “for the children.” Socialism becomes fascism, becomes the “third way” becomes democratic socialism.
But its always the same snake oil. And it is a cancer. The healthier the patient, the longer it can survive. But just as a cancer always spreads through the body if unchecked, so too central planners always seek more power over the economy and the polity.
Ever heard of the maxim – power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely? It’s one of those conservative principles you all try so hard to discard.
I’ll use this discussion as a hook for my latest letter to The Australian:
“Further to Terry McCrann’s excellent piece (“Elite reveals tax-grab tendencies,” 9-10/2), government has NO right to private citizens’ assets. The population recognises that some things may be better done collectively, and that a democratically-elected, accountable, government may be the best means to achieve some of them. However, the scope of and funding for government are not theirs by right, they depend on a voluntary compact with the people. Politicians and bureaucrats who forget this are in breach of trust, and are not worthy of their privileged, taxpayer-funded, positions. They are our servants, not, as many appear to think, our masters.”
In Nye Bevan’s era, there were many politicians driven by principle and belief and regard for people’s well-being. That was still true in Australia’s Hawke government years (1985-91). There are few now, and those driven by belief tend to be ideological Left/Greens who do not have the people’s welfare at heart, and whose beliefs are misguided. Happy days.
temp,
I think the article was pretty explanitory on that. Unfortunately, we Americans are not the most language friendly folks in the world. There isn’t much emphasis on learning a second, let alone third or forth language. I have 3 degrees yet nothing more than 3 years of high school German.
Perhaps because of this lack of focus, Americans can exhibit a tendency to either make fun of or distrust someone speaking another language. Hell, we expect people to speak English when we visit their countries. Add to this a subset of folks who love French bashing – a hobby the French are pretty good at providing material for – and you get the story you link to. Kerry simply does not want to kick off his tour as State with yapping about his speaking French. No big deal.
It may be more the link to the Swiss boarding school and the mother’s estate in Brittany.
Hey, Kerry’s got a magic hat. Salute it.
=========
The Venus Dilemma
In over a month now, no one on this blog has put forward a valid argument or suggested a valid mechanism which would explain how sufficient energy gets into the surface of Venus.
Give it some thought before reading my explanation here …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-69453
Sufficient energy? Like your highly questionable 10W/m^2?
The atmosphere of Venus is reasonably well understood. Not by you obviously. You think that high pressure and a gravitational field induces a high temperature in solids liquids and gases. You must think its very hot at the bottom of the sea. I do tend to think its pretty cold down there.
But maybe that’s not right? I must admit that I’ve never been there so I’ve never been able to measure the temperature. Do you think ‘they’ are lying to us? It could all be part of the big lie about climate change which ‘they’ must have been planning for years! That would explain it of course.
The ocean does not present you with any valid way of rebutting what I am saying, and that, by the way, has nothing to do with pressure. The 10W/m^2 is based on an estimate by the Russians who have “been” there in probes dropped onto the surface to measure the Sun’s radiation and the temperature. I have explained why the thermal gradient in the ocean is as observed in other comments, especially on Roy Spencer’s blog, and you will find more detail in my next paper soon to be published. It may help those with a genuine desire to understand, unlike yourself it seems.
Meanwhile you might like to explain why a study has found that, in this real world, water vapour cools and inland cities with high rainfall have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than those with a drier atmosphere above.
the surface of what…?
Backradiation does not warm Earth or Venus [or anywhere].
Sunlight does not directly warm the atmospheric gases on Earth
or on Venus.
It is true some people do think backradiation does warm earth,
and these people would probably say it does not matter how a
surface is warmed, but rather that any warm surface will cause backradiation.
It’s also true that a few people seem to think the sunlight directly
warms the CO2 gases on Earth, though the majority of the
deluded think it the warmed Earth surface which is radiating at
longwave infrared that is being affected by the CO2.
It seems to me that the sunlight is mostly warming liquids or
solids. And on Earth the ocean absorbs the most amount of
energy. And on land, sunlight warms the solid surfaces like sand, dirt,
and sidewalks which if in sunlight long enough will warm to the highest temperatures. And if you have a damp sidewalk it remain fairly cool
until such time as it dries up.
And seems the air of the atmosphere is warmed by the surfaces of liquids and solids, though the vast liquid known as oceans mostly warms the air by evaporating into a gas and as gas warms other gases.
Water maximum temperature is limited in how warm the sunlight can heat it, this limit is around 35 C, land surface can become hotter and warm air as much around 50 C.
If Earth was at Venus distance from the Sun, the most the sunlight could
warm water would be around 50 C. On land, the surfaces that warmed to about 70 C on Earth, at Venus distance would warm over 100 C. Such warmer surfaces could warm the air to around 70 C or higher.
When you go to elevation of Venus where the air pressure is equal
the Earth’s air pressure, the air temperature is about 70 C.
49.5 km elevation on Venus is 1 earth atmosphere and the air
temperature is 66 C:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
“Sunlight does not directly warm the atmospheric gases on Earth
or on Venus.”
Of course it does. Look at any energy diagram for Earth. What do you think the Venus atmosphere is made of? It’s over 96% carbon dioxide – quite able to absorb in the 2.7 micron band, and others like the 15 micron band which is also included in insolation, though I don’t expect you to believe me.
What “it seems” to you is a figment of your imagination, not based on real world physics.
“Of course it does. Look at any energy diagram for Earth. What do you think the Venus atmosphere is made of? It’s over 96% carbon dioxide – quite able to absorb in the 2.7 micron band, and others like the 15 micron band which is also included in insolation, though I don’t expect you to believe me.”
The amount solar energy at 2.7 micron is a tiny portion of the total solar flux. As can be seen, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
So of the 1363 watts per square at Earth distance.
CO2 is indicated absorb *some* of solar spectrum
between 2000 nm and 2250 nm [2.0 to 2.25 micron].
The intensity between 2000 nm and 2250 nm is
about, .2 watts per nm. So this totals is less than
50 watts per square meter for all the solar energy
between 2000 to 2250 nm.
And CO2 is absorbing about at most 20% of this total.
So you talking at most at about 10 watts of the 1363 watts
per square meter.
The 2700 nm is not shown on graph, but at earth distance
even a very wide band at 2700 and 15,000 nm, could at best total
to about 1 watt per square meter.
So the amount energy you talking about is less than
1 % of the solar flux.
And yes, I don’t think gas is directly warmed by sunlight.
BUT even we assume this is true- if CO2 absorbed of this
portion of solar spectrum and converted 100% of it into the kinetic energy of the gases- it’s insignificant amount of energy.
Doug,
You might want to read this.
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html
BPE has a figure of 16.8 watts per square meter for the solar radiation reaching the Venusian surface which I agree is lower than many would expect. Still, his figures end up being not far off the ones I worked out previously even though he’s obviously been much more thorough in his method.
I haven’t had time to digest everything he’s said but I’d just make a couple of points:
The GH effect isn’t just about back radiation from the surface of the planet. If solar energy is absorbed in Venusian clouds and reradiated as IR then that too will be radiated in all directions and warm the Venusian surface.
Even a small amount of heat can produce a high temperature if that heat is trapped . Consider putting an electrical heating element in a thermos flask filled with water. Apply a few watts of power and the water will eventually boil. Heat on the surface of Venus is also effectively trapped by the opaque nature of the Venusian atmosphere to IR radiation.
“Given that equation and those figures, F = 237 watts per square meter for the Earth.
Where did the figure of 1/4 come from? Well, Earth receives sunlight on its two-dimensional cross-sectional area (πR2), but its surface area (4πR2) is three-dimensional.”
Of course Earth doesn’t actually receive sunlight on two-dimensional cross-sectional area (πR2}, rather it actually receives sunlight on a
(4πR2) divided by 2.
Thinking of Earth receiving sunlight as flat disk is only a convenient
way of looking at it. The disk does indicate the max amount sunlight intersecting Earth. And from the is maximum amount of sunlight it is trying to determine how much of the sunlight energy is being captured.
So saying amount captured is total amount times .250 times .306.
So for say 100. It’s 7.65 captured. Or 7.65% of sunlight is captured.
Or 7.65% of sunlight is converted into heat.
Which actually is probably pretty close, but doesn’t tell you the temperature of Earth.
The 237 watts is say how sunlight is warming an average square meter constantly. Say you have something that could store 80% of sunlight.
Meaning 12 hours of sunlight and 80% of the energy is held or build up during the 12 hours. And solar pond is best I can think of which could get close to this [[at least in terms manageable portable scale]]. So I want to compare a place which gets about 237 watts times say 1.25. So 296 watts per square meter with constant sunlight.
How far is this away from the Sun?
Mars distance gets 600 watts per square meter.
So it’s some distance further from the the Sun than Mars is.
So I have space rock and it’s always pointed so it has one side is
facing the Sun. I put a solar pond like thing on the lit surface [the water must kept at a pressure [say 1 atm] so has it has transparent cover].
Now it seems possible that the solar pond would actually be warm enough to have liquid water, but it seems very unlikely the temperature
could reach as high as 10-20 C. And this is constant sunlight with somewhere around 80% sunlight being absorbed. And obviously there losses [I am heating the space rock a little bit and radiating the rest of the energy into space.
But where on Earth would the same solar pond have similar temperature. At 30 degree latitude it should average temperature
of 60 to 70 C. And I would say it would have to be poleward of 50 latitude.
So I would say the Earth does only convert only about 10% of the total sunlight from TOA into heat. Which means if Earth were colder it take awhile gain heat, but once warmer each night loses heat, which regained during the day. So this is the daily and seasonal heat budget.
But it say less about what the temperature of Earth is.
Earth’s Climate is all about the region around tropics which receives
most of solar energy. Somewhere between 30 latitude north and south getting 70- 80% of solar energy reaching the earth surface and converting more than 50% of it into heat.
“So saying amount captured is total amount times .250 times .306.
So for say 100. It’s 7.65 captured. Or 7.65% of sunlight…”
Should be .250 times .694 which is
17.36 %.
Whatever.
It seems to me around 10%. But maybe 15%
OK I read up to this totally incorrect statement …
“The major mechanism by which Earth’s surface cools itself is by radiating about 371 watts per square meter”
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Of all the energy transferring from Earth’s surface to the atmosphere, two-thirds is by non-radiative processes, and one-third by radiation.
It you want to believe this greenhouse propaganda, that’s your choice, but every time you make a wrong statement in physics, I will draw your mistake to the attention of the silent readers.
Do you, tempterrain, really believe that the relatively cold clouds of Venus can radiate to the surface (apparently better than the Sun can) and add more thermal energy, thus heating a surface which is hundreds of degrees warmer than the clouds themselves. ?????????
And yet Doug, you fail to explain the excess dueterium in the atomosphere of Venus, and untill you do that, your theories that explain the temperature of Venus go into the dustbin where they belong.
Only the greenhouse effect can satisfactorily explain the excess dueterium.
Garbage. You explain why you think so, but if you fail to use correct physics (which you will) then you too will be exposed for your own travesty of physics – just like tempterrain and many before him on many climate blogs. Be the next!
Why Venus does not have a “runaway Greenhouse Effect”
Carbon dioxide has already almost saturated the Venus atmosphere – over 96/5%. Yet the temperature of the Venus surface can be calculated from the level of Solar insolation, the force of gravity, the specific heat of CO2 and not much else. The amount of incident Solar radiation has been measured from the surface and found to be about 10% of what earth’s surface receives. So that’s is all the energy that can be returned to the atmosphere from which back radiation is then supposed to multiply the energy by over 1,000 times, ending up with far more intensity than the Sun has outside the planet. It would take over 16,000W/m^2 to support the temperature of over 730K, even at the poles which receive less than 1 W/m^2 of direct Solar radiation.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can just as easily radiate energy away. It can’t transfer any heat whatsoever to a warmer surface. If you say it only slows cooling, then how did the Sun heat it to >730K in the first place so that cooling could be slowed?
No, there is a totally different mechanism involved, as in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms.”
.
Doug,
Can you explain how Venus came to have all that carbon dioxide?
The excess deuterium (spelled it right for a change) is evidence that Venus had a significant amount of water in its atmosphere at one time. That and the slow progression of the sun along the main sequence that increased the incoming energy from the sun and the increased greenhouse effect from the water vapor that did Venus in.
Nothng wrong with the physics of the greenhouse effect, it is your misunderstanding of physics that is the problem.
And Doug, you keep forgetting to include the energy absorbed by the atmosphere before it gets to the surface, might change your calculations in a significant way.
You are wrong, get over it.
BobIf you had read my paper on Planetary Surface Temperatures you would know full well that I am aware that the atmosphere of Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide, plus a little nitrogen and not much else of significance. The historic record of how deuterium (heavy hydrogen) caused the release of carbon dioxide from the surface is irrelevant. There is indeed plenty of carbon dioxide absorbing about 98% of the direct incident solar radiation (in the 2.7 micron band especially) and there’s also those clouds absorbing quite a bit. But the clouds are hundreds of degrees colder than the 720K surface, and most of the absorption is in the upper troposphere. So why is the troposphere colder at the top than at the bottom? How does the thermal energy go from a much less hot atmosphere to the far hotter surface? That is the process I’m asking you to explain, and which I may well be the first to explain with correct physics.
So Bob you think I have forgotten about the incident insolation absorbed by the Venus atmosphere. Here’s a quote from my paper …
… the temperature gradient is established naturally in the atmosphere, quite independently of whatever energy is coming from the surface. Clearly there is nowhere near enough energy from the surface of Venus, and possibly not enough even on Earth to warm the very base of the atmosphere.
Each atmosphere is quite capable of absorbing incident Solar radiation. Carbon dioxide, for example, can absorb in the 2 micron band. Thus there is no doubt that enough energy could have been absorbed quite easily over the life of each planet, and probably much more quickly than that.
As the energy is absorbed the more dense regions at the base are able to hold more molecules each with more kinetic energy, and so a higher temperature is measured there. As molecules move between collisions their trajectory must be influenced by the force of gravity, just as happens with any object in flight. This creates a greater propensity for more molecules to accumulate in lower regions of the atmosphere, but numbers are also limited by pressure considerations, and so kinetic energy will propel some molecules upwards. Equilibrium is established between these upward and downward tendencies and, as a result, a uniform temperature gradient is established.
Strictly speaking, the process does not have to involve individual molecules travelling relatively long distances, because the KE is passed from one to another in collision processes. It was originally thought that this diffusion process would ensure uniform temperature at all levels in a closed container. However, entropy must be maintained and this means that the sum (PE+KE) will remain constant for any particular molecule between collisions. The diffusion process “equals out” the above sum, not just KE. Hence, when equilibrium is established, we do indeed observe uniform entropy and temperature in any horizontal plane (because PE is constant) but in a vertical plane what we observe is uniform entropy, and this necessitates a temperature gradient because KE (which determines temperature) must vary with PE in order to keep the sum (PE+KE) constant.
The only alternative would be a naturally developed entropy gradient rather than a temperature gradient. This is about as implausible as it would be for an object not to accelerate when falling in a vacuum.
Now the interesting consequence is that the base of the atmosphere on Venus must therefore have become hot naturally of its own accord and actually heated the surface by both radiation and conduction at the interface. So, just as on Earth, the temperatures are close.
“Doug,
Can you explain how Venus came to have all that carbon dioxide?
The excess deuterium (spelled it right for a change) is evidence that Venus had a significant amount of water in its atmosphere at one time. ”
So the evidence is as according to wiki?
“Some evidence for this scenario comes from the extremely high Deuterium to Hydrogen ratio in Venus’ atmosphere, roughly ~150x that of Earth, since light hydrogen would escape from the atmosphere more readily than its heavier isotope, Deuterium”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
So what does earth have?
“An atmospheric deuterium emission of 330 R (1 R=106 photons cm−2 s−1) is observed for a tangent altitude of 110 km during Spacelab 1 mission launched on 28 November 1983. The (D/H) ratio of 3×10−4 is slightly enriched over the seawater value of 1.6×10−4.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v309/n5971/abs/309771a0.html
Venus:
“Using the high-resolution mode of the Inter-national Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE), we measured hydrogen Lyman-α-emission but found only an upper limit on deuterium Lyman-α-emission, from which we inferred a D/H ratio of less than 2–5 x 10−3. This is smaller by a factor of 3–8 than the D/H ratio derived from measurements by the Pioneer Venus Large Probe, and may indicate either a stratification of D/H ratio with altitude or a smaller overall ratio than previously thought.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6216/abs/338567a0.html
So 150 times 3×10^−4 or 1.6×10^−4. Is 4.5 10^-2 or 2.4 x 10^-2.
And Venus is 2–5 x 10^−3.
Or Venus has upper limit of about 15 times more deuterium not 150 times more than Earth.
And it seems there could many reasons, other than Venus once had ocean which could explain this difference.
Our Moon over billions of years has had hydrogen deposited in the regolith from solar wind. Here is reference:
http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/ResourcesNearEarthSpace/resources15.pdf
[which won’t allow me to cut and paste a quote but it gives general info] . So says could 10^16 grams hydrogen from Sun in lunar regolith.
So around 10 billion tons of hydrogen.
90 billion tons of H20 has 10 billion tons of H2.
And billion tons of water is 1 cubic km of water.
This pretty small change in terms planetary quantities, but it seems that Venus atmosphere could capture more solar wind gases than the Moon- because Venus has no magnetic field, it’s closer to the Sun, and gases should better than fine dust at capture. Plus in process of capturing these gases from solar wind, it should favor collecting Deuterium, in same mechanism that with escaping Hydrogen gas from a planet, should favor Deuterium not escaping.
And finally Venus atmosphere has less hydrogen compounds then Earth’s atmosphere and ocean and thereby dilutes the amount deuterium in the ratio [and earth’s has strong magnetosphere blocks much of this solar wind].
Anyhow, lots of reasons why Venus has higher Deuterium and of course one the simple aspect of hydrogen exposed to sunlight [a huge fusion reactor] creates Deuterium. Low Deuterium ratio is found in hydrogen which has the least exposure to neutrons.
Black carbon main driver of arctic ice loss
————————————————
I was surprised to see the research presented at Wikipedia about black carbon. I will make a brief back of the envelope computation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon
The new Bond et al 2012 study gives a forcing for black carbon of 1.1 W/m2 whereof 0.13W/m2 are surface effects of black carbon on snow and ice and 0.97 W/m2 the other forcings.
http://www.igbp.net/images/18.4910f0f013c20ff8a5f8000200/black-carbon-Fig9.jpg
The earths total ice area is grossly estimated about
Greenland 2*10^6 km2
Arctic sea ice 10*10^6 km2 (average over a year)
Antarctica: 14*10^6 km2
Antarctic sea ice: 9*10^6 km2 (average over a year)
Mountain glaciers elsewhere neglected
Sum: 35*10^6 km2
Black carbon on ice is almost entirely assembled in the arctic and for simplicity I assume first, that all black carbon is on the Arctic multi year ice only.
The multi year sea ice recently was about 2-3*10^6 km2 plus Greenland is about 4.5 mill km2. This is about 13% of the total ice area.
The surface forcing of snow and ice on multi year ice in the Arctic is then 0.13W/m2/ 0.13 = 1.0 W/m2.
Above wikipedia link says:
“Soot deposition increases surface melt on ice masses, and the meltwater spurs multiple radiative and dynamical feedback processes that accelerate ice disintegration,” according to NASA scientists Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Larissa Nazarenko.[77] As a result of this feedback process, “BC on snow warms the planet about three times more than an equal forcing of CO2.”
Therefore I multiply the forcing by 3, which gives a total black carbon forcing on arctic mutli year ice of:
3*1.0 W/m2 + 0.97 W/m2 = 3.97 W/m2, by far the biggest forcing of all.
(If I assume that there is 5 times more black carbon on multi year ice than on Arctic non multi year ice, I would arrive at 3.22 W/m2).
Headin’ down the Consensus Highway.
Ridin’ down the high-way, mis-nomered free-way,
Direction’s been determined by a bunch of
Central planners. You may come to a junction, arrive
At a round-about, even take a fork-in-the-road, but
It won’t do- yer-any-good fer choices have
Been made, and how can yer presume ter decide
Fer yerself. Jest-keep-drivin’ in the zone and direction and at
The designated traffic-speed allowed.
BC
Reminded me of one of my all time favorite songs…kinda:
Chewing on a piece of grass
Walking down the road
Tell me, how long before we all melt, Joe?
Some people say this town will not see more snow
It’s our fault, I know
Consensus Highway in the sunshine
Where the days are longer
The nights are warmer than our time
We’re gonna burn I know
‘Cause the free wind is blowin’ heated air
And the days are hotter ev’rywhere
Gaia’s crying in despair
Addlepated lizards in the air, in the air
Did di di di dit …
Wishin’ for a falling star
Waitin’ for just any rain
Sorry boy, but we’ve been hit by acid rain
Aw, come on, Joe, we’re all gonna die in flame
Oil’s to blame
Sorry my son, just the same
Consensus Highway in the sunshine
Where the days are longer
The nights are warmer than our time
We’re gonna burn I know
‘Cause the free wind is blowin’ heated air
And the days are hotter ev’rywhere
Gaia’s crying in despair
Addlepated lizards in the air, in the air
With apologies to America.
Over on the thread on Sensitivity, tempterrain, Peter Martin, claimed
@@@@@
I’d extend that slightly. It makes no policy difference if there is a significant possibility that S will exceed 2.5 degC.
Is anyone saying that there isn’t a significant possibility that it might?
@@@@@
I claim that there is no significant probability that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atrmosphere from curreentg levels will exceed 2.5 C. But Peter maintains, and I agree, that I dont qualify as “anyone”. I am one of Peter’s nobodies. Had Peter said NO possibility, I would have had to agree with him, since no-one has any idea what the CS of CO2 is. But he added “significant”.
Are there any other denizens of CE who will join me in the claim that there is no significant probability that the CS of CO2 aded to the atmosphere from current levels is greater than 2.5 C?
Anyone want to join Peter’s nobodies?
I say there’s no significant probability that it’s greater than 0.0 K.
Heh, McAleer was naive when he named his film.
=================
An interesting review of the efficacy of risk reduction and some unintended consequences by Dr. Adams:
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/02/08/1061/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JohnAdamsRiskInAHypermobileWorld+%28John+Adams%3A+Risk+in+a+Hypermobile+World%29
….two unintended consequences are what for some decades I have been calling “the risk compensation effect”.”
..”In one sense the war has indeed been lost. The myth of the efficacy of seat belts and seat belt laws is now so deeply entrenched that it appears to be immune to evidence. It is routinely advanced in support of other safety regulation, such as compulsory cycle helmets, as an example of the efficacy of measures that compel people to be safer than they voluntarily choose to be…”
The use, and/or efficacy, of carbon offsets come to mind after reading Dr. Adams post.
This just in from EIA. Note catastrophic prediction, for those who object to the CAGW acronym.
“Dear Climate-L colleagues,
I am pleased to announce that this year’s edition of IEA’s “Electricity in a Climate Constrained World” has been published, providing key data and policy analyses on the electricity sector’s climate change challenge. More details are provided below.
Best regards
Christina Hood
Environment and Climate Change Unit, IEA
Electricity in a Climate Constrained World
Each of the last several years has seen a fresh record high in global carbon dioxide emissions, and scientists say if this trend continues the planet will suffer a catastrophic increase in temperature. With electricity generation responsible for about half of recent growth in emissions, a new IEA book looks at ways the power sector can keep up with an improvement in global living standards while minimising the risk of drastic climate change.
In Electricity in a Climate Constrained World, IEA experts consider potential solutions ranging from the design of a Chinese emissions trading programme to stand-by consumption of networked appliances to carbon capture and storage.
The book lays out the reasons electricity generation must get cleaner, and do so quickly. Higher temperatures will affect all aspects of human life, including the very electricity sector that emits so much of the cause of climate change.
In general, the solutions are well-known: increased energy efficiency, greater research and development of low-carbon energy production, and putting a realistic price on carbon. The problem lies in squaring these imperatives with the demand for energy that comes from a richer and more populous world.
Each of the 10 chapters in Electricity in a Climate Constrained World provides specific and detailed information on the book’s mission to help the electricity sector reduce its impact on global temperatures. Some of them apply to particular countries, such as the examination of Brazil’s potential for generating electricity from the by-products of sugarcane, while others monitor the entire sector, like a consideration of how different policy approaches to reducing emissions can work together. Chapters included are:
1- “Saving electricity in a hurry: an update” revisits how countries have dealt with electricity shortfalls, such as the post-Fukushima limitations in Japan. Building on IEA analysis in 2005, looks at best practice for emergency energy-saving programmes, the tools officials can use to cut energy use quickly and how such measures can lead to sustained energy savings.
2- “How can we make an Internet-surfing microwave oven go to ‘sleep’?” looks into the role of smart appliances in increasing household power consumption. Within ten years, there will be about 100 billion devices hooked to the Internet, machines that now run at full power while awaiting online instructions.
3- “State-owned enterprises and their domestic financial base: two keys to financing our low-carbon future” analyses the importance of mobilizing the “quasi-public” sector to invest in low-carbon infrastructure.
4- “From deregulation to decarbonisation of the electricity sector” looks back at changes in the power industry with an eye to reconciling climate-change and industrial policies.
5- “An emissions trading system for China’s power sector” examines how the state-controlled industry can successfully adopt a trading system that will especially less CO2 from smaller and less-efficient coal plants.
6- “Managing policy interactions in the electricity sector for least-cost climate response” shows how the right mix of multiple approaches can significantly reduce the cost of cutting emissions
7- “Tracking clean energy progress in the electricity sector” assesses the transition so far in moving towards a low-emissions approach to electricity production and consumption.
8- “The role of electricity storage in providing electricity system flexibility” addresses the opportunities and problems of different methods of storing electricity when it is sunny or windy and then recovering that power after the sun sets or the air is still.
9- “Potential for bioelectricity in Brazil from sugarcane residual biomass” considers the full potential of using bagasse, which is left over from processing sugarcane, to potentially triple its share in the country’s power mix.
10- “Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage: the negative emission concept”, sees a potential win-win situation in generating electricity from biomass and then storing the CO2 underground. Strict standards will be necessary to advance policies supporting this controversial option.
Detailed charts and summaries at the end of the book assess the relationship of electricity and carbon emissions by global region, listing the latest data on electricity output and emissions; CO2 intensity; end-uses; the share of low-carbon technologies; and additions in power generation capacity.
Electricity in a Climate Constrained World is now on sale and may be ordered from the IEA Bookshop. Please send a request by email to books@iea.org, or click here. Accredited journalists who would like to speak with one of the report’s authors, or who would like to receive a review copy of the report, are invited to send a request by e-mail to IEAPressOffice@iea.org.
Climate and Electricity Annual 2011, the previous edition in the series, can now be downloaded here for free. It contains eight more analyses by IEA experts on critical topics for electricity-sector decarbonisation.”
“
20% of the EU budget for chimera shields. A Hydra-headed monster.
=================
I think you can buy chimera insurance these days. Big deductible though.
20% in Europe (see page 7) vs 50% in China.
Makes me cry.
Cry enough to make a lingua franca mandarini. Now, what whine would go with that?
==============
The IEA is hopelessly behind the times.
The Chinese are capping coal consumption…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/xi-jinping-promises-a-cleaner-greener-energy-future-in-china/story-e6frg9if-1226573911174
I hope you are joking. Even in China the fact that an incoming politician makes some feel-good promises means very little.
I’m sure the Japanese are gratified.
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/02/09/new-japan-china-air-tensions-smog/?mod=chinablog
Though they may not be quite so impressed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute
363 new coal plants in China – that’s a nice cap ya got there Ming.
David Wojick,
No I am not joking. Most of us look at what is going on in China thru a ‘Western’ lens. I.E. We assume most of the coal is being consumed in the electricity sector as it is in the west.
We assume all coal plants in China are baseload, as they are in the west…but since they have almost no natural gas most coal plants in china are actually ‘peakers’.
That gives us a lot of ‘nonsense’ that various people toss about. i.E. IIRC Peabody multiplies 4 million tons/GW for coal fired plants in China…a reasonably accurate rule of thumb in the US where coal fired plants are mostly baseload…but a worthless metric in China where 60% of generating capacity are ‘peakers’ just as in the US, the difference being ‘Chinese’ peakers are coal fired vs natural gas fired in the US or Europe.
Of course Peabody’s efforts to ‘reassure’ it’s share holders of a robust future coal market then bleed into the ‘climate concerned’ literature and we end up with ‘confirmation’.
A propaganda match made in Hell to be sure. Peabody needs to reassure it’s shareholders and issues ‘optimistic’ projections of China’s coal consumption in the electricity sector…then Climate Alarmists…needing to underscore the ‘need for urgent action’ then confirm it with some nonsense of their own.
China is actually doing reasonably well at controlling coal consumption in the electricity sector. In 2012 renewable’s made up 90+% of the growth in electricity consumption.
Most of the coal in China is not being consumed in the electricity sector. Only about half is being consumed in the electricity sector.
Most of the coal in China is being consumed in steel, cement, chemicals and residential heating.
They have a building boom going on. Continued growth in coal consumption in China is therefore predicated on an acceleration of the building boom going on in China.
Unfortunately, their population growth is very close to non-existent now. In addition there is a lot of room for ‘process improvement’ in their cement industry.
How one accelerates and sustains a building boom where the rate of building already exceeds population growth is beyond my ability to comprehend. Maybe someone at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac can explain it.
Climate alarmists and coal companies seeking to reassure their shareholders have ‘magically’ concluded that this is what will happen.
I would note that Peabody coal is trading at about 1/3 of it’s 2008 peak. If they were going to be making ‘real money’ in China somehow I think their stock would be doing better.
Harry, I am well aware of patterns of coal use in China; in fact I had a client looking at buying power plants there. I used to track coal fired power for Electricity Daily. The building boom may or may not level off but they have just begun to consume electricity. Moreover most power generation is done at the municipal level where the national government has little control. But my point was that the speech you cited in no way means China is capping coal consumption by government action. Economics may cap it but not the central government.
Renewables always grow strongly when they are negligible.
It stunned me that the Chinese are making cement @ 5X the per capita rate as we are. Potemkin konkrete, some of it.
=============
Kim, they are building entire cities and not just a few. An economic miracle, an industrial revolution, rising out of poverty, something we should celebrate but complain about instead.
Hey, fella, their gurl astronauts are tanker pilots, and the boy racers from fighters.
===========
Kim, keep in mind that we were promised a trillion dollars worth of “infrastructure” in exchange for the “stimulus”, and got bupkis instead. There just isn’t any demand for cement in the US. This isn’t like the 1930s, when we got some actual construction out of the “stimulus” deal.
In my neighborhood they built a ribbon of concrete miles long that is called a biking-hiking trail.
JCH,
In mine, we already had an asphalt hiking trail, so they added two enormous, hugely expensive bridges over a couple of minor roadways.
But they sure are purty.
David Wojick | February 9, 2013 at 11:01 am
Stupidity annoys me. The world is not climate constrained, only the low-grade minds of climatists are.
Let’s all just abandon reality altogether in favor of modeling.
Am I the only one who thinks that naming winter storms in the continental US is stupid?
How better to anthropomorphize them?
===============
It’s a shovel-ready government program. The weather event-naming department is also working on regulations for naming whirlwinds, tempests, squalls and really cloudy days.
Wagathon
“a shovel-ready government program”?
What are they going to shovel?
Snow?
(or BS?)
Max
When disaster strikes it takes more not less energy. Why would the Left cause a man-made disaster by making what you need in a diisaster more expensive?
WuWT never fails to amuse.
Today it highlights a billboard that asks a question:
Who do you believe:
(1) “Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come.” Al Gore
or
(2) “We can’t attribute any single event to global warming.” Barack Obama
Apparently it never occurred to either the billboard creators or Anthony, that the questions do not present a requirement of picking one statement in contrast to the other. Typically, climate scientists have said that while a specific event like Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change, an extreme event like Sandy is a sign of things to come.
At least some of Anthony’s crew picked up that the two statements are not necessarily in conflict. Gotta give them credit for that.
Why are you so keen to defend Gore?
Once again the old question: With more energy in the system(if) will weather become more extreme or will the diminished difference between the poles and the equator mean less extreme weather.
In either case, the change won’t likely exceed historical(paleontological?) ranges.
=============
Kim, actually with the same amount of energy entering the system but less energy leaving, the overall energy flux must be less – meaning less extreme weather.
Or am I missing something?
If we are, it’s a travesty.
=======
phatboy –
Here’s what kim’s means by reason of analogy.
When 60 mph rear-ends 55 mph there is much more energy in the system than when 60 mph rear ends 10 mph. Yet, the dent will be smaller (unless it all goes off the road , that is), because the differential is smaller.
No eagerness to defend Gore here. He’s a blowhard of the first order. I have disagreed with his politics since he first gained prominence, and grew to have a dislike for his personality (even if I try not to indulge in personality politics). What I do find amusing, however, is how obsessed some “skeptics” are with their hatred of Gore; Yet another example of the rhetorical excess of climate combatants like Watts.
Joshua, I see nothing like that, rather a well-placed disdain for someone who feels qualified to make pronouncements on climate, while very publicly demonstrating his woeful ignorance about the temperature of the Earth’s interior.
Joshua
The real “common thread” in both Al Gore’s and Barack Obama’s statements is that they are both simple fear mongering with an ulterior motive.
H.L. Mencken wrote about politicians and fear mongering – check it out.
Max
Joshua
That’s precisely the foolishness WuWT is pointing to.
Got it?
Max
Joshua,
We take you at your word when you say your technical depth on the topic is limited.
No need to exhibit it by indicating that Sandy in anyway is a human induced event or reflects in anyway what we will experience as a result of human activities.
Three signs of a climate activist:
1) Thinks Big Oil is spending billions to keep the truth of climatic disaster from us.
2) Considers Stephen Lewandowski to be a credible researcher.
3) Points to every news generating weather event as proof of human induced climate change.
New topic, Paul Erhich’s twitter feed. Catch it @ the Bish’s.
============
It’s Ehrlich, but don’t translate.
=====================
I have an evolving definition for “Ehrlich”:
Ehrlich (ar’likh)
-n. A spectacularly wrong prediction. (e.g. The tabloid’s year end psychic predictions all turned out to be Ehrlichs.)
-v. 1. To not pan out. (e.g. The ponzi scheme started out fine, but then it Ehrliched.)
2. To not admit a mistake. (e.g. The drunk who caused the five car pileup Ehrliched.)
-adj. Wrong, incorrect. (e.g. The Mayan Calendar end of the world prediction turned out to be Ehrlich.)
:-)
Is his middle name “Un”?
I’ve arranged to send the climate back to when it was good. This is being done through an array of taxes, regulations etc based on non-Kardashian models. But I have a prob, so I’m asking around. Here’s the question I’ve been posting.
I still can’t get a date, not even ballpark, for when the climate, especially our Oz climate, was stable/normal/non-extreme. Any ideas, anybody? I’m so disappointed when I’m told that such-and-such an event is the worst or most extreme in a hundred years. Being a redneck doofus, I assume that means we’ll have to wind the clock back further than a hundred years to return to the good old stable times. Clever people see the word “worst” and conclude that something is new, but I see the word “ago” and assume that something is therefore not new.
For example, a hundred years “ago” in my region of Oz we were setting monthly heat and drought records which still stand. If I roll back over 150 years, the Darling River had stopped flowing. If I roll back over 200 years, there was that horror El Nino of the early 1790s. (It was like this year’s heatwave but not relieved by rain after a mere few days. It went on and bloody on.) In between we had wet times, but I’m a bit concerned at going back to the serial storms of the 1970s or the flood catastrophes of the 1890s and 1950s.
Help! I have ordered my Time Machine but don’t know what year to set it for!
Well, you might try mouthwash and deodorant. I’d suggest wearing something other than those parachute pants. The mullet absolutely has to go.
As one final piece of advice, whatever you see Springer, Lang, or Chief doing – try doing the exact opposite. You’ll be a babe magnet in no time.
I’m inclined to think that Joshua’s girlfriend is inflatable – so if you take his advice be prepared to be let down.
@CH: girlfriend is inflatable
Surely babe magnets would get luckier with iron maidens…
Joshua | February 9, 2013 at 6:49 pm | Reply
“As one final piece of advice, whatever you see Springer, Lang, or Chief doing – try doing the exact opposite. You’ll be a babe magnet in no time.”
Yeah, chicks hate guys that make a ton of money and spend it like there’s no tomorrow.
Oh wait…
Vaughan Pratt | February 10, 2013 at 3:26 am |
@CH: girlfriend is inflatable
Surely babe magnets would get luckier with iron maidens…
——————————————————————————
Nah. There’s heavy metals in the plastic.
In the Garden of Eden. Oh, won’t you come with me and walk this land.
============
Well, we here in the northeast just got 30+ inches of snow last night. Biggest storm ever recorded here in our town. Been digging out all day, helping neighbors, still many side streets with no way to get out yet. Just another extreme weather event that will be used to say ‘this is the new normal’ by those who promote alarmism. Gone are the days days of ‘weather isn’t climate’. So we live in the new normal age…. I dunno if that’s true or if its just ‘back to normal’.
John, back when you were having the mother of all blizzards, in 1888, Sydney had a year so dry the record stands to this day. When the Long Island Express ripped through your north east in 1938 (160 mph, Cat 5, landing as 3) eastern Oz was on the verge of its most lethal natural disaster, the ’38-39 heatwave, which just exceeded the death toll from our heatwave of 1895-96.
Welcome to the old normal.
The historical record, mosomo, Long term memory? Anathema ter
those who would lead us by the nose. Toss it down the memory hole.
er .. *.mosomoso* apology fer typo, (fer the record.)
Mosomo? Sounds cooler than what I’ve got.
Beth, as you know, my goal is to become a hipster intellectual, speak fluent irony, talk like a bad German translation, quote Kahneman etc. Looks like I’ll be voting for Barack, which is a good start.
But they won’t be taking my parachute pants. From these cold dead legs…
‘Fluent irony,’ yes, mosomoso, as in yer insurer detective mysteries,
Gavin Di Granvincenzo like Cato in the Purgatorio )
Say Joshua … I dunno :)
Excerpts from “The Curry Agonistes”
KK[Keith Kloor]: I question if there is really this breach of trust between the climate science community and the general public. Again, the average person is probably not paying much attention to these fractious debates between skeptics and a subset of the climate science community. I mean, every profession gets dinged by its share of controversies. The foundation for anthropogenic global warming rests on numerous solid pillars, which you agree with. So how is that a batch of intemperate emails and a decade-old scientific controversy over the hockey stick can rock this foundation, which is what you seem to be arguing?
JC [Judith Curry]: Evidence that the tide has changed include: doubt that was evidenced particularly by European policy makers at the climate negotiations at Copenhagen, defeat of a seven-year effort in the U.S. Senate to pass a climate bill centered on cap-and-trade, increasing prominence of skeptics in the news media, and the formation of an Interacademy Independent Review of the IPCC. Concerns about uncertainty and politicization in climate science are now at the forefront of national and international policy. There is an increasing backlash from scientists and engineers from other fields, who think that climate science is lacking credibility because of the politicization of the subject and the high confidence levels in the IPCC report. While these scientists and engineers are not experts in climate science, they understand the process and required rigor and the many mistakes that need to be made and false paths that get followed.
Further, they have been actively involved in managing science and scientists and in assessing scientists. They will not be convinced that a “likely” level of confidence (66-89% level of certainty) is believable for a relatively new subject, where the methods are new and contested, experts in statistics have judged the methods to be erroneous and/or inadequate, and there is substantial disagreement in the field and challenges from other scientists. The significance of the hockey stick debate is the highlighting of shoddy science and efforts to squash opposing viewpoints, something that doesn’t play well with other scientists. Energy Secretary and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu made this statement in an interview with the Financial Times:
First, the main findings of IPCC over the years, have they been seriously cast in doubt? No. I think that if one research group didn’t understand some tree ring data and they chose to admit part of that data. In all honesty they should have thrown out the whole data set.
But you don’t need to be a Nobel laureate to understand this. I have gotten many many emails from scientists and engineers from academia, government labs and the private sector. As an example, here is an excerpt from an email I received yesterday: “My skepticism regarding AGW has been rooted in the fact that, as an engineer/manager working in defense contracts [General Dynamics], I would have been fired, fined (heavily) and may have gotten jail time for employing the methodology that [named climate scientists] have used.”
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/
Thanks Judy
This is a great interview but two and a half years old. Mostly still true.
Why is webby hiding in the back posts casting aspersions?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/01/another-hockey-stick/#comment-293992
One reason is a simple and and relates to a quite mild correction I made. That the difference between figures being quoted on crude oil was the inclusion in one of natural gas liquids and not in the other. Webby insisted that the difference was biofuels – which didn’t figure in either. A simple point and so began the usual song and dance of obfuscation and misdirection. Webby complains that I am a larrikin – anti authoritarian. I am sure that if he had any I would defer. But as I have explained – the larrikin hero is our most sacred ideal of nationhood. It is an ideal of honesty, fair play, respect for women and care for children, a lack of pretence and an unflinching egalitarianism. The Aussie larrikin has only contempt for obfuscation and prevarication.
Odd as well – this repetitive sockpuppet plaint. Everyone knows who I am – i was made clear up front. Biosketch. Robert styles himself in the blogosphere as a Chief Hydrologist. ‘Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.’
Of late I have dropped the handle to see if the level of civility from such as the webnutcolonoscope improved. Unfortunately not in my dealing with webby in particular – so I have slipped back into the old and comfortable sockpuppet. I have said this to him. How often do I need to say these things to avoid the idiotic repetition of pointless complaints? Btw – I can neither confirm or deny that I am Captain Kangaroo – it is a closely guarded secret of the climate war privy only to a few on a need to know basis – and cowgirls with lassos.
The complaint about the simple energy equation is odd indeed. Because we are talking differentials energy is obviously in units of Joules per second – or unit energy. There is a similar hydrological equation of storage.
dS/dt = I – Q
Where dS/dt is the change in storage in a reach, I is inflow and Q is outflow. I and Q are expressed in terms of m3/s and not m3 – it doesn’t any sense at all unless you have time varying quantities on both sides of the equation. Does this need to be stated explicitly in such a simple formulation? I don’t think so – it is obvious that we are dealing with time varying quantities because it is a differential equation.
Having studied both engineering – with a major in hydrology – and environmental science. You may assume that I am familiar with dimensional analysis. So we have several pointless and repetitive quibbles, and lies and prevarication – all of which I find contemptible for a lack of manly virtues. Which being Australian and egalitarian we apply to women as well. A larrikin girl is a force of nature.
“Why is webby hiding in the back posts casting aspersions?”
I don’t know why you bother with him. I stopped trying to read his spittle over a year ago
He’s a shining example of Wankus Interruptus
For the most part I do. I made a simple enough correction and he chose to lie about it. Get’s up my nose.
He changes a simple formula that has quite obvious physical meaning to:
dS/dt (W.s/s) = Power in (W) – Power out(W)
True but trivial. We are really interested in energy, heat and work rather than power flux. So we multiply by time to get:
ΔS (J) = Energy in (J) – Energy out (J)
And derive the diferential as below. It is not difficult but he seems to deliberately spread FUD wherever he goes.
The Chief Hydrologist can’t even do dimensional analysis.
He tries to hide it but is so clownishly inept that he just buries himself deeper.
This is such a simple idea of the change in energy in the system – effectively global warming or cooling – results from an energy imbalance at TOA. By all means convert your power flux to energy terms by multiplying by time – but don’t bother to prevaricate and obfuscate any more. Derive the diffrentil for yourself in energy terms and express it how you will.
The equation is a complete description of the global energy budget – simple aye. You can use ARGO to determine whether dS/dt is positive or negative and SORCE TSI and CERES trends to look at why.
FUD will not work – only honesty and good faith in the long term.
The ineptitude of the Chief is clear. He can’t even get a simple differential equation dimensionally correct.
On the left hand side he has something per unit time, while on the right hand side he has energy units. He posts this over and over again, without ever correcting it. ,
The worst part is that he tries to hide his mistake by commenting in a different thread, thinking that no one would be able to track down the offending math.
If you want an example of a major league scientific poseur and multiple sockpuppet troll, the chief is your go-to guy. I like the way his Aussie Larrikin buddies like Ianl8888 stick up for him.
Chief Hydrologist –
Not sure what ‘S’ represents in hydrology (but probably not entropy or Siemens). Regardless, WHT still has a point. One of the dS/dt equations has units of power, the other of energy.
Please make the correction and let’s move on.
CH –
would dS be change in storage? Like a change in hydraulic head? Still I don’t get the volume units for I & Q. Shouldn’t there also be time in the denominator?
Please do not flame me. I admit to being not even remotely the expert you are. OTOH I did ace fluid dynamics at the university level. What am I missing here?
It really shows the difference in the levels of abilities on this site. We have guys like Pekka, Nick Stokes, and Mosh willing to dive into the physics while all the skeptics look on like frightened kittens.
And then old Chief comes is and says with mock authority:
And then he completely messes up the one and only equation that he has ever posted here, and one that he has repeatedly copied-and-pasted for the last couple of years. This is also the one equation that he never corrects, even though we always tell him that it is not dimensionally correct.
WHT –
kittens? More like no-one has a great need to stand in the cross-fire where mud is flying fast and furious..
btw. Thanks for pointing out the error. No thanks for the mud.
ΔS (J) = Energy in (J) – Energy out (J)
Where ΔS is the change is energy stored in the climate system over any perod. This is a statement of energy conservation.
We can divide both sides by time to get:
dS/dt (J/s) = energy in (J/s) – energy out (J/s)
The equation is a complete description of the global energy budget. You can use ARGO to determine whether dS/dt is positive or negative and SORCE TSI and CERES trends to look at why.
Now let’s get back to the hydrological equation of storage.
ΔS (m3) = inflow (m3) – outflow (m3)
Where ΔS is the change in hydrologic storage in the river reach or a pond or dam. We can again divide by time to get:
dS/dt (m3/s) = inflow (m3/s) – outflow (m3/s)
The webster simply confuses the issue as usual. He has not the slightest clue about anything very much – and is loud and obnoxiously insulting invariably. The differential is derived in the usual way and expressed in a standard notation. He makes much of something that is implicit in the derivation and goes off on some ridicuous crusade about dimensions.
The formula is conceptually correct. The change in energy storage in the climate system – effectively warming or cooling – is equal to the difference between energy in and energy out in any period. This is an idea that is the core of AGW. Now he may think about this in any way he likes – but to wilfully continue to spread confusion is beyond the pale.
It is a way of thinking about trends in TOA radiant flux, total solar irradiance and atmospheric and ocean heat content.
CH –
Thanks for continuing this conversation.
It is ok to look at an impoundment’s net change in static energy as simply the change in volume. But when you “average” the volume change by dividing by the time period, I would think you are calculating the power. Still looks messed up to me. How about we let Peter Lang settle this?
Also, I just went through all 13 chapters of hydrologic equations in this book. And so will have to cut you at least some slack.
It’s weird, but some symbols may have different meanings, depending upon context. For example, Q may be transport rate with (expected) dimension volume/time. Or it may be runoff depth (9.3). Even weirder, even in the same context (such as runoff depth) the dimensions may not be consistent you can use either mm OR mm/hr(!) provided all units are consistent within the same calculation.
CH –
Holding depth constant, you can estimate hydraulic power as (basically) proportional to flow rate. HINT: Your change in volume over time is flow-rate.
No it’s not.
The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval.
When you write:
dS/dt = Energy in – Energy out
That is fundamentally and conceptually incorrect.
No wonder you don’t understand that a net radiative imbalance will lead to heating of the earth.
You don’t seem to understand any of the fundamental principles of physics.
ΔS = energy in – energy out
This is a statement of energy conservation and shows the warming or cooling of the planet (ΔS) as a function of energy imbalance at TOA.
The power flux is defined as Watts or Watts/m2. Unit energy is defined as the power flux for 1 second. 1 Watt for 1 second is 1 Joule in SI units. I realise Americans are staunch defenders of imperial units – and so miss some of the easy connections that in the ‘Système International d’unités’.
Power is a flux at any one time – energy is a product of the power flux over a period of time.
Joule (J) – energy, work, heat – dimensions are kg⋅m2⋅s^−2
Watt (W) – power, radiant flux – dimensions are kg⋅m2⋅s^−3
Multiply 1 Watt by 1 second – and you get what?
It is amazing that the webster – who I thought was an electrical engineer – can get such basic definitions of power and energy wrong. No wonder he has problems with what is a simple statement of energy imabalance.
But the energy imbalance is not the contrived one of some 0.85 W/m2 – but the real one that is seen in data at top of atmosphere.
Here it is – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png – and here is the SORCE data – http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Here is the ccean heat content – http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/key_figures/OHC_update.jpeg – so we presume that the energy imbalance is positive in the period. SORCE is negative a little. So the change comes from energy out. This is as both reflected shortwave and emitted longwave. The big change in the period is in reflected shortwave. Ergo – it is clouds that have changed the energy balance in the period.
As I discussed with mosher earlier – the epistemic problem is the reliablitity of the data – but the data is what it is.
Surprise me webby – let’s see what new lies and prevarication will emerge.
CH –
ok Let’s make this simpler.
Your hydrological equation represents the change in gravitational potential energy due to a change in impoundment volume. Set one or another of inlet or outlet to zero, put a turbine in the other and let things flow.
As gravitational potential energy is converted into rotational kinetic energy, the instantaneous power delivered to the turbine (not counting inefficiencies) will be dS/dt, no? But that is what you are calling average energy.
btw all Americans are schooled in SI units. Engineers and scientists work in them. Conversions to English units, if required, is done in the last step by applying a conversion factor.
Chief shows off his arithmetic:
OK Chief, now that you have the definition dimensionally correct, you can go get a job as a cashier. Understanding how to make change is a big part of the skill set.
blueice,
It is just really adding up – there is a volume flowing in and a volume flowing out. The change in the volume stored is the difference.
Here is a storage hydrograph.
The storage is the difference in areas between two graphs. Zero at some time in the future – increasing while the inflow is greater than the outflow – and decreasing when outflow is greater than inflow. It is a flood hydograph – so not constant but varies through a storm. In this case the objective is to reduce downstream flooding by routing a storm flow through a temporary water storage.
Should go here for webby – what can be done with such a putz?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/08/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-294360
CH –
Yes. I found this form of the temporary storage eq some 6 hours ago.
S = 0.5 t ( qi − qo )
where:
S is the temporary storage volume
t is the base time of the inflow hydrograph
qi is the peak inflow rate
qo is the peak outflow rate.
And my immediate thought was this: q is flow rate (m3/s). Given constant pressure, power is proportional to flow rate.
Granted this is my first exposure to hydrologic storage equations. But how would one calculate the dissipated power in this case? See? You would calculate your “avg. net energy” (difference the qs and divide by time). Then multiply by contant conversion factor and voila. dissipated power. Something like that.
blueice,
The formula you cite is one used to approximately determine the size of detention basin needed to reduce a flood peak.
It is the first step in design and not one that I would generally use. I would just totally guess and run it through a rainfall/runoff model with a basin routine.
Try Bernoulli’s Principle – ‘can be derived from the principle of conservation of energy. This states that, in a steady flow, the sum of all forms of mechanical energy in a fluid along a streamline is the same at all points on that streamline. This requires that the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy remain constant. Thus an increase in the speed of the fluid occurs proportionately with an increase in both its dynamic pressure and kinetic energy, and a decrease in its static pressure and potential energy. If the fluid is flowing out of a reservoir, the sum of all forms of energy is the same on all streamlines because in a reservoir the energy per unit volume (the sum of pressure and gravitational potential ρ g h) is the same everywhere.’
blueice,
As if I would let Peter Lang decide anything.
It is much simpler than you are imagining.
The change in storage is the volume at one time less that volume some time later. This is equal to the difference between inflow and outflow – in m3 or whatever Americans use for volume – in the period.
The differential is simply a convention that allows other things to be done – such as analytically solving it for certain configurations or numerically solving it using the Runge-Kutta 4th order scheme or any of a number of numerical methods.
I think I will leave the energy budget at – ΔS = Energy in – Energy out – in future. As there is only a mixture of anomalies and absolute values that are quite likely to be wrong – no actual calcualtion is possible. Only the trend in SORCE-TSI, CERES and ARGO is your friend.
Webby,
so we have:
ΔS (J) = Energy in (J) – Energy out (J)
and you realise by now that energy is a the product of power flux and time.
So we can do the calculus transformation and divide both sides by time.
dS/dt (J/s) = Average unit Energy in (J/s) – Average unit Energy out (J/s)
But that is a bit clumsy – so let’s say –
dS/dt (J/s) = Energy in (J/s) – Energy out (J/s) – in the expecttion that there can be no one clueless enough to say something like – ‘energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval’.
The differential gives us some clues as to what sort of operations can be performed to give meaningful results. I have of course a job as an engieer and environmental scientist. And you are utterly pathetic.
The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval…
You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.
Again and again and again we get nonsense, prevarication and obfuscation from this person. He finally agrees to the simple notion of the global energy budget – and then goes into a rant about missing heat. I show him the data and how it is understood in terms of the global energy budget and he calls me a mad man. The pattern is familiar and unfortunate.
The guy is both a fool and a fraud. Anyone disagree?
Should go here for webby – what can be done with such a putz?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/08/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-294360
So you tried to fix it and now all you can do is create recursive links to yourself.
You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.
So really the idiotic definitions of power and energy don’t slow you down a bit?
Although I have copied them just a little above – let’s just reiterate because the web is a little slow.
Here is ocean heat content – http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/key_figures/OHC_update.jpeg – dS/dt is positive – the oceans are warming.
The ‘missing heat’ is found?
Where exactly did that heat come from – the sun was cooling in the period -http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Energy in declined?
So energy out must have declined either as reflected shortwave or emitted infrared. Guess which one?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png
This data is the best that we have ever had – and to reject any of it wholesale is just stupid. For instance – should we accept that net radiant flux at TOA is increasing and not that reflected short wave decreased and IR did nothing?
This is simply a matter of understanding the simple energy budget and seeing which way the power flows.
‘To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.’
The mind of a mad-man.
Speaking of loons, did anyone catch that creepy gravatar picture of OManuel at the top of the thread?
You can’t make this stuff up….
What can you do with such a putz. I quote Macbeth and he goes of on some tangent about gravatars and mad men. He is of course the idiot telling a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Instead of anything relevant and sciency in response he simply calls me a mad man.
Christ – the ignorance of this turd on legs is astonishing.
Should be here – confusion reigns and it seems quite deliberate.
The equation you gave is really just a definition of net power flow. Energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval…
You have also demonstrated where the delta is going, which is straight into the heat sink of the ocean. The ocean partially sinks the excess heat without raising the average radiating temperature, and thus creating a radiative imbalance with incoming solar. Part of the so-called “missing heat”. After all this effort, once again, Chief scores an own-goal.
Again and again and again we get nonsense, prevarication and obfuscation from this person. He finally agrees to the simple notion of the global energy budget – and then goes into a rant about missing heat. I show him the data and how it is understood in terms of the global energy budget and he calls me a mad man. The pattern is familiar and unfortunate.
The guy is both a fool and a fraud. Anyone disagree?
Arrrrrgh – I am getting out of this thread before I do go mad.
Pure projection. Chief has answers for everything yet can’t do dimensional analysis correctly. I will document the atrocity on the field guide to climate clowns.
I can’t believe that Google Scholar has indexed the comments section of sites such as this one, WUWT, and other crackpot enclaves.
Clown scholars from the future demanded it.
==============
so we have:
ΔS (J) = Energy in (J) – Energy out (J)
and you realise by now that energy is a the product of power flux and time.
So we can do the calculus transformation and divide both sides by time.
dS/dt (J/s) = Average unit Energy in (J/s) – Average unit Energy out (J/s)
But that is a bit clumsy – so let’s say –
dS/dt (J/s) = Energy in (J/s) – Energy out (J/s)
– in the expecttion that there can be no one clueless enough to say something like – ‘energy is a quantity, independent of time, whereas power is energy transferred per time interval’.
The dimensions are simple to the level of triviality. Surely it is a matter of trying to confuse something simple. Although his definitions of power and energy above are just so wrong as to be incredible for something so basic. Such unbelievably basic errors – such a narrow exposure to scientific literature – and behviour in such poor taste and bad faith.
I have been forthcoming and honest – but have wasted enough time and energy with this person.
CH –
It’s ok to use a hydrological approach for energy balance calculations. However, when analogizing the temporary storage equation you made a couple of mistakes.
Look at two forms of the eq.
(1) S = t ( qi − qo ) /2
(2) ΔV = (vin -vout )/2
In (2), it is easy to see that the proper way to calculate temporary storage (analgous to energy) is to average by dividing by two, NOT TIME!
In (1) flow-rate (q) is analgous to power.
Rewrite (1) in analgous form as:
S = t Pavg
See what happens when you divide both sides by t?
ΔS/Δt ≠ avg.energy
Yes, it indeed looks like the chief invented his own set of units to describe S. It has the units of mass * length^2 / time.
Never ran into that one before, perhaps Chief’s space cadets have seen it in some alternate universe.
It’s ok to use a hydrological approach for energy balance calculations. However, when analogizing the temporary storage equation you made a couple of mistakes.
Look at two forms of the eq.
(1) S = t ( qi − qo ) /2
(2) ΔV = (vin -vout )/2
In (2), it is easy to see that the proper way to calculate temporary storage (analgous to energy) is to average by dividing by two, NOT TIME!
Gee I will have to go back to hydrological school and explain how they are all wrong.
The first form – as I have explained – is an approximation used for initial design. It desn’t mean anything in terms of a physical description.
The second is simply incorrect. We are not averaging but simply taking a value at t1 and subtracting a value at t2 to get the difference.
If the global heat content is x Joules at r1 and y Jules at t2 – the change (delta) is x – y.
So we have – let’s stick with energy –
ΔS = energy in – energy out
Each of these has units of Joules. Now we can leave it like that and it is perfectly OK. Or we can divide by time to express it as a 1st order differential equation. The differential is obtained by considering time in the usual way – we really want to divide by time. The units would all be Joules/s in that case. Either way it is a simple statement of energy conservation. You can then use ocean heat content and SORCE and CERES data to answer the question of whether the world is warming or cooling – from 2 different angles ocean heat and energy imbalance – and whether it is due to total solar irradiance, reflected shortwave or emitted infrared. It is simply a way of thinking rigorously about the planetary energy budget and trends in energy. An actual calculation is not possible because of the vagaries of data – but it is still instructive and the data is improving all the time.
If you want to look at hydraulic energy – look at Bernoulli’s Principle as I have said above. There are factors of kinetic energy, potential energy, pressure and density to be taken into account to look at energy in a flow. Velocity is just one factor in the hydraulic energy equation – so your ‘analogy ‘ is not even close.
As for webby – I suppose I can waste a little more time.
Yes, it indeed looks like the chief invented his own set of units to describe S. It has the units of mass * length^2 / time.
Never ran into that one before, perhaps Chief’s space cadets have seen it in some alternate universe.
The equation in question can be found here.
The wildly inaccurate characterisation from webby is quite astonishing. I can only think it is deliberate BS or some strange aberration of reasoning. Either way – it is not worth considering. I advise you to ignore it.
By the way – the equations are not analogies. Both are continuity equations. Hydrology is conservation of mass and the energy budget is conservation of energy. They have the same form and both are derived from 1st principles.
CH –
Take anothet look at eq. 8.1
I – Q = dS/dt
I & Q are inflow and outflow RATES. Energy is not a rate. OTOH power is the rate of energy flow.
Let me – hopefully for the last time – derive this for webby’s benefit.
Let S1 be the energy stored at time t1 – and S2 be the energy stored at t2.
The change in storage is S1 – S2 = ΔS
The change in energy stored by definition is the difference in energy in and energy out in the period by the 1st law.
ΔS (J) = energy in (J) – energy out (J)
The instantaneous rate of change in ΔS is:
ΔS /Δt (J/s) = energy in/Δt (J/s) – energy out/Δt (J/s)
dS/dt = average energy in – average energy out
For the more discerning denizens – we can drop the average as implicit in the derivation of this simple formula.
CH: dS/dt = average energy in – average energy out
The LHS is measured in Joules/second (Watts), the RHS in Joules.
The equation cannot be correct (and isn’t correct). (Hint: not average energy in/out, but average energy in/out per second )
(My parenthetical comment about average energy was for the preceding delta eqn., not the final derivative)
The total energy in a period is divided by time to get an average – so the units fall out as J/s. If you have 3 Joules for 3 secinds and 5 Joules for 3 seconds – the average is 4J/s.
CH –
You seem to be talking about average power, not average energy. That’s the problem.
The power for 1 second is the unit energy. 1 Watt for one second is 1 Joule. So it is not power flux but average unit energy.
Kim @ 5.15pm, ‘Erlich’s twitter feed, Kim? More like cawing of crows
in immemorial elms:
‘Light thickens
And the crow makes wings to the rooky wood.
Good things of day begin to droop and drowse,
While night’s black agents to their preys do rouse.’
H/t Macbeth.
Heh, ‘Out, out, damned CO2’.
======================
Surely there’s a line from Malcolm. I’m jes gonna have to go look. For sure, this CAGW has been an illegitimate grab for power. Let me count the tragedies.
=================
Magic pudding, Chief H? Yer don’t hafta be an Einstein ter know
there’s – no- such – thing – as – a – free – lunch.
( Say, why do I have this compulsion ter hyphenate?)
Beth
Some folks bloviate. (Ehrlich comes to mind.)
Others regurgitate (in response)
You hyphenate
[Chacun à son gout.]
Max
Max,
Chacun a son gout?
Mon ami, ce n’est pas un explanation :)
Beth
Beth, that’s “each one to his own acute inflammatory arthritis,” the pain of wwhich leads to the sufferer’s bloviation, regurgitation etc, depending on their innate tendencies.
Could it be that that the climate controversy is now over, at least as far as policy is concerned?
“Luke-warmers”, when pressed for a 90% confidence figure for Climate Sensitivity will usually give a value somewhere in the range of 1.2C to 2.4C.
In giving this, they are stating that it is likely that if we continue business as usual up to 2050, the planet is going to cross the 2C increase threshold at some point in the future.
The 2C threshold has been set as something to be avoided, since it is projected to mean that hundreds of millions of people will be subjected to water problems (droughts and floods), with 30% of species, including corals, at risk of extinction. There will be problems with food production. Some regions may gain, but others will lose. Damage from floods and storms will increase, especially around the coast, and there will be major health effects.
That is the 2C scenario. Now, in 2013, we are already seeing perturbations of the climate that are pretty serious, and there is growing evidence that these changes are related to warming. http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/are-extreme-weather-events-increasing.html This strengthens the credibility of the 2C scenarios.
Of course, some lukewarmers will then begin to argue that the effects of a 2C increase have been wrongly forecast on the alarmist side, or that the precautionary principle can be set aside.
On the other hand, other lukewarmers may well agree that we should continue with the decarbonisation programme that is already started in many countries and localities.
This is not to call an end to the fun for the climatologists. There is still plenty to argue about, but as far as policy goes, someone should tell the policy makers the good news that the reasonable climate skeptics are now on the side of decarbonising the world economy.
docrichard you write “Could it be that that the climate controversy is now over, at least as far as policy is concerned?”
No, definitely not. Those of us who believe in the scientific method, insist that the only proper values for climate sensitivity must be based on empirical data; hypothetical, meaningless estimations, which are the basis for the numbers which you have quoted, are useless; for any purpose, but particularly for advising politicians.
Such little empirical data as we have gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity for CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels is indistinguishable from zero.
Jim
I do not know of any work that concludes that climate sensitivity is zero. Do you?
It would imply that any factor heating the global climate by 1C would end up cooling it by 1C. It is difficult to put forward a mechanism for that.
Empirical, observational works, of which there have been a few recently, come up with a CS of between 1C and 2.4C.
Bishop Hill, a well-known contrarian blogger, covers this figure here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/1/climate-sensitivity-and-the-stern-report.html
He has a blanket ban on any work that involves a computer model.
dr, you make the beginner’s mistake with Jim. He specified ‘indistinguishable from zero, empirically, so far’. You read something different.
=============
docrichard, you write “I do not know of any work that concludes that climate sensitivity is zero. Do you?”
Sort of. It is basically my own idea; I can never publish it, but I post it regularly on Climate Etc., and any other blogs I can. So far, no-one has convinced me that I am wrong. I have been unable to find any measurable CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. This does not mean that one does not exist; merely that I cannot find one. Beenstock and Reingewertz analysed this sort of data using advanced statictical techniques (which I dont understand), and concluded that there is no CO2 signal.
IF, and it is a mighty big IF, but if there is no measurable CO2 signal against the background noise of natural variability, then it is axiomatic from simple signal to noise ratio physics, that the effect of CO2 on global temperatures cannot be measured. The way I put it, there is an indication from the limited empirical data we have, that the climate sensitivity of CO2, added to the atmosphere from current levels, is indistinguishable from zero
But that is the extent of my reasoning. It is very basic and very simple, but I am convinced by it
docrichard
An equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.2C to 2.4C does NOT result in warming exceeding 2C.
2012 CO2 level is 393.4 ppmv (Mauna Loa)
At an exponential CO2 growth rate (per IPCC BaU scenarios & storylines), we could get to ~485 ppmv CO2 by 2050 and to ~640 ppmv CO2 by 2100
At these levels and using the logarithmic CO2 temperature relation we would see this much warming by:
2050: 0.36C to 0.84C
2100: 0.72C to 1.68C
So we remain well below 2C added warming, even at the upper end of the climate sensitivity range.
Max
PS And the REAL “good news” is that there is no “problem” (the “C” has been removed from “CAGW”)
Rejoice, docrichard!
Max
Hey, DocR, we’re about 2C warmer than we were a while ago. Ain’t it nice out?
==========
Manacker
Atmospheric physicist, whether mainstream or contrarian, are agreed that a doubling of CO2 will lead to a global temperature rise of about 1.2C. Climate sensitivity estimations are concerned with the response of the climate to this 1.2C increase.
I know that many do not believe in the greenhouse effect, do not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and do not believe that CO2 has increased in concentration since 1750. I’ve not found that meaningful dialogue is possible with these beliefs.
Heh, dr, no wonder you don’t find much meaningful dialogue with that triad. There are vanishingly few such absolute adherents, yet you ‘know’ that many do not believe a,b,c.
===================
Manacker said “An equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.2C to 2.4C does NOT result in warming exceeding 2C.”
In that 2C is included in the probability range, policy makers must plan for that contingency.
Right, dr, just as policy makers in the past had to plan for the 2C rise since.
==========
docrichard
At the upper end of the ECS range, we will NOT REACH the “magic” 2C warming limit.
You write: “In that 2C is included in the probability range, policy makers must plan for that contingency”
There is no “contingency” that “policy makers” need to “plan for”.
The “C” has been removed from “CAGW” at an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.2C to 2.4C .
So fuggidaboudit. It’s all hokum, doc.
Max
A critical point that his agoraphobia will never allow him to savor is that had policymakers planned for a 2C rise, they inevitably would have made a disaster of the temperature rise.
==============
No, Doc. You are lumping luke-warmers in with the wrong crowd, trying to stir them in with climate zealots. The fact is that feedbacks on the 1 degree no-feedbacks case mooted by the warmists are decidedly negative but you have to read the thermodynamics text and work the problems to know that. Luke-warmers are those who believe CO2 may have some small effect on climate with only a slight probability of discernible harm but several important benefits. They are a hedge against warmism which is not science but a barely concealed political agenda.
Well said Pochas. You really should come and join the thinkers at Principia Scientific International. Our CEO asked me to invite you.
We are sceptical of the conjecture of a radiative greenhouse effect, which we can easily prove to be fallacious.
Doc Richard,
Yes, to decarbonising the world economy, BUT, only if we do it so there is an increase in global GDP growth rate, not a decrease! I’ll repeat that because, many CAGW alarmists don’t want to hear it, or try to pretend it was not a critically important caveat by those wanting rational policies.
Yes to decarbonising the world economy, IF and ONLY IF, the chosen policies will produce an increase in GDP growth rate, not a decrease in GDP growth rate!
The policies that have been advocated by the CAGW alarmists for the past 20 years, and are still being advocated by them, will not work in the real world. They will not be accepted. There is a better way, but the CAGW alarmists, who are mostly of Left / Socialist / ‘Progressive’ ideological persuasion, are implacably opposed to rational policies. So progress is blocked, and has been for at least 20 years, and I’d suggest 50 years.
The activist climate scientists and CAGW alarmists argue the world should implement treaties / protocols / legally binding agreements to targets and timetables with penalties for breaches. They want a regulatory approach with UN type organisations administering and policing the agreements. They want global carbon pricing regimes (e.g. carbon tax, cap and trade, emissions trading schemes0.
However, it seems that the people advocating these schemes, have not properly considered the consequences of such schemes. What is the probability that the world can agree to a Treaty, a Protocol, or whatever to price carbon? Have they understood the assumptions that underpin the proponents’ claims that carbon pricing is the least cost way to reduce GHG emissions?
One of the main assumptions underpinning the economic analyses is that a carbon price must be universal/ If it is not universal, it will not succeed. The reason is that the cost for the particpants increases greatly as participation rate decreases. For example, if only 50% of GHG emissions are included in the scheme the cost penalty for the participants is estimated to be 250% (Nordhaus, ‘A Question of Balance’ p198 http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf ). That means, for example, 100% of the 195 countries must capture 50% of emissions in their pricing scheme, or 50% of countries must include 100% of GHG emissions. No exemptions. All 23 Kyoto greenhouse gasses must be included and all emissions sources must be included. That is where an international emissions pricing scheme would have to end up.
Not only that, but the 195 countries must maintain the system, in unison, for 100 years and beyond. For example they must all raise the carbon price or reduce the number of permits, or whatever is the agreed mechanism, in unison periodically for 100 years and beyond.
We need to recognise these real issues before we embark on this policy approach. Many people do, but the advocates don’t want to even consider it. They seem to want to ignore it.
It amazes me that the advocates for carbon pricing think it is realistic, given real world politics, diplomacy and economic constraints?
If the world is not going to implement a top down, UN regulatory approach, such as price carbon – and 20 years of failed climate conferences shows it is not likely to do so – why would Australia or other countries be silly enough to believe they can lead the world by example (that’s the usual reason given for Australia’s carbon tax and ETS?
How much will it change the climate if Australia and a few other countries price carbon?
What will be the economic cost to the world from reducing GDP? What is the human cost of such a policy? These questions cannot be dismissed, because rationalist are very well aware of the answers.
The World Economic Forum “Global Risks 2013” says the greatest risks facing the world in the next decade are “Major systemic financial failure”, “Chronic fiscal imbalances” and “Severe income disparity”. Carbon pricing would reduce GDP growth rate and increase these risks facing the world.
There is a better way. It’s the freer market approach. An example of such an approach is to remove the regulatory impediments that have been imposed on nuclear power as a result of 50 years of anti-nuclear activism (by the same Left ideologues who are the proponents of carbon pricing and UN regulatory approach).
Hello Peter
I could paste in an equally long reply, but that might be seen as antisocial. I have a blogpost on this topic here: http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/is-carbon-tax-end-of-civilisation-as-we.html
I will say that fossil fuel reduction will rectify far more than AGW, namely:
Ocean acidification
Peak oil (which still exists, despite the increasingly desperate forays into Extreme Energy)
Acid rain (which is still a problem)
Air pollution, which still has major health effects
Energy security – UK dependence on imports of energy, which also has an impact on:
Balance of payments/Trade deficit (a major problem in the UK)
Fuel poverty, which will be ameliorated by conservation efforts, reducing fuel bills
Unemployment and recession (jobs will be created in the energy conservation and renewables sectors)
I take your point, getting a universal global agreement seems a long way off, but I have found that political agreement always takes much longer than a rational being would hope for.
On the positive side, there is an increasing shift towards renewable energy, and carbon taxes are being introduced in some more enlightened countries.
We live in hope.
You lucky fella, dr; you’re gonna get a greener world from more CO2 and perhaps a little warmer too, unless Nature has an unexpected say in the matter. How wonderful to be so hopeful.
=====================
docrichard,
If you want short comments, you’ll need to simply accept the short points I make without substantiation. If that’s how you prefer comments, here goes:
You’ve missed the important caveat. Your statement is true ONLY IF there is a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels. Without a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels, reducing fossil fuels will do enormous damage to human welfare and to the environment. This explains: http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity
So we need cost competitive alternatives to fossil fuels. Pricing GHG emissions or regulating them so they make energy more expensive is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
Pricing carbon is irrational, not rational. Therefore, it will not succeed. This should be clear by now. Over Twenty years of failed climate conferences should be all the evidence to convince any rational person. The rational approach is to remove the irrational constraints we’ve placed on energy markets over the past 50 years, especially those that make nuclear power far more expensive than it should and could be.
No. Mandating and subsidising renewable energy is the opposite of rational policy. It is a classic example of irrational policy. It is one of many examples of irrational policies that have caused emissions to be higher than they would have been if we’d alolowed rational policies. It is an example of why progress is blocked.
The impression I’ve gained from your comments is you live in the dream world of the Greenies.
By the way, I am not persuaded that 2C warming is negative on balance. The ‘Damage Function’ is highly uncertain and, despite my asking repeatedly, none of the CAGW alarmists have been able to show otherwise. [I expect it is exaggerated to the high side]. To understand what I am asking about regarding the ‘Damage Function’, read the sub thread of comments starting here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/12/open-thread-weekend-6/#comment-285236
Peter Lang
NO to (100%) “decarbonizing” the world economy.
YES to replacing new coal-fired electrical power plants with either nuclear or natural gas, where this makes economic sense.
A power plant sitting on top of a coal mine obviously should be coal-fired, just as power plants in regions with abundant natural gas (especially those generating peak power) should be gas-fired.
But this still leaves a lot of the growth in electrical power generation that could come from nuclear (which is competitive today in most cases). And this represents over 50% of the total fossil fuel use today.
Fuel for transportation is another story. Hydrogen from nuclear is way too expensive (and has serious safety problems). Cost effective bio-fuels do not exist today. So we are stuck with fossil fuels, and cannot yet “decarbonize” this part of the economy.
It appears reasonable that the world will gradually move away from fossil fuels for all those applications where economically viable alternates can be found; but this will not result in a total “decarbonization” of the world economy.
And, as you write, a (direct or indirect) carbon tax will accomplish nothing positive (and a lot of negative for the end consumers who eventually have to pick up the tab).
I believe we agree, but I just wanted to make sure by spelling it out a bit more clearly.
Max
docrichard
OK. At the more recent estimates of 2xCO2 ECS there is no problem from anthropogenic global warming itself.
But let’s go through your list of “hobgoblins” (Mencken), which would support “decarbonizing” our economy, one-by-one.
– Ocean acidification
CO2 levels have been much higher in the past with no adverse effect on marine life from ocean acidification.
– Peak oil (which still exists, despite the increasingly desperate forays into Extreme Energy)
A WEC 2010 report concludes there is still around 85% of all the fossil fuels that EVER existed left on our planet. At present usage rates, this will last us almost 300 years.
– Acid rain (which is still a problem)
Clean up coal flue gas and problem is solved.
Air pollution, which still has major health effects
Ditto. Also install black carbon filters for all diesel motors. Problem solved
– Energy security – UK dependence on imports of energy, which also has an impact on:
Balance of payments/Trade deficit (a major problem in the UK)
UK apparently has a large reservoir of shale gas (and oil?). Drill, baby, drill and frac, baby, frac!
– Fuel poverty, which will be ameliorated by conservation efforts, reducing fuel bills
Whazzat? (A carbon tax will increase not reduce fuel bills).
– Unemployment and recession (jobs will be created in the energy conservation and renewables sectors)
A pipe dream, doc. More jobs will be lost from decarbonization than gained.
So much for you list of imaginary hobgoblins.
If there is no “C” in “CAGW” anymore, as a result of latest much lower estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, then there is no good reason to “decarbonize” EXCEPT where this makes economic sense (as Peter Lang has already stated).
Max
Manacker,
I agree the World does not have viable alternatives available to substitute for all fossil fuels now.
But I believe we will have viable alternatives that are cheaper than fossil fuels, and better on all the key criteria, in the future. We probably will not substitute for 100% of fossil fuel use but will substitute sufficient to stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations increasing, and perhaps reduce them (if that is what we find is necessary (we don’t know yet)).
I believe your comment is pointing out that I did not clearly state the time scales over which decarbonisation of the global economy will or could take place. I expect the global economy will be sufficiently decarbonised, to satisfy whatever turn out to be the requirements, by not later than 2100 and quite likely well before that.
I feel, if it is shown to be important to do so (we are not there yet), the world can reduce global GHG emission by around 50% by soon after mid century with nuclear power replacing most fossil fuels for electricity generation and cheap, low-emissions electricity replacing some fossil fuels for transport and heating. (The transport fuels may be produced using cheap low emissions electricity). There will, of course, be many other technologies involved that we have no idea about now.
I agree we really have no idea what the future may bring. There are many risks and opportunities facing humanity other than GHG emissions.
Peter Lang
All you have written makes sense.
In particular, this sentence:
I’d agree with you that this will happen before 2100, not to 100%, but maybe to 75% or 80%, with the remaining fossil fuels lasting us indefinitely at the lower consumption rate (primarily as feedstocks for petrochemicals, fertilizers, etc.).
And building cost-competitive nuclear power plants instead of new coal-fired plants could become a big part of this decarbonization process, provided we can get the anti-nuke green lobby groups and frightened politicians out of the way.
Geo-engineering is a non value added waste of money involving possible unforeseen negative consequences. And a carbon tax (direct or indirect) is stupid, as it also adds no value. So we need to vote politicians who support this sort of rubbish out of office.
Until then, I’d sat natural gas is a non-polluting, low-carbon fuel that seems to be increasingly available world-wide in shale deposits, so let’s go for it, both as a source of peak load electrical power and as a motor fuel.
Max
Manacker,
I agree with all your points, but not to keen to push for natural gas replacing coal for electricity generation (except where it is cheaper, which is not the case in Australia). I’d prefer to keep natural gas for more valuable uses in the future and simply wait until nuclear is cheaper than coal and go straight to nuclear for electricity generation. Australia cannot do much until the costs of nuclear come down. And that it is largely dependent on the US removing the impediments to low cost nuclear power.
The US President could make it happen. Bush and Cheyney removed many of the impediments which were blocking the US from having low cost oil and gas. Removal of the blocks enabled the oil and gas industry to give the USA cheap and abundant gas (and some more oil). Obama or the next US President could do the equivalent for low-cost nuclear. It will be easier, because the issue is mostly with the NRC and involves the government’s design approval process and its lack of focus on cost of electricity.
doc,
RE your 4th pragraph – none of that has or is happening. Much of it is based on model projections, with little to no scientific research identifying the mechanisms by which they will occur.
As for us “seeing serious perturbations of the climate” – we’ve always seen such perturbations. And the evidence is indicating that if anything, they are decreasing, not increasing.
The only people who are on the side of decarbonization are the environentalist activists, the folks who believe there are far too many people living on the planet and the gullible. Which are you?
Too much hot air about global warming – researcher
“Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.”
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/too-much-hot-air-about-global-warming-says-researcher-rv-1
Steve McIntyre has always been a voice of sanity and reasonableness. It’s a pity he’s been so vilified by the activist climate scientists and CAGW zealots. He did what the paid climate scientists should have been doing all along – i.e. checking and trying to reproduce all the important results.
@peter lang
Checking? Reproducing?
We don’t need no stinking checking and reproducing.
Checking and reproducing is for Heretics. Heretics are Deniers! They are wrong. They deny The Truth.
We have spoken.
The proles must listen.
We are the Chosen!
“Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.”
It sounds like McIntyre is admitting human emissions WILL lead to thermageddon, he’s just saying it will take twice as much emissions to achieve thermageddon than the models show.
And that’s comforting how? Skeptics like Willis Eschenbach seem to think we’ll find twice as much to emit just fine, so what exactly stands between business as usual and thermageddon?
Is the Eschenbach/McIntyre strategy for saving human civilization to rely on hope and luck? surely not!
Girma
The article is not clear, but if Steve McIntyre means warming is only half of what the climatologists think, and they expect 2-4C in response to doubling of CO2, if follows that Steve expects 1-2C. This touches the 2C threshold which is seen as the boundary of what is humanly tolerable.
This is my point – the reasonable sceptics are now in agreement with the climatologist community – human greenhouse gases are taking us somewhere where we do not want to be going.
Oh, good Heavens, how did we tolerate the last 2C of warming? dr, you haven’t got the memo; Gavin woke from his nightmares.
============
“which is seen as the boundary of what is humanly tolerable.” Nonsense. A leading German climate scientist was asked to provide a number which could be used to simplify debate and campaigning. He picked 2C as a nice, easy number, compatible with IPCC-projected increases for the not-to-distant future. He admitted in a lengthy Der Spiegel interview that there was no scientific basis for this number, no identifed tipping-points or runaway thresholds, it just served the CAGW polemicists purposes. The number has nothing to do with what is “humanly tolerable,” as must be obvious given that humans exist in temperatures ranging from about -50C to +60C. 2C is neither here nor there.
I don’t have the article, but it was posted in translation at no-tricks-zone.
In this instance, you are coming from a no-facts-zone.
If you want to read the article, it’s on the Der Spiegel website:
In English: Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research, or in German: KLIMA, Die Wolkenschieber.
docrichard
We’ve laid that one to rest up-thread
At the new, lower, observation-based estimates for 2xCO2 ECS, there is no threat from CAGW (i.e. we will not reach the 2C warming limit seen as possibly problematic).
The “C” is gone from “CAGW”, doc.
Rejoice!
Max
Steve McIntyre article cited by Girma, 10/2 @6.18am, supports Jim Cripwell’s stated problem re the absence of empirical evidence
showing the effect of .Co2 on global temperatures. SM says:
‘The onus is on the people arguing it’s a big problem, to really show
in an engineering quality report that it is a big problem.’
As Girma notes, McIntyre thinks global warming is likely to be half
what the models are predicting.
“As Girma notes, McIntyre thinks global warming is likely to be half
what the models are predicting.”
Please link to McIntyre’s engineering quality report that backs up what he thinks.
lolwot
I’m sure that you are aware of the recent observation-based studies, which show that 2xCO2 ECS is a bit less than half the previously model-predicted range of IPCC.
These have been the topic of earlier threads. Links have been cited.
If you missed these and are truly interested in learning something new, I’ll be glad to cite links.
Let me know. OK?
Max
Rejoice, rejoice!
For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’, you’ll be overjoyed to know that yesterday’s extent is greater than on the equivalent day in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2007 and 2006.
Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?
If not, why not?
And since unusual heavy snow in Southern UK in the last three years was blamed by the Met Office on the melting of the Arctic Ice, can we also assume that we’ll soon be back to the conditions where our children won’t know what snow is?
Just asking…….
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
So I guess you were one of the climate skeptics who last year in March were citing the high ice extent and claiming the summer would see a recovery?
You didn’t learn from that mistake then?
@lolwot
You guess wrong.
I have never been at all interested in Arctic Sea Ice extent and can’t see what all the fuss is about – one way or the other. Sea ice is nasty cold stuff and apart from a little chap called Pipaluk when I was a kid, I don’t give a stuff about polar bears.
And I remember pictures of the subs at the North Pole when I was young – so it doesn’t bug me to know that the ice is thin or disappeared.or not.
Which is why I prefaced my remarks with
‘For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’.
But I am very interested in doom;laden predictions of imminent Thermocalypse. It is sooooooo much fun pointing out when they don’t come true.
Year to year variations mean little, especially like last year’s when it was an unusual weather event that strongly contributed to the melt. If we start seeing many more of these arctic hurricanes (or whatever it was) then it may be clear proof of a change in weather patterns. No one disputes that the arctic is warming and that summer ice extent has gone down. It is the catastrophic nature that is contested and whether it will be exponential (tipping points and all that). It is quite interesting that the rates are more rapid both for increase and decrease for the thin ice forming and melting, although it is not surprising once you reflect on it for a few seconds. As always, we need to watch for another ten years to see if there is a 30 year cycle (we only have satellite data since 1979) and see if the ice does recover during the summers. If we have a few summers where the ice gets back to the average and stays there, it should be reassuring to those predicting catastrophe. One would think.
Well I can answer your questions then.
“Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?”
No.
“If not, why not?”
See above re March 2012 vs summer 2012.
@lolwot
‘See above re March 2012 vs summer 2012’
Which particular aspect of your brief one sentence discussion of that point do you consider to be an adequate answer to my question
‘If not, why not?’ .
Please be specific.
Tx.
lolwot
Learn to improve your reading skills.
Latimer pointed out that Arctic sea ice extent today is higher than it was in five of the seven previous years. This is not simply a one-on fluke.
End-January global sea ice extent (Arctic plus Antarctic) is at 1.8% below the 1979-2000 baseline level. This does not sound very drastic to me.
The Arctic sea ice is shrinking (-7.2%) while that in the Antarctic is growing (+14.3%).
Apparently “global” warming is not really “global”, right?
Max
“Latimer pointed out that Arctic sea ice extent today is higher than it was in five of the seven previous years. This is not simply a one-on fluke.”
Yes it is. A fluke. Ie down to chance. Meaningless.
It doesn’t tell us anything about how low sea ice will reach this summer. 2012 should have taught you both that.
Neither does it tell us anything to the contrary – 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 should have taught you that.
lolwot: “It doesn’t tell us anything about…”
phatboy: “Neither does it tell us anything to the contrary”
What part of ANYTHING do you not understand?
Oh, I understand perfectly what’s implicit in your comments – and how the irony in Latimer’s original comment completely escaped you.
The only thing that’s clear is you idiots don’t understand even the basics of arctic sea ice
No, the only thing that’s clear is that you’re idiotic enough to believe that you do understand the Arctic ice
I at least understand that the anomaly in February tells us nothing about whether summer decline is continuing.
So frickin obvious. Why do you tools come up with such easily falsified arguments? It’s like you didn’t even check previous years to see all the instances where the anomaly has been high in winter and yet it’s not made a blind bit of difference to the summer decline.
You just don’t know when you’re being wound up, do you?
If you think it was a wind up you are wrong.
Although I don’t blame you for not taking Latimer’s comment seriously. It is absurd enough to be a wind up. But it wasn’t. He was serious. So was manacker.
It’s so entertaining to watch someone squirm
lolwot
You do not have any earthly notion of how Arctic (or Antarctic) sea ice will look in September 2013. Nor do I. Nor does Latimer Alder. Nor do the so-called experts in NSIDC.
Let’s wait and see.
We can discuss end September 2013.
Max
“And since unusual heavy snow in Southern UK in the last three years was blamed by the Met Office on the melting of the Arctic Ice”
Is it just me, or does it seem that some of our ‘skeptic’ friends don’t know that snow is precipitation??
Your point being?
Bah, it’s moisture.
=============
@michael
Yep. I know that.
What was your point?
Just checking….there seems to be a popular meme amongst the dogmatic anti-AGW’ers that more snow means that AGW is a fraud, or if you are of the CGC mindset, that’s it’s a sign of the catastrophic cooling that is coming.
What’s that got to do with the Arctic ice? And, if nothing, then why did you make that comment within that context?
@michael
‘Just checking….there seems to be a popular meme amongst the dogmatic anti-AGW’ers that more snow means that AGW is a fraud, or if you are of the CGC mindset, that’s it’s a sign of the catastrophic cooling that is coming’
Well since i don’t fall into either of those categories, we can safely discount your ‘argument’ so far.
As a reminder, the question is this
‘Since unusual heavy snow in Southern UK in the last three years was blamed by the Met Office on the melting of the Arctic Ice, can we also assume that we’ll soon be back to the conditions where our children won’t know what snow is?’
You can take it as read that we all agree that snow is a form of precipitation. And purely semantic arguments are not persuasive.
phattie, now you have we worried.
Less ice,more precip – what could be a link?
Hhmmm??
Michael
Most CAGW skeptics do NOT believe (as you write)
They simply have concluded that AGW is not the principal driving force of our climate, since there is no robust empirical correlation between GHG concentrations and global temperature or climate.
So AGW has nothing to do with a) more snow or b) less snow.
And, despite the past decade of slight cooling, there is no reason to fear “catastrophic cooling” in the future (although history has shown us that cooling would definitely be worse for humanity than a continuation of the long-term warming trend we have seen since 1850).
Pretty simple, actually.
Max
“since there is no robust empirical correlation between GHG concentrations and global temperature or climate.” – max
I assume this is contingent on some quibbling over the meaning of robust?
No catastrophic cooling – can you break the news to kim?
Michael
Studies show link between receding Arctic sea ice and increased snow for UK, etc.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21521-melting-sea-ice-could-trigger-colder-winters.html
Is it real or just another computer-generated hobgoblin?
I’d guess it’s more the latter (especially since Met Office predicted “snowless winters” for the UK due to AGW a few years ago).
Max
“(especially since Met Office predicted “snowless winters” for the UK due to AGW a few years ago).” – max
That’s just begging for a cite.
Michael, you misunderestimate my guess. Max re-iterates my main point, that degree for degree, cooling is more catastrophic than warming.
===================
Michael
Let’s replace the word “robust” with “apparent”, if you prefer.
“there is no
robustapparent empirical correlation between GHG concentrations and global temperature or climate.”You like it better that way?
(Or, if you prefer, we can leave either word out and leave the rest.)
OK?
Max
Heh, practically by themselves a coterie of climate scientists has made the term ‘robust’ ridiculous.
==================
@michael
‘That’s just begging for a cite’
Yep. Isn’t it?
And here it is
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
In the interests of accuracy I should point out that this was said by David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. He is not directly associated with the Met Office – but only by their joint work on the HADCRU datasets.
For those of you unfamiliar with the CRU, they got some not entirely favourable publicity during what became known as the Climategate affair. A selection of e-mails from and to the workers there came into the public domain, and did not paint a flattering picture of the integrity of their working methods. And if you need a tutorial in how not to run a professional IT shop, try the delightful ‘Harry_Read_Me’ file associated as well
Michael
You ask for “a cite”
From The Independent 20 March 2000:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
“Very rare and exciting”?
Oops!
Max
Latimer Alder
Looks like our posts crossed (with the snowless winters “cite” requested by Michael).
Max
Children just aren’t going to know what climate is.
==========================
Michael wrote: “Less ice,more precip – what could be a link?”
——————————————————————————-
Let me just add two words to that: “Less summer ice, more winter precip – what could be a link?”
Kim, one can only hope
naturally it wasmuch more nuanced thn that (hey, if you beleive everything you read in a newspaper…..)
He elaborated,
“We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time”
So -yes it will keep snowing in the coming decades, just less snow and more trouble when it occurs.
How’s that bearing out – NE England has had a 25% (IIRC) reduction in snow days over the last 20 or so years.
@michael
‘NE England has had a 25% (IIRC) reduction in snow days over the last 20 or so years.’
Citation please.
And don’t forget to show the total amount of snow. ‘Snow days’ tells us something about the lumpiness of its distribution..but the discussion s about total amount, not lumpiness.
And please show SE England for comparison.
BTW Max,
Those links weren’t what you claimed (“Met Office predicted “snowless winters”).
Still waiting for that cite.
Lati,
My memory didn’t serve me too well.
It’s a 75% reduction in snow days in southern England since 1960.
A bit less less in E/NE England (around 60%).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/about/UK_climate_trends.pdf
So here we go.
Yet again.
It is amazing how some “skeptics” can make the same facile arguments over and over without ever learning from their mistakes:
Manacker – how do you know what most “skeptics” believe w/r/t what was being argued? In point of fact, you don’t. But here’s what we do know: The “skeptics” we find here, and at places like WUWT represent a tiny fraction of “skeptics” overall. Folks who are actively engaged, such as you are, are outliers. Yet in an un-skeptical fashion, you insist on over and over – on the basis of what a relative handful of “skeptics” believe – extrapolate to pontificate about what “most ‘skeptics'” believe.
And in fact, even among the outlier group that you extrapolate from in a facile manner to characterize the larger group of “skeptics,” we often see crowing about unusual wintery weather – as if that refutes the theory of AGW.
But I will give you some credit. Unlike in the past, when you have un-scientifically and un-skeptically characterized the opinions of “skeptics” in a monolithic fashion – at least this time you used a qualifier. Even though you did so in support of a facile argument, progress is progress. I am impressed, and I have full confidence that given long enough, you may actually get to the point where you won’t make facile characterizations of “skeptics” beliefs.
Joshua wrote: “And in fact, even among the outlier group that you extrapolate from in a facile manner to characterize the larger group of “skeptics,” we often see crowing about unusual wintery weather – as if that refutes the theory of AGW.”
——————————————————————–
What about the very large group of alarmists who we very often see crowing about any unusual weather – as if it constitutes proof positive of AGW.
Latimer, you write “For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’,”
I have a nit to pick. I am obsessed with total sea ice extent; Arctic plus Antarctic. But I am not obsessed with Arctic sea ice extent. I think this total sea ice extent does tell us quite a lot about what is happening to global climate. The two different polar sea ice extent anomalies are negatively correlated, with a very high degree of certainty. And I have to ask myself why? The only explanation that I have seen that makes sense, is clouds.
Now, when the sun shines, the albedo of clouds is much higher than the albedo of the earth’s surface, just about everywhere, EXCEPT the Antarctic. Here the expanse of ice over the Antarctic continent has a higher albedo than clouds. So it is to be expected that if total cloud cover varies all over the world, it will affect the Arctic and Antarctic in opposite ways; just what we observe.
That is the issue which I would like to see more discussion of.
Why do SH clouds increase ice extent mostly in the areas where increased winds are driving the ice pack away from the shoreline, which creates open water, which freezes. RInse repeat. In some of the areas where winds are not regularly driving the ice pack out, your same clouds appear to be shrinking ice extent.
JCH, I have no idea what you are talking about. I made a very general observation, with no details. I would like to see much more discussion. But what you wrote makes no sense to me.
Winds are why antarctic sea ice extent is growing.
JCH you write “Winds are why antarctic sea ice extent is growing.”
First, I dont believe you. Second, when you make a claim like that, it is normal to give a reference. Where can I read up about this.
It was given the last time you did this.
Which is why I don’t believe you want a discussion.
Dont expect Cripwell to read your evidence or if it reads it to understand it, or if he understands it to remember it, or if he reads understands and rememebers to admit it. There is no evidence that his intelligence is distinguishable from zero.
Thank you JCH. Interesting, and I still dont believe it.
Ah, moshe, it would take but the slightest breath of apparent CO2 effect to jiggle that meter.
==========
Jim Cripwell – I believe a system of mooring ropes and some tug boats would send Antarctic sea ice into serious decline in about a month.
Latimer Alder
End-January sea ice extent (as compared to 1979-2000 baseline):
Arctic: -7.2%
Antarctic: +14.3%
Global: -1.7%
(Yawn!)
Max
Oh, I understand perfectly what’s implicit in your comments – and how the irony in Latimer’s original comment completely escaped you.
Latimer Alder,
All in all, I suppose no one should be surprised when no one puts up his hand when someone asks about racism at ClimateEtc. Posts at ClimateEtc on the North, and developing economies, remain condescending and ignore indigenous knowledge and experience; however I honestly do not believe that is the intention.
On the other hand, Latimer, your ignorant comments about pressures of climate change in the North continue to express blatant indifference to the point of the final frontier of racism, which hopefully we won’t have to put up with in future relations between nations.
Martha
“CAGW skepticism = racism”?
Huh?
Get serious, lady.
Max
Ain’t she precious?
======
manacker,
Martha’s world view is determined by a confused, jumbled up version of Marxism. Everything is class based, now re-packaged as race/gender/sexual orientation. Any discussion that rejects the latest socialist cause du jour is by definition racist, or sexist, or LBGTist etc….
@martha
Lost me along there somewhere, sport.
Like to explain what you mean in clear English?
Or will there be a TV version with subtitles?
As a reminder, the question is
‘Since the record low achieved last year was widely heralded as a surefire indicator of the coming Thermocalypse, can we therefore assume that this return to normality is an equally surefire indicator of its postponement or cancellation?’
Dunno what question you thought you were answering, but it sure wasn’t that one.
I wasn’t answring a question, I was raising one.
Latimer Alder said “I have never been at all interested in Arctic Sea Ice extent and can’t see what all the fuss is about – one way or the other. Sea ice is nasty cold stuff and apart from a little chap called Pipaluk when I was a kid, I don’t give a stuff about polar bears. And I remember pictures of the subs at the North Pole when I was young – so it doesn’t bug me to know that the ice is thin or disappeared.or not. Which is why I prefaced my remarks with ‘For all of you who obsess about ‘Arctic Ice Extent’.
But I am very interested in doom;laden predictions of imminent Thermocalypse. It is sooooooo much fun pointing out when they don’t come true”.
My response in regard to this to was “Latimer Alder, All in all, I suppose no one should be surprised when no one puts up his hand when someone asks about racism at ClimateEtc. Posts at ClimateEtc on the North, and developing economies, remain condescending and ignore indigenous knowledge and experience; however I honestly do not believe that is the intention. On the other hand, Latimer, your ignorant comments about pressures of climate change in the North continue to express blatant indifference to the point of the final frontier of racism, which hopefully we won’t have to put up with in future relations between nations.”
The point is not ‘skepticism equals racism’ (Max).
Neither of you seem to have been brought up with historical or geographical knowledge and it shows, as evidenced in many of your comments that erase the existence of other societies, along with ecosystems. It is time for such punditry to be examined for its racism, separately from skepticis about climate change.
Martha-
So the real point is ‘anything Martha doesn’t agree with equals racism’?
If it’s anything else you might want to be a little less cryptic. Lesser mortals don’t have your astounding ability to detect the hidden racist meaning of every word.
@martha
Wow.
Any other charges you’d like to bring?
As I haven’t a formal wife I can’t tell you whether I have stopped beating her or not. I may not have eaten my 5 portions of vegetables today, nor
was I especially nice to an old chum who supports the football team that had the effrontery to beat my guys yesterday.
But in my defence, I took the dog for a walk and cleaned my teeth properly this morning. And was especially charming to the lady in the supermarket who took my money for a cut-price cabbage (no food wasted in my household!)
I think you’ll have to start smoking something a little stronger than is your normal habit before you are able to find any evidence that I have ‘erased the existence of other societies’ and I wish you luck in finding an audience for your ‘examination of such punditry’
I can assure you that it won’t be me, and I very much hope that no public body would be foolish enough to spend taxpayers hard-earned money on assisting you in such a pointless endeavour.
Martha,
It is pretty well accepted that when someone throws the racist card on the table, they busted and hoping to bluff their way out.
Steven Goddard re-posted the graph of average global temperature changes that Newsweek published in 1975:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/nasa-disappears-the-cooling-trend/
A British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, and a British author of science fiction – George Orwell
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2204
Worked quietly together back-stage in 1945-46 to warn the public:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
Climategate emails were our wake-up call in Nov 2009: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/finally-the-new-revised-and-edited-climategate-timeline/
omanuel
WOW! Looks like they’ve ironed out an inconvenient “bump” in the record.
The old record you cited (GISS record) showed
1910-1940: warming of +0.8C (modern record only shows +0.35C)
1940-1970: cooling of -0.7C (modern record only shows -0.15C)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1941/to:1970/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1911/to:1940/trend
Max
I see a graph of the northern hemisphere in C, a graph of something in F (looks like NH to me), and a graph of the global mean.
Is this wft, or wtf?
JCH
It’s stated to be NH data. It shows a stronger early 20thC warming and mid 20thC cooling than the more recent record, but it is common knowledge that these records get “corrected”, “variance adjusted” and “manipulated(?) ex post facto, so one should not be too surprised at this.
Max
GISS NH
The US 48 states – http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/usa48.jpg
Arctic and global – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=chylek09.gif
Take any arbitrary period and invent a gloabally coherent decadal signal…Oh…wait…
Since it is Sunday and a gorgeous day, though a tad windy, how about a puzzle?
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/02/just-puzzle-for-sunny-sunday.html
A chugga choo choo, chugga chugga choo choo.
================
@’kim’
‘A chugga choo choo, chugga chugga choo choo.’
You are not Kim at all.
You are Chuff Chuff Pachauri masquerading as that contributor. And I claim my £5!
kim
Is that the “little
Injunengine that tried”?Max
Could be.
======
injun is racist
joshua should flog you with his cowardly anonymous limp noodle for that remark
Aw, David, Ah reckon ah jest never did larn how ta spel that good.
An its all so confoosin (and not amoosin): thers them East Injuns, them Pakky-stanny Injuns an them REAL Injuns (Cher-i-ky, Soo an all).
Ah wuz talkin bout the fust bunch. An scuse me efn ah off-ended (shore didnt meen to).
Max
Capt’nDallas
I like curves and all that, its the straight lines that puzzle me.
Why does the green vector start at 10% relative humidity?
I went back as far as Monday Feb 4 to see if I was missing something. It seems I am missing a lot.
The green is specific volume. It would extend all the way to zero percent, I just highlighted the likely operating region. That is just the latent or fuel cycle at one atmosphere which would produce about 25 Joules per gram of dry air energy transfer. To be sustained, the inlet air would have to at least maintain that transfer rate. With enough fuel/air provided, the energy transfer could increase.
If it followed that path, a portion of the condensation would provide evaporative cooling of the inlet air and “enrich” the fuel air mixture, like a venturi creates a local lower pressure that would increase uptake of say, water vapor?
The fun part is the turbulent layer created by the roughness of the forest. There would be more laminar flow at the cloud base and more turbulent at the canopy. Yet another pressure differential.
Tom Fuller has a post on Peter Gleick’s new blog
http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/welcoming-peter-gleick-to-the-climate-blogging-community/