John Carpenter states, on the thread 10 signs of intellectual honesty
“John Carpenter | April 21, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
@@@@@
“Can you show me one estimate that is a measurement?”
Yes, all of them.
Note that John’s statment is not qualified; it is absolute. He does not state that all measurements, except thos made by Jim Cripwell, are measurements. He implies that all measurements, even those made by Jim Cripwell, are measurements.
Similarly, on the same thread, Steven Mosher writes “My position is pretty clear. There is no categorical difference between measuremments and estimates. both exist along a spectrum of accuracy and precision, with “measurements” being most precise and estimates being less precise. And further that our focus should be on the accuracy of the ‘measurements” rather than on Jim’s silly attempt to carve out some special place for MEASUREMENT. Jim’s response was that measurement was categorically different from estimations because
A) his teacher told him so
B) the dictionary said so.”
Now I observe that in all modern temperature/time graphs, there is no measured CO2 signal against the background of natural noise. From this empirical evidence, I estimate that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is 0.001 C.
Now I suggest that that there are two alternatives, both of which can not be correct. Either
1. The value of 0.001 C is a SWAG (my opinion).
or
2. The value of 0.001 C is a measurement (what I deduce from John’s and Steven’ logic)
A measurement is obtained by the act of measuring. Webster defines measure (verb) as using an instrument to obtain a dimension, quantity, or some other standard unit. Mosher is just being argumentative. An estimate is a rough approximation of something. You can estimate your weight from the size and fit of your clothing. You’d measure it by stepping onto a scale. There’s no ambiguity. AGW boffins and pretend boffins like Mosher want to present climate science as a hard science like chemistry so their conclusions carry more weight but in reality it’s a soft science like economics and conclusions are really no more than educated guesses with some less educated than others.
Mosher isn’t using English very effectively. I think what he’s trying to say isn’t that out there. My interpretation is that he’s just saying that measurements are mostly proxy measurements, even when we think they’re direct. For example; there is no way to measure temperature directly. You can use a thermocouple, which is really a voltage, or you can use a thermometer, which is really expansion of a liquid. These are accurate measurements, but all involve some other proxy measurement.
Where I think he goes off the rails is in talking about ‘estimates’. It’s a question of semantics. For most people, an estimate is a shortcut. Estimates are quick and dirty calculations that make simplifying assumptions to get to an answer faster, at the expense of accuracy. You do a cost estimate on a project, because you need to know roughly what it’s going to cost, but you won’t know exactly how much it costs until it’s been designed, bid, and built.
An estimate, where you deliberately chose to cut corners in order to know something without an inordinate amount of effort, is not the same thing as measurement error, where you may not have a more accurate way to measure something. One can be improved, and the other can’t. Any similarity is sophistry.
David Springer: A measurement is obtained by the act of measuring. Webster defines measure (verb) as using an instrument to obtain a dimension, quantity, or some other standard unit. Mosher is just being argumentative. An estimate is a rough approximation of something.
words, words, words, words, words.
You went to the Dr and got your blood pressure measured. Or did it depend on an estimate?
You got your weight measured? Or did it depend on a relationship that was estimated, that is, was it calibrated?
You got your serum cholesterol and fecal occult blood measured? Were the instruments calibrated to make sure that the necessary quantitative relationship was adequately estimated?
There isn’t a measuring instrument that does not depend on the proper estimate of a quantitative relationship.
Harold: For most people, an estimate is a shortcut. Estimates are quick and dirty calculations that make simplifying assumptions to get to an answer faster, at the expense of accuracy.
That definition excludes least squares estimates, maximum likelihood estimates, method of moments estimates, and Bayesian estimates. This gives us a decision point: do we conclude, as I recommend, that the definition is inadequate? (as an aside, most people’s opinions are not much value in scientific discussions.) Or do we conclude that least-squares estimates (the most common estimates in instrument calibration) are not actually estimates?
Jim, like I said in other comments on this topic, your frame of reference has a lot to do with how you might choose to categorize a value as either a measurement or an estimate. From the big picture point of view, an estimate from one frame of reference might be considered a measurement by another. This is a philosophical way of looking at the two. You know, staring out the window stuff…. pondering when do you cross the threshold from one to the other? However, from a dictionary definition perspective, yes… an estimate would be considered a less accurate, less reliable, with greater potential for error value than a value obtained from a standards based measurement. I am not arguing that point, I agree. I am arguing that an estimate is still a measurement, even though it has more guess in it. An estimate relies on prior measurements made in order to make it. An estimate is a less accurate measurement but a measurement none the less.
For CS, we have proxy temperature measurements (estimates) of the past. We have proxy CO2 concentration measurements (estimates) from the past. We have current temperatures and current CO2 concentration measurements. We can look at the deltas from time X to time Y. We can calculate a CS from those deltas. We can calculate a theoretical delta based on how we understand the physics. We can compare the differences between the empirical proxy measurements and theoretically calculated measurements. We can run atmospheric computer simulations of future CO2 concentrations and its effect on temperature based on the same physics. We can run coupled atmospheric-ocean computer simulations. We can compare all the model simulations to one another as ensembles. We can create a PDF of CS to CO2 concentration based on the output of the simulations. They are all measurements. Unfortunately the tools at hand are more like crayons instead of a fine point pens because of the complexity, uncertainty and degree of error of the data generated both empirically and theoretically.
Jim, I am an empiricist myself. I measure to satisfy my doubts. I measure to verify. I measure to be sure of what I know. I am comfortable with making physical measurements compared to theoretical ones. However, complex measurements rely on theory to understand and to make sense of complex measurements. I rely on theory to understand. Theoretical measurements back up empirical measurements, or the other way around if you want. You always like to see if you can arrive at a similar or the same answer based on different ways of measuring to get there. That’s what gives you confidence in your knowledge. This is what is happening with the debate over CS. We are trying to get an answer using both empirical and theoretical methods of measurement. We end up with an estimate…. a crude measurement…. but a measurement none the less. 3.0 C +/- 1.5 C is the current CS measurement. Is it right? I dunno. Is it a fact of life? No. Should we give it much validity? Some, we can’t ignore it. Do we have confidence that the real CS is within that range? Well, that is the big question isn’t it.
John, you write “We end up with an estimate…. a crude measurement…. but a measurement none the less.”
You have provided a long post, but you have not answered my question.
I repeat “Now I suggest that that there are two alternatives, both of which can not be correct. Either
1. The value of 0.001 C is a SWAG (my opinion).
or
2. The value of 0.001 C is a measurement (what I deduce from John’s and Steven’ logic)
Which is correct?'”
Looking for an absolute differentiator between “estimate” and “measurement” is proving to be elusive because of personal ideas on connotations, but I think we can all agree that the latter is inherently more “empirical” than the former: it implies a check with real physical observations or experimentation, while the other does not necessarily imply this.
By definition, a true “rational (or scientific) skeptic” will accept the latter as empirical scientific evidence supporting a hypothesis (assuming the measurement methodology is sound, the experimental data are reproducible, etc.), while he/she will not necessarily accept the former.
In either case, the acceptance should remain provisional, i.e. until new evidence comes along.
So, if you accept that Jim Cripwell is a “rational skeptic”, he provides you the practical differentiation between the two.
Those of you, who do not see this dividing line between “estimate” and “measurement” are not “rational skeptics” in the scientific sense, while those of you, who do see this dividing line and insist on physical measurements as empirical evidence before accepting a hypothesis, are (by definition) “rational skeptics”.
That’s how I would see it (as another “rational skeptic”).
“Why is my estimate poor compared with the ones you quote ?”
Well Jim, you offer nothing to support how you arrived at that value for CS, you just say you don’t observe a CO2 signal. How am I supposed to evaluate with so little information how you got what you got? I said your measurement is so poor it is a SWAG. I don’t know how you arrived at that value so it appears to be just a guess.
“The Never-Ending Story.” This discussions seems interminable, it will never be resolved, we’ve all heard the arguments, let’s put it aside. Or at least have a three-month moratorium.
“Now I observe that in all modern temperature/time graphs, there is no measured CO2 signal against the background of natural noise. From this empirical evidence, I estimate that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is 0.001 C.”
Well, that’s quite wrong. First off you’ve misunderstood the problem as a signals/noise problem. Its not.
There is a easy way for you to estimate or measure ( which ever word you prefer ) climate sensitivity.
1. Start with the correct definition
2. Put in numbers.
3. Take objections and refine
Definition: Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing
or lambda = DeltaC/DeltaW
SAMPLE calculation:
Delta C 1850 to today = 1C
Delta W 1880 to Today = 1.75W
so, now you can estimate lambda = 1/1.75, lets just say
0.6C per watt/m^2
This is a system parameter. It tells you that if you add watts temperature goes up. how much? 0.6 C per Watt added.
Note that lambda cant be zero.
That’s a rough order estimate that tells you if you change the forcing by 1 Watt over a 150 year period that you are going to see temperatures rise by about 0.6C.
Think of it like this. There are a lot of forcings that determine how fast your car will go. drag, friction, thrust. so I might define a sensitivity for your car system to say adding 1HP will increase your speed by X.
Lots of other things could make it go slower, but I can characterize the system by looking at this system level metric.
Following? this system parameter is the parameter that is very hard to measure/ estimate however you look at things. Why is it hard? One its hard because we cannot do controlled experiments, because the system is the damn planet. Also.
A) what time frame makes sense? I could measure the temperature
change when the sun goes down and get a really bad estimate of
lambda.
B) is lambda really independent of temperature ( roughly linear )
C) measuring forcing has big uncertainties.
But we have what we have. We’ve got a change in temperature of about 1C and a change in forcing that’s around 1.75 Watts, so lambda is around 0.6C per watt/m^2
Note: you dont need to agree with these numbers ( 1C and 1.75Watts) to understand the idea of the metric.. Just understand its a system metric.
How do we figure out the sensitivity to doubling C02?
Thats means answering this question
How many additional Watts do you get if you go from 280ppm to 560 ppm. Good news here: 3.7 additional watts. This is engineering not science
Now do the math
3.7 * 0.6 = 2.2C per doubling.
In climate science and engineering nobody argues about the 3.7W
all of the argument is about the 0.6C.. really.
A few things to observe here. You can actually classify skeptics by looking at the formula
lambda = DeltaC/DeltaW
############ interesting sidenote
you will have skeptics who object to the whole form of this equation.
( Willis does)
you will have skeptics who object to how delta C is measured
( Anthony)
you will have skeptics who object to how deltaW ( change in forcing) is characterized..
( natural variability folks)
########################################
Once you have lambda then you can calculate the sensitivity
to doubling c02. First The additional watts from C02
Watts = 5.35ln(CO2a/CO2b) where CO2a is CO2 after the increase
and CO2b is CO2 before the increase
So 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.7 Watts for doubling C02
If you object to that you are a sky dragon of sorts. 5.35ln(Co2/Co2) is basically engineering.
In a nutshell. You can object to the form of the equation “lambda= deltaC/deltaW” and be a systems skeptic. You can object to deltaC and argue about the temperature record. You can object to deltaW and be a forcings skeptic. Or you say that additional C02 gives no additional watts and never be hired as a engineer.
As somebody who has worked in OR this type of analysis should not be foreign to you. We do it all the time.
Steven, you write “Definition: Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Wrong! This equation only applies if you can prove that the observed change in temperature was caused by the observed change in forcing. Until we know all the details of all the natural forcings it is impossible to do this. So the rest of what you write is irrelevant.
Agree with Jim. The assumption has to be made up front, and if it is incorrect, the wntire argument is moot.
Consider instead any stable system controlled by negative feedback. (eg an air-conditioned room or a fridge) Within the bounds of parameters for which the system is designed, any change in “forcing” (opening doors or adding heat sources) does not result in anything much apart from a transient change which is corrected by the system.
Earth is well within CO2 levels of history. Earth is still here and so are humans.
If the phenomenon is that of radiative thermal equilibrium of a body with the sun, then I have not seen any idea that temperature is dependent on *any* other property of the body excepting reflectance.
Steven, you write “Definition: Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Wrong! This equation only applies if you can prove that the observed change in temperature was caused by the observed change in forcing. Until we know all the details of all the natural forcings it is impossible to do this. So the rest of what you write is irrelevant.
#########################
Jim its a DEFINITION there is nothing to prove in the definition of a metric except that it is adequate to characterize the system
It is NOT a statement of causality that needs to be proved.
You shine a 100 watt bulb at the water. You measure the temperature.
you DEFINE a system metric. metric = temperature gain/added watts
Thank you for your help, but it is in a losing cause. I am convinced that by simply using Physics 101, it can be shown that the current numeric values of CS are nothing more than SWAGs. The warmists, including our hostess, haved to stick to the fiction that the numbers have real meaning. I keep getting bright ideas as to how to demonstrate the lunacy of estimated values of CS, and associated PDFs; in vain.
The warmists cannot concede that no-one has the slightest idea what the value of CS is, otherwise the whole house of cards that is CAGW comes crashing down.
Jim Cripwell, The issue is and always has been the “surface” that “sensitivity” allies to. For GHE, the “surface” is above the moist air envelope when only the gases phase exists. At that point, CS can be actually measured. What can’t be measured is the complex fluid dynamics below that surface due to advection and turbulent mixing. So CS does not actually apply to the true “surface”.
That is how screwed up Climate Change is, they have lost contact with reality.
First they ASSUMED, that the tropopause is the top of the atmosphere and that the stratosphere has insignificant turbulent mixing. The stratosphere mixing effect is on the same order of magnitude as the WMGHG effect. The turbopause is the lowest location that meets the minimal requirements for turbulent mixing to estimate the true sensitivity of climate to CO2 forcing. Even that altitude, ~110 km, is subject to tidal fluctuations, so the ~67Wm-2 WMGHG “fixed” reference layer can fluctuate. btw, Venus also has an ~67Wm-2 “shell”, the point where the energy transfer is balanced by gravitational influence producing a relatively stable radiant “shell”.
Since the lower “:surface” is the source of the energy determining the altitude of the stable “shell”, is not the true “surface”, the rate of internal dynamic heat transfer has to be determined independently to estimate an “average” “surface” energy/temperature and it is that estimated “average” “surface” energy/temperature that responds to GHG forcing.
So CS is incorrectly “defined” but you can’t fight a definition. You have to wait for the utter and complete humiliation of the idiots doing the defining.
Could you do a blog post on the following interesting article by Latif?
IPCC AR4 published only climate projections based on such scenarios with no attempt to take account of the likely evolution of the natural variability.
Latif, M., Uncertainty in climate change projections, Journal
of Geochemical Exploration (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2010.09.011
“There is a broad scientific
consensus that the warming contains a significant contribution from enhanced
atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations due to anthropogenic emissions. The
climate will continue to warm during the 21st century due to the large inertia of the
Earth System and in response to additional GHG emissions, but by how much remains
highly uncertain. This is mainly due to three factors: natural variability, model
uncertainty, and GHG emission scenario uncertainty. Uncertainty due to natural
variability dominates at short time scales of a few years up to a few decades, while at the
longer centennial time scales scenario uncertainty provides the largest contribution to
the total uncertainty. Model uncertainty is important at all lead times. Furthermore, our
understanding of the Earth System dynamics is incomplete. Potentially important
feedbacks such as the carbon cycle feedback are not well understood and not even taken
into account in many model projections”
So far so good. I’m nodding my head. Then this was said in the very next sentence.
“Yet the scientific evidence is overwhelming that
global mean surface temperature will exceed a level toward the end of the 21st century
that will be unprecedented during the history of mankind, even if strong measures are
taken to reduce global GHG emissions. It is this long-term perspective that demands
immediate political action”
Here I’m wagging my head. What evidence? Based on short term trends? Surely not!
.
Motif Latif, a PH.D (1987) and qualification as lecture in oceanography (1989) assumes in the reference (2010) paper that the climate will continue to warm due to “to three factors: natural variability, model uncertainty, and GHG emission scenario uncertainty”. As there is no word about the ocean as climate factor, it might be time to recall a paper written in 1993; published by ‘L.O.S. Lieder’ of the Law of the Sea Institute, William S. Richardson School of Law; University of Hawaii, in full at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/1993-LOS-warming-up-science-or-climate.html
“WARMING UP – SCIENCE OR CLIMATE
The climatic change issue has recently become one of the most serious challenges facing humankind. As L.O.S. Lieder insists on brevity, even though this issue deserves to be discussed at length, I beg your forgiveness for formulating my thesis directly and perhaps somewhat dramatically: climatic specialists and those people who have contributed to recent debates are possibly as much of a threat to the climate as the pollution caused by industrialization. For almost one hundred years, science has failed to realize that climate and the oceans are one and the same thing. As a result, the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the only true treaty dealing with climatic change issues, was thwarted the moment it came into effect over ten years ago.
As recently as 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came to the conclusion that CO 2 was altering the climate and that “understanding and detecting the earth’s climate system must surely be the greatest scientific challenge yet to be faced by humankind. It is a worthy banner under which the nations of the world can unite” (IPCC, Working Group I, p. 328). Certainly not a bad thing for science. The 1992 Earth Summit resulted in an unprecedented success for the scientists working in the climatic area, forcing politicians to listen to them and paving the way for greater financial backing in an effort to understand and come to terms with the climate system.
Yet, what is good for scientists is not necessarily good for the climate. The simple fact of the matter is that meteorology has never been particularly interested in climate except for statistical purposes, defining it as the average weather over a given period of time. On the other hand, there are the mathematicians, physicists and chemists, who do little more than apply their laboratory findings, theoretical conclusions and abstract calculations performed on greenhouse gases to a real natural system with little regard for the true essence of climate.
But while the seas continue to influence the climate, science is staring into the air (or, to be more precise, the atmosphere) in an attempt to find out what makes the climate tick. What is more, scientists have misled the international community of nations by claiming that greenhouse gases are the actual cause of climate change. This may yet prove to be the real tragedy of the climate change issue. After all, the oceans are still the part of the world about which the least is known. There is neither an “inventory” of the oceans nor an observation system. What is even sadder is that climate is still far from being acknowledged as the blue print of the oceans.
So beware of IPCC’s call for unification in its attempt to come to terms with the climate. The climatic change issue is far too serious a matter to leave to those who should have known better for many decades and who were not interested in or aware of matters relating to the oceans. It is high time to enforce what is by far the best convention for under¬ standing and protecting the climate — the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea — before it is too late. After all, it is the first global constitution and would therefore compel humankind to ensure that the planet remains a place worth living in. There is no need to “detect the earth’s climate” and even less is there a need for a banner to serve IPCC’s “greatest scientific challenge”.
Kindly except my sincere apology for the length of the text. AB
That was 1993, and this is now, when realization of changes in the ocean with ARGO and sea-level data has put the ocean in the forefront.
On another point, yes meteorologists are not interested in climate, unless it is changing (kind of like sea level is not as interesting as the waves unless it is changing). The climate would normally be just a background state, like the wallpaper, on top of which the interesting weather occurs, but not now. That has changed. We live in times where climate is not the wallpaper background, but needs attention.
@ Jim D | April 27, 2013 at 11:49 am |
Not so much has change with regard to the oceans over the last 20 years if you read what Judith Curry had to say (March 20, 2012; Pseudoscience (?):
Section: Climate science vs pseudo science; 3rd Para “In the case of main stream climate science, the physical mechanism for climate change is clearly posited as arising from external forcing: solar, volcanoes, anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols. However, climate scientists have not racked their brains anywhere near hard enough to come up with other causal explanations. The main outstanding causal explanation that has been neglected is internal natural variability of the coupled ocean/atmosphere system. “http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/20/psuedoscience/
Of course ARGO is a marvellous achievement during the last couple of years. But if you compare this observation system with the many ten thousands observation taken in the atmosphere ervery day over more than 100 years, the few Argo buoys are a drop on a hot stone, and if one takes a percentage of the water volume (ocean/atmosphere) as the measure for climatic relevance, the current ocean observing system is heart-breaking small.
This paper mentions the Earth’s climate’s “inertia.” Does it have an inertia? I take that to be analogous to the the inertia of mass. If one imparts energy to a mass in a vacuum, it will continue its motion unchanged. This isn’t like the Earth’s climate at all. If the Sun suddenly stopped producing radiative energy, the Earth would begin to cool immediately. There is no inertia there. This appears to be an attempt to foment fear.
Jim2, yes, Earth’s climate has inertia. Think of it as an engine inside an engine inside of an engine. The liquid part of the climate, the oceans provides the energy to produce a fairly uniform distribution of the available energy, via the moist atmosphere. The waste heat of those engines provides the energy for the greenhouse stage of the system. Since the density of the liquid oceans is greater than the moist atmosphere which is greater than the dry atmosphere, there are several rates of energy transfer with differing inertial characteristics all of which are influenced by Corolis effects, tidal effect plus thermal gradients.
captdallas – Sure the ocean absorbs energy. It will cause the air temp to increase more slowly and cool more slowly. So, I guess they should have explicitly dubbed this “thermal inertia.” But this moderates the temperature increase, it does not enhance it. OK, occasionally some hotter water may surface and warm the atmosphere, but net-net, it slows the warming.
jim2, ” But this moderates the temperature increase, it does not enhance it. OK, occasionally some hotter water may surface and warm the atmosphere, but net-net, it slows the warming.”
It also slows the cooling and causes overshoots of the mean producing oscillations or recurrent decay pattern on various time scales. Inertia makes the system non-linear.
captdallas – I don’t have access to most papers. I have wondered if anyone has attempted to characterize the attractor for the chaotic portion of climate. I am assuming the effect of Milankovitch cycles is deterministic, non-chaotic. That is the major, lowest frequency component.
Superimposed upon that is other, higher frequency components. Some of those may be chaotic, some not.
So has anyone attempted to characterize the attractor of the chaotic component? At what frequency or frequencies does it manifest? What is the shape of the attractor.
It seems that if we knew these things, then we could examine various proxies to see of the attractor pattern is present. If so, then I would think such proxies would be valid candidates for use in climate reconstructions.
jim2, chaos has a bad rap. I used to make a pretty go living adjusting potentially unstable systems with potentially unstable control systems. When you slow the “chaos” down, you can control the systems. The ocean inertia slows the climate system down enough to be stable in a reasonable range.
A far as the “attractors” the freezing point of fresh and salt water are the most likely “attractors” That is a range of ~2C with current salinity and if you look at most of the longer term paleo, the typical standard deviation is approximately +/-1C degrees. The “global” temperature is a different critter because of changes in sea ice extent and glacial ice storage. That can overshoot one way of the other, but it will eventually return to the range set by the oceans.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the paper linked below. I see a lot of people applying more conventional statistical treatments to climate, but haven’t seen something like this:
” In this brief, we considered the problem of blind identification of an autoregressive (AR) system driven by a chaotic signal. Because of the inherently deterministic nature of a chaotic signal, a new dynamic-based estimation approach called minimum phase space volume (MPSV) technique was applied to identify an AR system. It was shown that not only could this chaotic approach provide an accurate identification, but it was also more effective than the conventional statistic method in the sense that the chaotic approach had a smaller mean squares error (MSE), and it was so robust that it did not require an order determination procedure.
jim2, that is an interesting paper. I used to study spread spectrum communications and simulating chaos or noise is the ticket to hiding signals and increasing gain. It could be useful to dig out more of the complex signals. Without the physical mechanisms to explain the noise or wiggles though, there is not much going to happen. Selvam and others have used various methods to estimate different pseudo-cyclic periods or recurrent patterns and they have met with the same denial because of not having mechanism to explain the patterns.
The easier patterns to isolate are the slower movers, the ocean pseudo-oscillations. By modeling the main recurrent patterns, you can shift into more complex patterns. If they are truly chaotic you can never actually predict a future response, but with the slower, higher inertial responses, you can determine some reasonable probability of a range of future responses or a PDF. That is why I link you to the Rose paper, it looks at the longer term potential climate states.
For the higher frequency patterns, Tsonis and Douglas have used neural network and phase locked methods plus there was a paper by a recent PhD that used “trainable” statistical model groups to try and predict sudden stratospheric warming events. Then there are a few other chaotic pattern recognition approaches. As far as I know, there is no one method, it requires a number on methods and there will always be questions since there are no true oscillations, just recurrences that are close to something that happened before. Definitely a black art type of field.
Had hoped the cold weather in the north would reflect in more arctic ice this year. Might still happen? The arctic returning to positive values for several years is surely one of the major signs that would turn the argument for AGW and high climate sensitivity on its head, or would we have to wait 17 years?
I doubt it.
Unfortunately, when the ice gets down to a certain thinness (and it’s been getting thinner for the past 150 years at least) it becomes very sensitive to both the ocean currents beneath and the winds above. In fact, it’s exacerbated by the ice thickness which used to impede the ocean currents not being there anymore.
I’m afraid it would probably take decades of cooling for the ice to recover substantially.
Yes, Earth does not move rapidly from a Medieval Warm Period into a Little Ice Age. It actually occurs over centuries. The snow has started but it will again take a while.
WRT the Arctic sea ice dramatization video, the decrease in the minimum is pretty dramatic; the variation in the maximum, much less dramatic. The global sea ice anomaly is positive currently. Not sure what to make of all that.
Another great spinner is the oil industry hack Lawrence Solomon, who said that extent was down based on the data. Tamino looked into this claim and found out this was what Solomon was trying to spin: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/picture1.jpg
It looks like a nature trick, don’t you think? ha ha
“sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 11:33 am |
Web, you have too much invested in pessimism. Be happy Antarctic ice is at record levels and Arctic Ice is only 3% lower than the mean.”
That’s why we call her Little Miss Sunshine. Smiling optimistically is more important than discussing science rationally.
I’m generally given to toss out remarks about Arctic sea ice extent during the Arctic winter and spring. Variability in these seasons is too low to obtain very good statistics on so short a span of observations as the past three and a half decades. There are better figures to use, for volume, and we have good reason to expect that mechanically we will continue to see ‘sea ice’ extent in the Arctic winter independent of larger climate trends or metrics, because the Arctic in winter when night lasts interminably is so far below the freezing (firn) temperature on the sea that even at the highest projected path we cannot expect a substantially iceless winter for over half a millennium.
1989, when ice over 4-years old made up over 20% of the sea ice extent, as opposed to 2013 when it is less than 5%, on this day? See, amount of multi-year ice in winter extent, that’s a useful figure, in that it varies with some vague correlation to something.
1989, when there was still ice in some parts of the Arctic sea extending over a hundred feet below the surface, as opposed to today when none now measures more than a third that depth? See, Arctic sea ice volume in winter is a meaningful metric.. (down 70% since 1989 for this date, btw, isn’t it?) as it correlates with some trend.
Late spring, summer and early fall extent, as at that time of year ice albedo has an impact, those figures are important.
Weather patterns over Arctic sea ice. That’d be something to watch.
I’ve noted that your happiness, like winter sea ice, correlates to nothing meaningful to anyone, but has the glow of rampant pronoia and takes comfort in a world that is ever friendly and never harmful nor harmed.
As for your argument from ignorance, requiring satellites to confirm what we well enough may infer by comparing observations of the people who actually lived there in those times to today, I’m unimpressed.
Arctic hunters relied on landmarks and the position of the sun and stars on certain days of the year which have shifted significantly, and in such a way as can only be accounted for by radical changes in the atmosphere. However, these landmarks have not shifted by so much that the hunters do not remember the ancestral hunting routes and circuits used by their ancestors reliably that just do not exist any more due the disappearance of the ice.
The distribution, too, of Arctic wildlife, the records of ships and their (which Tonyb seems to not quite be able to read), the journals of expeditions.. these all confirm that what is happening currently in the Arctic has no near parallel in centuries, and on what evidence we do have nothing similar in millennia.
While it’s impossible to confidently say never, or absolutely, on the balance of probabilities based on evidence and reasoned inference, we can confidently say the claim that this Arctic meltdown is commonplace on the scale of less than millennia is a crock.
So you have a theory that because there was global warming (but to far lower than current global level) up to about 1940 — and which you claim isn’t a result of CO2 rise based on you ‘just know’ — and some regional Greenland ice stations were ‘as high as’ current levels, that you can leap to an equal Arctic melt to the current one, despite all contrary evidence?
That’s your reasoning,and you wonder about skeptical comments?
The one that is an average of a 60 year span and a 72 year span that doesn’t exist before or after and can’t be found by any method of signal processing to a higher confidence than pure random chance?
You’re preaching a Cheshire Cat that only appears after you fall down a rabbit hole and get lost in the woods.
Cycles in time series where there is too little data to complete three full cycles for analysis are considered simply insufficiently sustained by data, unless the precision of the observations is so narrow as to sustain quite high confidence with a simple, unmodified, cyclic function.
What’s the confidence on GMT?
Correlation of GMT to any simple unmodified cyclic function?
Certainly, there _was_ a qualifying cycle in the GMT, for almost sixteen decades or seven complete wavelengths: the Hale cycle. That cycle could be confirmed by the method of isolates, at above 93% confidence. The problem is, the correlation vanished in the mid 1950’s.
Sure, AMO and PDO influences make their marks on the GMT curve, but: A) AMO and PDO have different nonsynchronized periods;
B) AMO and PDO influence have also become virtually undetectable for three decades.
Where your source claims, “As can be seen from the above figures, the two cycles were nearly identical..” we actually see that the two so-called “cycles” bear little resemblance whatsover, and neither is very ‘wavelike’ when smoothed, either. People see what they hope to see, in cases like this; this is why utmost skepticism ought be applied to graphical analysis of time series with suspected periodic elements.
The cycle length is approximately 62 years..
Approximately? Approximately? Kills the argument for me right there. A cycle has a fixed period. Either the proponent is suggesting there is an actual period but he can’t figure out how long it is, or there’s pseudoperiodic behavior somewhere near 62 for the two periods he thinks he sees in the data. If the former, then the proponent has no mechanical explanation for the hypothesized periodicity and is just guessing fingoistically, or the proponent has just outright admitted to no real periodicity, and nothing that can be used to mathematically describe the curve.
Wavelet analyses can be interesting, but they’re also very novel and unproven, and in particular the Copeland & Watts claim is dubious.
What we see is a pastiche of claims, some of them contradictory, for periods from 60 to 65 years, based on specious application of tools the authors appear not to understand how to use, on too little data.
captdallas 0.8 or less | April 27, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
Virtually undiscernable would be more apt, really, than virtually undetectible.
There’s clearly some influence, but it’s so washed out by noise that only guesses based on prior times when AMO and PDO influences were clearer have much force at all on analyses.
We’re many, many, oscillations of both the PDO and AMO from having a statistical base to attribute influence to one, the other, both, something else, or some emergent effect of several.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
Only the cognitively deficient are denying it still.
The problem with your hypothesis is that cold weather in the north isn’t cold global weather, it’s cold regional weather most likely largely caused by what winter warmth some regions normally would expect shifting elsewhere and becoming something else.
Some of that something else has thinned and reshaped the Arctic sea ice, leading to an early spring break up that amplified extent when the fissures refroze (releasing more heat) into even thinner slush.
Some of that something else has repatterned the jet stream to reinforce some of the regional winter chill in places while denying it to other places, or to have still more unusual effects.
You can no longer think in the terms that once worked for climate and weather. Those days are gone. The climate system is in a new state, and let’s face it, even at best in the old climate state of yesteryear, most expectations failed.
The new climate state may result in far different patterns than we have seen before. Frankenstorms might begin to be counted like hurricanes, and we might develop a ‘Frankenseason’ where we expect them to happen. We’re already up to Frankenstorm 2.0.
As for the El Madre conditions people keep plugging, that’s likely a pipe dream. Once upon a time for perhaps two PDO cycles, there was some poor but plausible correlation of phase of ocean circulation with ENSO dominated by cooling or warming. Now? Now that’s a ridiculous indicator to rely on.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time
scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on
a multi-decadal time scale. Chylek, P., C. K. Folland, G. Lesins, M. K. Dubey, and M. Wang (2009), Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14801, doi:10.1029/
2009GL038777.
Is it “cherry picking” to make a big deal out of receding sea ice in the Arctic while ignoring growing sea ice in the Antarctic?
Or is it simply “accen-tu-ate the positive, eli-mi-nate the negative”?
As far as past warming is concerned, there is no doubt that some Arctic locations (where there have been continuous measurement) have had similar warming in the late 1920s to early 1940s as they are having today. A good example is Illulissat, at the mouth of the Jakobshavn Glacier, where a temperature record exists that goes back into the 19thC.
The problem is that there are only a few longer-term temperature records and even fewer reliable records of sea ice extent in the Arctic – and practically none in the Antarctic.
The few long-term studies (Chylek, Polyakov, etc.) seem to confirm that the current warming is not unprecedented.
But I think you will agree that we don’t really know.
So, what should the “null hypothesis” (in view of limited knowledge) be?
– That current warming is part of a repetitive natural cycle of some as yet unknown sort?
OR
– That current warming is unprecedented and, hence, must have been caused by human greenhouse gases?
webby is the Laplace demon – henceforth known as ‘God’ or ‘the patient’ who can solve every climate problem by imagining a curve or eyeballing in something or other.
‘Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Here is an actual scientist and not someone who just posts fantasy physics and incompetent math on a loser blog.
@”Chief Hydrologist | April 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm “ your notion: “Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period.”
should take note that there was only a “Arctic warming period“ from
___1920 to 1940: “Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950“; (by Tony Brown) http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
___more precisely: From winter 1918/19 to winter 1039/40: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/
I am not going to waste any more of my time reading random blogs with random climate theories. Either make specific points – with data from reputable sources and references to scientific literature – or get out of my face.
For instance webby’s ‘I can’t see it can you’ is regrettable nonsense and not substantive comment. But we are used to that from webby.
Please – I don’t know whether you have anything worth while to say or not – but there are far too many rubbish theories on rubbish blogs.
Chief, Thanks for reminding me to post my Chylek analysis on the blog. Tamino has already done a thorough job but its always nice to have auditing substantiation.
indeed, it is the case than cooling temperatures are noise and warming temperatures are diagnostic of cAGW; melting glaciers indicate global warming and expanding ones are artifacts.
Warm oceans are a normal and natural and desirable part of the well bounded cycle. The only time ice volume is rebuilt on earth is when the oceans are warm and wet. Then after the ice is rebuilt, it gets cold http://popesclimatetheory.com/page20.html
Herman Alexander Pope | April 27, 2013 at 11:54 am |
The last time we know to high confidence that El Padre held exclusive away over the Pacific was during the Pliocene, when camels evolved in the 20C warmer Arctic and sea levels were meters higher than today.. and CO2 level was almost as high as the level we’ve just reached.
Maybe you should base your next theory on all the data available, not just the bits of it that you can trim to fit.
Bart, I use NOAA’s ice core data for the past 800k years from the South and Greenland ice core data from the North. What has occurred in the most recent ten thousand years is most important to forecast the next ten thousand years.
Herman Alexander Pope | April 27, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
Huh. If I went by that logic, I’d be speaking some long dead middle-European gibberish, instead of modern English.
What equilibrium conditions are most similar to current conditions is what is most important to predicting near future equillibria, not what dissimilar conditions recently did.
Herman Alexander Pope | April 27, 2013 at 12:56 pm said: ”Yes, Earth does not move rapidly from a Medieval Warm Period into a Little Ice Age”
Herman, do you have daily temp for Medieval Period from Australia, central Pacific, Antarctic ocean and continent? or,that 75% of the planet doesn’t belong to your planet?!
Is it “cherry picking” to make a big deal out of receding sea ice in the Arctic while ignoring growing sea ice in the Antarctic?
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done correctly. The Arctic is the Arctic Ocean, with Arctic conditions and Arctic mechanisms that are the polar opposite of the Antarctic Continent.
Include the Antarctic sea ice growth, sure, in your figures, if you must. It’s still net decreasing in volume over time. Or disambiguate by separately analyzing the poles because they’re so dramatically different, which is a clearer way to go about it.
But partitioning the Arctic every which way and picking out just a few weather stations in just a few years in what are known to be special circumstances and provably different overall Arctic melt levels? Yeah, if you can’t tell the cherry-picking from the legitimate science, you may not be cut out for this discussion. If the only reason to pick the data is because it strengthens a weak argument, and not because of a plausible mechanism, it’s cherry-picking.
The few long-term studies (Chylek, Polyakov, etc.) seem to confirm that the current warming is not unprecedented.
Meh. Contentious wording chosen for its power to be contentious.
Is it precedented to you because it is warming now, and there was warming before, regardless of the quality or extent or conditions of the warming?
That’s a very loose precedent.
Narrower precendency might require similar conditions, rates and extents, which can be determined from inference on reliable data to high confidence.
– That current warming is unprecedented and, hence, must have been caused by human greenhouse gases?
What would you say?
Me? I wouldn’t say that. It sounds like a straw man.
I might suggest there is current global warming. There is a plausible GHE mechanism with strong evidence and the most parsimonious, simple, universal, accurate and plausible hypothesis is that the current global warming is largely a result of anthropogenic global Forcing, but not the only global result of anthropogenic global Forcing.
The new NASA group of solar images at different wavelengths shoes
1. A smooth, bland, stable, steady emission of visible radiation from the H,He-rich layer of waste products that have accumulated at the top of the solar atmosphere, and
2. Irratic, patchy and violent upheavals of Fe-rich material squirting up in flares and eruptions and emitting light of shorter wavelength and higher energy
That’s an interesting page as it ranks the comments:
Top comment (6 to 1 positive ratio):
Hanson is correct, but this regime’s Neanderthal views go well beyond energy policy.
Worst comment (5 to 1 negative ratio)
I didn’t know this guy was an “award winning” researcher. Wow!
I wonder what he won the award for? Since he’s not a climatologist, nor does he have any credentials in that area.
Regardless, I agree with him that Canadians are neanderthals about gasoline! He is an American, and a well educated one. Oh were is David Suzuki to protect our honour?
It’s a mirror image of the realists vs fake skeptics on this blog’s comment section. Top ranks go to those who want to encourage good science versus lower ranking to those who will lie and misrepresent with FUD to further their agenda.
Because of the AGW-assisted melting of the Swiss Alps snowcap, many regions below the glaciers are developing reservoirs, providing an unintended benefit:
“The new lakes offer a chance to maintain current electricity production through hydropower,” say Haeberli and his colleagues. Finally, in lower-lying areas, existing reservoirs are expected to disappear in a few decades due to dwindling melt-water rivers. Replacement is required.
The scientist is already anticipating a power plant that would feed off the new lakes forming from the Corbassière, Gauli and Trift glaciers. The plant could potentially produce 500 megawatts of electricity each year, which would be of great value to the Swiss. Haeberli estimates that about 40 new lakes could be interesting for energy production. “
also reported at the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna.
Typical skeptic argument progression leading to consolation:
1. Global warming is a hoax.
2. Global warming is good because humans like it hotter and CO2 is plant food, etc
This one fits in line with #2, along with the all-time fave Arctic sea ice disappearance leads to more oil exploration opportunities.
But the “skeptics” are opposed to any kind of planning that assumes continued warming effects, so they would logically be against putting money into efforts like Arctic oil exploration or hydro from melted glaciers because of their uncertainty that these effects will continue much. Clearly nobody is listening to them.
I plan on stocking up on firewood as it is about .7C colder in the region I live in than it was 5 years ago. And it was about the same temperature 50 years ago and 70 years ago.
A more plausible picture would be — as we know that between 7K and 4K years ago the world was nearly as warm as it is today, but for over a millennium — past glaciers retreated slowly over centuries or millennia, followed by all manner of habitation or travel, then slowly over almost 4K years new glaciers (the present ones) formed and advanced.. until in just a few decades they have once more retreated as far as or farther than they retreated in millennia during the Holocene peak.
The MWP and LIA remain at best statistically dubious on more than limited regional spans that poorly overlap — in some cases, MWP-like conditions in some places appear to overlap LIA-like conditions in others.
Glaciers have come and gone.
Rate of glacial retreat, however, that vanishing of mountains or islands or continents of ice, is harder to verify and throws sharply into doubt the significance of your overly optimistic and vastly oversimplified analyses.
The warm wet oceans are bringing the snow that will rebuild again. just like after the roman warm time and after the medieval warm time. This is just one more like the many others.
“And Web, as the glaciers melt, aren’t they finding evidence of human habitation and farming under where the glaciers once were?
Thereby proving it was warmer in the past?”
__________
That doesn’t mean it was warmer than it is now.
The glaciers are melting because of warming, which tells you it’s warmer now than before the glaciers began to form, but doesn’t tell you how warm it was before the glaciers.
sunshinehours1 said: “If people lived where the glaciers have just melted it was warmer when they lived there (or just as warm).”
___________
No, the melting now doesn’t mean it was warmer than now or just as warm as now. All the melting tell you is It could have been warmer than now, not warmer than now, or just as warm as now.
Because of the delay in the system, I think melting glaciers can only tell us it was colder some time between the pre-glacier period and now, but you can’t compare the temperature then and now from that information alone.
The snow piles up on the tops of ice packs and Glaciers for many years while the tails and edges are still retreating and some warming can continue. The weight of the ice builds up and causes the ice to advance. Earth cools during the advance and the advance and cooling continue even after the oceans freeze and the snowfall stops. This gives a false impression that ice volume is still increasing when it really is not. The advance and retreat of the ice does control earth temperature.
The retreat of the glaciers since the Little Ice Age is well measured (not estimated). It is the result of
1) the fact that the glaciers were rapidly advancing during the LIA, becoming a danger to long established villages and
2) natural warming thereafter.
Since “AGW” started only in the 1970s, it obviously cannot be the cause for the melting of the glaciers in the 19th century.
I have no idea what the “normal” size of alpine glaciers is.
(What Hannibal left when he crossed the alps is currently under ice.)
“The snow piles up on the tops of ice packs and Glaciers for many years while the tails and edges are still retreating and some warming can continue. ”
Ahhh. The Magic Snow Theory. The magical snow refuses to turn to ice until the AGW cult said it could and then magically it turns to ice ….
The advance and retreat of the ice happened as the temperature dropped and increased. Consensus Theory says something else caused the warming and cooling and the ice responded. That is backwards, the ice advanced and retreated and caused the cooling and warming. They do not have any means to have done this. Tiny changes in energy from all their forcings is all they have.
The information countering Climate Alarmism is now so overwhelming that even the mainstream media is starting to report on the inconvenient truth that despite the rise in co2 emissions global temperatures have remained stable for 16 years or more now. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574490-cli… In a sane world this would be good news. People can stop feeling guilty about destroying the earth from fossil fuel co2 emissions.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416 No need to commit economic suicide in the name of saving the planet. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/th…
“Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts. There has been no increase in mean global temperature for 15 years. Drought is not increasing, nor are wildfires. Tornadoes are not increasing in frequency or intensity. Routine hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina have been offered as evidence of climate change, but worldwide hurricane activity is near a 40-year low. Over the past 20 years, sea level has risen by about 5 centimeters an ominous trend unless you’re aware that since the end of the last Ice Age, global sea level has risen 120 meters.”
So why are the Climate Change Gurus doubling down on their fallacious and dire predictions of Climate Catastrophe from hurricanes, drought, the sea rising to swallow up New York, etc.? Could it be it is all driven by the quest for power and wealth plus a good dose of fear and loathing of humanity?http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c… Do any of the Climate Change Guru’s leading this Apocalyptic End of the Word Quest for a “fossil free” world care that if they achieve their goals the planet will also be pretty people free? Or is a people free world the hidden agenda of the Climate Change Guru’s? In their nihilistic world view Human’s are “killing” the earth and must be expunged in a slow moving genocide to “save the planet”. Denying people access to affordable and abundent energy from fossil fuel is just one way of driving more people into poverty and an early death.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html Sickos.http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/345-9/
Why the slowdown in warming. Has anyone looked at the snowfall records that have been created since last October. When you cover a lot more land with a lot more snow, of course you slow the warming. Look at the actual data. When the oceans are warm is when it snows more.
There is a problem with reducing a complex system to one simple factor. Ice albedo seems certainly the pacesetter for many transitions, the causes of ice changes are much more complex than changes in the hydrological cycle as a result of warming and cooling.
But the idea that climate is stable within limits of 20 degrees in places hundreds of metres of ice sheets is incredible nonsense. You can call it stable but I call it rapid and large scale transitions between climate equilbria.
“An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.”
More warming was supposed to result in more water vapor and a constant relative humidity. The constant relative humidity means not much lapse rate feedback. Recent trends in specific and relative humidity are not following the prediction. Specific humidity rose less than expected, relative humidity declined, and lapse rate feedback (which is negative) is larger than expected. Water vapor feedback is net negative once the amount of clouds in the sky stabilizes with regard to solar energy available to evaporate seawater. Oceans warm until enough clouds form to block further warming. Clouds form a natural thermostat. Greenhouse gases only warm dry surfaces not wet ones. I defy anyone to find experimental confirmation that illuminating a body of water from above with mid-infrared radiation causes any rise in temperature. All it does is drive evaporation rate higher which results in a faster water cycle. No more and no less. All observations make sense in light of this simple fact that water cannot be heated (nor rate of cooling slowed) by mid-infrared illumination from above. OHC heat content is rising very very slowly (if at all because margin of error is such that the polarity of change isn’t reliable) so slowly that warmer river runoff from the continents can account for it. No doubt greenhouse gases can cause land-only warming and that warmer land means warmer rivers and warmer rivers means some extra heat delivered to the ocean. The key is it’s only about a third of the expected OHC increase because it’s only greenhouse gases over the continents that are contributing to it.
sunshine, do you think water vapor in the _whole_ troposphere has declined? It has increased, and will, with its close connection to ocean warming. Most the water vapor is lower down and is increasing as you saw in their first plot where the log scale hides its relative magnitude quite well.
I would say that is following the surface ocean tempertaure change quite well. Look at the difference between the early and late part, especially in the minima, and as we know surface ocean temperatures have not risen much since 2000, even if deeper ones have, but that is what matters for this.
I don’t give WUWT my slim webtraffic. It originates no research to speak of, and its restatements have proven so unreliable in past that I never trust them now.
I will quantify my response to the clivebest plot. Between the 90’s and 00’s the global SST rose about 0.25 degrees. The expected rise in water vapor from Clausius-Clapyeron would be about 2%. 2% of 25 mm is about half a mm, which looks about right on that plot.
Bart R, your instincts seem sound. The referenced WUWT article was contributed by someone from a Friends of Science, a mistitled organization whose web site has a list of global warming myths including the following:
” MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.”
My dismissal of WUWT came after long observation and repeated experiment; WUWT is dysfunctional, and untrustworthy as a matter of statistically supported record.
However, the practice of citing original sources is far older than the Interweb, and reliable as an evidentiary principle. Intermediate sources ought be avoided unless they provide substantive additional value. Which, again, WUWT in particular and most blogs in general fail to meet as a standard.
Looks like you had the same experience with WUWT that I had with IPCC.
For me, I was pretty much going along with IPCC until around 2006, when Al Gore’s film came out and the hockey stick fiasco got legs.
I then became more skeptical, especially in early 2007, when IPCC’s AR4 report came out, with all the media ballyhoo that surrounded it. I started digging into AR4 (especially the SPM report) and found many exaggerations, inconsistencies, omissions of conflicting data and some outright untruths.
Since then I have become rationally skeptical of anything that IPCC claims, rather than simply accepting it at face value.
sunshine, no, you showed a fundamental misunderstanding by saying that water vapor is directly related to CO2. It is actually directly related to SST. A slow rise in SST is consistent with a slow rise in water vapor. The connection of H2O to CO2 is indirect via the SST, which, as we know, is also affected by natural variabilities that reverse themselves on decadal time scales.
My experience with WUWT is nothing like with IPCC. For the IPCC’s (far lower) error rate, I can ascribe to incompetency and inexperience what at WUWT can only be ascribed to malice and mischief.
The IPCC, I make no excuses for. What they get wrong, they get wrong. What they miscommunicate, they miscommunicate. It’d be better if they didn’t get anything wrong. It’d be better if they communicated better. But there is substantial value in almost everything the IPCC attempts, even when it is not the value the IPCC thinks.
In many ways, the IPCC is little different from any of the colleges or universities or large research organizations I’ve worked with, and I’m amply critical of much of the Publish-or-Perish culture that leads to perverse rewards. The problem often commented on, of scientists corrupted by greed, is practically nonexistent in nineteen of twenty organizations entirely, and generally rooted out rapidly where it does take seed. The real problems are otherwise.
At WUWT, the experience is different. Textbook uses of techniques of propaganda are rife; textbook fallacies are endemic; the moderation policy and culture indulges and ensures a preference for fallacy and propaganda over any contribution of actual value.
So I shook the dust of the place from my sandals, and steer clear of it. I wish them well, I bear them no ill will. I just don’t have time for that.
There is some uncertainty due to changes in satellite sampling and the results could change, but there is no trend in water vapor as of the time of the publishing of this paper.
4/15/2013 BOSTON—The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts has submitted testimony in support of a bill proposing to create a carbon tax in the state to the Joint Committee on Revenue.
“The relatively low cost of carbon based fuels encourages their use and stymies conservation and investment in clean, renewable energy development. H.2532 focuses on the demand side of the carbon equation by pricing carbon to reflect its true social cost, a cost that has been borne by, but hidden from, the public,” the League testimony stated.
so their opinions count for no more than any other group of individuals then.
I’m sure I could find a sizeable group of voters who believe in Santa Claus, for example – doesn’t mean I should have to listen to them.
So, what you want is for Max to go to his ‘binders and binders full of women’ and look through their resumes to find ‘some great gals’ who are ‘as qualified as a man’ before you take the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts seriously?
Now who else from Massachusetts recently made that same mistake?
So, maybe you sound like an unelectable politician.
phatboy, who asked you to agree with the Mass. League of Women Voters? This is simply a news article about their support of a bill proposing to create a carbon tax in the state.
It’s about what a group of voters want. After voters re-elected Obama did you ask for their credentials ?
Carbon Tax and Shift: How to make it work for Oregon’s Economy
“This study analyzes a carbon tax and tax shift in Oregon as
means of reducing market inefficiencies by placing a meaningful price on carbon emissions. This study shows that a carbon tax can reduce distortionary income taxes, and provide new revenue opportunities or Oregon. By taxing carbon emissions and reducing Corporate and
Personal Income tax rates, Oregon can reduce the negative incentives created by income taxes while generating revenue and reducing carbon emissions. The report shows that putting a price on carbon in Oregon can result in reductions in harmful emissions and have positive impacts
on the economy.”
Her’s the money quote from the report’s conclusion:
” In fact, if revenues are used to eliminate the distortionary effects of existing income taxes, a carbon tax might stimulate growth. This would leave Oregon with a tax system that disincentivizes emissions while promoting less-energy-intensive output. Additionally, a carbon tax offers a significant revenue generation option at a time when the state is evaluating new options to diversify Oregon’s revenue mechanisms. ”
Yup, it *might* stimulate grow, but *offers* a significant revenue generation option. Note which one is hedged and which one is certain. Almost Freudian I’d say with respect to the real intentions of the tax.
The study describes a growth stimulating scenario too, with the carbon tax revenue all or mostly going to reduce the corporate tax rate, if that’s what you prefer. This scenario should appeal to the GOP.
The Freudian in the first part of the conclusions is the key for me. If the purpose is to be revenue neutral, why mention that it “offers a significant revenue generation option?” Could it be the Oregon state government is looking at this as a Trojan horse?
I only hope the People of Oregon aren’t naive enough to buy into the scheme. It’s sorta like buying in to the projection in 1965 that Medicare would only cost $9B by 1990 (actual cost $67B). But I’m sure nothing could go wrong with THIS tax, no sir! This one is DIFFERENT!
By the way, anyone happen to notice that Congress has had to order the FAA to stop being stopped about the sequester “cuts”. Yup, I say we give those brilliant minds in the government all our money!
I don’t know where you are from k scott, but Oregonians are not the Trojans, they are the Ducks. The Trojans are from USC, and are rivals of the Ducks.
Oregon is progressive, rather than backward, which means anti-government ideologues don’t represent much of the vote.
Note the maximum temperature is reached at the very beginning of the interglacial period. Note that the current interglacial never reached the peak of the others and fell about 3C short when the melting stopped.
I highly recommend reading Alexander Pope’s Climate Theory for an explanation of why this interglacial is different. I’d also stipulate that temperature is limited by clouds when all northern hemisphere ice is gone and that limit is about 2C-3C above current GAT as indicated by the maximums of previous cycles.
Pope’s theory is that an ice dam broke early in the Holocene melt flooding the north atlantic with fresh water which halted the melt temporarily (Younger Dryas). The stutter in the melt prevented Greenland from losing its glacier and without the water locked in Greenland’s ice cap being released to raise sea level higher the melt is now stuck. Pope goes on to say that without a complete melt the oceans don’t get warm enough to produce enough snow in the northern hemisphere for glaciers to rebuild and hence the interglacial just goes on forever. Greenland’s glacier won’t melt off for thousands of years at the current non-rate of ice loss. Human artifacts are still being revealed in the current slow retreat indicating the glacier isn’t reduced now as much as it was reduced by natural causes during medievel warm period.
Pope’s got something going for him that most of the climate boffins are lacking – successful prediction of greater NH snowfall due to dimished summer ice extent in the Arctic. I pay attention to those who form hypotheses, make predictions based upon the hypothesis, and then see if those predictions are worth the paper they are written on. The way I see it the score is Pope’s Climate Theory : 1, GCM ensemble: 0. I cannot ignore the fact that after 22 years actual global average temperature has slowly but surely drifted outside the lower 95% confidence bound of the model predictions. There is no bloody reason in hell why I should believe that drift away from the ensemble prediction will not continue. The models are failing. Get used to it. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
Greenhouse fluid, pretty much, but a black body fluid is likely a better analogy. They produce two parts of the overall atmospheric effect.
Unlike having a solid surface for the black body that would be limited to conductive heat transfer, the liquid ocean provides for a more unique blend of mechanisms to transfer energy poleward. The oceans produce their own Shade and Blankets based on surface temperature called the water vapor greenhouse, that expands and contracts. That part of the greenhouse effect limits the lower temperature extreme to the freezing point of the liquid and the upper temperature point to the condensation point of the vapor creating a water/water vapor envelope.
If the surface were not liquid, the temperature extremes would be much greater. As it is, from glacial minimum to interglacial maximum, the range of deep ocean average temperature only changes about 2 C degrees. The difference between the freezing points of fresh and salt water.
Kind of amazing. Water produces the only near isothermal radiant source for the black body and the radiant shell is the turbopause, the real point of minimal turbulent mixing.
Of course you know there is a difference in the actual area of the black body source and the radiant shell that needs to be considered when estimating the impact of the WMGHG’s. Don’t forget that asymmetry. :)
No webster, both liquids and gas are considered fluids, just the liquid state is virtually incompressible, so you don’t have to worry about Cv and Cp. With liquid water having about 1000 times the heat capacity of air, it makes a much better black body source material and due to the latent heat of condensation, water vapor is a much more potent green house gas since is provides a more isothermal layer, though not at 100% the area of the turbopause.
It is pretty interesting. Most of the “surface” albedo is clouds and clouds are not a fixed albedo but a response albedo. A regulator if you will, so that the absorbed solar energy can be split between the liquid “surface” and the gas or in many cases, mixed phase, moist atmosphere “surface”. David would disagree, but since clouds are not “fixed” the “surface” requires a little different math to determine its “average” energy available.
A less viscous or solid surface could not transport as efficiently. Venus, with its supercritical CO2 also has a highly efficient black body source. It is all about how well the black body can be considered isothermal which depends on how will its black body fluid can transfer energy internally. Internal transfer on Earth is slow in comparison so there are more internal oscillations :)
“captdallas 0.8 or less | April 27, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
No webster, both liquids and gas are considered fluids, just the liquid state is virtually incompressible, so you don’t have to worry about Cv and Cp.”
Fine. The thing that is comical is that you guys consider the low albedo liquids and solids as a greenhouse instead of a very efficient absorber. You will say anything for the FUD effect.
Webster, “Fine. The thing that is comical is that you guys consider the low albedo liquids and solids as a greenhouse instead of a very efficient absorber. You will say anything for the FUD effect.”
Is FUD, Fundamental Understanding of Deterministic chaotic systems :)
Basically, you can’t separate the H2O fluids, but have to consider them as a separate system. H2O is just one of the layers of the onion.
“Venus, with its supercritical CO2 also has a highly efficient black body source. It is all about how well the black body can be considered isothermal which depends on how will its black body fluid can transfer energy internally. “
It is still a gas and shows the same polytropic atmosphere as the earth. This P-T diagram I made intersects the supercritical portion. http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2474/venuspolytropic.gif
Venus’s atmosphere is not isothermal either.
It’s amazing the amount of scientific-sounding word salad comes out of your mouth. I happen to be researching Venus at the moment and I would probably be impressed with what you are saying if I was more ignorant about the particulars.
Webster, isothermal surfaces. The atmosphere cannot be completely isothermal or there would be no radiant greenhouse effect.
The isothermal surface or shell is a product of the original experimentation in radiant physics, the furnace and hole problem. In order to measure the radiant energy, the flux had to be limited to one direction requiring an isothermal shell. That is fine until there is advection, then you have to shift from up.down radiant physics to classic thermo.
To reconcile, you need to consider the difference in areas of the two “surfaces” being considered. The black body source, the oceans, are approximately 70.7% of the ideal radiant shell at the turbo pause. The water vapor shell, is approximately 61% of the ideal radiant shell. Since sea ice extent varies, the area of the ocean black body and the associate water vapor greenhouse varies.
Once you are past the water vapor envelope, then the up/down radiant model becomes progressively more accurate.
LOL, Webster, “Cappy Dick, such a clown. I suppose the surface of a sphere is “isoradial”. I wouldn’t know about that. I do know that advection impacts the standard up/down radiant models and that the models are having issues, mainly with clouds and internal natural variability, both sources of major advection.
Not to worry, Greenhouse Theory will survive, but will need some tweaking to allow for advection and albedo resulting from advection. That should reduce the “sensitivity” to a doubling of CO2, not all radiant forcing, just WMGHG forcing, to about 0.8C from the current “average” ocean temperature baseline. Had it not been for the bad luck of catching the wrong up slope on a natural longer term pseudo-cycle, we wouldn’t be here.
I guess web is in denial about the albedo of the ocean being lower than the surface of the moon. Or maybe he’s in denial about lower albedo things getting warmer than higher albedo things when both are exposed to the same illumination. Maybe he’s never stood barefoot waiting to cross an asphault and discovered the white line painted on the shoulder is a f*ck of a lot cooler than the bare asphault. It’s a lot to deny. Must be a very heavy burden for him.
That’s not a greenhouse effect. That’s an absorption effect. Greenhouse effects show an asymmetry wrt spectral wavelengths incoming and outgoing. Entropy plays a role as an adjustment of the temperature to accommodate the spectral filtering of wavelengths.
I am always about conventional physics and perhaps trying to simplify to the best of my abilities. You guys are about rewriting the laws to make it look like unrecognizable FUD, and invoking INTELLIGENT DESIGN whenever convenient.
Webster, “That’s not a greenhouse effect. That’s an absorption effect. Greenhouse effects show an asymmetry wrt spectral wavelengths incoming and outgoing. Entropy plays a role as an adjustment of the temperature to accommodate the spectral filtering of wavelengths. ”
Right, so the the Greenhouse effect is a half ass representation of a more complex system effect. It might be call Telescope Jockey Syndrome. That is trying to explain what you observe from one frame of reference only. Thermodynamics allows the use of several frames of reference. Then in thermo you would consider the fluid, not just one state of the fluid, and in Earth’s case the solid since there is a triple point.
Remember the real laws of thermodynamics are KISS, ASSUME and Frame of Reference.
So since you want to stick to the “GHG” Physics, you “surface” is ~5000 meters above sea level and your “shell” or ERL is the turbopause, the point where turbulent mixing ends, because the GHE doesn’t consider internal advective energy transfer. That part of the puzzle is fluid dynamics. Note “fluid” in the title and one of the better source for information if the General Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, GFDL.
Let’s see, Manabe, Toggweiler, Held are just a few names to remember.
Web, many people attempt to ‘snap freeze’ biological samples by placing the container in liquid nitrogen. They do this because they instinctively believe that the rate of cooling is a function of the temperature differential of the sample 300K and liquid N2, 77K. However, I often demonstrate that this is not the case by placing my hand in liquid nitrogen for a couple of seconds with no harmful effects.
When I want to freeze as sample I use ethanol chilled with dry ice, 200K.
The rate of heat transfer from ones sample at 300K onto ethanol at 200K is far greater than into liquid nitrogen at 77K. The reason is that adding heat to liquid nitrogen triggers a phase change and the sample is coated with a layer of gaseous nitrogen that have poor heat transfer properties whereas in ethanol the energy transferred becomes sensible heat.
Phenomenology is far better than theory.
“captdallas 0.8 or less | April 28, 2013 at 8:01 am |
Right, so the the Greenhouse effect is a half ass representation of a more complex system effect. It might be call Telescope Jockey Syndrome. That is trying to explain what you observe from one frame of reference only. Thermodynamics allows the use of several frames of reference. Then in thermo you would consider the fluid, not just one state of the fluid, and in Earth’s case the solid since there is a triple point.”
No, what you do Cappy Dick, if you want to build from fundamentals, is try to use the basic equations of state and see what the deviations are. So you take the standard atmosphere of the earth or the observed atmosphere of Venus and apply the ideal gas law. Then you go through an analysis like this: http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/standard-atmosphere-model-and.html
Seriously, look at the last section of the post, which I recently added.
“So since you want to stick to the “GHG” Physics, you “surface” is ~5000 meters above sea level and your “shell” or ERL is the turbopause, the point where turbulent mixing ends, because the GHE doesn’t consider internal advective energy transfer. That part of the puzzle is fluid dynamics. “
The lapse rate is essentially fixed for this mix of atmospheric gases according to a polytropic process. All that CO2 will do is add a higher concentration of GHG which will raise the height at which the atmosphere allows the IR to escape easily. Same goes for H2O. Since the MEAN lapse rate is essentially fixed, the surface of the planet will get hotter. This is so simple if you take the time to really understand it, and go through the trouble of writing and deriving the equations and making the charts like I have done.
Webster, “Seriously, look at the last section of the post, which I recently added.”
Actually, I had previously and mentioned that I was fairly impressed. What you haven’t done is looked at the implications of your own derivation. Since that applies to both Earth and Venus both have a common ERL at ~67Wm-2. That is the point were the energy of the atmosphere and the gravitational forces on the atmosphere balance providing a relatively stable “radiant shell” or approximately isothermal layer in their atmospheres. Note they have very similar gravity.
Both planets also have a much higher viscosity bottom “source” that is the effective black body providing energy to the atmosphere. On Venus, that layer covers 100% of the surface and on Earth that layer covers only ~70% of the surface. Because of the differences in rotational velocities, the dynamics of the bottom black body sources are extremely different. They do though provide two relatively stable reference layers.
The Tropopause/troposphere of Earth are not stable references. The “surface” of Earth, because of the assumption of no temperature dependence in CO2 forcing is also not a stable reference. I don’t think it is possible to chose two worse thermodynamic references.
Now your lapse rate derivation begins just above the atmospheric boundary layer, ~5000 meters. Below that there is another primary greenhouse gas with totally different characteristics. That is why I referenced the Water Vapor Greenhouse paper. You have to consider the thermodynamic boundary layers for H2O and CO2 with the transition region between the two being highly variable.
As I have been saying for some time, you have to consider the moist portion of the atmospheric effect separately from the dry portion. Now if you can derive a method of using the molar mass of water vapor and consider the phase changes at various temperatures and pressures for a true surface to ERL lapse rate, more power to ya.
Hey DocMartyn, Having worked with cryogenic UHV systems for years, I know the importance of cooling approaches, but relating what you say to climate may need more elaboration.
I absolutely understand that existing temperature gradients are secondary to the way that transient diffusion works. Entropy maximization is the process of thermal energy dispersing among the states of the system. This is a rather recent method of understanding thermodynamics and entropy as popularized by Leff and Lambert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29
In this case, that values of thermal conductivity or thermal diffusivity is a more important factor than the existing temperature gradient.
I think that’s why people like Springer and Chief have these wild ideas and cast aspersions toward physicists — because they don’t really understand the fundamentals behind non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is really the interplay between the master equation describing continuity of flow and the states of the system described by statistical mechanics.
The defining property of atmospheric greenhouse gases is transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. Water is transparent to shortwave and opque to longwave. Study that for as long as takes until you know the properties which distinguish greenhouse gases from other gases. Then, as CaptDallas points out, gases and liquids are both fluids. Ergo, CO2, methane, and liquid water are all greenhouse fluids.
OK, if we had a layer of liquid water suspended over our heads at an altitude say of 10,000 feet, then certainly we would have a greenhouse effect. All of the SW light would come through, while none of the earth’s LW radiation could directly leave. That suspended layer of water would reach a temperature due to the reabsorbed IR at which it could start equilibrating ingoing and outgoing radiation. The lapse rate then would determine what the surface of the planet would be. It will be 10’s of degrees higher than the Stefan-Boltzmann law would naively predict. That is the greenhouse effect.
It is hypothetical but agrees with what conventional physics would say given the structure of the system.
It doesn’t need to be overhead. The sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the atmosphere. Shortwave from the sun penetrates the ocean hundreds of feet until impurities in the water that aren’t transparent soak up all the solar energy and thermalize the water through conduction. The thermal energy cannot escape the ocean the same way the short wave entered it because water is opaque to thermal radiation. Thus the energy that penetrated the ocean hundreds of feet must find its way to the surface by means other than radiation. The other means are slower. This is how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere work. Same thing happens in the ocean its greenhouse properties make it easy for shortwave energy to enter and hard for thermal energy to escape. Is it really that complicated or are you being willfully ignorant, WHUT?
He also can’t prove that a hypothetical world covered only with ocean and no atmosphere will be different than the mean black-body value (select an albedo corresponding to the estimated value).
If the answer is no different than the mean solid-material blackbody (BB) sphere with the same albedo, it ain’t a greenhouse. All the ocean does is provide a buffer to thermal transients, which I agree with.
The reason that this BB equivalence happens is that the ocean is so dense with IR absorbing H2O that it can no longer differentiate one IR spectral wavelength with another. And since this differential response to wavelength is at the heart of the Planck’s Law gray-body response, it won’t raise its temperature above the expected black-body response.
Listen buddy, I am not saying anything revolutionary with respect to well understood planetary and atmospheric physics, so your criticisms of me slide like water off a duck’s back.
You would be wise to develop a mathematical treatise to describe your hypothesis — because as it is, conventional physics will run rings around the holes in your argument. I am only the front-line advance guard that you have to defeat. There will be more after me, guaranteed.
Webster, does a heat sink work better with or without a cooling fan? Does a water cooler engine run at a more stable temperature than an air cooled engine?
This paper I link, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009PA001809/abstract discusses how changes in the circulation of the oceans impact global climate. Based on your logic, there is no mechanism that could cause that. There is though, The delta T between regions drive the winds that improve the efficiency of the heat sink. The circulation of the coolant is produced by rotational and tidal pumps, If your ideal solid black body material can efficiently transport energy poleward and respond to temperature changes with evaporation/condensation or freezing/thawing then you are right. Water though is a much more flexible greenhouse fluid than CO2.
Thanks for the advice webby but I’m letting mother nature do my proving for me and it’s been a wonderful delegation of responsibility so far. The pause is killing your precious narrative and all I have to do is be patient. Reality is a harsh mistress, huh?
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | April 28, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
“Springer just described a heat sink trap”
Fixed that for ya!
If you want to call the greenhouse effect a heat trap that’s a fair characterization and I won’t bicker with it. Let’s sum up what we know now. The greenhouse effect occurs because shortwave energy from the sun has largely unrestricted passage into the system to be absorbed but longwave energy is largely restricted in its exit. This asymmetrical response to shortwave vs. longwave is what causes the greenhouse effect. If the atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which does not have the above described asymmetry, the atmosphere would not produce a greenhouse effect. Now then liquid water presents the same asymmetry as does CO2, methane, and other gases. Therefore it is also a greenhouse agent. Furthermore I posit that because the ocean is ALSO very low albedo which makes it a naturally warmer surface COMBINED with its greenhouse properties that even were the atmosphere devoid of the trace amount of CO2 in it, it wouldn’t make much difference in global average temperature because it’s the ocean that does the heavy lifting in regards to making the earth warmer than the moon.
That is usually the case of someone with a straight-jacket on and knocked off his feet.
How can you type in that situation?
But in regards to the comparison with the moon.
A moon composed of water with no atmosphere will initially absorb all incoming radiation, apart from albedo effects. Yet, since it is completely water, the SW portion of the radiation will exit the opposite side. Transparent, get it? That would keep the moon very cool. However, a portion of the incoming radiation from the sun is infrared. So, according to Springer’s other theory, this infrared will peel off layers of water through direct evaporation of the skin layer, again keeping things cool. Springer’s theory does not allow any heat conduction down from the surface layer.
I thought the greenhouse effect was supposed to heat up its target, not cool it down. WHUT’s up wid dat?
Lesson learned. Don’t come up with some absurd hypothetical situation and try to make complete sense out of it. The reality is that we have an atmosphere and we have to deal with that fact. So we set up models of that atmosphere such as I have done here: http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/standard-atmosphere-model-and.html
If you read this you will see analyses of the various atmospheres of the solar system. If you can get out of your straightjacket and get off the floor, maybe we could further discuss.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | April 29, 2013 at 8:31 am |
“A moon composed of water with no atmosphere will initially absorb all incoming radiation, apart from albedo effects.”
No it won’t. Absent surface pressure the water will boil off. Violently boil off. Duh.
“Yet, since it is completely water, the SW portion of the radiation will exit the opposite side. Transparent, get it? That would keep the moon very cool.”
Yes. That’s why I’m usually careful to point out that it’s impurities in the ocean which absorb shortwave from the sun. I pointed it out in this thread at least once.
“However, a portion of the incoming radiation from the sun is infrared.”
Near infrared. Virtually no mid or far infrared. There’s this thing called a spectrum. Sunlight’s energy peaks in the visible portion of the spectrum and falls off to either side.
Water has some absorption bands in near infrared and these bands are, on average, extinguished before the radiation reaches the ocean by H20 absorption in the atmosphere. If you want to see how significant what remains might be in the big picture look at the chart above focusing on the H2O absorption bands (~900nm, 1100nm, 1400nm, 1900nm). The yellow portion is what’s absorbed by the atmosphere. What energy remains in the band is in red. Estimate the volume of the remaining energy in those bands against the total volume in red. It’s a very small percentage. Ergo we can ignore it in the first and probably second approximations of the ocean’s energy budget.
“So, according to Springer’s other theory, this infrared will peel off layers of water through direct evaporation of the skin layer, again keeping things cool.”
Not much. Water isn’t totally transparent to near infrared in the range of 900-2000nm thus, what little NIR is left in sunlight at the surface, penetrates well beyond the cool skin layer. The rule of thumb is this portion of the spectrum is extinguished in the topmost 1 meter which is quite unlike mid-infrared which is extinguished in the topmost 10 micrometers.
“Springer’s theory does not allow any heat conduction down from the surface layer.”
The ocean’s skin layer, called the cool skin layer, is cooler than the water below it. How many times must it be pointed out to you that conduction goes from warmer to cooler? If the surface layer is cooler there is no conduction going to warmer water below it. PLEASE write that down.
“I thought the greenhouse effect was supposed to heat up its target, not cool it down. WHUT’s up wid dat?”
Pay attention. SHORTWAVE penetrates and warms the ocean to a depth of roughly 100 meters before impurities in the water extinguish it. LONGWAVE from the thermalized water cannot escape except at the very surface. Therefore the thermal energy must make its way to the surface mechanically instead of radiatively. The mechanical process is slower. This is EXACTLY how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere work – shortwave is transmitted unimpeded to an absorbing surface and then longwave emission from the absorbing surface is impeded on the way out. Unimpeded radiative warming path, impeded radiative cooling path. Write that down.
David, I think you are going a bit over the Webster head. He still has to understand that the Earth is round and not a flat plate. How would have thought that the ones poking fun of the flat Earthers are the actual flat Earthers?
I recommend taking smaller steps with him. Start with Thermal inertia
“I highly recommend reading Alexander Pope’s Climate Theory for an explanation of why this interglacial is different.”
———-
Each interglacial has its own unique pattern. During this interglacial a species learned how to pump large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere enhancing the greenhouse effect.
These so called “large amounts” are still only a manmade fraction of a trace gas. This can and likely did a trace amount of enhancing the greenhouse effect. This is in the noise and can’t be measured or even guessed at correctly.
The pattern, the temperature boundary change, happened early in this warm period, long before manmade CO2 became significant. This new pattern, this new well bounded cycle happened without manmade CO2.
As a Chemical Engineer, I know that moving from the lab to the plant is a game of scale that one approaches very cautiously. Because every time one moves up in scale more unknowns are introduced. So even when one has a sophisticated model of the chemical reactions, transport phenomena, etc. one still runs experiments at various different scales; one does not go from lab to plant in one step assuming that “all other things being equal” is true.
So why hasn’t any of this experimental work been done in climate? Why hasn’t someone build a small scale experiment with water, land, wind, air, “sun”, etc. and then run experiments with varying levels of CO2 to see what happens?
Or has this been done and I just haven’t seen it?
Shoot, there are teams working on wave dynamics who take the experimental approach, why not for climate?
The problem with this is that what drives climate models is the little known carbon feedbacks and they don’t really know how to include the stuff they don’t understand.
Real warming for increasing CO2, if nothing else changed, is well understood and it is not enough to make much difference. I have attended lectures from the different sides and most come up with about the same for direct warming by manmade CO2.
Here is an actual experiment. http://popesclimatetheory.com/page44.html
I plan to repeat this and let some of my Grandchildren conduct the experiment while other grandchildren take photos and videos.
Our children and some of our grandchildren are old enough and do understand and maybe they can make a difference if I don’t.
During this interglacial a species learned how to pump large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere enhancing the greenhouse effect.
No doubt the species did do just that, and increased its quality of life and life expectancy dramatically in the process, while expanding its population sharply.
The population growth rate has started to slow down now and is projected to sink even further, as underdeveloped nations develop their economies and improve the quality of life of their populations, to a large extent by providing them a reliable and low-cost source of energy, largely based on fossil fuels.
Whether or not (and, if so, to what extent) this development had anything to do with the development of this interglacial, is still very much an open question, as you and I both know.
It certainly had little to do with it prior to WWII, as the amount of CO2 emitted was insignificant.
So we are really discussing a relative tiny “blip” in the interglacial of 60 years or so.
As a chemical engineer, I have also asked myself the same question you ask yourself.
It seems pretty basic to me.
We have a IR absorption mechanism, which has been demonstrated empirically in the laboratory for CO2 H2O and other GH gases, but we have not carried this one step further, as you suggest, in order to establish empirically what the CO2 temperature impact really is.
Ironically, an alternate hypothesis ( the galactic cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis of Svensmark et al, which has gotten much less ballyhoo and hype) has also just completed the first step at CERN in Geneva. The GCR cloud nucleation mechanism, itself, in the presence of naturally occurring aerosols, has been validated empirically, but the researchers caution that more work is needed to test empirically whether or not and to what extent this mechanism works in our atmosphere.
But, unlike the AGW hypothesis, it is planned to go the next step for this hypothesis, by either corroborating and quantifying or falsifying it at CERN in a controlled experiment simulating our atmosphere.
Like you, I cannot understand why something similar is not planned for the AGW hypothesis.
I have seen rationalizations or excuses saying this would be “impossible”.
Why should it be possible for one hypothesis and not for another?
And don’t tell me it is “impossible” when we are able to send a robot to Mars.
If only half of the money being spent on “climate related” research were channeled into empirically corroborating and quantifying (or falsifying) the AGW hypothesis, I’m sure we could have some real answers.
Is the “consensus” community afraid of what these experiments would show?
Would it rather continue doing all its projections based on model simulations, which are easier to control (but which provide no real empirical evidence)?
Manacker, who is the “we” in sending a robot to Mars? Last I heard, the European Space Agency couldn’t land their probe.
You also said it elsewhere in this comment thread:
“After all, Pekka, we’ve sent a robot to Mars, which seems much more difficult to me.”
Congratulations to the Swiss for the great work that the Americans and Russians accomplished in landing their Martian robots and probes.
Manacker likes to take credit for accomplishments, and then to get into other peoples knickers over stuff he disapproves of. Quite the pain in the you know what.
I suggest we wait until CERN announces its next set of CLOUD experiments and what they hope to learn from them before we already second-guess the results these experiments will bring.
The first round has validated the galactic cosmic ray cloud nucleation mechanism in the presence of certain naturally occurring aerosols, but the scientists have cautioned that more work is required before this effect of this mechanism on our climate can be corroborated and quantified (or falsified).
You may be a US citizen (and pay US taxes), but, other than that I doubt you had anything to do with the NASA success on Mars. But still you can say (as can everyone) “we = humanity” have landed a robot on Mars.
Yes, an analog model of the earth with wind, CO2, water surfaces, deserts, vegetation, snow-cover, sea-ice, atmospheric and ocean circulations, aerosols and clouds. What could be simpler?
Nothing in life is simple or inexpensive – especially not in climate research, where the world is already investing billions of taxpayer dollars per year..
But if we can send a robot to Mars, it is certainly not “impossible” to empirically corroborate and quantify (or falsify) the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, and hence the “CAGW” hypothesis (as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report) experimentally.
A system that is simple enough to build in a lab is also simple enough to represent well on a computer. What you don’t get is feedbacks like clouds, ice, soil and vegetation changes and you don’t know how much of what type of aerosols to add. No one would be satisfied that this answered anything, and skepticism would be just as rife with any such experiment. It doesn’t solve the problem, only shifts it and adds its own uncertainties. At least with computer codes, you can investigate uncertainties in its parameters, and have something to verify against.
Forget about clouds and natural aerosols for now – CERN is already working on that one.
Ice changes and well as soil and vegetation changes of the surface albedo are of relatively small impact and could be ignored for the first pass.
Impact of human albedo changes could be a separate study, but that isn’t the main concern. The main unknown today is “what is the 2xCO2 impact on our global temperature?”
Sure, there would be lots of problems, but I am sure that scientists, who are smarter than you or I, could come up with an experiment to establish 2xCO2 CS empirically and, thus, end the uncertainty of whether AGW is a problem for humanity or not..
It might not be easy or inexpensive, but I’m sure it could be done – if there were the WILL to do it.
The evidence of a greenhouse effect can be seen in the different surface cooling rates of clear and cloudy nights, which is common knowledge, but it is a real problem getting people to see that it is a greenhouse effect. Explain it with radiative transfer theory and they’re completely lost unless they are curious enough to try to understand how the physics works.
Clouds act as an outgoing IR “blanket” at night and as an incoming UV reflector during the day. Sort of a “natural thermostat”. Believe that has been common knowledge for many years.
Whether CO2 plays much of a role in this is doubtful in my mind.
Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate comments from engineers. They have an entirely different approach than scientists. Engineers are practical, pragmatic, and solution focused. Scientists are not. They will keep researching forever.
However, I don’t think we need the experiments you suggest. I think we should “get out of the cart”. We don’t need much more scientific analysis or experiment.
Instead what we need is to focus on implementing the robust policy analysis approach that JC has been advocating for a long time.
I agree with you on most things, but I do not believe that now is the time to undertake any “robust action” specifically to reduce CO2 emissions in order to “solve” a “CAGW” problem (as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report), a “problem”, which is very likely not to exist outside the virtual world of general climate models.
But we do need to know whether or not there really is a problem.
For that reason, the taxpayer funded “climate research” should continue, but this work should be largely redirected toward empirical research studies to establish what the climate sensitivity to CO2 really is. If such studies can be done to corroborate and quantify or falsify the cosmic ray cloud hypothesis (CLOUD project at CERN), then something similar could certainly be done tfor the AGW hypothesis.
It is clear that the importance of the IPCC as the “gold standard” source of climate information has already dwindled, principally as a result of its agenda driven forced “consensus” process, and it is very likely that it may become fully irrelevant, depending on how it handles its next AR5 report.
I do agree with you that undertaking economically viable actions to move away from declining resources of fossil fuels to competitive alternates (such as nuclear fusion for electrical power generation) makes sense.
And this will, in all likelihood, require political or policy actions to enable the construction of new nuclear plants. I do not see the need for any governmental subsidies to this industry, but rather the institution of permit procedures that enable new plants to be constructed within a reasonable time frame, while still maintaining the most rigorous standards of safety and prevention of discharge of radioactivity. I agree with you that the USA should take the lead in this; but, if they do not, China quite likely will.
And the development of potential new domestic fossil fuel resources should also continue, again with no direct taxpayer funded subsidies, but with reasonable but non-obstructive permit procedures.
I also believe in the continuation of taxpayer subsidies to selected basic research projects aimed at developing renewable energy sources (but not to operational boondoggles like corn ethanol, Fiskers or Solyndra).
So we are probably on the same page in all respects except the need to undertake robust actions to reduce CO2 emissions (where I disagree) and to define empirically whether or not there really is a “CAGW” problem (where you disagree).
but I do not believe that now is the time to undertake any “robust action” specifically to reduce CO2 emissions …
We’ve been through this before. I am advocating what I believe will get us a net benefit, ‘No Regrets’ solution.
There is a political issue. A solution is required to that. Simply repeating AGW is not a problem will not convince those who believe it is a problem. And they are a significant proportion of the voting population. They want something done about AGW. They also want economically rational solutions.
Options are: regulations to cut GHG emissions, carbon pricing or economically viable solutions. I am saying that ‘robust analysis’ leads to the third option. But most people do not understand what it is.
If you oppose this option, inevitably the political choice will be made between the other two options, as US EPA is doing, EU is doing, Australia is doing, NZ is doing, etc. Robust analysis is I suspect the best way to educate the people along the lines of Lomborg’s presentation to Congress, to stop wasting money and to get away from the enormous waste of resources directed to solving CAGW.
Further to my previous two responses to your comment, I want to explain a bit more about the political reality and why it is not going to go away any time soon.
As an example of the political reality, The Australian Opposition is likely to win the election of 14 September and become the next Australian Government. They have vowed to repeal the Australian Carbon tax and ETS. But they are also committed to cut Australia’s GHG emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2020. To achieve that will be extremely expensive. They maintain support for the renewable energy targets (20% wind and solar power by 2020) and have a whole host of other mandatory schemes to achieve the target. They also say they will broker a deal between USA and China to solve the worlds GHG emissions issues. I know, this is a laugh, but it is domestic politics. All democracies have their own domestic politics.
My key message is that the politics of AGW are real and not going away.
Pragmatic people among us have to face the realities and find the best way to deal with the real issues – i.e. AGW is a real and divisive political issue. I urge that we look more carefully at the ‘Robust analysis’ approach. IMO it can help to educate people about the real costs and benefits and pragmatic choices.
You state that a majority of voters in your country would favor “no regrets” actions to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.
Agree on “no regrets” actions (building nukes for new electrical power generation) personally – but do not believe a majority of the voting population in most of Europe (except France) would agree.
Germany has a planned nuclear moratorium with a set deadline.
Switzerland has a mandated moratorium, but no time schedule set.
People are slowly becoming aware that there are no viable alternates from renewables (wind, solar, etc.) except on a very isolated small scale.
And I think the same is true in many other European nations.
I don’t know how the general population feels about this in the USA (maybe one of the US denizens here has some info on this), but I am pretty sure that there is no popular majority in favor of cutting back CO2 emissions to the extent required to have any perceptible impact on our future climate. (Even Hansen’s proposal of shutting down all coal-fired plants by 2030 and replacing them with nuclear plants would only result in a theoretical reduction of global warming by 2100 of 0.08C, so this is meaningless). If the shale gas (and oil) boom materializes, people will forget about fretting about CO2 emissions.
The leaders of China will do what’s best for China (including nuclear), as will India, Russia, Brazil, etc.
IOW most people across the world are lukewarm to cold on the idea of even “no regrets” actions.
IMO this could change if the world was convinced that there was compelling evidence that we face a real threat from AGW.
And this compelling evidence can only be provided by empirical validation of a high 2xCO2 ECS and the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC.
You state that a majority of voters in your country would favor “no regrets” actions to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.
I don’t recall saying that. I did say:
And they are a significant proportion of the voting population.
That statement is correct.
I am a bit touchy about having my statements misrepresented at the moment, as you might understand. :)
My point was about ‘robust policy analysis’ not about nuclear. Nuclear is not viable for most of the world at the moment, including Australia. It is too expensive. I expect robust analysis would show that the developed nations that have nuclear power expertise, especially USA, should unblock the development of small, nuclear power plants and focus on getting the cost down and allowing companies to compete and innovate. But that is just one a possible outcome of ‘robust analysis.
IOW most people across the world are lukewarm to cold on the idea of even “no regrets” actions.
I disagree with that statement. People are in favour of ‘no regrets’ (i.e benefits equal or exceed costs excluding the possible climate benefits. What they are concerned about is that they are told a policy will be ‘no regrets’ and it turns out to not be. Examples are: subsidising and mandating renewable energy, carbon pricing, government mandated and subsidised energy efficiency, etc.
K Scott, I have often wondered why no one seems to have have pumped the same amount of heat, in the form of photons, into a thermally isolated and pre-chilled 30 meter tube of sea water, changing the spectrum from 400 to 1000 nm in 50 nm chunks. I suspect that not all photon packets behave in the same manner in terms of inducing sensible and latent heat.
“So why hasn’t any of this experimental work been done in climate? Why hasn’t someone build a small scale experiment with water, land, wind, air, “sun”, etc. and then run experiments with varying levels of CO2 to see what happens?”
If you have to ask that question you will not understand the answer, but I will try.
The greenhouse effect happens because when you add C02 to the atmosphere the ERL is raised. The ERL is that altitude (kilometers high) at which earth radiates to space. You cant test the theory in small scale because the effect depends upon the temperature at the height of the ERL
We are talking about experimentally corroborating and quantifying (or falsifying) the hypothesis that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will result in a significant temperature change in a controlled system that simulates our planet’s atmosphere, thereby providing empirical validation (or falsification) of the CAGW premise (as outlined by IPCC in AR4).
This would be analogous to the continued work planned for the CLOUD experiment at CERN for the cosmic ray cloud nucleation climate change hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark et al.
We need to get the best minds together to figure out how this can be done, not rationalizations for why it cannot be done.
Because if we are serious about trying to drastically curtail all future global fossil fuel combustion in order to avoid continued increase in atmospheric CO2, we’d better be REAL sure that this is a necessary thing to do.
The scientist have been doing the proper research all the time and they continue to do it. At the present the most powerful approach is using climate models. The models have been built to take into account the knowledge from empirical observations as much as the scientists have been able to do.
Simulating in laboratory the Earth atmosphere and the GHE is totally impossible for the reason given by Steven. Laboratory experiments can be used to study many small scale processes, and they have been used successfully in that. We know from laboratory experiments, how CO2 interacts with IR. Therefore we can calculate reliably the radiative processes in specified atmospheric conditions. The difficulties are in determining the atmospheric conditions and making any laboratory experiment simulate them correctly is simply impossible,
Research like the CLOUD experiment are several steps remote from that. The goal of the experiment is to learn about certain micro level processes. Such additional knowledge may help gradually in understanding better cloud formation in real atmosphere but a lot of detailed additional research on the conditions in the real atmosphere is needed for that. Those results may in turn help in improving the description of cloud formation and cloud properties in the atmospheric models. Whether they do ultimately help in that is a totally open question. It’s equally possible (and perhaps more likely) that the description of cloud formation and cloud properties will remain based more directly on empirically observed correlations between parameters. There’s little, if any, indication that the CLOUD experiment would in any way provide support for Svensmark’s speculations.
A possible experiment is to relocate the flue gas emission point of a coal fired power plant to a pristine location or over ocean, which should create an artificial CO2 dome, with higher concentrations closer to the emission point. Then measure if the increased CO2 concentrations affect anything (temperatures, heat fluxes…) at the surface.
Not to quibble, but model simulations do not provide empirical evidence (as we both know).
Agree that the Svensmark hypothesis has not yet been corroborated and quantified (or falsified). All that has been done so far is the validation of the GCR cloud nucleation mechanism in the presence of certain naturally occurring aerosols.
But, as I understand it from reports by the researchers involved at CERN, further work is planned under controlled conditions simulating our atmosphere to hopefully corroborate and quantify (or falsify) the hypothesis that this mechanism works in our atmosphere.
I cannot believe that it would be impossible to do something similar for corroborating and quantifying 2xCO2 climate sensitivity and the CAGW premise (as outlined by IPCC in AR4).
After all, Pekka, we’ve sent a robot to Mars, which seems much more difficult to me.
And this would seem to me to have very high priority.
Since there is a flurry of suggesting experiments, I have a suggestion (mostly in jest, but the need is genuine).
The main justification for climate actions is the concern about low probability catastrophic climate change. So we should focus on truing to find out if the fat tail is a real possibility
Many climate scientists are concerned about the fat tail in PDF of the estimates of climate sensitivity. Weitzman (2009) http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/heep/papers/HEEP%20Discussion%2011.pdf talks about the possibility of massive releases of methane from clathrates as a possible mechanism for high climate sensitivity. So I suggest we tackle that issue. Here is my suggested experiment to test it.
Raise the temperature of the sea floor in test locations where there are clathrates and measure the CH4 emissions. Raise the temperature by 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C (and 0C for a control) in five experiment locations.
Three phases:
1. Get baseline measurements of emissions in the test locations before starting the tests – i.e. measure CH4 emissions from the sea floor before starting the test.
2. Seal the sea floor in the test areas and measure the emissions before starting the phase 3
3. Warm the sea floor by 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C (and 0C for a control) in five experiment locations.
How do we seal the sea floor test areas?
There are a few ideas come to mind; here is one:
Plastic sheet over the test area (e.g. one hectare for each of five test areas. Cover with sediment to hold it down. Pipes from the plastic sheet to a container (e.g. a plastic bag) to capture released gases from under the plastic sheet.
How do we heat the sea floor under the plastic sheet to 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C in four of the five test areas?
Heat water and pump it below the plastic bag.
There will also need to be boreholes down into the clathrates for instrumentation to measure the rate that the raised temperature is progressing down from the surface.
Leave operating and maintenance instructions for future generations so they can comeback in 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 years to measure and interpret the results.
A faster way to heat the clathrates would be to drill boreholes and insert heaters in the holes.
Before everyone goes ballistic, I do recognise that heating the clathrates in situ by just a few degrees and getting a temperature profile similar to what slow heating of the ocean would do, does pose some ‘slight’ problems. :)
“We are talking about experimentally corroborating and quantifying (or falsifying) the hypothesis that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will result in a significant temperature change in a controlled system that simulates our planet’s atmosphere, thereby providing empirical validation (or falsification) of the CAGW premise (as outlined by IPCC in AR4).”
I’ll repeat you cannot do a scaled version of the system. But imagine we did. Imagine that we could build a device 100 miles high and do controlled experiments in it. What would skeptics say. They would say
” Thats a lab experiement– you left out the ocean.. you didnt have trees and trees cause rain, and look your device had no hurricanes it it and they shoot energy to space .. and there were not thunderstorms in your device.. all sorts of things that change the temperature in the real world so who cares, who cares if you showed that doubling c02 and holding all else equal lead to a temperature increase.. in the REAL WORLD all else is not equal.. so your experiment doesnt apply “
You are apparently already worried about the reaction of skeptics to the results of an empirical experiment to determine 2XCO2 climate sensitivity before the experiment has even been designed and carried out.
Isn’t that getting the cart before the horse?
The folks at CERN are apparently not already fretting about the response of true “consensus” AGW believers to anything they might find out in the further work they are planning on the Svensmark hypothesis.
Nor am I.
Knowledge is knowledge.
And we do not yet have that knowledge concerning the impact of raising CO2 levels on our climate. There is just way too much “uncertainty” whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere will be a problem at all.
It would seem to make more sense for us to use our brains to figure out how to perform a meaningful empirical experiment, not to already second-guess what the reaction of some people will be to the results obtained.
That’s a bad experiment IMO that does not even address the root cause we are trying to test experimentally.
Sure, if you artificially raise the ocean floor temperature by 6C (assuming there are methane clathrates down there) these will be released.
We can be pretty sure of that, based on simply warming up clathrates in the lab under various pressures.
The question is not whether clathrates would escape under drastically warmer ocean floor temperatures, but what the impact of a doubling of CO2 would be on our temperature.
And we do not know that yet, because we do not yet have any empirical evidence.
With all due respect, nothing is “totally impossible”.
If you put the most intelligent minds to it, I am sure that an experiment could be designed that would give us actual empirical data to either corroborate and quantify or falsify the hypothesis of a high 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (as is planned at CERN for the Svensmark hypothesis).
And by diverting just a part of the billions currently being spent on various aspects of “climate related science”, I’m sure that this could also be financed.
I detect a real reluctance to such a proposal, especially on the part of those supporting the IPCC “consensus” position.
Why is this?
Are they afraid the results will show that 2xCO2 ECS is relatively small and AGW is, therefore, relatively insignificant?
Would such an experiment lie outside the comfort zone of the model studies, which can be steered in the desired direction more easily?
There is a fairly high probability that human use of fossil fuels will continue, possibly with some token abatement but no real drastic reduction. A globally binding treaty to radically curtail fossil fuel use is unrealistic – it will not happen.
So it is likely that we will have atmospheric CO2 levels in the 600 ppmv range by the end of this century and possibly as high as 800 ppmv within 150-200 years from now.
This would be roughly 2x today’s level.
So one can say with some certainty that we will likely see a doubling of atmospheric CO2 within the next 200 years, maybe somewhat sooner.
But we do not have any notion what this means for our climate.
As our hostess has testified before an earlier US congressional committee:
Anthropogenic climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain.
Model predictions cited by IPCC six years ago told us 2xCO2 could cause warming at equilibrium of 3.2C+/-0.7C or 2.5C to 3.9C (AR4, WG1, CH.8, p. 633).
Several more recent studies, which are partly based on actual observations rather than simply model simulations, indicate that these earlier estimates were exaggerated by a factor of around two.
The difference between the two is dramatic, i.e. the “magnitude is highly uncertain”.
With the older estimate we could be facing a possible future warming of up to 4C (possibly resulting in CAGW as outlined by IPCC in AR4).
With the newer estimate the warming is constrained to a maximum of around 2C, which is not considered by anyone to represent a real problem for humanity or our environment.
This is why it is so important to get a better quantification of 2xCO2 ECS in my opinion.
Observational studies say that the equilibrium value will be around 3C for CO2 doubling. So, you are off by a factor of 2, Manacker.
And with the propagation of uncertainty in the positive feedback denominator, we will have to place a fat-tail to higher values than 3C.
Just writing it doesn’t make it true, Webby.
The most recent (partly) observation based studies (seven of them) come up with a value if around half this amount with no “fat tail”.
So your number has already been superseded by newer knowledge.
But even these are based on assumptions on natural forcing and variability.
What is missing is empirical evidence quantifying 2xCO2 ECS. We’re not there yet. Web. Uncertainty is still very great whether AGW is a real problem or none at all.
Hope this helps you in your understanding of the problem, Web.
Manacker, Recent observational studies have shown the sensitivity is around 3C per CO2 doubling. This is based on looking at land-only temperature records, which are faster to respond as per the eventual equilibrium climate sensitivity. In contrast, the land+ocean temperature observations show around 2/3 of the 3C doubling value, due to the slow feedback transient effects of the ocean.
So, if we keep track of the land-only data, we have an idea of what the eventual warming will be. In other words, the ocean will be a delayed version of the land, and the global equilibrium value will asymptotically reach the 3C value.
The uncertainty is shifted to the high side of 3C due to the positive feedbacks occurring in the denominator of the sensitivity model. The propagation of uncertainty in a denominator value always pushes the error high, as anyone who has taken freshman physics labs and estimated uncertainty in a Time-of-Flight (TOF) gravity measurement experiment has experienced. Physics students learn this interactively because it is of value in doing experimental science, and simply writing it down doesn’t always help them retain that knowledge.
Hope this helps with your understanding of climate physics, Manacker.
That’s a bad experiment IMO that does not even address the root cause we are trying to test experimentally.
Sure, if you artificially raise the ocean floor temperature by 6C (assuming there are methane clathrates down there) these will be released.
We can be pretty sure of that, based on simply warming up clathrates in the lab under various pressures.
The question is not whether clathrates would escape under drastically warmer ocean floor temperatures, but what the impact of a doubling of CO2 would be on our temperature.
I agree it is a bad experiment but not for the reasons you mention. I agree it is a bad experiment because it is a ‘thought bubble’ it is not designed, and because of the impracticality of heating the ocean floor, uniformly over an area of say a hectare by 1C, 2C, 3C and 4C and simulating that temperature increase over a period of centuries so that the temperature progresses to depth as it would if the oceans warmed by these amounts of similar times scales. That is why it is a bad experiment.
But you seem to argue it is a bad experiment because the justification for it is wrong. I disagree with that. Many climate scientists are arguing that the justification for CAGW is the possibility, no matter how low the probability, that the clathrates could escape and drive temperatures much higher. Weitzman talks of 20 C in two centuries. So my justification for such an experiment is to see if this possibility of CAGW is feasible.
The question is not whether clathrates would escape under drastically warmer ocean floor temperatures, but what the impact of a doubling of CO2 would be on our temperature.
And we do not know that yet, because we do not yet have any empirical evidence.
I disagree with this one-track approach. We’ve spent 25 years trying to get a handle on climate sensitivity. The central estimate and the uncertainty have hardly changed in this time, for whatever reason. It is putting all our eggs in one basket expecting that we will suddenly get to narrow the uncertainty of our estimates of climate sensitivity. And the CAGW alarmists are concerned about the fat tail. That is scary for the public. It needs to be addressed. So, I suggest we must also pursue the alternative path of narrowing the uncertainties about the fat tail. Release of methane from the clathrates seems to be one scary scenario. If that is not a real issue, then the “C” in CAGW becomes much less significant. [Also important is to reduce the uncertainty of the damage function and the rate of decarbonisation of the global economy that can be achieved]
By the way, I am a bit disturbed that for the third time in a day you have misrepresented what I’ve said. You said:
Sure, if you artificially raise the ocean floor temperature by 6C (assuming there are methane clathrates down there)
I did not say 6C. I said 1C, 2C, 3C and 4C. I also specifically said that proposed experiments would be done where clathrates are present and the area would be properly characterised before the experiment was done.
I am not advocating the experiment, but just pointing out that the misrepresentations of what I’ve said, three in a day, is concerning me. I hope you will not do so any more.
I don’t understand what you are responding to with your comment @ April 28, 2013 at 4:09 pm . It begins:
There is a fairly high probability that human use of fossil fuels will continue, possibly with some token abatement but no real drastic reduction. A globally binding treaty to radically curtail fossil fuel use is unrealistic – it will not happen.
I’ve stated many times that ‘a globally binding treaty to radically curtail fossil fuel use is unrealistic and will not happen’. However, I do not agree that the world will not radically reduce fossil fuel use this century. I believe we will. It will not be done by international agreement. It will be done by the markets and competition. IMO, it will be done more quickly if and when we (especially the USA) remove the regulatory and licencing impediments that are retarding the development of low cost nuclear power. This is just one example; there are many others, such as for transport fuels.
With the newer estimate the warming is constrained to a maximum of around 2C, which is not considered by anyone to represent a real problem for humanity or our environment.
This is why it is so important to get a better quantification of 2xCO2 ECS in my opinion.
We’ve spent 25 years trying to get a handle on climate sensitivity. The central estimate and the uncertainty have hardly changed in this time, for whatever reason. The newer, lower estimates of climate sensitivity are not yet generally accepted. I see nothing to suggest we will suddenly make a breakthrough so we will suddenly get to narrow the uncertainty of our estimates of climate sensitivity. Therefore, I see no point in putting all our eggs in one basket. Instead, I’d advocate the following:
1. Robust analysis to develop robust strategies to reduce the risk, and develop and implement ‘no regret policies’
2. Reduce the focus and expenditure on climate sensitivity research
3. Increase the focus on the damage function research
4. Increase the focus on research to determine what rate of decarbonisation could be achieved, given the real constraints in the real world
5. Pragmatic policies that could achieve this rate of decarbonisation and the probability such policies would succeed in the real world
6. Educate the population about the robust policy approach.
We are beating a dead horse, but since there appear to be misunderstandings on both sides, let me summarize how I see it.
I am of the opinion that we need a better definition of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, hopefully backed by empirical evidence.
It appears to me that you feel this is not necessary.
You suggested an alternate experiment:
Raise the temperature of the sea floor in test locations where there are clathrates and measure the CH4 emissions. Raise the temperature by 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C (and 0C for a control) in five experiment locations.
[I misread your 0C as 6C. Mea culpa.]
While this experiment might allay some fears about massive methane releases from warming clathrates, I do not believe that this experiment will tell us much about the impact of CO2 on our climate, which I consider to be the main uncertainty at this time.
This appears to be our point of disagreement. So be it.
We agree that it is virtually impossible that a binding global CO2 curtailment agreement will be signed.
We agree that any “policy actions” to address the potential AGW problem should be “no regrets” actions.
We agree that a switch from coal to nuclear power could reduce the total atmospheric CO2 content and the amount of warming that could result from this by 2100.
And we seem to agree on a lot of other points, as well.
So let’s break off this exchange and “agree to disagree” on the few points where we do not agree.
I agree with you on all the points we agree on :) :)
I guess I was overstating the one that you think we disagree on. I over reacted to your statement of “its a bad experiment” because, by definition is I say it is good, it is good (more smileys) :) :) :)
I do think we need to reduce the range of uncertainty of climate sensitivity, but I don’t see any reason to believe there will be a breakthrough before politics forces us to take policy action, and I don’t want the high cost policies that are being advocated by the alarmists. Therefore, I want more effort to tackle the other important inputs to cost benefit analysis and robust analysis. I believe we can achieve much more to informal rational policy by putting more effort into:
– improving our understanding and reducing the uncertainty in the damage function
– improving our understanding and reducing the uncertainty in the decarbonisation rate function (the rate the global economy can be decarbonised)
– trying to thin and/or chop off the thick tail of Climate Sensitivity that implies possibility of catastrophic consequences (hence: is it credible that the clathrates could release massive amounts of methane with just 1C, 2C, 3C of 4C of warming of the oceans – I don’t care how we tackle it, but I do think it is an issue that needs to be addressed)
– proper planning of the implementation and long term sustainment of proposed policies and estimating the probability they will be implemented and sustainable in the real world, which leads me to support:
– increased focus on economic analysis, cost-benefit analysis (like Nordhaus and Tol) and robust analysis.
In summary, I agree I think we agree on the substantial issues and preferred approach. The ‘clathrate experiment’ was a trivial thought bubble (a bit of a joke really) for the sake of sticking my nose into the discussion about experiments on the climate. It was never intended to be serious. Sorry for distracting you from your important work of educating those who are capable of being educated and attempting to educate those who cannot be (this is not meant to be sarcastic).
BREAKING NEWS on CLIMATE ETC
DocMartyn analyzes (for himself) the paleo evidence!
• Doc predicts if CO2 doubles “We are screwed as a species!!”
• Doc agrees with Hansen “Civilization isn’t going to survive”!!!
• Doc wonders “Can dust save us?”
——————–
Aye, Climate Etc lassies and laddies, that’s what happens to skeptics who disregard climate-change theory, disregard climate-change computer models, and disregard the modern “hockey stick” of instrument records — who skeptically discount three-out-of-four pillars of climate-change science — and who analyze the paleo data for themselves.
Result Skeptics who rationally contemplate the paleo data end up agreeing with James Hansen.
——————-
Conclusion The pace of extinction of rational climate-change skepticism is accelerating faster than an Arctic ice-melt!
As for non-rational climate-change denialism, the community of denialists is becoming more-and-more compressed, within a smaller-and-smaller “bubble”, of less-and-less-rational ideological conviction. That’s pure common-sense, eh Climate Etc lassies and laddies?
I too think DocMartyn did a good job with his analysis. The GISS is a land+ocean data set and so anything derived from this leans to a transient estimate. DocMartyn gets a 2.37C change for doubling of CO2.
About half the heat is entering the ocean without leading to an immediate temperature rise, so that with 70% of the surface covered by ocean, we can pro-rate the eventual temperature change.
2.37 = 0.7*(1/2)*dT + 0.3*dT
Solving for dT, the equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 3.6C for doubling of CO2.
dT =2.37/0.65 = 3.65
This is above the mean estimate of 3C that most climate models have been converging to.
Well Web, I have asked our host to post a little doggerel I prepared on this very subject. If she is in the mood you will have far more datasets to mischaracterize.
Well Web, I have asked our host to post a little doggerel I prepared on this very subject. If she is in the mood you will have far more datasets to mischaracterize.”
It’s your analysis. You are the one that determined a 2.4C for a doubling transient. Given the transient nature of observational data, the equilibrium is certainly well above 3C for a doubling. That gives lots of room for a temperature plateau before the ECS starts to dip below 3C.
Perhaps your doggerel will recant your own analysis?
The ice core data is quite conclusive, insoluble dust varies levels in the ice cores vary by more than three orders of magnitude.
If one examines the the quite profound changes in temperature that result from quite modest changes in atmospheric models in the actual temperature record, following volcanic events, and in models, it is easy to see that aerosols have a huge impact on temperature.
This dust got to the Antarctic via the atmosphere.
This dust is metal rich and when it present in the atmosphere it would have done two things, blocked sunlight and fertilized the oceans photosynthetic biotica.
The relationship between Fe and CO2 in the ice cores is here:-
Now, as a biologist, if I am asked what will happen to atmospheric CO2 when the unproductive ocean deserts are fertilized by dust containing the very trace elements required to sustain photosynthetic life I am going to go Emperor Nero on you.
As atmospheric levels of dust rise, temperatures fall and the levels of the biotic gas, CO2, in the atmosphere are going to fall.
Any reasonable person will accept that 1) atmospheric dust will cool the planet. 2) the three orders of magnitude changes in dust levels during the past 800K years correlate perfectly with temperature and 3) this change in mineral fertilization of the oceans will have profound changes in the bioproductivity of the oceans and the rate of carbon mineralization into aquatic carbon sinks.
this heat will one day jump out of the ocean like a Jack-in-the box
If this happened in the past ten thousand years, it may happen again and the temperatures will stay in the same range of the past ten thousand years, because that is what has happened for ten thousand years. History is the best forecast for the future.
‘the equilibrium is certainly well above 3C for a doubling’
You keep using that word, I don’t think you know what it means.
Thermalization of photons isn’t some magic process, light is absorbed and energy is transferred to the molecule that absorbs it. The sensible heat does not not then migrate to a magic place and jump out like a pantomime villain a few years later.
DocMartyn, You don’t seem to understand that much of the climate physics is well understood. I only use the terms that other climate scientists use, within the context that they apply them. So, I do agree that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is not strictly equilibrium, as nothing will every reach a true equilibrium. Yet they do need something to distinguish the transient from the steady-state, and this is what climatologists seem to use.
So what you should do is apply your linearization analysis that came up with the 2.4 C for CO2 doubling to the land-based temperature trends. The BEST data will work for this. What this will give you is a closer representation to what the ECS will be, since the transient heat-sinking effects are on a much shorter time-scale and we can actually see the true ECS on an observational time scale.
You shouldn’t fear conventional physics so much. And you shouldn’t always listen to science filtered through the mass media, or through eavesdropping on email conversations. The “missing heat” is a meme that will continue to get misinterpreted, because that is how memes work in the media. However, those same memes don’t work out so well when you have to write out the equations. Instead, they will reveal themselves as natural processes with a transient response.
Yes, in hindsight, perhaps quasi-equilibrium sensitivity/QECS would have been more informative. But it sounds silly and may have would have encouraged buffoonery, so perhaps we are better off with misnomer.
note that the amounts of HEAT at the depth have increased in the last decade faster at 300-700 than at 0-300. As most rational people hold that energy input into the oceans is a function of incoming radiation at the surface, this change in heat is non-physical. Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén have observed a change that is against the laws of thermodynamics; which one has to admit is a nice gig if you can get it. Co2 transfers heat from the surface to the depths and then transports ‘cold’ up wards.
One presumes that you, along with Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén believe that this heat will one day jump out of the ocean like a Jack-in-the box thermalizing the surface.
the study of biology is the study of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and analysis of changes in steady states is what biologists do for a living. Dynamic systems that exist as entropy engines are what the biosphere is all about.
DocMartyn, there are many oceanographers who believe cold water comes to the surface and spreads in a process they call upwelling like off the coast of California. Crazy, huh? (not)
Jim would you like to share with the class how CO2 is able to draw forth the cold dense brines of the ocean depths and replace then with the warmer, less dense, surface waters?
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The Sky is falling!
Chicken Little is alive and well!
This knowledge that the king has no clothes on is growing, day by day.
Seventeen years of no warming being announced by the head of the IPCC does indicate that even the most rabid climate alarmists know the end is near.
Skepticism is decreasing because skeptics have doubt. More and more people are becoming unbelievers instead of skeptics. We no longer have doubt, now we know the Alarmism is is based on Model output that does not match actual data for decades.
THERE ARE LESS SKEPTICS BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY MANY MANY MORE OF US UNBELIEVERS. We really don’t believe anything that has no actual real data to support it.
There were many “natural disaster” sci-fi books before it, but Michael Crichton’s 2004 techno-thriller State of Fear was one of the first I can remember that addressed “anthropogenic climate change”.
“In fact,” Kramb says, “I think when [people] look back at this 21st century … they will definitely see climate change as one of the major themes in literature, if not the major theme.”
And then they’ll sigh and turn back gratefully to the literature of earlier centuries.
In fact, I think that Kramb is wrong, by 2030 no one will be interested in “climate change,” leaving 70 years of the century for non-cc-oriented literature.
Indeed the earliest literature concerned great floods that were visited upon humanity because of their sins. Great floods and cataclysms have featured in the literature of many nations from the Chinese to the grail tradition that began with the druids. There are seven stages of the grail vision ranging from a shining fish that many have seen to a vision that is profoundly secret but is accompanied by ascending physically to heaven leaving behind floods and other cataclysms.
The Dragon-Kings of the Orient controlled the waters and would punish people for theirs sins.
In Norse mythology it is Ragnarök. ‘Before the end of the world, three winters without summers in between will happen in Midgard, and order will be lost in the human world. Fathers will fight their sons, siblings will commit incest, mothers will seduce their children, and brothers will tear at each other’s hearts. Midgard will be consumed with war.
The wolves Skoll and Hati will swallow the sun and moon, and the great wolf Fenris, son of Loki the trickster god, will run loose and kill Odin the All-Father, who steps forth to fight him. Odin’s son Vidar will avenge Odin by tearing Fenris apart. Thor will battle the Midgard serpent and slay him but be slain himself by the serpent’s venomous fumes. Many gods as well as all men and women save two, Lif and Lifthrasir, who seek shelter under the branches of Yggdrasil, will die. The sky will fall into a pit of flames and the earth will sink into the sea.
After the end of the world, the earth will rise renewed out of the sea and flourish. Grain will grow where no grain was sown; Lif and Lifthrasir will repeople the new world with their offspring and descendants. Odin’s sons as well as his brothers Vili and Vé will reconvene with the other surviving gods on the plain of Ida, where Asgard used to be, and hold council. They will reign over the new world as the ruling gods. So the earth was begun, and so it shall end.
My favourite recent post apocalypse read was Hunger Games – an unnamed disaster – climate related it seems – had resulted in hunger and violence culminating in the collapse of the high tech society that preceded.
Chief Hydrologist | April 27, 2013 at 8:47 pm said: ”’earliest literature concerned great floods that were visited upon humanity because of their sins. Great floods and cataclysms have featured…”
Chief, in the past, when Great floods and cataclysms occurred; they used to sacrifice couple of virgins and a sheep = problems solved. Now they don’t make virgins anymore… or as a Snake Oil salesman said: because of extra CO2 in the atmosphere, by 2017, there will not be a single virgin left in the democratic west… are we in real trouble… brimstone, floods and droughts… if the suckers don’t pay carbon tax?!
Most certainly we are in trouble if you don’t pay $1000 into my Swiss bank account immediately. As for virgins – an adult is free to act in whatever way is not actually harmful to other people. And hopefully we are looking after our children before that and educating them to be responsible adults.
According to Professor Judith Curry …’when novelists
tackle climate change in their writing, they reach people
in a way that science can’t.’ (so-hot-right-now-)
Thought fer Today: ‘Truth is weaker than fiction?’
I’m still not sure why people need to be reached, especially in a fictional sort of way. No one’s going to sell novels in which “climate change” turns out to be a dud, are they?
Been thinking about getting serf T-shirts made up Beth. Need a saying though…
pokerguy, yer modesty already gives yer the potential :^ /
and if yer come up with an apt tee shirt slogan yer will
be awarded honorary membership together with a free
ferst-edishun copy of ‘Serf Under-ground.’ : ^ )
Bts
I’ll certainly be thinking on it, Beth especially with stakes so high. Have you read the recent New Yorker piece on writing…”The Writing Life” I think it’s called…It’s a nice piece of writing on writing, which isn’t easy. I know because I’ve tried. More than once.
(Do people down under…as opposed to serfs under-ground… read the New Yorker.Do people even say “down under” anymore? )
Hey, I’m an aspiring serf, how am I supposed to know?
I think all serfs must be writers while they’re out their working the fields, at least in their minds. Even aspiring serfs in their imaginary, aspirational fields. The main idea of that piece is to get a first draft going…even if it’s only a one line T shirt slogan. Or so I suppose.
If I were on the other team it might be easier. Max_OK and his crew might have T-shirts that read “I surf for serfs.” Sounds predatory, doesn’t it?
In fact, I’ve kind of scared myself. And it’s bedtime, I hate when I do that to myself..
.I wonder if all aspiring serfs are quite so timid?
pokerguy, I had a tee shirt made h/t ter kim,
which I presented ter James Delingpole while
he was down under … some of us still go with
the song fer fun. The message, white on black,
“Wage, wage war
Against the lying
and the fright….”
Daresay many Melbourne – ites read the New Yorker.
The serf company I keep are probably not up ter it
but I might have a look at it, gotta keep up now I’m
an in – sipp -iant under-ground editor !!
Beth
I’ve been a hard science fiction fan since forever. A work of fiction where the plot is about CAGW would technically be considered fantasy not science fiction.
Anyone have any thoughts on the recent discovery of “dark lightning”? Apparently large amounts of gamma rays are ejected from the top of some thunderstorms into space. Made me wonder if this could be an important overlooked mechanism by which the earth sheds heat.
Steven, there are possibly one or two “mechanisms” nobody knows much about. Could be even more! What’s under our feet and flippers, for example, all the plasticky, mushy, hot stuff (aka most of the Earth)…that might be interesting to know more about. Hard to reduce it all to facile equations, of course. Our Green Betters like to keep their climate console down to a few familiar buttons, knobs and levers, like on the Enterprise.
I was just saying to someone today that we need to act urgently on the science. We need to make that movie about “settled” climate science while Jerry Lewis is still alive.
‘Scientists think the antimatter particles were formed inside thunderstorms in a terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF) associated with lightning. It is estimated that about 500 TGFs occur daily worldwide, but most go undetected.
“These signals are the first direct evidence that thunderstorms make antimatter particle beams,” said Michael Briggs, a member of Fermi’s Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He presented the findings Monday, during a news briefing at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Seattle.’
‘For every matter particle, there is a corresponding antiparticle — these antiparticles collectively are what we know as antimatter. They have properties that are similar but opposite to their corresponding matter particles — for example the same mass and the same magnitude but opposite sign of charge. When a particle and its antiparticle meet, they annihilate — disappearing in a burst of energy.’
‘A positron is the antiparticle of the electron. It has the same mass but opposite charge (positive instead of negative). When it annihilates with an electron, they turn into gamma rays.’
As I wrote positron is the antiparticle of electron, but the expression “antimatter” refers normally to more massive antiparticles or even antiatoms or antimolecules. Therefore this usage is misleading.
I did read what you said. But it seems you disagree with the experts Pekka – and your world of ‘normally’ doesn’t apply to the definitions used in the real world. If you would stop quibbling just for a moment – you might be treated with higher regard.
Pekka is quite correct. One does not count neutrons, elections or protons as ‘normal’ matter as they only exist in their free state in plasma. The protons measured by a pH meter are virtual and hydrated, and are not independent entities.
We are talking about electrons and positrons that have mass and annihilate each in a gamma ray burst – seen at the top of thunderstorms.
But I quoted both NASA and the Australian Centre for Excellence in Matter/Antimatter Research. I could be silly and mention Bruce but I’m sure these people take themselves very seriously indeed.
Petty quibbles from amateurs notwithstanding – this is a fun bit of science. So if you want to insist that there is a scientific controversy here I suggest that you link to a reputable source or stop hand waving about yet another topic.
In particle physics, antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge and quantum spin. Antiparticles bind with each other to form antimatter in the same way that normal particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron, with symbol e+) and an antiproton (symbol p) can form an antihydrogen atom.
Hell the antimatter particles you bozos say aren’t antimatter are specifically used for examples of antimatter in the opening paragraph. You boys need to make sure you’re at least up to speed on encyclopedic knowledge before pretending to know more. You look ridiculous otherwise and there’s really no excuse except hubris for spending 5 seconds to make sure you’re right before accusing others of being wrong. Like f*cking duh.
Actually, on second reading, I’m the ass and ChiefHydrologist needs to assume the position next to me. Antimatter is material composed of antiparticles. Antiparticles join together like normal particles to form antimatter.
Oh for God’s sake I gave you NASA the ‘Centre for Antimatter-Matter Studies (CAMS) and some other pinheads on youtube – and you give me wikipedia and pontificate about assuming the position. Seems par for the course. Did you read the urban dictionary entries? Try entry 2. Seriously weird. But whether you care to assume the position or not comes under the heading of things I don’t want to know.
Context Ellison. The context here was not sex, not crime, but rather what’s common terminology in particle physics. I say again get your mind out of the gutter.
As far as antiparticles and antimatter wikipedia supports Pirali and Martyn, I mistakenly claimed otherwise, then corrected my mistake. I realize that wikipedia is neither definitive nor authoritative but it’s usually accurate in non-controversial subjects regardless. But there’s more.
Notice the Quantum Physics index in the above highly acclaimed award winning online physics text lists “Antiparticles and Antimatter” as a single subject area. Mentioning both would be redundant in your opinion. This to me is evidence that particle physicists do indeed distinguish between antiparticles and antimatter using the latter term to describe atoms made of antiparticles. It’s not my nomenclature and if it were I’d make it like you think it should be but it appears the actual practioners don’t use the terms in that way.
If you say that being on all fours, naked, was not what you had mind with assuming the position – hell I can only go by urban dictionary.
But – and from your antiparticles and antimatter link.
‘Seeing that nature is in so many respects symmetric, a fundamental question is “Why is the universe made out of matter, with very little antimatter? We can create antimatter today in pair production, and in fact the processes of particle production produce equal numbers of particles and antiparticles. Something very early in the history of the universe tipped the balance toward matter to the virtual exclusion of antimatter. We see antimatter today only in pair production, radioactive decay and in the products of the high-energy particle accelerators.’
First it absolutely was with an excuse to insult Pekka, then it emphatically wasn’t with your arse in the air – finally it is ambiguous and you accuse me of babbling.
The definition of matter is something that has mass and occupies space.
Hence an electron or a positron is matter.
‘For every matter particle, there is a corresponding antiparticle — these antiparticles collectively are what we know as antimatter. They have properties that are similar but opposite to their corresponding matter particles — for example the same mass and the same magnitude but opposite sign of charge. When a particle and its antiparticle meet, they annihilate — disappearing in a burst of energy. What happens in between can be quite interesting, and is the focus of CAMS.’ http://www.positron.edu.au/faq.html#faq1
That seems clear enough. But why don’t you email and they will add to the FAQ – coo.cams@anu.edu.au
Angels on pin heads – you can see them fluttering around springers head.
‘Assume the position’ happens when someone gets arrested in Australia – it is just hands on the wall or other surface and feet spread. Apparently not in the US – http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assume%20the%20position – and is vulgar, inappropriate, socially insensitive and quite possibly homophobic. The images of Abu Ghraib come to mind on reading the definition – I just really don’t need it.
Evidently there’s a categorical difference between antiparticles and antimatter in particle physics. Hey, it’s their nomenclature, their conventions. It’s petty to bring it up but we already knew the two characters who brought it up are petty and we know you can’t admit a mistake. Evidently I’m the only one secure enough to admit I was wrong and not so petty that I’d give a damn about proper nomenclature outside a formal setting. It was a press release not a paper appearing in Nature Particle Physics or whatever.
Assume the position is not vulgar. Get your mind out of the gutter. Depending on the context it means bend over and prepare to get a spanking or it can also mean prepare to be frisked. It’s mildly insulting in the latter case because whoever says it is implying that you get frisked enough to know what the position is without having it described.
Well – good bye only to you and for the moment – you may have noticed. Bye. It is just such a pointless and trivial discussion from a nice bit of NASA science. You commence with a gratuitous snark and insist on being your typically bombastic and boorish self. Go argue with NASA you pompous twit.
‘Scientists using NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have detected beams of antimatter produced above thunderstorms on Earth, a phenomenon never seen before.
Scientists think the antimatter particles were formed in a terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF), a brief burst produced inside thunderstorms and shown to be associated with lightning. It is estimated that about 500 TGFs occur daily worldwide, but most go undetected.’ http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html
The Chief is right even if this is not a very standard way to talk about “antimatter”.
The particles (all of them) are governed by the laws of QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) for strong and weak interactions..
QCD is based on symmetries and contains all known particles –
fermions (quarks, electrons and neutrinos) and bosons.
Combinations of quarks make protons and neutrons and other composites like mesons, kaons etc.
Now every particle has its anti particle and a particle (like the Z boson) may even be its own antiparticle.
For instance the up quark has its anti particle up anti quark.
A composite like neutron is formed from udd quarks (1 up, 2 down) while the anti neutron is formed from UDD (1 anti up and 2 anti down).
Both have obviously charge 0 so the charge conjugation which is a symmetry transforming a particle in an antiparticle is not just a naive charge reversal – it does much more than only reversing charge, it reverses also several other quantum numbers which people have never heard about (strangeness etc).
So this defines with no ambiguity what an anti particle is.
And anti matter ?
Well it is any collection of anti particles which has mass. For example an antineutron (a collection of 3 anti quarks) is antimatter. An anti deuterium (a collection of an anti proton, anti neutron and a positron) is anti matter. etc.
Actually about anything from a single anti quark to an anti galaxy formed of bound anti particles can be called “anti matter”.
The one exception is the photon which is its own anti particle but as it has no mass, a light beam is generally not called “anti matter” even if strictly speaking it could be.
The question why there seems to be more matter than anti matter in the visible Universe is not solved.
CP symmetry violation which is proven for weak interactions shows that reactions particle-anti particle don’t happen with the same rate in both directions.
But this explains only a part – we should still observe plenty of anti matter.
Interesting question for future Nobels :)
With an unreserved enthusiasm I greeted Dr. Curry’s mentioning ‘natural variability’ early on in her testimony; in a way of a salutation I shall state:
The CET 350 year long oscillating upward movement appear to be synchronized with the ‘up and down’ (mainly upwards) shifts in the frequency and intensity of the events of the far N. Atlantic. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NVp.htm
Notice word ‘shift’, it is in vogue at moment, so why not exploit it.
Questions are acceptable, but the clear and concise answers may not be forthcoming.
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. <strong?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.
The emphasis is mine. The global scale multi-decadal variability – the 60 year pseudo cycle – is seen in high resolution proxies. Longer scale variability is intriguing.
Not sure what it means. It was warmer a 1000 to 2000 years ago in many places – see especially the Antarctic. Wow and why? The average is said to be as warm 1400 years ago as today. It is warmer today than a couple of hundred years ago. We can see the hint of a millennial pattern in the longer European record.
It can be seen better in this 11,000 year ENSO proxy – the spikes that happen regularly on or about the 1000 year marks. ENSO as we have seen above is part of a coherent global system.
The most intriguing aspect to my mind is the switch from La Nina dominant to El Nino dominant some 5000 years ago. The causes of this are of course unknown and I can’t begin to speculate.
“Each case of research fraud that’s uncovered triggers a similar response from scientists. First disbelief, then anger, then a tendency to dismiss the perpetrator as one rotten egg in an otherwise-honest enterprise. But the scientific misconduct that has come to light in recent years suggests at the very least that the number of bad actors in science isn’t as insignificant as many would like to believe. And considered from a more cynical point of view, figures like Hwang and Hauser are not outliers so much as one end on a continuum of dishonest behaviors that extend from the cherry-picking of data to fit a chosen hypothesis — which many researchers admit is commonplace — to outright fabrication. Still, the nature and scale of Stapel’s fraud sets him apart from most other cheating academics. “The extent to which I did it, the longevity of it, makes it extreme,” he told me. “Because it is not one paper or 10 but many more.”
“In his early years of research — when he supposedly collected real experimental data — Stapel wrote papers laying out complicated and messy relationships between multiple variables. He soon realized that journal editors preferred simplicity. “They are actually telling you: ‘Leave out this stuff. Make it simpler,’ ” Stapel told me. Before long, he was striving to write elegant articles.”
That was one long article. Notice how it all boiled down to a cut and paste spreadsheet error or he could still be tell us about our simple biases in life.
I wonder how many M&Ms were sacrificed in the pursuit of pseudo-science?
“An article about computational science in a scientific publication is not the scholarship itself, it is merely advertising of the scholarship. The actual scholarship is the complete software development environment and the complete set of instructions which generated the figures.”
D. Donoho
“What the public didn’t realize, he said, was that academic science, too, was becoming a business. “There are scarce resources, you need grants, you need money, there is competition,” he said. “Normal people go to the edge to get that money. Science is of course about discovery, about digging to discover the truth. But it is also communication, persuasion, marketing. I am a salesman. I am on the road. People are on the road with their talk. With the same talk. It’s like a circus.” He named two psychologists he admired — John Cacioppo and Daniel Gilbert — neither of whom has been accused of fraud. “They give a talk in Berlin, two days later they give the same talk in Amsterdam, then they go to London. They are traveling salesmen selling their story.”
I was talking to a senior colleague about this topic earlier this week. With funding levels low and most guided to a few ‘stars’, many papers in Science/Nature all look too good. The simplest thing is statistical analysis, they never have a rogue point which gives rise to large error bars. The kindest interpretation is that they either redo a whole study until all the results have the required ‘tightness’, or they do and experiment 7 times and present the ‘best’ 5 and claim and n=5.
I have seen people discard data because it was ‘wrong’ and then repeat until it was ‘right’.
There is a notch in the sea level data between the start of 2010 and mid-2011. This notch is even visible in the Gulf of Mexico, which is a very shallow basin and is less likely to respond to temperature changes.
I have no idea why sea levels dropped world-wide in 2010, but it wasn’t a transient cooling event or a single dodgy sensor.
A lot of snowfall did lead to that drop in sea level. That is how ocean water at the equator does get on land closer to the spin axis and Leap second data does show earth was spinning faster because less leap seconds were added. http://popesclimatetheory.com/page28.html
Stapel did not deny that his deceit was driven by ambition. But it was more complicated than that, he told me. He insisted that he loved social psychology but had been frustrated by the messiness of experimental data, which rarely led to clear conclusions. His lifelong obsession with elegance and order, he said, led him to concoct sexy results that journals found attractive. “It was a quest for aesthetics, for beauty — instead of the truth,” he said. He described his behavior as an addiction that drove him to carry out acts of increasingly daring fraud, like a junkie seeking a bigger and better high.
Does anyone have a table which shows the volume of the worlds oceans at different depths? As in the volumes of 0-50, 50-100, 100-150, e.t.c. I know such information exists as it must have been used for calculating heat contents. But I cannot find this anywhere.
I would really, rally like this information so could some one indicate where I can access it?
“Does anyone have a table which shows the volume of the worlds oceans at different depths?”
Yes.
“I would really, rally like this information so could some one indicate where I can access it?”
It’s in my dining room. We usually keep a tablecloth over it. It’s a hand painting. Very rare. The table was orginally outfitted in the Titanic but was removed before the ship sailed in a legal dispute. Lucky table.
Thanks for that link, Springer.
The ocean has a mean depth of at around 3800 meters.
I did an uncertainty quantified analysis of the OHC here, which assumes that the average depth is beyond 2000 meters http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
This assumption makes the math come out much cleaner, with little or no error arising from the actual finite depth.
I’ve casually mentioned the ocean’s average depth is 4000 meters many many times on this blog. Glad to see you finally got that little factoid in your pointy little head. One down, one million to go. We’ll get you educated yet, boy. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you’d just stop making faces and spitting it out.
David, that you very much for the reference. I have just looked at the numbers and am shocked at my own uninformed bias. I had no idea of the 4000-5000m volume held the majority of the water.
My ignorance about the planet I live on is huge.
The numbers are a bit confusing at first. That’s the volume of water overlying seafloor at 5000 meters not the volume of water at 5000 meters.
I said you’d need to do some transforms and interpolation to get the volume at each 50m layer but I believe the information in table 2 is sufficient for that as it gives the percentage of seafloor and its depth. With 1000m gradations the interpolation may be more than you’d like however.
well they are going to be better synchronized with something and if you hunt around in cycles long enough you’ll find a perfect match. Thats the beauty of cycles they explain everything and therefore nothing
Lutz believes raising the Federal tax on gasoline would encourage Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and the tax could be used for infrastructure improvements.
What’s the point of having a car if it’s not a wide-ass gas-guzzling road hog? All old timers know the measure of a man is how large his car is. If he ain’t got a big-un, he’s a sissy.
You simply can’t be a real man while driving a girly car like a Prius or some silly little Eurocommunist thing like a Fix-It-Again-Tony? Express your masculinity with a Hummer or an F-150, even if you really have no need to go off-road or haul anything.
One other thing … using lots of gasoline lets people know you are successful and have money to burn. If you drive a stingy car, people will think you are a stingy person.
…And so if… we’re only gonna do symbolic actions, I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn‘t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] let‘s have the NRDC, the, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their, all of their members, cannot fly on private jets, they must get their houses off the grid, they must live in the way that they‘re telling everyone else to live. And if they won‘t do that, why should we. And why should we take them seriously. [APPLAUSE] ~Michael Chricton
I bought my son a hybrid when he got into medical school. Now he’s going to be a neurosurgeon, so I found him a sports car that guzzles gasoline like a famished pig. Did I do OK on my redemption, Max?
Max_OK, Yes, vehicles are a status symbol in the US and many other countries and simple physics can be used to show that larger mass vehicles are significantly safer than lower mass vehicles. The same linear no threshold statistics that can be used to show that anything you don’t like is significantly harmful in some way shape or form.
So what’s your point? Your personal biases getting in the way?
There are also people that actually need those larger vehicles to make a living. There are people that need smaller engines and two cycle engines to make a living which high ethanol fuels damage. Having to replace or repair those vehicles and engines costs money that has to be transfer to the consumer typically with a 3 to 6 multiplier to maintain profit margins. It is like a warm and fuzzy snowball of unintended consequences.
It’s an ideal idea. But I wouldn’t use the additional gasoline tax revenue for improving the infrastructure. I would give it to the oil companies to compensate for any decrease in demand for gasoline as a result of the tax. Making more money by selling less is a win win deal.
It’s the new economy–e.g., American capitalism that is being replaced by the liberal fascism of Euro-communism that runs on liberal Utopianism of symbolism.
Here’s a Kenworth pick-up. I doubt the wheel-base is any larger than the old full-size station wagons. Haven’t seen a Kenworth mini-van. Of course, this is just a novelty.
I recognize the advantage of 2-cycle in small gasoline engines, but the motor oil is mixed with the fuel, burns along with the fuel, I don’t like the odor of burning motor oil.
Because the subject is raising the gasoline tax to encourage Americans to buy more fuel-efficient cars, I don’t see the relevance of ethanol, but perhaps I miss your point.
Max_Ok the point is the untended consequences of the action. Based on some optimist statistics, the tax would stimulate the transition to more fuel efficient “VEHICLES” without any unexpected economic consequences. There are always unexpected consequences.
In this case a fairly large segment of society that could least afford the more rapid transition was adversely impacted.
We have the same issue with commercial fishing regulations that impact the recreational fishing industry which is actually the larger monetary segment in Florida. Most warm and fuzzy legislative action has undesirable impacts.
To avoid those impacts requires flexibility. Mandates are not flexible. A better option with fuel efficiency is a staged approach that allows reasonable time to transition and options to modify policy based on response.
A good example is the cellulose ethanol mandate. The technology was not available with the potential EPA regulation for various pollutants concentrations not established. Two government policy segments not on the same page produced unintended consequences. Now some businesses are penalized for not using products that don’t exist because the government won’t allow them to exist.
Sounds like a circle jerk don’t it, because it is.
Just because in your sheltered would, revenue neutral carbon taxes with nothing but perfectly ethical execution can exist, does not mean that it can in the real world.
captdallas 0.8 or less said on April 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm
“Max_Ok the point is the untended consequences of the action. Based on some optimist statistics, the tax would stimulate the transition to more fuel efficient “VEHICLES” without any unexpected economic consequences. There are always unexpected consequences.”
______
I expect unexpected benefits to more than offset unexpected consequences.
___________
captdallas also said
“Just because in your sheltered would, revenue neutral carbon taxes with nothing but perfectly ethical execution can exist, does not mean that it can in the real world.”
_____
I have never lived in a sheltered world. I’m a graduate of the school of hard knocks.
The subject is raising the tax on gasoline. I don’t know why you wandered off to the revenue neutral carbon tax. Luntz didn’t propose reducing another tax while raising the gasoline tax. But I believe a revenue neutral tax would be an easier sell.
Max_OK, “I expect unexpected benefits to more than offset unexpected consequences.”
Of course you do, that is why you are in the for tax side of the debate.
In your opinion, the tax forces people to reconsider their gasoline use and train them to do as you think is best, and in the mean time produces revenue that will only be used for the greater good. You consider it a “gasoline” tax not a carbon tax even though the motivation for the tax is to reduce carbon which may or may not have severe environmental impacts. In your opinion, gasoline/transportation fuels based on fossil carbon products is bad, so tax it.
During that “in the mean time” period, the most adverse impact of the tax will be felt by the portion of the population least prepared to deal with the added expense. You can either, let them eat cake or divert a portion of the tax revenue to that portion of the population which tends to grow every time there is free money. The larger gasoline users will pay the tax, write off the expense, charge more or institute a “gasoline sur charge” to pass the expense to the consumer. Again the portion of society least prepared to deal with the added expense will suffer.
What you have is the “Stick” approach to management. If there were other options, like actually having alternative fuels available, then you could use a “Carrot” approach. Instead of having the foresight to provide the alternative first you would rather let them eat cake.
Max_OK, Two cycle engines have a higher power to weight ratio. So while I am not all that fond of their efficiency, if I have to lug an engine around, the Two-cycle is handy. The problem with Ethanol is the mandate. A lot of engines were not designed for higher Ethanol and a lot of older fuel systems cannot handle the different solvent properties of Ethanol. Those engines often expired. The sludge dislodged by the Ethanol solvent properties restricted the fuel flow causing the engines to run lean, over heat and died a premature death. Two 250 H.P. Mercury outboards in my case since my chosen profession is adult fishing entertainment. That is after using fuel additives and installing 10 micro fuel filters.
Phasing in Ethanol would have reduced the financial impact of that damage instead of hitting the economy of the poor bastards trying to actually make a living so hard.
For the Kenworth, soccer moms can’t generally handle the gearing and there is not enough room for the kids and groceries. A minivan is about a small as the average young family wants to go and if they are not strapped financially, they tend toward the SUVs for space, convinience and safety. Gas mileage is secondary to safety doncha know with convenience being in the middle.
captdallas 0.8 or less said on April 29, 2013 at 8:40 am
“Max_OK, “I expect unexpected benefits to more than offset unexpected consequences.”
Of course you do, that is why you are in the for tax side of the debate.
In your opinion, the tax forces people to reconsider their gasoline use and train them to do as you think is best, and in the mean time produces revenue that will only be used for the greater good. You consider it a “gasoline” tax not a carbon tax even though the motivation for the tax is to reduce carbon which may or may not have severe environmental impacts. In your opinion, gasoline/transportation fuels based on fossil carbon products is bad, so tax it.
During that “in the mean time” period, the most adverse impact of the tax will be felt by the portion of the population least prepared to deal with the added expense. You can either, let them eat cake or divert a portion of the tax revenue to that portion of the population which tends to grow every time there is free money.”
_____
Am I reading this right? Captain seems to be saying it’s bad to take something away from the poor, and once you have taken it away, it’s also bad to give it back.
Max_OK, “Am I reading this right? Captain seems to be saying it’s bad to take something away from the poor, and once you have taken it away, it’s also bad to give it back.”
Close, it is like no good deed goes unpunished. With the US tax structure when you impose a tax on what is considered basic need, it ripples up through the economy. Trying to redistribute some of that revenue requires resources that reduce the efficiency of the program. You are damn if you do and damned if you don’t.
With a Vat or Sales tax structure you get more efficient transfer with less negative ripple. Since energy in general is a basic need, provide reasonable alternatives that stimulate progress instead of penalizing initiative.
Currently regulations and tax codes are so screwed up that instead of making your million starting a business it takes two million to start one.
On WUWT, James Hansen the Movie.
” Paroxysms of Apocalypse.”…
‘How shall we be punished?’ Jim Hansen says,
‘Let us count the ways.The seas shall rise,
then boil..evaporate and that’s not half of it.
Those of us who still survive …we’re faced with
Snowball Earth!’
:- ( :-( :-( Not many of us and that’s a good thing …
pesky humans.
Hard to walk that one back. Hansen is as we say at the poker table, “all in.” He hasn’t a single chip left to toss into the AGW pot.
As usual, the extremists do themselves and their cause no favors. Do we skeptics have any better friends then the immoderate, tin foil hatted loons like Hansen and MAnn and the always entertaining Al Gore?
Jame Hansen is probably wrong on his speculation about a runaway on earth because of ACO2.
BFD. Wrong on speculation. What a flippin’ sin.
It sounds to me like the earth will end in fire. But some say ice. Maybe it’s like Chinatown:
Evelyn Mulwray: It’ll end in ice.
[Gittes slaps Evelyn]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: It’ll end in fire…
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: It’ll end in ice…
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: It’s ice, it’s fire.
[More slaps]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: It’ll end in fire and ice!
Case of mistaken identity I’m afraid, pokerguy,
enemies fer friends? ( Yer know what they call us?
Don’t mind bein’ recognised as a serf but that other
‘ D’ nomenaclature jist gits me goat.
A serf
Postscript, pokerguy, better hurry up with that tee shirt
slogan. The first issue of ‘Under-ground ‘ comes out soon.
Surely Burt Rutan’s catalog of climate blunders is more relevant to the subject than his irrelevant credentials!
I find it amusing when normally authority-challenging skeptics get their panties in a twist when serfs like lolwot dare challenge heroes of their cause.
I have an order of magnitude better grasp of this climate subject than Burt Rutan! Might be annoying, but it’s true!
To all, I have given a quote from NASA which contradicts the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget. The quote comes from an old NASA page that was still teaching traditional physics.
I have been discussing this on WUWT in this thread, my last post here:
It all boils down to this, it is not just me saying this. The NASA quote I give cannot be ignored, it completely contradicts your AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget.
You have to deal with it.
NASA used to teach:
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.
“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
The heat from the Sun we feel every day is the longwave infrared direct from the Sun which has been removed from the AGW GreenhouseEffect Energy Budget, KT97 and ilk, you have no heat in your world. You have no weather. You have no climate. What are you scientists of?
And again the aptly (?) named “pokerguy” fails to understand how applying sarcasm with a straight face works. Not much of a pokerface that I can detect.
Yes Web,, I’ve been falling to understand how applying sarcasm with a straight face works all my life. I do it right here on this blog at least 3 times a week. I’m as famous for that as you are for your sweet natured posts, and lolwot is for his firm command of the pause.
The linearity between CO2 concentrations incorrectly breaks about 1960. The rate of increase in CO2 for the Law Dome ice cores is 0.21 ppm/mm, but for the Mauna Loa data it is 0.75 ppm/mm. This shows the forcing after 1960s have been incorrectly multiplied by a factor of 0.75/0.21 = 3.6.
This gives a corrected climate sensitivity of 4.2/3.6=1.2 deg C.
If you were Moses or the head liberal-fascist-in-chief, what would be your 11th Commandment or 28th Amendment to the Constitution? How about something like–e.g., free breakfast at the Post Offices as well as free stamps, envelopes and writing material to everyone within the borders of the US who have no pockets.
There is no “free breakfast.” Everything we eat cost somebody somewhere something. I’m opposed to feeding bums who are too lazy too work. Our nation wasn’t built on handouts. Subsidize people for being poor, and the result will be more poor people. If the government wants to give money away, give it to the wealthy as a reward for being wealthy.
Give me some money, and I will create a job. I’ll stop mowing the lawn myself and hire someone to mow it. Also, we could use a maid.
I’m hard at it Beth dear. I must say though, that one line is damned elusive, Like trying to get lolwot to fork over his C.V.
Maybe we could ask the aptly named WebHubTelescope to swivel his long, tube like head in the direction of lolwot’s house and try to peer inside for clues…
Maybe someone here could comment?
I have been sking the following question since IPCC’s AR4 was published in 2007. I have asked people on blogs, emails, even scientists who were associated with AR4 – to no avail.
“Please point me to a recent empirical scientific study that concluded that a rise in atmospheric temperature was caused by a similar inclease in atmospheric CO2.”
Details are not important, since all I want to verify is an actual scientific study was conducted and that its conclusion supports AGW.
That’s it. Anyone? BTW, a projection from a Global Circulation Model does not count, since it is not empirical.
The only scientific studies are Actual Data and Actual Data does not support the alarmist theory and does not agree with the alarmist climate model output. Actual data, according to the head of the IPCC, says there has been no warming for 17 years while CO2 kept going up. Actual data shows multiple periods in which CO2 went up while temperature did not.
To be honest, you know (or should know) that the Earth has continued to accumulate energy over the past 17 years, as both TOA and ocean heat content continue to confirm. All you can accurately say is that tropospheric temperatures have not increased, though they remain flat at record high levels.
They don’t measure heat content of the oceans.They can’t measure heat contents of the oceans. They take some data and then they use models to guess that the heat content of the oceans has continued to accumulate energy. It may well be true and the more heat content the oceans accumulate will lead to more and more increasing snowfall and the ice volume will continue to increase. In time, this ice will advance and cool the Earth just like it always has before.
Much like the record high levels during the Roman Warm Time and during the Medieval Warm time. After record high temperatures cause record high snow fall, temperatures do drop, again and again and again after warm times.
The over 3,000 ARGO floats would disagree with your assessment that we can’t measure heat content of the ocean. Your statement might have been true 5 or 10 years ago, but isn’t now.
you are living in the experiment and it can’t be repeated.
a better question is show me the experiment that proves dumping
C02 in the atmosphere is risk free
Dumping CO2 in the atmosphere makes green things grow better with less water. That is very very good. Reducing CO2 makes green things grow less while using more water. That is risk we can all see and understand.
Herman:
“Dumping CO2 in the atmosphere makes green things grow better with less water. That is very very good. Reducing CO2 makes green things grow less while using more water. That is risk we can all see and understand.”
Those are benefits. Your task was to show that dumping C02 was risk free. please note. there can be risks and benefits, the two are not logically incompatible. You might study logic. The risk is you will change your mind; the benefit is you might survive an exchange with folks on the internet without looking like a fool.
That’s a weird response to a simple request to show that the experiment we are running is risk free.
What possible logical connection would there be between a list of everything that is risk free and the question of the risk of dumping c02 in the atmosphere.
For example: Suppose I asked you for evidence that cutting taxes is risk free. would you respond asking for a list of things that is risk free?
No. you’d give me your best argument. But here you don’t give me your best argument, you ask for a list. And that list would say nothing about the risk of dumping c02.
for example: counting the keys on my keyboard right now is risk free.
there. whats that say about the risk of dumping c02? absolutely nothing. typing a period at the end of this sentence is risk free.
there, that said nothing about the risks of C02.
Steven Mosher, you of course know that nothing is risk free. You need to evaluate risk. Your question was BS and got the answer it deserved.
BTW, while counting the keys on your keyboard you missed the opportunity to make a valid point :)
Is there a risk with using more CO2? Yes. It there an immediate risk? Unlikely, if there is may as well party cause it is too late anyway. Is there a risk taking the advice of scientists that say there is a risk but overstate the confidence in their models that estimate the risk? Damn right!
Is there a risk taking the advice of scientists that screw the pooh by 20Wm-2 then sneak in a “minor adjustment” to fix their error? You betcha.
There is a risk of taking the advice of people with obvious agendas and post-modern concepts of honesty?
That’s a weird response to a simple request to show that the experiment we are running is risk free.
All right, nobody (with any sense) is going to try to “prove” that open-ended addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is risk-free. Such “proof” would require pretty much the same sort of super-simplistic models that have been used to “prove” the “extent” of the risk.
The correct response is this: show that the experiment involved in trying to mitigate that risk is risk-free. Certainly not to politicians in Australia, or the “people in charge” in the EU! Not to mention the people suffering from those experiments.
Risk on both sides is unquantifiable. But the biggest problem of this whole approach (to the debate) is that it channels thinking into binary choices. Consider the following question (plausibly asked by politicians):
Is the risk of catastrophic climate change from dumping CO2 into the atmosphere sufficient to justify the risk to the economy of using taxes or other mechanisms to raise the price of energy?
Never mind the fact that “other mechanisms” include removing subsidies to existing tech, something most free-marketers would (or should) generally approve. Never mind the fact that not subsidizing energy enough has often been risky behavior on the part of “developing” country governments (IMO). The key point is that the whole question channels thinking away from other approaches, such as major subsidies for somemany sorts for research. And how such subsidies should be implemented. And whether “intellectual property” laws need to be revamped as part of the package.
For example: Suppose I asked you for evidence that cutting taxes is risk free. would you respond asking for a list of things that is risk free?
IMO anybody who thinks “cutting taxes” is risk free is living in a dream world. There’s a variety of risks associated with it, but the one I want to point out is by analogy (and, yes, I know reasoning by analogy is suspect) with the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. Despite my being a died-in-the-wool libertarian, it was obvious to me that there were serious risks associated with such sudden de-regulation, because very large corporate bureaucracies and management had been adapting for decades to their presence. AFAIK nobody even tried to predict how the removal of the tension between managers and regulators would distort behavior relative to that in a (fictional) steady-state unregulated world.
Similarly, removing or reducing a tax that distorts the “free” market includes the risk of all sorts of bouncing around relative to the (ideal) behavior if the taxes had never been where they were. Of course, the proposed, intended, hoped-for benefit might be considered worth the risk. Not the same thing.
“Is there a risk taking the advice of scientists that screw the pooh by 20Wm-2 then sneak in a “minor adjustment” to fix their error?”
I figured out Cappy Dick’s modus operandi. He always sticks in the bit of subliminal scientific innuendo that serves to condescend to whoever is reading it.
What? You don’t understand what the 20Wm-2 relates to, or what the “minor adjustment” is? Well, you are ignorant and we skeptics know what we are talking about. That’s CD’s message.
Cliff Mass, I did a fast read. I think it’s a good summation.
At the end you say:
“But the bottom line is still clear, the human-induced warming signal will increase during this century to a point that its significance and importance will be undeniable. But the magnitude of this change is still uncertain.”
What’s certain is adding global-warming CO2 to the atmosphere is an experiment. We are on a path to levels of atmospheric CO2 modern civilization has never seen. It is a risky experiment.
“We are on a path to levels of atmospheric CO2 modern civilization has never seen.”
——-
We are not on a path, we have long since passed the point of being at the highest GH gas (really need to include methane and N2O) levels that modern civilization has seen. Each year sees new records. We are now approaching Pliocene levels– all in just a few centuries! The human GH gas volcano continues to erupt, and like all such events, natural feedback processes become overwhelmed.
Gates is right when he writes that the CO2 level is likely higher than it has been since human civilization started.
In fact, we have allegedly added over 100 ppmv to the estimated pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv..
The good news is that there has been absolutely no negative consequence that can be attributed directly to this added CO2.
So “adding CO2 to the atmosphere” has not had any negative consequences to date (and, quite possibly, some positive ones regarding plant growth, as has been mentioned here).
So, as I wrote Mosh up-thread, the null hypothesis, based on past experience, is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not result in negative consequences.
This is a pretty hard null hypothesis to falsify with empirical evidence but, hey, give it a go if you’d like to do so.
That was a good post– nicely summed up many things. One criticism though- I think you do injustice to the ever increasing data related to ocean heat content increases. Tropospheric temperatures are a poor reflection of the overall energy storage of the Earth as a system, and several independent studies are now more accurately identifying how much energy is being stored in the ocean. Thus, while natural variability does account for much of the low thermal inertia troposphere variability, the higher thermal inertia oceans continue to gain energy that fairly closely matches the TOA imbalance caused by increasing GH gas concentrations.
I think the view should be split. One view for land only which will reflect the fast transient feedbacks and one for combination land+ocean which will show the heat sinking capabilities of the ocean. Hansen has already shown these plots with his ground-breaking papers of the 1980s but they don’t seem as prevalent now.
This may add confusion to some but to those of us that like interlocking puzzle pieces, they are a revelation.
Bob T’s a smart enough guy, but is sort of a one-trick pony. On some very basic points he fails miserably– and unfortunately, the basic points he fails at keep him from moving forward. But what Bob is most excellent at is dispensing psychotropic cherries– he picks them from his orchard of carefully selected “facts” and feeds them out to the eager masses.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist: “Bob T’s a smart enough guy, but is sort of a one-trick pony.”
Thanks for the compliment, but my pony has a more than one trick. Ocean heat content AND satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans warmed naturally. And in addition to sea surface temperature data, the ENSO-related steps/shifts/regimes also make their presence known in lower troposphere and land+sea surface temperature data.
The issue is never one of how the oceans warm– they always warm naturally via solar SW. It is a matter of now they cool or give up that stored solar to the troposphere. The net flow of energy on this planet is always from ocean to atmosphere to space. Given that a large percentage of the energy in the troposphere at any given time came directly from the solar energy reservoir of the oceans, knowing all the factors that control the rate of the flow would be important. SST’s are tricky in that they tell us how warm the oceans are are on the surface and so make up part of the heat content of the upper level ocean, but they also can be good gauges for how much energy is actually leaving the ocean to the troposphere. Thus, SST’s need to be used with caution as they can tell us about energy that isn’t in the ocean anymore. Globally, the oceans have been adding about 0.5 x 10^22 Joules of energy per year for many decades, consistent with the TOA forcing from the additional GH gas concentrations. These GH additions are not adding energy to the oceans, but rather altering the rate of flow of that energy out.
Tisdale points out, quite correctly, that we do not have any meaningful measurements of OHC prior to ARGO in around 2003, and that since then the measured increase has been rather small (after correcting an initial cooling trend).
Them’s the facts, BBD.
We are talking about thousandths of a degree change over decades, and prior to ARGO this was measured by very spotty expendable XBT devices that even introduced a warming trend.
So let’s wait until we have a decade or so more of real data from a de-bugged ARGO system, before we even talk about OHC increase.
We have seen a definite shift of skeptics to the right on the sensitivity number. Now, as we see from Patrick Michaels at WUWT, they don’t even blink at values in the low 2’s. This convergence with the IPCC estimate is encouraging and has been rapid, having happened mostly in the past year. It used to be that no effect, no feedback or negative feedback were necessary to qualify as a “skeptic”, but now the category is more grey, especially as they now don’t disagree with the low end of the IPCC range. I would call all these people lukewarmers now. Some readers at WUWT may be suffering whiplash with their accepted views changing so fast.
Sorry. CO2 does nothing except correlate with temperature. All GHG IR “forcing” or thermalization caused by absorption/emission will be demonstrated in the physics lab to be zero.
The skeptics have been moving far faster than the consensus. I am fairly sure AR5 will still be near 3 for the average. The meeting point should be in the high 2’s, but then, of course, they wouldn’t be skeptics any more, unless they are evolving into the CO2-is-good-anyway type of skeptic. That is, they become skeptical of the harm rather than the warming per se. I think we are beginning to see this kind of shift too.
In the meantime the world is not warming – the background rate of warming is at most 0.08 degrees C/decade – and mainstream science is increasingly more about climate shifts than
_____
If you define “the world” to be tropospheric temperatures 2 meters off the ground over land then you might be correct, but that’s a pretty narrow view of the world and certainly not scientifically supportable.
This is discussed in the thread above. I have discussed this a number of times in the past with you. It is some bizarre space cadet round-a-bout constantly going back to the same point time and time again.
Not enough information – but intriguing timing. In the future cloud radiative forcing will keep changing associated with ocean and atmospheric patterns. Was most warming caused by cloud changes as the data says?
The sun quiets, La Nina intensifies, the climate shifts – the failure to see this or even allow for the possibility is down to groupthink and cognitive dissonance.
Rather than lapse into name calling, perhaps you could instead scientifically explain your definition of “the world” to be temperatures as measured 2m off the ground over land. This seems a rather narrow perspective, or perhaps that is what you intend so as to make some rather narrow point?
Overall Chief Hydro, there has been less energy leaving the ocean than entering it, and hence the oceans have warmed. Given that oceans in general have far more energy than the troposphere 2m off the ground, they are closer to being “the world”, but of course, the best defintion would actually be “the world” including atmosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere, or is this too broadly accurate for you?
My links are many and varied and go far beyond the surface temperature. It includes both surface and satellite cloud observation, TOA flux, ARGO and XBT data. It goes to the question of what changes and why.
You are an utterly pointless troll with nothing of any substance to contribute at all. Snarks about quoting peer reviewed science seem entirely without any merit other than to distract from a message you are ideologically incapable of acknowledging. No pretence even at science merely trivial AGW space cadet snarks. Groupthink in your case as you are incapable of cogitating about climate at all.
Gates makes the point again and again that I fail to look at the oceans when I have again and again discussed Karina von Schuckmann an ARGO. Groundhog day again obviously. I think I have said that to him before. A pointless nonsense. Insults? Please – move onto something new. Discuss the details. Accept the possibility that the world isn’t warming for at least a decade to 3. Sing songs. Beat a different drum. I don’t really care – but end the silliness that is the sum of your contributions.
Old Chief Hydro makes some very good points, and some that I fully agree with. Unfortunately his style is quite rude, and I would rather you give him a bit more of your alter-ego reasonableness.
In terms of keeping an open mind- that’s great advice for anyone claiming to be a true skeptic, eh? And as long as we have an active large carbon-volcano going off on this planet (i.e. anthropogenic GH gas emissions) we know that there are indeed surprises in store.
The skeptics have been moving far faster than the consensus.
Agree with you that the “consensus” moves more slowly.
Could it be that this is because dogma is difficult to change?
But I think it will be interesting to see whether or not IPCC accepts the several new studies, which all point to much lower 2xCO2 ECS than previously estimated by the models cited by IPCC, or whether it will “sweep them under the rug” (a term our hostess used in an earlier thread)..
It is a bit of a dilemma for IPCC, as I see it:
a) accept the new data and revise projections accordingly and risk losing the “fear factor”
b) ignore them or rationalize them away and risk losing the bit of credibility that IPCC still has
Sort of like being between a rock and a hard spot.
It will be interesting to see how the fake-skeptics shift in their view when the Arctic goes ice-free in the next few years. Perhaps they’ll just melt away like the summer Arctic sea ice.
I think they will ignore it they way they ignored the 2012 record as any kind of evidence of climate change because of their evident tunnel vision on the pause. When that is gone, then we’ll see what the new focus is, but the ‘outs’ are running out.
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008
warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale. Citation: Chylek, P., C. K. Folland,
G. Lesins, M. K. Dubey, and M. Wang (2009), Arctic air
temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14801, doi:10.1029/
2009GL038777.
Perhaps we are wrong and temperatures wont decline in the Arctic as elsewhere. Ignore it? Put it in some sort of reasonable context perhaps. The failure the acknowledge this as a possibility even is stupendously short sighted.
The Arctic sea-ice loss is an example of something happening faster than the climate models predicted, yet it draws less attention than the pause in global surface temperature where climate models are being criticized for seeming to be too fast unless you allow for natural variability.
At any given time, what percentage of the energy in the lower troposphere do you think came directly from the ocean– that is, it went from solar SW to ocean and then to troposphere in one form or another? Once you get that figure, then tell me how you see this percentage changing during the ENSO cycle, and finally tell me how you see this percentage changing as CO2 in the atmosphere goes from 280 to 400 to 500 ppm?
It assumes an energy imbalance at TOA and about the same energy imbalance at the surface. This results in warming of the world as a whole with all warming in the oceans. The imbalance is not measureable to anywhere near that precision. The complete energy equation is –
d(W&H)/dt = power in – power out
Where W&H is work and heat and includes kinetic and potential energy and enthalpy and we neglect the planetary heat source and the heat of combustion and anthropogenic fission. The latter are significant enough to be interesting. We will assume also that changes in angular momentum is minimal – but this is critically important to planetary heat transport, wind, clouds, currents and snow and ice.
Energy in changes by about half an effective Watt/m2 from a Solar Grand Maxima such as we had last century and a Maunder Minimum. Although you should not dismiss solar amplification through say top down Solar UV/ozone modulation of both the Southern and Northern Annular Modes.
With an increase in greenhouse gases the mean free IR photon path is decreased and more energy remains in the atmosphere at any one time. The atmosphere is warmer and the increase in downward IR decreases the IR loss from the oceans and the oceans warm. Theoretically – the coupled atmosphere/ocean system continues to warm until a new equilibrium is reached. At the new equilibrium the emissions to space are restored and the planet stops warming. The time to equilibrium is the theoretical ocean lag effect first enunciated by Carl-Gustav Arvid Rossby.
Practically the greenhouse gas changes are so small as to be invisible against a highly variable background. The so-called noise that always seem much more important than the signal. This is inextricably linked to ENSO and is 2 orders of magnitude greater than the theoretical interannual greenhouse signal. Cloud increases and the cloud top drops with La Nina and vice versa.
Norman Loeb insists that ‘CERES data show that clouds have a net radiative warming influence during La Nina conditions and a net cooling influence during El Nino, but the magnitude of the anomalies varies greatly from one ENSO event to another.’ In other words the longwave effect of changing cloud dominates over the shortwave. It seems a bit counter intuitive for low level marine stratocumulous – but we will take it as science provisionally true.
Over millennia the implications are mind blowing – repeated patterns of some 1000 odd years, mega-droughts and mega floods, the demise of the Minoan civilisation, the drying of the Sahel starting some 5,000 years ago.
CH, regarding decadal variability in models. Did you see Cliff Mass’s blog that he linked in this thread. This shows that models do have decadal variation, too much if anything. He criticized the IPCC for showing the ensemble mean which just has smooth rising curves, because this is exactly what the skeptics are seizing on as an inaccuracy. I think he is right.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | April 28, 2013 at 7:27 pm | Reply
It will be interesting to see how the fake-skeptics shift in their view when the Arctic goes ice-free in the next few years. Perhaps they’ll just melt away like the summer Arctic sea ice.
Not as interesting as everyone else in the northern hemisphere suffering through the harshest winters in 50 years while CAGW wave their pompoms saying “But the Arctic is warmer in the summer!”. ROFLMAO
You’re on the wrong side of this Gates. Mark my words.
Your long winded answer and energy budget chart did not answer the question. A simple percentage is what the question was asking for. Apparently instead of simply saying you don’t know, you’d rather go on and on. Here’s a hint: the answer is not in your energy budget chart. Here’s another hint: it’s probably bigger than you think.
Too bad you apparently haven’t a clue as to why parts of the NH had such a harsh winter. Also, in terms of me being on the “wrong side” of this, as a true skeptic (as opposed to the, you know, fake kind), I can’t possibly be on the wrong side since all I care about is the truth of any situation. The fact that you think in terms of “sides” and who’s on the wrong and right side tells me the kind of “skeptic” you must be– you know, the wrong kind.
Oh for God’s sake – you ask a childish question and I give you a full blooded answer with all sorts of interesting facts. The answer is in the simple energy budget. All of the energy from that isn’t reflected from cloud or aerosols is reflected is converted to IR at the surface. This is reemitted from the surface and interacts with greenhouse gas molecules on the way back to space – as I said if you would bother to read.
Your question is stupid – and your response even more so. You have just lost what little credibility remained to you.
Oh for God’s sake – you ask a childish question and I give you a full blooded answer with all sorts of interesting facts. The answer is in the simple energy budget. All of the energy from the sun that isn’t reflected from cloud or aerosols is converted to IR at the surface. This is reemitted from the surface and interacts with greenhouse gas molecules on the way back to space – as I said if you would bother to read.
Your question is stupid – and your response even more so. You have just lost what little credibility remained to you.
No – Jim – I didn’t check out another random blog on random climate science. And if you haven’t got it by now – just one more time. Initialised models for decadal projection and perturbed model runs for longer term probabilities. Fiddling around with demonstrations that models don’t monotonically increase seems the ultimate in absurdity. Of course they don’t – they are non-linear. Does this mean anything? Of course not.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | April 29, 2013 at 12:55 am |
“Too bad you apparently haven’t a clue as to why parts of the NH had such a harsh winter.”
Oh. And you do. LOL
“Also, in terms of me being on the “wrong side” of this, as a true skeptic (as opposed to the, you know, fake kind), I can’t possibly be on the wrong side since all I care about is the truth of any situation.”
Now there’s an honest admission from Gates “I can’t possibly be on the wrong side”.
Yeah I know Gates, you can’t possibly take the wrong side of an issue. You’re always on the side of truth, justice, and the American way.
“The fact that you think in terms of “sides” and who’s on the wrong and right side tells me the kind of “skeptic” you must be– you know, the wrong kind.”
David Springer | April 29, 2013 at 8:46 am |
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | April 29, 2013 at 12:55 am |
“Too bad you apparently haven’t a clue as to why parts of the NH had such a harsh winter.”
Oh. And you do. LOL
———-
Actually, I think I have a very good grasp of the dynamics of this NH winter weather. I can pretty much name the exact point at which the weather in much of Northern Europe changed- based on both the AO index and Central England Temperature, the two being highly correlated. December was quite balmy for England, but then around January 6 or so it all changed rapidly, with a wind shift to the east, and cold weather. The cause of all this is quite clearly apparent.
January was not a specially cold month with the unexceptional northerlies and easterlies starting around the 10th of the month and ceasing for the last week of the month-so it was a m0nth of two halves as they like to say in football parlance.
The high pressure was in such a position that it forced cold weather down to us and this was repeated in March. This of course, strictly speaking, is not winter, but that month was very notable for its northerlies/easterlies and very cold weather.
I know about easterlies as our house lies on the South Coast a few hundred yards from the sea and is not affected by any direction of wind except one from the East. An easterly also greatly affects our local beach. The easterly was exceptionally cold and strong for most of the month of March as our heating bills will testify.
Your “full blooded” answer unfortunately failed to give the actual answer. I did not ask about the overall surface to atmosphere energy interactions but specifically about ocean to troposphere energy flow.
So to make it clear to you once more here is the question slightly reworded: averaged over the whole earth, at any given time what percentage of the solar derived energy in the troposphere passed through the ocean first?
Rather than hand-waving and insulting and passing the question off a stupid, maybe you could just answer it. The flow of solar energy through the ocean to the troposphere is a key part of Earth’s climate and weather, as as the amount ebbs and flows over short and longer time frames, for a variety of reasons, so too does the weather and climate.
Nice of you to step in here. You of course know that your weather is dictated quite strongly by the AO index and of course it started to go negative in early January. The strong SSW event at that time pretty much dictated the course of events for the rest of the NH winter as it destroyed the polar vortex, reversed the overall flow to easterly, and allowed cold air to spill out of the Arctic to lower latitudes. Alignment of the CET with the AO index and the SSW event in early January shows a very high correlation.
R. Gates, “So to make it clear to you once more here is the question slightly reworded: averaged over the whole earth, at any given time what percentage of the solar derived energy in the troposphere passed through the ocean first? ”
About 39% ~134 Wm-2 is the true “surface” insolation and the oceans are ~70% of that “surface”. That results in .7*134=93.8 Wm-2 of the ~240 Wm-2 “average” insolation and leads to the TOA emissivity of ~0.61
Using “averages” doesn’t really do the system justice, but since TOA “average” and the “surface” “average” are the references we are forced to use, that is one ballpark answer.
A more accurate answer is likely 88Wm-2 latent plus a percentage of the global “sensible” of ~24Wm-2 giving ~112Wm-2 which is close to the “average” meridional energy flux. That 88Wm-2 is somewhat controversial because of poor accounting practices used in the past, but close enough for government work.
This is approximately an 18Wm-2 imbalance in the merdional flux distribution due to the shift of the thermal equator aka ITCZ which causes a bit of additional uncertainty at the true surface though. That was part of that accounting error.
I have been away for a few weeks so have only just seen your article over at Nevens. Well done! I have been suggesting for some time that you should write something. (no snark intended)
It is interesting as to how useful a proxy CET is for all sorts of things from the AO through to Northern Hemisphere temperatures and, to some extent, global temperatures. Always remembering Hubert Lambs maxim that ‘we can understand the temperature tendancy but not the precision’. Vuk also uses CET a great deal for his magentic correlations.
CET is also very highly scrutinsed so although it has its faults it is a useful measure and of course streches back into history, demonstrating a long slow thaw from 1690. Having now delved into the Met Office records I suspect the period around 1500 to 1540 or so was around as warm as today and from material in the Scott Polar Institute it appears the Northern sea route might have been open for the first time around those dates.
I am currently researching the Amount of UHI allowance the Met office factor in to CET. It seems very small bearing in nind the UK is one large heat island.
tonyb
R. Gates, btw, I second Tonyb on the article. Tsonis et al. mentioned the possibility of a Mongolian component in the NAO making the NAO a tripole. Since the ENSO region tends to shift from East to West, it likely has some influence on the strength of that portion of the longer term NAO pattern and likely QBO intensity.
Thanks for providing quickly what seemed difficult for Chief Hydro. I think your numbers are roughly accurate. Here’s the point, at any given time the oceans can be thought of as a quasi “second sun”, in that they provide a fairly healthy percentage of the energy in troposphere. Granted, this is just stored solar energy (actually similar in this way to fossil fuels), but given the delay or buffer they are, the notion of a quasi “second sun” is appropriate. Given this context, and considering the very small overall TOA imbalance that we are dealing with, it is enormously important to understand the short-term and long-term factors that control the rate of energy flow from this “second sun” to the troposphere. Current research in this area is quite important to the issue of the effects of increasing GH gas concentrations in the troposphere, in that they effect the rate of energy flow from the “second sun” to that troposphere and eventually to space.
climatereason, around 1500 the English fishermen discovered the Cod Banks of the US coast and further north. This led to an economic boom as salted fish was sold all over Europe. The salt fish exports were taxed and amount of salt fish sold by the English might show you something about the conditions.
R. Gates, ” Current research in this area is quite important to the issue of the effects of increasing GH gas concentrations in the troposphere, in that they effect the rate of energy flow from the “second sun” to that troposphere and eventually to space.”
Well, as you know I am pretty sure the impact of WMGHG is over estimated because of the illogical assumption that water vapor responds to WMGHGs instead of solar. The “second Sun” as you put it or the Earth true black body, as I consider it is the key to understanding climate on any longer time scale.
Chief does have a point on the synchronicity or chaotic part of climate. A large portion of the drop from 1955 to 1965 can be explained by Solar and OHT being out of phase and the warming/shift in Diurnal temperature range in 1985-90 by the two returning into phase. That is a larger than expected solar influence due to synchronization that is reducing the current estimates of climate sensitivity. Also because of the 1995 out of phase period, the amount of OH uptake during the in phase portion would be greater than otherwise.
Like they say at RealClimate, up until 1950 solar and aerosols where important climate influences. But they think that CO2 took over about 1950 instead of checking into why solar lost its edge. Solar phase shifted with internal ocean oscillations. Being married to a theory they lost the curiosity required to do their jobs.
Douglas et al. use phase locked loop modeling approaches which are better suited to locate these shifts and Tsonis et al, network analysis which also has merit.
So just keep an open mind. There are plenty of surprises in store.
Old Chief Hydro makes some very good points, and some that I fully agree with. Unfortunately his style is quite rude, and I would rather you give him a bit more of your alter-ego reasonableness.
In terms of keeping an open mind- that’s great advice for anyone claiming to be a true skeptic, eh? And as long as we have an active large carbon-volcano going off on this planet (i.e. anthropogenic GH gas emissions) we know that there are indeed surprises in store.
The energy pathways are apparent in the budget I provided – and which I discussed in some detail. You attempt a smarmy gothcha with some condescending idea that I don’t understand energy paths is this most basic sense and get it served up to you six ways from Tuesday.
You would do better to move on and think about the other implications of my comment. You asked about ENSO – I replied.
But you won’t. Far from being a sceptic – you are an AGW space cadet with delusions of moral and intellectual superiority operating from a position of groupthink and cognitive dissonance. You are light years away from being able to challenge your own assumptions.
‘R. Gates, “So to make it clear to you once more here is the question slightly reworded: averaged over the whole earth, at any given time what percentage of the solar derived energy in the troposphere passed through the ocean first? ”
So we are to make something of such baby physics? It is all derived from the sun. The SW heats the land and the top metre or so of the oceans typically which loses energy from the surface to the atmosphere in 3 ways. Seasonally at least – the ocean surface and the atmosphere are in thermal equilibrium. Or at least – that is the justification for using ocean water temperature for surface temperature. As the oceans are about 70% of the surface…
Utter nonsense. He would do better to consider the TOA radiant flux from Loeb – or any of the other data in my ‘long winded’ response. Yes it is a stupid questions repeated for reasons that have more to do with a smarmy AGW space cadet attempt at a gotcha than anything serious. Of course I am rude to such rudeness and nonsense. If he expects something different – he should behave with much more decorum.
Most of the people you call skeptics think that a doubling will cause between 1 and 2,5 degrees; my own estimate is 1.7. >3 is cAGW and any ‘hidden heat’ just destroys any possible that the ‘climate scientists’ and their fan club isn’t playing with a loaded deck.
This episode is going to be the modern Lysenkoism. It will be what older scientists teach the Ph.D’s. It will not only damage the charlatans, but the rest of research science.
The slope of the plot allows us to state we are about 1.15 degrees warmer that the per-Industrial temperature and that at 560 ppm we will be at 1.2 degrees warmer than at present. The total change we would have for a doubling of CO2 is about 2.4 degrees.“
And that was on a thread called “10 signs of intellectual honesty”.
How could you DocMartyn? You have let the auditors down. Or have you given the auditors a reason for being?
Web. When the facts change, I change. After my initial estimate, I had a look at natural variability, and came up with a lower estimate.
The upper level for C.E. is IMO about 2.8 the lower level is about 1, but I will plump for 1.7, and guess that 2x[CO2] will happen about 2100.
560 ppm at 2100 would take a lot of global-scale mitigation, a reduction in carbon per capita despite global development and population growth, and leaving fossil fuels in the ground. While it is good to support global policies that restrict it to that, more likely values without global policies are in the 700 ppm range.
560 ppm at 2100 would take a lot of global-scale mitigation, a reduction in carbon per capita despite global development and population growth, and leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
560 ppmv is at the low end of IPCC scenarios and storylines, all of which are based on NO Kyoto style climate mitigation actions.
But let’s look at your figures.
Human CO2 emissions from all sources were around 36 GtCO2 in 2012.
Human population was ~7.0 billion, so per capita CO2 emission was 5.14 tons CO2
Human CO2 emissions from all sources were around 16 GtCO2 in 1970.
Human population was ~3.7 billion, so per capita CO2 emission was 4.32 tons CO2
So since 1970 human per capita CO2 generation increased by around 19% (with NO efforts to move from fossil fuels).
Population growth rate has already started to slow down from the exponential rate of 1.7% per year we saw from 1970 to 2000 (it was only 0.8% per year since 2000).
UN estimates project a further sharp decline in population growth, with world population reaching 10.5 billion by 2100 (check Wiki for projected development)
To reach 560 ppmv by 2100 would require a reduction in per capita CO2 emissions of over 30% by 2100. This could occur if all future coal-fired power generation were switched over to nuclear (Peter Lang’s proposal).
If we assume that per capita CO2 emissions will continue to rise, by 30% until 2100, despite some efforts to switch to other sources, such as nuclear and renewables, we end up with a CO2 concentration of ~640 ppmv by 2100 This seems to me like a reasonable upper limit.
If we assume that per capita CO2 emissions will remain at the present level, we end up with a CO2 concentration of around 600 ppmv by 2100.
So your 560 ppmv estimate for year 2100 does represent a reduction in per capita fossil fuel usage (as you wrote), which may not be reasonable, unless we switch new electrical power generation from coal to nuclear, starting now.
A more reasonable estimate in my opinion, assuming no Kyoto-type climate initiatives, would be 600 to 640 ppmv.
Max,
This will be published in Controversy Corner
in the first edition of S U-g Journal… controversy
Corner is a collection of letters, poems, dealing
with serf concerns.. Your copy will be delivered.
Bts
Guess that serf-like remark qualfies yer fer yer copy.
Say, what about submitting one of yer short stories
with a twist ter the ‘Serf Literary Section,’ mosomoso?
A serf.
… Then Noah looked out through the driving rain
The unicorns were hiding, playing silly games
Kicking and splashing while the rain was pouring
Oh them silly unicorns
There were green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty-backed camels and some chimpanzees
Noah cried, “Close the door, for the rain is pouring
And we just can’t wait for no unicorns”
And then the ark started moving, it drifted with the tide
The unicorns looked up from the rocks and they cried
And the waters came down and started floating them away
That’s why you’ve never seen a unicorn to this day
(according to Shel Silverstein on Inside Folk Songs, 1962)
In case you missed the message, Girma is referring to the IPCC logic when comparing the late 20th C warming period (IPCC’s “poster period”) with the statistically indistinguishable early 20th C warming period.
1. Our models cannot explain the early 20th C warming period.
2. We know that the statistically indistinguishable late 20th C warming period was caused principally by human CO2.
3. How do we know this?
4. Because our models cannot explain it any other way.
Oh, I know that. So what ? If you want a naive projection, based on the assumption change in average global temperature is just a function of time, which is what Girma is suggesting, extending an OLS line out to the future beats his method. But time is not an explanation of causality, so neither is science.
I don’t think there should be a change in the CO2 versus Sea Level Rise relationship before and after 1960, but they do as shown in the following chart:
“The CO2 Record in Plant Fossils
“Plant fossils obtained from sedimentary rocks and peat deposits are a relatively new tool being used to unravel Earth’s carbon dioxide (CO2) history. Tiny pores on plant leaves and needles called stomata regulate carbon dioxide absorption and water vapor release. Stomata numbers decrease during times of high atmospheric CO2, and increase when atmospheric CO2 is low.
…
“Because plant stomata numbers do not change after the leaves or needles fall from the parent plant, they make a good indicator or proxy of atmospheric CO2 in Earth’s past. What they show is that the popular belief that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were a steady 280 ppm (parts per million) may be incorrect.
“As illustrated below, studies of stomata for recent and fossilized plants show that atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years have been higher and much more variable than previously supposed. Much of what we think we know about CO2 levels of the past 800,000 years is based on the ice core record.
…
“The Last 15,000 Years– Reconsidered
Studies of plant stomata show that the currently-held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view. CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm– the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm (see ref. 10-20).
“Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm– not the exception.”
“Stomata are microscopic pores found in leaves and the stem epidermis of plants. They are used for gas exchange. The stomatal density in some C3 plants will vary inversely with the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Stomatal density can be empirically tested and calibrated to CO2 changes over the last 60 years in living plants. The advantage to the stomatal data is that the relationship of the Stomatal Index and atmospheric CO2 can be empirically demonstrated…
…
“When stomata-derived CO2 (red) is compared to ice core-derived CO2 (blue), the stomata generally show much more variability in the atmospheric CO2 level and often show levels much higher than the ice cores…
…
“Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.”
==============
“Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.”
Says it all, you only have to think of Keeling sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano after not finding enough carbon dioxide in Antarctica and know how Callendar cherry picked his starting point to see what been going on here.
“Says it all, you only have to think of Keeling sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano after not finding enough carbon dioxide in Antarctica and know how Callendar cherry picked his starting point to see what been going on here.”
The Mauna Loa background CO2 measurements match (plus or minus 2ppm) the measurements effected at Point Barrow (Alaska), Alert (Greenland), American Samoa, South Pole, a few more stations as well as samples taken from high-altitude balloons all over the world.
Oh right, in a global warming scare industry noted for its manipulations of data, beginning with Keeling and Callendar, you think that measurements haven’t been tampered with?
So much so that you’d willingly ignore the ludicrous scenario of Keeling sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano in the world’s great volcanic carbon dioxide producing hot spot and this not ring alarm bells when it is claimed to be a “pristine unadultered by local carbon dioxide production measuring spot”..?
Keeling kept it in the family, his son took over running the data gathering from the stations at Scripps and then the whole shebang taken over by the US goverment corrupted agencies.
From a post I’ve just made elsewhere:
The Callendar/Keeling fraud to pretend to track increasing levels of the not possible to tell apart man-made from volcanic carbon dioxide* by cherry picking a low start point is contradicted by measurements by real scientists.
This AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect illusion has fraud written all the way through it.
“Both tectonic and volcanic CO2 are magmatic and depleted in both 13C & 14C. In the absence of statistically significant isotope determinations for each volcanic province contributing to the atmosphere, this makes CO2 contributions of volcanic origin isotopically indistinguishable from those of fossil fuel consumption. It is therefore unsurprising to find that Segalstad (1998) points out that 96% of atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from volcanic degassing. So much for the Royal Society’s unexplained “chemical analysis”. If you believe that we know enough about volcanic gas compositions to distinguish them chemically from fossil fuel combustion, you have indeed been mislead. As we shall see, the number of active volcanoes is unknown, never mind a tally of gas signatures belonging to every active volcano. We have barely scratched the surface and as such, there is no magic fingerprint that can distinguish between anthropogenic and volcanogenic sources of CO2.”
I’ve made CO2 measurements myself by both chemical and electronic methods. My measurements in Texas agree with those of Mauna Loa Observatory. Do I need to point out that I’m not part of a global conspiracy lying about CO2 measurements?
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and Mauna Loa measurements are duplicated everyfrickinwhere by amateurs and professionals alike. Write that down.
David Springer | April 30, 2013 at 6:02 am | I’ve made CO2 measurements myself by both chemical and electronic methods. My measurements in Texas agree with those of Mauna Loa Observatory. Do I need to point out that I’m not part of a global conspiracy lying about CO2 measurements?
What don’t you understand – they began measurements with a cherry picked low figure so they could pretend to show an increase – all they’ve done is get back to real pre industrial levels..
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and Mauna Loa measurements are duplicated everyfrickinwhere by amateurs and professionals alike. Write that down.
It is not well mixed in the atmosphere – because it physically can’t be. It’s heavier than air and all rain is carbonic acid. It’s heavier than air, it does not readily rise in air, so, where production of it there will be where you find it the majority of it, plants breathe it out as well as in. It can’t accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years, it can’t defy gravity.
Have you looked to see how they measure at Mauna Loa? They arbitrarily decide the cut off point between volcanic and the mythical “background” – “man-made” can’t be told apart from volcanic for any practical sense.
Keeling wasn’t a scientists, he was a man with an anti coal agenda, in less than two years! To show a trend. Wake up, that isn’t science. He had declared that he had found a trend that “man-made” was rising.. less than two years and no show and tell that he could tell it apart from volcanic.
If they can tell it apart from volcanic, why do they cherry pick when “volcanic” ends at Mauna Loa to then claim what is left is “background uncontaminated”?
The AIRS conclusion, from all their data including top and bottom of the troposphere which they still haven’t released, is that “Carbon dioxide is not at all well mixed in the atmosphere but lumpy” Much to their astonishment, because they were brainwashed in the education system to believe it was well mixed.
No Myrrh, I’ve personally observed, on my own measurement gear, the readings go up for the last 60ppm in perfect synchronicity with Mauna Loa. Not everything in the global warming brouhaha is a lie. The reliable facts are few and far between but among those are Mauna Loa’s CO2 measurements confirmed by others all around the world.
Myrrh in regard to CO2 being heavier and sinking. Oxygen is heavier than nitrogen. If atmospheric gases sorted themselves out by weight the first match you struck would be your last because it would be almost pure oxygen at the surface and the first spark would incinerate everything.
It’s statements like CO2 isn’t well mixed because its heavier than other gases that earns you the village idiot moniker.
Springer doesn’t know his periodic table and is ignorant of the composition of the atmosphere. Argon and CO2 are heavier than the main constituents.
That’s the kind of factless reasoning that places Springer and Myrrrh in the same boat, completely adrift of conventional scientific thought processes.
I’m telling you, most of this fake skepticism is just a put-on, driven by the same pranking urge that propels shows like coast-to-coast AM.
They hate it when the realists come around and spoil the fun. Unfortunately, unlike a radio show, where you can control the broadcast with the 7-second delay switch, you can’t prevent the truth from making an appearance on a blog comment.
WebHubTheCrackpot said: ”Springer doesn’t know his periodic table and is ignorant of the composition of the atmosphere. Argon and CO2 are heavier than the main constituents.That’s the kind of factless reasoning that places Springer and Myrrrh in the same boat”
Crackpot, the man that constructed the ”Periodic Table” camarad Mendelyeev; must be turning upside down in his grave… argon yes; BUT, CO2 is a molecule and will never be found on the periodic table. Encompassing CO2 in the periodic table = exposes your ignorance!
2] during the day, the ”carbon atom” in the CO2 molecule intercepts the sunlight -> that makes the 2 oxygen atoms in that molecule to expand much more than surrounding O&N atoms-> they lift him up = CO2 exposed to the sunlight IS NOT AS HEAVY AS ARGON OR FREE OXYGEN. At night is different story. same as: gas bottle is heavier than air, BUT, by warming the hot air balloon -> lifts the balloon and the bottle = same as carbon atom warms the two oxygen atoms. and goes and stays up all day. I told you to read everything that is on my website; you wouldn’t be making a fool of yourself, cheers!
This from an insane dweeb incapable of anything but contentless drivel, preening and prattling. Give it a rest – preferably just p_ss off because it is all so utterly tedious and trivial.
WebThe Crackpot said: ”All the Aussie crackpots come out when it is night in the USA. Stefan meet your fellow Australian cranks Girma and the Chief.”
Girma is a calatoral damage of the massive misleading propaganda; we should all feel sorry for him. They monitor on 6 000m3 temp; from that data – he knows the temp on the WHOLE planet, to a thousandth of a
degree…? his brains has being reduced to a 3y old chimp. poor thing…
on the other hand, the Chief is a bulshine merchant, same as you. I wander why you two are arguing…? Because of people like Captain kangaroo, captain Dallas and similar, I have given them the label ” Fake Skeptics” Warmist hope in 90% possibility of global warming in 100y; the ”captains” believe 101% in global warming, but classify themselves as
”skeptics”… ?! i hope their mother loves them
I perused some of the original stomata studies (rather than the conspiracy theorists who seems to be misinterpreting them in your quotes) and I found such caveats as : ” […] In our new SdF-inferred [CO2] record, reconstruction uncertainties are larger than that (combined reconstruction uncertainty is c. ± 67 ppmv), and can therefore not confirm the conclusion of significantly higher [CO2] values during the period Ad 1700–1850 with any level of confidence (Figure 4). The reconstruction uncertainty is almost as large as the [CO2] changes that occurred during glacial terminations as revealed by analysis of CO2 trapped in Antarctic ice cores (Lüthi et al., 2008). It is essential to reduce the reconstruction uncertainty.”
Stomatal-based inference models for reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 concentration: a method assessment using a calibration and validation approach,
W. Finsinger and F. Wagner-Cremer, The Holocene 19,5 (2009) pp. 757–764
Pierre-Normand | April 30, 2013 at 6:42 am | I perused some of the original stomata studies (rather than the conspiracy theorists who seems to be misinterpreting them in your quotes) and I found such caveats as : ” […] In our new SdF-inferred [CO2] record, reconstruction uncertainties are larger than that (combined reconstruction uncertainty is c. ± 67 ppmv), and can therefore not confirm the conclusion of significantly higher [CO2] values during the period Ad 1700–1850 with any level of confidence (Figure 4). The reconstruction uncertainty is almost as large as the [CO2] changes that occurred during glacial terminations as revealed by analysis of CO2 trapped in Antarctic ice cores (Lüthi et al., 2008). It is essential to reduce the reconstruction uncertainty.”
Stomatal-based inference models for reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 concentration: a method assessment using a calibration and validation approach,
W. Finsinger and F. Wagner-Cremer, The Holocene 19,5 (2009) pp. 757–764
You said “some of the original stomata studies” – is this the only such caveat you found?
What strikes you looking at say, the fig 5 on the debunk page which has that study?
What strikes you when looking at all the different historic measurements of CO2 since this began to be measured seriously?
For me, the first thing was that the ice core record looks out of place, like the Hockey Stick looks incongruous to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the variations in temps like the Roman Warm and MWP and LIA. So the ice core data looks just flat odd against all the variations noted in the earlier records, from which Callendar cherry picked a particularly low value and from a discredited study letting none of the higher number interfere with his agenda, and variations is what one would expect of carbon dioxide as a real gas eaten and breathed out by real plants – so my first thought on the odd flat ice core records was, of course, there isn’t the plant life there to be producing it in all its lumpy variety. As the AIRS study concluded from its whole study including the unreleased top and bottom troposphere, carbon dioxide wasn’t very well mixed at all, but lumpy.
Later I found that there were problems with the ice core data, particularly as noted by Jaworowski:
“Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C, (and) in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen– guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to — 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure — high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air.”
Zbigniew Jaworowski (8)
expert in the atmospheric deposition of radioactive contaminants in glacial ice http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
“For example, the Siple Antarctic ice core indicates that carbon dioxide reached a level of about 330ppm in about 1900. Comparison with the 1960 initial Mauna Loa measurement of 260ppm suggests that either (1) the Siple data is just wrong, or (2) there was a drop of about 60ppm in carbon dioxide level between 1900 and 1960, or (3) it takes 80-some years for the carbon dioxide gas system to close.[4] This discrepancy does not appear to have been resolved;[5] but the smooth shape of the Siple core carbon dioxide curve as a function of core depth (approaching a constant level with increasing core depth/age) suggests it might not ever have been a closed system. Over time, carbon dioxide in the sampled Siple ice may have gradually equilibrated to a constant carbon dioxide value of about 280ppm now indicated for the 1720-year old and older layers. Also, this core suffered some melting during transport and prior to analysis.[6]”
As the last link says, there is a great deal of variety in the ice core records, some better correlate to periods of known warming and cooling and so on, and it’s this point that really annoys me – that the dedicated hard graft of real scientists working now and those in the past who conscientiously measured and kept records for the benefit of scientist in the future and through them for us all, have been completely undermined by this AGW fraud. Whatever has been found has a story to tell, other factors in play can’t be thought about clearly if there’s an over riding agenda building in a bias.
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D.
“Attempts to support the global warming thesis with analyses of the carbon dioxide content of air bubbles in glacial ice samples, are based on fudged data and ignorance of the physical processes of glacial ice formation.
“From its very beginning, the hypothesis on anthropogenic
greenhouse warming was tainted with a biased selection
of data, ad hoc assumptions that were not verified experimentally,
and one-sided interpretations. Such symptoms of affliction,
which Irving Langmuir called “pathological science,”1
are evident in the publications of G.S. Callendar, who truly can
be regarded as the father of the modern “man-made climatic
warming” hypothesis. In 1938, Callendar revived Svante Arrhenius’s
idea of man-made climatic warming, now 100 years
old.2 Callendar claimed that because of fossil fuel burning, the
average atmospheric concentration of CO2 had increased from
the 19th century value of 274 parts per million volume (ppmv)
to 325 ppmv in 1935, that is, by 18.6 percent; and that between
1880 and 1935, this caused an increase in the global
surface temperature of 0.33°C.3- 5 However, the measured 19th
century CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere ranged from
about 250 to 550 ppmv (Figure 1), and the average concentration
estimated from these values was 335 ppmv.6
…
“The results of ice core analyses are supposed to be “the only possible validation of models
that were set up to describe future climatic changes caused
by anthropogenic emissions.”10 On the basis of these analyses,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change11 declared
that the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere was 26 percent lower than the current level. The
IPCC also declared that the pre-industrial concentration of
N2O was 19 percent lower, and that CH4 was 215 percent
lower than current levels. However, no study has yet demonstrated
that the content of greenhouse trace gases in old ice,
or even in the interstitial air from recent snow, represents the
atmospheric composition.”
In the AIRS conclusion, they said they would have to go away and learn something about winds, they might even find as I did that the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect doesn’t have any winds because their propertyless massless ideal gases zipping at great speeds through empty space not subject to gravity have no way of forming them, but I hope at least they can learn enough to see through the bs that passes for ‘science’ in AGW from the now corrupted national science bodies: –
“AIRS data show that carbon dioxide is not well mixed in Earth’s atmosphere, results that have been validated by direct measurements. The belt of carbon dioxide concentration in the southern hemisphere, depicted in red, reaches maximum strength in July-August and minimum strength in December-January. There is a net transfer of carbon dioxide from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere produces three to four times more human produced carbon dioxide than the southern hemisphere. Image credit: NASA”
The sleight of hand inclusion of total bs among facts to further the “well-mixed” meme..
It’s on the debunk link to see the graphic.
What is certain, among all these uncertainties, is that the fictions such as highlighted on the geocraft link from the IPCC and Gore from the agenda driven Callendar/Keeling manipulations of science are the norm in AGW’s Greenhouse Effect, showing a remarkable consistency of dedication to this science fraud.
Langmuir’s “pathological science” the only conclusion possible.
What I don’t get about Myrrrrrhhhh is that on the one hand he/she is so insanely ignorant about basic physics, yet on the other hand, he/she will go through this incredibly arcane biochemical argument concerning stomata as if it is perfectly solid science.
The juxtaposition between these two views can fill a canyon and it makes me think that Myrrrrrhhhh is just another one of those Aussie pranksters continuing to play a long-running joke on unsuspecting readers of the comments section.
Hope this helps.
signed,
Confused and Concerned (but not born yesterday)
Myrrh asked: “What strikes you looking at say, the fig 5 on the debunk page which has that study?”
What’s most striking about this figure is that the “debunker” fails to display the error bars from the original studies where the data comes from, and fails to mention that the standard error is much larger than the claimed discrepancy with ice core records, and also much larger than the apparent high frequency variability. The misrepresentation on this graph also consists in joining the separate original data points (that are not even shown) with a continuous curve when the original studies only present discrete measurements with large overlapping error bars. (The error bars, of course, mostly encompass the much more precise ice core record.) The “debunker” doesn’t even attempt to show running averages. He just goes out if his way to misrepresents error noise as a real high frequency signal. This constitutes, at best, a work of self delusion.
Pierre-Normand | April 30, 2013 at 11:19 pm | Myrrh asked: “What strikes you looking at say, the fig 5 on the debunk page which has that study?”
What’s most striking about this figure is that the “debunker” fails to display the error bars from the original studies where the data comes from, and fails to mention that the standard error is much larger than the claimed discrepancy with ice core records, and also much larger than the apparent high frequency variability. The misrepresentation on this graph also consists in joining the separate original data points (that are not even shown) with a continuous curve when the original studies only present discrete measurements with large overlapping error bars. (The error bars, of course, mostly encompass the much more precise ice core record.) The “debunker” doesn’t even attempt to show running averages. He just goes out if his way to misrepresents error noise as a real high frequency signal. This constitutes, at best, a work of self delusion.
Hmm, I see. So you didn’t find any other such in the “some of the orginal stomata studies” you perused – my question was:
“You said “some of the original stomata studies” – is this the only such caveat you found?”
Gosh, what changed with Wagner? From his confident:
” “The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.”
F. Wagner, et.al., 2004
Paleoecologist and stomata research scientist (13)”
To the strange message under Finsinger assuming higher CO2 levels pre industrial must be wrong because they don’t fit the IPCC agenda, which has made a poster child of the unproven ice core claim that CO2 levels were unchanging pre our petty little foray into industry in the Industrial Revolution?
I like the bit were they say that maybe these higher pre IR figures are what drove the global warming – so which is it? Is it the satanic mills Industrial Revolution of the Hockey Stick fame that did the dirty on us and drove up CO2 levels, or, shock horror, maybe it was that the warming of our coming out of the missing from the AGW narrative LIA which drove up CO2 levels..?
The good thing about papers like this, is that do show us what they found. One day when the spell is broken and we can put the Hockey Stick and Yamal in the cess pit outside of science where they belong we could start looking for a cure for the sociopathic defect which has been driving this AGW fraud..
Myrrh rhetorically asked: “Gosh, what changed with Wagner? From his confident: ‘The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.’ ”
Nothing changed. That study purports to derive from stomata proxy reconstructions some centenial timescale 30ppm signals that may be smoothed over in the ice cores. (That may or may not be valid. I’m not competent enough to judge the validity of that study). It doesn’t, however, purport to display any systematic discrepancy from ice cores over multi-centennial timescales; it seems to simply assume that CO2 is well mixed; and it doesn’t hint at the rather larger swings that would result from ignoring the error bars from individual proxy measurements — what your ice-core ‘debunker’ had done.
“climatereason, around 1500 the English fishermen discovered the Cod Banks of the US coast and further north. This led to an economic boom as salted fish was sold all over Europe. The salt fish exports were taxed and amount of salt fish sold by the English might show you something about the conditions.”
When are you implying that Atlantic cod off the coast of North America actually became a significant contributor to cod market in Europe? I’d believe 18th century but before that I need a link. That fishery possibly discovered by Eurpeans before Columbus but my reading indicates it was a couple centuries before it was being exploited for European market.
My house lies adjacent to the headland shown in the first photo on the left. 1 mile in the opposite direction is Labrador Bay, named for obvious reasons. Fishermen from my port have been fishing in the cod banks since 1492 and there are many records to illustrate this. Cod was salted in barrels on the beach not 200 yards from me.
Plymouth Docks around 30 miles away have records going back to the 12th century of catches made and cod has been prominent at varioius periods during that time. The coming and goung of fish is an excellent proxy for the climate change over the centuries as cold water and warm water fish change places.
I wasn’t questioning English cod fishing in general in the North Atlantic. I was questioning the English sailing thousands of miles to the cod fishery off the coast of North America in the 15th century. Or any century for that matter. Atlantic crossings are too costly to undertake just to bring back a common fish that can found much closer to home.
Cod was caught in the area by the Vikings but mostly at subsistence levels but around the 1400’s larger vessels, better nets, better salting techniques, were developed and the huge cod grounds off newfoundland was discovered. Salted cod was a valuable delicacy and traded all round Europe.
As for cod being found (in quantity) much closer to home, that depended on the climate of the time. The late 1400’s to around 1540 appear to have been around as warm as today and therfore cod may not have been as plentiful (or as large) closer to Home.
International Trading by sea was far more common than is generally recognised. Close by me is St Michaels Mount where tin has been traded for several thousand years. There are many accounts of regular visits by the Romans, indeed it was one of the reasons they invaded us.
Okay, I guess the fishing closer to home must have not been very good to make transatlantic fishing trips for a rough fish like cod profitable. I found this:
The voyage of John Cabot in 1497 directs European attention to the rich stocks of fish in the waters around Newfoundland. Soon fishing fleets from the Atlantic nations of Europe are making annual visits to catch cod. They bring with them large supplies of salt. Summer settlements are established, on the coasts of Newfoundland, to process the fish before it is transported back to European markets in the autumn.
England plays a leading role in the trade, and in 1583 Humphrey Gilbert formally annexes Newfoundland on behalf of the English queen. It is a claim which does not go undisputed – particularly by France, whose fleets are the main rivals of the English in these waters.
Welcome back, tony.
Fish comings and goings a better proxy fer climate
change than tree rings I surmise …but not maybe
tomato growing. )
Beth the serf.
I will be putting in our tomatoes in the next few days and shall keep you informed of progress. Whether this crop grows or dies is all anecdotal of course. However, when I reveal the results of the highly scientific tomato ring analysis everyone will sit up and take notice.
Herman Alexander Pope predicted this last year based on summer Arctic sea ice extent. Good call Pope. You may be onto something.
—————————————————————————————-
Awful April: Spring hard to find across northern USA
Several cities had their snowiest single month of all time in April.
April has been a freakishly cold month across much of the northern USA, bringing misery to millions of sun-starved and winter-weary residents from the Rockies to the Midwest.
“The weather map … looks like something out of The Twilight Zone,” Minneapolis meteorologist Paul Douglas of WeatherNation TV wrote on his blog last week.
Record cold and snow has been reported in dozens of cities, with the worst of the chill in the Rockies, upper Midwest and northern Plains. Several baseball games have been snowed out in both Denver and Minneapolis.
Cities such as Rapid City, S.D.; Duluth, Minn.; and Boulder, Colo., have all endured their snowiest month ever recorded. (In all three locations, weather records go back more than 100 years.) In fact, more than 1,100 snowfall records and 3,400 cold records have been set across the nation so far in April, according to the National Climatic Data Center.
Unfortunately for warm-weather lovers, after some mild temperatures the past few days, the chill is forecast to return as the calendar turns to May: Accumulating snow is forecast overnight Tuesday night and Wednesday in Denver and in Minneapolis-St.Paul by Wednesday night and Thursday, said AccuWeather meteorologist Mark Paquette.
And across much of the central USA, temperatures will be from 25 to 45 degrees colder on Wednesday than they were Monday, according to AccuWeather. For instance, Denver should see a high of 35 degrees Wednesday, after a high near 80 on Monday.
As for the cause of the ongoing cold? A stuck weather pattern that’s continued to funnel frigid air into the central USA from Canada for the past few months. Specifically, the troublemaker is what’s known as a “blocking” area of high pressure over Greenland, eastern Canada and the North Atlantic Ocean, which favors a cold northwest flow of air over the central and eastern USA, Paquette said.
If you want warmth, he said, head west: Hot, dry, windy conditions will prevail this week in much of southern California and Arizona, where highs will top out in the 90s.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, the snow, rain and sleet that has dragged well into April means money lost for golf courses that have been unable to open. Territory Golf Club director Doug Stang in St. Cloud was asked last week if he’ll ever see anything like this spring again:
“I don’t think so,” he said. “This is just too bizarre.”
Other chilly April 2013 records, according to AccuWeather and the Weather Channel:
•Both Bismarck, N.D., and Pierre, S.D., had their snowiest Aprils on record.
•International Falls, Minn., recorded a low of just 4 degrees April 20. In records dating to 1897, it had never been this cold before this late in April.
•Baton Rouge: The low temperature bottomed out at 39 degrees on the morning of April 20. This was the lowest temperature ever recorded this far into the spring season.
•Sheridan, Wyo.: Had a bone-chilling low of -1 degree on the morning of April 23.
•Amarillo, Texas: The low temperature dropped to 21 degrees on April 24. This is the coldest Amarillo has been this late in the season in records dating to 1892.
•Fargo, N.D.: The first 50-degree or higher temperature reading of the year occurred April 26. Previously, since 1881, Fargo had never had to wait past April 17 to get at least one 50-degree day.
Yeah but Europe drank the global warming Kool-Aid and the lesson is lost there. Critically the United States didn’t drink the Kool-Aid, never ratified Kyoto, and this serves to lessen the chance of it entering into any similar international treaty in the future.
Yeah, it actually is that simple. The United States Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto climate treaty. The only other countries in the world who didn’t get onboard with it were Andorra, Palestine, Vatican City, and South Sudan. What the hell were all the rest of you thinking when you let your governments do that?
Of course the US has very influential alarmists. It’s got very influential everything on the world stage which kind of goes hand in hand with being a super-power fercrisakes. The fact remains that if you’re a CAGW skeptic the
John Carpenter states, on the thread 10 signs of intellectual honesty
“John Carpenter | April 21, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
@@@@@
“Can you show me one estimate that is a measurement?”
Yes, all of them.
Note that John’s statment is not qualified; it is absolute. He does not state that all measurements, except thos made by Jim Cripwell, are measurements. He implies that all measurements, even those made by Jim Cripwell, are measurements.
Similarly, on the same thread, Steven Mosher writes “My position is pretty clear. There is no categorical difference between measuremments and estimates. both exist along a spectrum of accuracy and precision, with “measurements” being most precise and estimates being less precise. And further that our focus should be on the accuracy of the ‘measurements” rather than on Jim’s silly attempt to carve out some special place for MEASUREMENT. Jim’s response was that measurement was categorically different from estimations because
A) his teacher told him so
B) the dictionary said so.”
Now I observe that in all modern temperature/time graphs, there is no measured CO2 signal against the background of natural noise. From this empirical evidence, I estimate that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is 0.001 C.
Now I suggest that that there are two alternatives, both of which can not be correct. Either
1. The value of 0.001 C is a SWAG (my opinion).
or
2. The value of 0.001 C is a measurement (what I deduce from John’s and Steven’ logic)
Which is correct?
A measurement is obtained by the act of measuring. Webster defines measure (verb) as using an instrument to obtain a dimension, quantity, or some other standard unit. Mosher is just being argumentative. An estimate is a rough approximation of something. You can estimate your weight from the size and fit of your clothing. You’d measure it by stepping onto a scale. There’s no ambiguity. AGW boffins and pretend boffins like Mosher want to present climate science as a hard science like chemistry so their conclusions carry more weight but in reality it’s a soft science like economics and conclusions are really no more than educated guesses with some less educated than others.
Mosher isn’t using English very effectively. I think what he’s trying to say isn’t that out there. My interpretation is that he’s just saying that measurements are mostly proxy measurements, even when we think they’re direct. For example; there is no way to measure temperature directly. You can use a thermocouple, which is really a voltage, or you can use a thermometer, which is really expansion of a liquid. These are accurate measurements, but all involve some other proxy measurement.
Where I think he goes off the rails is in talking about ‘estimates’. It’s a question of semantics. For most people, an estimate is a shortcut. Estimates are quick and dirty calculations that make simplifying assumptions to get to an answer faster, at the expense of accuracy. You do a cost estimate on a project, because you need to know roughly what it’s going to cost, but you won’t know exactly how much it costs until it’s been designed, bid, and built.
An estimate, where you deliberately chose to cut corners in order to know something without an inordinate amount of effort, is not the same thing as measurement error, where you may not have a more accurate way to measure something. One can be improved, and the other can’t. Any similarity is sophistry.
David Springer: A measurement is obtained by the act of measuring. Webster defines measure (verb) as using an instrument to obtain a dimension, quantity, or some other standard unit. Mosher is just being argumentative. An estimate is a rough approximation of something.
words, words, words, words, words.
You went to the Dr and got your blood pressure measured. Or did it depend on an estimate?
You got your weight measured? Or did it depend on a relationship that was estimated, that is, was it calibrated?
You got your serum cholesterol and fecal occult blood measured? Were the instruments calibrated to make sure that the necessary quantitative relationship was adequately estimated?
There isn’t a measuring instrument that does not depend on the proper estimate of a quantitative relationship.
Harold: For most people, an estimate is a shortcut. Estimates are quick and dirty calculations that make simplifying assumptions to get to an answer faster, at the expense of accuracy.
That definition excludes least squares estimates, maximum likelihood estimates, method of moments estimates, and Bayesian estimates. This gives us a decision point: do we conclude, as I recommend, that the definition is inadequate? (as an aside, most people’s opinions are not much value in scientific discussions.) Or do we conclude that least-squares estimates (the most common estimates in instrument calibration) are not actually estimates?
Jim, like I said in other comments on this topic, your frame of reference has a lot to do with how you might choose to categorize a value as either a measurement or an estimate. From the big picture point of view, an estimate from one frame of reference might be considered a measurement by another. This is a philosophical way of looking at the two. You know, staring out the window stuff…. pondering when do you cross the threshold from one to the other? However, from a dictionary definition perspective, yes… an estimate would be considered a less accurate, less reliable, with greater potential for error value than a value obtained from a standards based measurement. I am not arguing that point, I agree. I am arguing that an estimate is still a measurement, even though it has more guess in it. An estimate relies on prior measurements made in order to make it. An estimate is a less accurate measurement but a measurement none the less.
For CS, we have proxy temperature measurements (estimates) of the past. We have proxy CO2 concentration measurements (estimates) from the past. We have current temperatures and current CO2 concentration measurements. We can look at the deltas from time X to time Y. We can calculate a CS from those deltas. We can calculate a theoretical delta based on how we understand the physics. We can compare the differences between the empirical proxy measurements and theoretically calculated measurements. We can run atmospheric computer simulations of future CO2 concentrations and its effect on temperature based on the same physics. We can run coupled atmospheric-ocean computer simulations. We can compare all the model simulations to one another as ensembles. We can create a PDF of CS to CO2 concentration based on the output of the simulations. They are all measurements. Unfortunately the tools at hand are more like crayons instead of a fine point pens because of the complexity, uncertainty and degree of error of the data generated both empirically and theoretically.
Jim, I am an empiricist myself. I measure to satisfy my doubts. I measure to verify. I measure to be sure of what I know. I am comfortable with making physical measurements compared to theoretical ones. However, complex measurements rely on theory to understand and to make sense of complex measurements. I rely on theory to understand. Theoretical measurements back up empirical measurements, or the other way around if you want. You always like to see if you can arrive at a similar or the same answer based on different ways of measuring to get there. That’s what gives you confidence in your knowledge. This is what is happening with the debate over CS. We are trying to get an answer using both empirical and theoretical methods of measurement. We end up with an estimate…. a crude measurement…. but a measurement none the less. 3.0 C +/- 1.5 C is the current CS measurement. Is it right? I dunno. Is it a fact of life? No. Should we give it much validity? Some, we can’t ignore it. Do we have confidence that the real CS is within that range? Well, that is the big question isn’t it.
John, you write “We end up with an estimate…. a crude measurement…. but a measurement none the less.”
You have provided a long post, but you have not answered my question.
I repeat “Now I suggest that that there are two alternatives, both of which can not be correct. Either
1. The value of 0.001 C is a SWAG (my opinion).
or
2. The value of 0.001 C is a measurement (what I deduce from John’s and Steven’ logic)
Which is correct?'”
So which of the alternatives 1 or 2 is correct?
Jim, in your example I van only deduce that your two alternatives are nearly the same. Your measurement is so poor, it is a SWAG.
Looking for an absolute differentiator between “estimate” and “measurement” is proving to be elusive because of personal ideas on connotations, but I think we can all agree that the latter is inherently more “empirical” than the former: it implies a check with real physical observations or experimentation, while the other does not necessarily imply this.
By definition, a true “rational (or scientific) skeptic” will accept the latter as empirical scientific evidence supporting a hypothesis (assuming the measurement methodology is sound, the experimental data are reproducible, etc.), while he/she will not necessarily accept the former.
In either case, the acceptance should remain provisional, i.e. until new evidence comes along.
So, if you accept that Jim Cripwell is a “rational skeptic”, he provides you the practical differentiation between the two.
Those of you, who do not see this dividing line between “estimate” and “measurement” are not “rational skeptics” in the scientific sense, while those of you, who do see this dividing line and insist on physical measurements as empirical evidence before accepting a hypothesis, are (by definition) “rational skeptics”.
That’s how I would see it (as another “rational skeptic”).
Max
John, you write “Your measurement is so poor, it is a SWAG”
Why is my estimate poor compared with the ones you quote ?
“Why is my estimate poor compared with the ones you quote ?”
Well Jim, you offer nothing to support how you arrived at that value for CS, you just say you don’t observe a CO2 signal. How am I supposed to evaluate with so little information how you got what you got? I said your measurement is so poor it is a SWAG. I don’t know how you arrived at that value so it appears to be just a guess.
“The Never-Ending Story.” This discussions seems interminable, it will never be resolved, we’ve all heard the arguments, let’s put it aside. Or at least have a three-month moratorium.
“Now I observe that in all modern temperature/time graphs, there is no measured CO2 signal against the background of natural noise. From this empirical evidence, I estimate that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is 0.001 C.”
Well, that’s quite wrong. First off you’ve misunderstood the problem as a signals/noise problem. Its not.
There is a easy way for you to estimate or measure ( which ever word you prefer ) climate sensitivity.
1. Start with the correct definition
2. Put in numbers.
3. Take objections and refine
Definition: Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing
or lambda = DeltaC/DeltaW
SAMPLE calculation:
Delta C 1850 to today = 1C
Delta W 1880 to Today = 1.75W
so, now you can estimate lambda = 1/1.75, lets just say
0.6C per watt/m^2
This is a system parameter. It tells you that if you add watts temperature goes up. how much? 0.6 C per Watt added.
Note that lambda cant be zero.
That’s a rough order estimate that tells you if you change the forcing by 1 Watt over a 150 year period that you are going to see temperatures rise by about 0.6C.
Think of it like this. There are a lot of forcings that determine how fast your car will go. drag, friction, thrust. so I might define a sensitivity for your car system to say adding 1HP will increase your speed by X.
Lots of other things could make it go slower, but I can characterize the system by looking at this system level metric.
Following? this system parameter is the parameter that is very hard to measure/ estimate however you look at things. Why is it hard? One its hard because we cannot do controlled experiments, because the system is the damn planet. Also.
A) what time frame makes sense? I could measure the temperature
change when the sun goes down and get a really bad estimate of
lambda.
B) is lambda really independent of temperature ( roughly linear )
C) measuring forcing has big uncertainties.
But we have what we have. We’ve got a change in temperature of about 1C and a change in forcing that’s around 1.75 Watts, so lambda is around 0.6C per watt/m^2
Note: you dont need to agree with these numbers ( 1C and 1.75Watts) to understand the idea of the metric.. Just understand its a system metric.
How do we figure out the sensitivity to doubling C02?
Thats means answering this question
How many additional Watts do you get if you go from 280ppm to 560 ppm. Good news here: 3.7 additional watts. This is engineering not science
Now do the math
3.7 * 0.6 = 2.2C per doubling.
In climate science and engineering nobody argues about the 3.7W
all of the argument is about the 0.6C.. really.
A few things to observe here. You can actually classify skeptics by looking at the formula
lambda = DeltaC/DeltaW
############ interesting sidenote
you will have skeptics who object to the whole form of this equation.
( Willis does)
you will have skeptics who object to how delta C is measured
( Anthony)
you will have skeptics who object to how deltaW ( change in forcing) is characterized..
( natural variability folks)
########################################
Once you have lambda then you can calculate the sensitivity
to doubling c02. First The additional watts from C02
Watts = 5.35ln(CO2a/CO2b) where CO2a is CO2 after the increase
and CO2b is CO2 before the increase
So 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.7 Watts for doubling C02
If you object to that you are a sky dragon of sorts. 5.35ln(Co2/Co2) is basically engineering.
In a nutshell. You can object to the form of the equation “lambda= deltaC/deltaW” and be a systems skeptic. You can object to deltaC and argue about the temperature record. You can object to deltaW and be a forcings skeptic. Or you say that additional C02 gives no additional watts and never be hired as a engineer.
As somebody who has worked in OR this type of analysis should not be foreign to you. We do it all the time.
Steven, you write “Definition: Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Wrong! This equation only applies if you can prove that the observed change in temperature was caused by the observed change in forcing. Until we know all the details of all the natural forcings it is impossible to do this. So the rest of what you write is irrelevant.
Agree with Jim. The assumption has to be made up front, and if it is incorrect, the wntire argument is moot.
Consider instead any stable system controlled by negative feedback. (eg an air-conditioned room or a fridge) Within the bounds of parameters for which the system is designed, any change in “forcing” (opening doors or adding heat sources) does not result in anything much apart from a transient change which is corrected by the system.
Earth is well within CO2 levels of history. Earth is still here and so are humans.
If the phenomenon is that of radiative thermal equilibrium of a body with the sun, then I have not seen any idea that temperature is dependent on *any* other property of the body excepting reflectance.
Steven, you write “Definition: Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Wrong! This equation only applies if you can prove that the observed change in temperature was caused by the observed change in forcing. Until we know all the details of all the natural forcings it is impossible to do this. So the rest of what you write is irrelevant.
#########################
Jim its a DEFINITION there is nothing to prove in the definition of a metric except that it is adequate to characterize the system
It is NOT a statement of causality that needs to be proved.
You shine a 100 watt bulb at the water. You measure the temperature.
you DEFINE a system metric. metric = temperature gain/added watts
blouis79, you write “Agree with Jim.”
Thank you for your help, but it is in a losing cause. I am convinced that by simply using Physics 101, it can be shown that the current numeric values of CS are nothing more than SWAGs. The warmists, including our hostess, haved to stick to the fiction that the numbers have real meaning. I keep getting bright ideas as to how to demonstrate the lunacy of estimated values of CS, and associated PDFs; in vain.
The warmists cannot concede that no-one has the slightest idea what the value of CS is, otherwise the whole house of cards that is CAGW comes crashing down.
Jim Cripwell, The issue is and always has been the “surface” that “sensitivity” allies to. For GHE, the “surface” is above the moist air envelope when only the gases phase exists. At that point, CS can be actually measured. What can’t be measured is the complex fluid dynamics below that surface due to advection and turbulent mixing. So CS does not actually apply to the true “surface”.
That is how screwed up Climate Change is, they have lost contact with reality.
First they ASSUMED, that the tropopause is the top of the atmosphere and that the stratosphere has insignificant turbulent mixing. The stratosphere mixing effect is on the same order of magnitude as the WMGHG effect. The turbopause is the lowest location that meets the minimal requirements for turbulent mixing to estimate the true sensitivity of climate to CO2 forcing. Even that altitude, ~110 km, is subject to tidal fluctuations, so the ~67Wm-2 WMGHG “fixed” reference layer can fluctuate. btw, Venus also has an ~67Wm-2 “shell”, the point where the energy transfer is balanced by gravitational influence producing a relatively stable radiant “shell”.
Since the lower “:surface” is the source of the energy determining the altitude of the stable “shell”, is not the true “surface”, the rate of internal dynamic heat transfer has to be determined independently to estimate an “average” “surface” energy/temperature and it is that estimated “average” “surface” energy/temperature that responds to GHG forcing.
So CS is incorrectly “defined” but you can’t fight a definition. You have to wait for the utter and complete humiliation of the idiots doing the defining.
Mosher,
Then it’s deceptive to call it sensitivity, which clearly implies causality.
Steven
Excellent summary.
Steven Mosher
Your long post to Jim Cripwell ended with
But you wrote, more specifically, that 2xCO2 adds 3.7 W/m^2.
Where and how was this measured empirically?
[This is NOT a trick question, so a straight answer would be appreciated.]
Thanks.
Max
There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip,
From laborious beaker to thermo fillip.
===================
JC
Could you do a blog post on the following interesting article by Latif?
IPCC AR4 published only climate projections based on such scenarios with no attempt to take account of the likely evolution of the natural variability.
Latif, M., Uncertainty in climate change projections, Journal
of Geochemical Exploration (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2010.09.011
http://oceanrep.geomar.de/9199/1/JGE.pdf
thanks for spotting this paper
Thanks Girma for the link.
“There is a broad scientific
consensus that the warming contains a significant contribution from enhanced
atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations due to anthropogenic emissions. The
climate will continue to warm during the 21st century due to the large inertia of the
Earth System and in response to additional GHG emissions, but by how much remains
highly uncertain. This is mainly due to three factors: natural variability, model
uncertainty, and GHG emission scenario uncertainty. Uncertainty due to natural
variability dominates at short time scales of a few years up to a few decades, while at the
longer centennial time scales scenario uncertainty provides the largest contribution to
the total uncertainty. Model uncertainty is important at all lead times. Furthermore, our
understanding of the Earth System dynamics is incomplete. Potentially important
feedbacks such as the carbon cycle feedback are not well understood and not even taken
into account in many model projections”
So far so good. I’m nodding my head. Then this was said in the very next sentence.
“Yet the scientific evidence is overwhelming that
global mean surface temperature will exceed a level toward the end of the 21st century
that will be unprecedented during the history of mankind, even if strong measures are
taken to reduce global GHG emissions. It is this long-term perspective that demands
immediate political action”
Here I’m wagging my head. What evidence? Based on short term trends? Surely not!
.
“
Motif Latif, a PH.D (1987) and qualification as lecture in oceanography (1989) assumes in the reference (2010) paper that the climate will continue to warm due to “to three factors: natural variability, model uncertainty, and GHG emission scenario uncertainty”. As there is no word about the ocean as climate factor, it might be time to recall a paper written in 1993; published by ‘L.O.S. Lieder’ of the Law of the Sea Institute, William S. Richardson School of Law; University of Hawaii, in full at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/1993-LOS-warming-up-science-or-climate.html
“WARMING UP – SCIENCE OR CLIMATE
The climatic change issue has recently become one of the most serious challenges facing humankind. As L.O.S. Lieder insists on brevity, even though this issue deserves to be discussed at length, I beg your forgiveness for formulating my thesis directly and perhaps somewhat dramatically: climatic specialists and those people who have contributed to recent debates are possibly as much of a threat to the climate as the pollution caused by industrialization. For almost one hundred years, science has failed to realize that climate and the oceans are one and the same thing. As a result, the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the only true treaty dealing with climatic change issues, was thwarted the moment it came into effect over ten years ago.
As recently as 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came to the conclusion that CO 2 was altering the climate and that “understanding and detecting the earth’s climate system must surely be the greatest scientific challenge yet to be faced by humankind. It is a worthy banner under which the nations of the world can unite” (IPCC, Working Group I, p. 328). Certainly not a bad thing for science. The 1992 Earth Summit resulted in an unprecedented success for the scientists working in the climatic area, forcing politicians to listen to them and paving the way for greater financial backing in an effort to understand and come to terms with the climate system.
Yet, what is good for scientists is not necessarily good for the climate. The simple fact of the matter is that meteorology has never been particularly interested in climate except for statistical purposes, defining it as the average weather over a given period of time. On the other hand, there are the mathematicians, physicists and chemists, who do little more than apply their laboratory findings, theoretical conclusions and abstract calculations performed on greenhouse gases to a real natural system with little regard for the true essence of climate.
But while the seas continue to influence the climate, science is staring into the air (or, to be more precise, the atmosphere) in an attempt to find out what makes the climate tick. What is more, scientists have misled the international community of nations by claiming that greenhouse gases are the actual cause of climate change. This may yet prove to be the real tragedy of the climate change issue. After all, the oceans are still the part of the world about which the least is known. There is neither an “inventory” of the oceans nor an observation system. What is even sadder is that climate is still far from being acknowledged as the blue print of the oceans.
So beware of IPCC’s call for unification in its attempt to come to terms with the climate. The climatic change issue is far too serious a matter to leave to those who should have known better for many decades and who were not interested in or aware of matters relating to the oceans. It is high time to enforce what is by far the best convention for under¬ standing and protecting the climate — the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea — before it is too late. After all, it is the first global constitution and would therefore compel humankind to ensure that the planet remains a place worth living in. There is no need to “detect the earth’s climate” and even less is there a need for a banner to serve IPCC’s “greatest scientific challenge”.
Kindly except my sincere apology for the length of the text. AB
That was 1993, and this is now, when realization of changes in the ocean with ARGO and sea-level data has put the ocean in the forefront.
On another point, yes meteorologists are not interested in climate, unless it is changing (kind of like sea level is not as interesting as the waves unless it is changing). The climate would normally be just a background state, like the wallpaper, on top of which the interesting weather occurs, but not now. That has changed. We live in times where climate is not the wallpaper background, but needs attention.
@ Jim D | April 27, 2013 at 11:49 am |
Not so much has change with regard to the oceans over the last 20 years if you read what Judith Curry had to say (March 20, 2012; Pseudoscience (?):
Section: Climate science vs pseudo science; 3rd Para “In the case of main stream climate science, the physical mechanism for climate change is clearly posited as arising from external forcing: solar, volcanoes, anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols. However, climate scientists have not racked their brains anywhere near hard enough to come up with other causal explanations. The main outstanding causal explanation that has been neglected is internal natural variability of the coupled ocean/atmosphere system. “http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/20/psuedoscience/
Of course ARGO is a marvellous achievement during the last couple of years. But if you compare this observation system with the many ten thousands observation taken in the atmosphere ervery day over more than 100 years, the few Argo buoys are a drop on a hot stone, and if one takes a percentage of the water volume (ocean/atmosphere) as the measure for climatic relevance, the current ocean observing system is heart-breaking small.
This paper mentions the Earth’s climate’s “inertia.” Does it have an inertia? I take that to be analogous to the the inertia of mass. If one imparts energy to a mass in a vacuum, it will continue its motion unchanged. This isn’t like the Earth’s climate at all. If the Sun suddenly stopped producing radiative energy, the Earth would begin to cool immediately. There is no inertia there. This appears to be an attempt to foment fear.
Correction/amplification: It will continue its motion unchanged after the force ceases to act on it.
Amplification 2: Paper mentioned at Girma | April 27, 2013 at 9:02 am.
Jim2, yes, Earth’s climate has inertia. Think of it as an engine inside an engine inside of an engine. The liquid part of the climate, the oceans provides the energy to produce a fairly uniform distribution of the available energy, via the moist atmosphere. The waste heat of those engines provides the energy for the greenhouse stage of the system. Since the density of the liquid oceans is greater than the moist atmosphere which is greater than the dry atmosphere, there are several rates of energy transfer with differing inertial characteristics all of which are influenced by Corolis effects, tidal effect plus thermal gradients.
It is a neat puzzle.
captdallas – Sure the ocean absorbs energy. It will cause the air temp to increase more slowly and cool more slowly. So, I guess they should have explicitly dubbed this “thermal inertia.” But this moderates the temperature increase, it does not enhance it. OK, occasionally some hotter water may surface and warm the atmosphere, but net-net, it slows the warming.
jim2, ” But this moderates the temperature increase, it does not enhance it. OK, occasionally some hotter water may surface and warm the atmosphere, but net-net, it slows the warming.”
It also slows the cooling and causes overshoots of the mean producing oscillations or recurrent decay pattern on various time scales. Inertia makes the system non-linear.
captdallas – I don’t have access to most papers. I have wondered if anyone has attempted to characterize the attractor for the chaotic portion of climate. I am assuming the effect of Milankovitch cycles is deterministic, non-chaotic. That is the major, lowest frequency component.
Superimposed upon that is other, higher frequency components. Some of those may be chaotic, some not.
So has anyone attempted to characterize the attractor of the chaotic component? At what frequency or frequencies does it manifest? What is the shape of the attractor.
It seems that if we knew these things, then we could examine various proxies to see of the attractor pattern is present. If so, then I would think such proxies would be valid candidates for use in climate reconstructions.
jim2, chaos has a bad rap. I used to make a pretty go living adjusting potentially unstable systems with potentially unstable control systems. When you slow the “chaos” down, you can control the systems. The ocean inertia slows the climate system down enough to be stable in a reasonable range.
A far as the “attractors” the freezing point of fresh and salt water are the most likely “attractors” That is a range of ~2C with current salinity and if you look at most of the longer term paleo, the typical standard deviation is approximately +/-1C degrees. The “global” temperature is a different critter because of changes in sea ice extent and glacial ice storage. That can overshoot one way of the other, but it will eventually return to the range set by the oceans.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~brose/page1/files/Rose_Ferreira_JClim2013.pdf
That paper might interest you.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the paper linked below. I see a lot of people applying more conventional statistical treatments to climate, but haven’t seen something like this:
” In this brief, we considered the problem of blind identification of an autoregressive (AR) system driven by a chaotic signal. Because of the inherently deterministic nature of a chaotic signal, a new dynamic-based estimation approach called minimum phase space volume (MPSV) technique was applied to identify an AR system. It was shown that not only could this chaotic approach provide an accurate identification, but it was also more effective than the conventional statistic method in the sense that the chaotic approach had a smaller mean squares error (MSE), and it was so robust that it did not require an order determination procedure.
ftp://131.175.31.10/users/Carlo.Piccardi/VarieCda/ArticoliStudenti/i25.pdf
jim2, that is an interesting paper. I used to study spread spectrum communications and simulating chaos or noise is the ticket to hiding signals and increasing gain. It could be useful to dig out more of the complex signals. Without the physical mechanisms to explain the noise or wiggles though, there is not much going to happen. Selvam and others have used various methods to estimate different pseudo-cyclic periods or recurrent patterns and they have met with the same denial because of not having mechanism to explain the patterns.
http://amselvam.webs.com/earlsel/socpp.PDF
The easier patterns to isolate are the slower movers, the ocean pseudo-oscillations. By modeling the main recurrent patterns, you can shift into more complex patterns. If they are truly chaotic you can never actually predict a future response, but with the slower, higher inertial responses, you can determine some reasonable probability of a range of future responses or a PDF. That is why I link you to the Rose paper, it looks at the longer term potential climate states.
For the higher frequency patterns, Tsonis and Douglas have used neural network and phase locked methods plus there was a paper by a recent PhD that used “trainable” statistical model groups to try and predict sudden stratospheric warming events. Then there are a few other chaotic pattern recognition approaches. As far as I know, there is no one method, it requires a number on methods and there will always be questions since there are no true oscillations, just recurrences that are close to something that happened before. Definitely a black art type of field.
As ever, we experience our future and imagine our past.
=====
I was hoping to find more stuff on the impact of asymmetry in ocean circulation/land distribution but most of the models are too complex.
There is some new stuff on Aqua world modeling.
Brian Rose, some fresh PhD perspective, has a recent paper on Ocean Heat Transport and the Water Vapor Greenhouse,
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~brose/page1/files/Rose_Ferreira_JClim2013.pdf
And a paper in review on the role of Oceans and sea ice in the abrupt transitions between multiple climate states.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~brose/page1/files/Rose_Transitions_JClim2012.pdf
Imbalanced flow and load capacities are challenging problems in any system.
Had hoped the cold weather in the north would reflect in more arctic ice this year. Might still happen? The arctic returning to positive values for several years is surely one of the major signs that would turn the argument for AGW and high climate sensitivity on its head, or would we have to wait 17 years?
I doubt it.
Unfortunately, when the ice gets down to a certain thinness (and it’s been getting thinner for the past 150 years at least) it becomes very sensitive to both the ocean currents beneath and the winds above. In fact, it’s exacerbated by the ice thickness which used to impede the ocean currents not being there anymore.
I’m afraid it would probably take decades of cooling for the ice to recover substantially.
Yes, Earth does not move rapidly from a Medieval Warm Period into a Little Ice Age. It actually occurs over centuries. The snow has started but it will again take a while.
WRT the Arctic sea ice dramatization video, the decrease in the minimum is pretty dramatic; the variation in the maximum, much less dramatic. The global sea ice anomaly is positive currently. Not sure what to make of all that.
i abide by the consideration that all ice is local, as is all climate.
=====
As of today it is about 3% below the 1981-2010 mean.
Little Miss Sunshine is always the spinning optimist. Is this sea ice areal extent or is it of volume that Sunshine refers to?
Volume is looking to be the most fundamental indicator of sea ice:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png
Another great spinner is the oil industry hack Lawrence Solomon, who said that extent was down based on the data. Tamino looked into this claim and found out this was what Solomon was trying to spin:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/picture1.jpg
It looks like a nature trick, don’t you think? ha ha
This is Lawrence Solomon’s article on where he claims that the Arctic sea ice is up (not down, sorry)
“Arctic sea ice back to 1989 levels, now exceeds previous decade”
Web, you have too much invested in pessimism. Be happy Antarctic ice is at record levels and Arctic Ice is only 3% lower than the mean.
Webby
NSIDC data confirm that Sunshine is correct:
End-March sea ice extent, million square km (compared to 1979-2000 baseline extent):
NH: 15.04 msk, compared to 15.70 msk, down 3.8%
SH: 5.32 msk, compared to 4.33 msk, up 22.9%
Global: 20.36 msk, compared to 20.06 msk, up 1.5%
Max
What is the sea ice volume down to compared to a similar historical range?
here web
citizens do great animations and nice music
I hear crickets after Mosh’s video.
b..b..b..b…but …
And it is the 7th lowest as of this day. These years on this day were lower.
2007,2004,2006,1989,2005,2008.
1989?
1989?
I’m generally given to toss out remarks about Arctic sea ice extent during the Arctic winter and spring. Variability in these seasons is too low to obtain very good statistics on so short a span of observations as the past three and a half decades. There are better figures to use, for volume, and we have good reason to expect that mechanically we will continue to see ‘sea ice’ extent in the Arctic winter independent of larger climate trends or metrics, because the Arctic in winter when night lasts interminably is so far below the freezing (firn) temperature on the sea that even at the highest projected path we cannot expect a substantially iceless winter for over half a millennium.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
1989, when ice over 4-years old made up over 20% of the sea ice extent, as opposed to 2013 when it is less than 5%, on this day? See, amount of multi-year ice in winter extent, that’s a useful figure, in that it varies with some vague correlation to something.
1989, when there was still ice in some parts of the Arctic sea extending over a hundred feet below the surface, as opposed to today when none now measures more than a third that depth? See, Arctic sea ice volume in winter is a meaningful metric.. (down 70% since 1989 for this date, btw, isn’t it?) as it correlates with some trend.
Late spring, summer and early fall extent, as at that time of year ice albedo has an impact, those figures are important.
Weather patterns over Arctic sea ice. That’d be something to watch.
Break-ups and fissure count could matter.
Jet stream activity.
But simple extent? As useless as measuring ACE.
Bart, when you get me satellite data for 1929 to 1940 and it proves ice didn’t go low, I’ll worry that Arctic Ice is unusual.
Until then, I’m happy Antarctic Ice is at record levels. And Arctic is only a little bit lower in the spring.
sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 11:35 am |
I’ve noted that your happiness, like winter sea ice, correlates to nothing meaningful to anyone, but has the glow of rampant pronoia and takes comfort in a world that is ever friendly and never harmful nor harmed.
As for your argument from ignorance, requiring satellites to confirm what we well enough may infer by comparing observations of the people who actually lived there in those times to today, I’m unimpressed.
Arctic hunters relied on landmarks and the position of the sun and stars on certain days of the year which have shifted significantly, and in such a way as can only be accounted for by radical changes in the atmosphere. However, these landmarks have not shifted by so much that the hunters do not remember the ancestral hunting routes and circuits used by their ancestors reliably that just do not exist any more due the disappearance of the ice.
The distribution, too, of Arctic wildlife, the records of ships and their (which Tonyb seems to not quite be able to read), the journals of expeditions.. these all confirm that what is happening currently in the Arctic has no near parallel in centuries, and on what evidence we do have nothing similar in millennia.
While it’s impossible to confidently say never, or absolutely, on the balance of probabilities based on evidence and reasoned inference, we can confidently say the claim that this Arctic meltdown is commonplace on the scale of less than millennia is a crock.
Bart, the record for warmest Spring in Greenland among the long term stations (up to 2011) is 1929,1932,1932,1932,1932.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/greenland-temperatures-from-stations-with-data-from-the-1800s/
It was warmer only 80 years ago, not your pessimistic 1000 years ago.
sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
Wow. Gotta love me some of those Greenland cherries you picked.
Did you pick enough to share with everyone?
Is the concept of regional variability so unknown to you?
Is the idea that a narrow ocean-influenced strip of Greenland might not reflect the entire globe so unthinkable to you?
Refutation by sarcastic factless accusations of cherry picking are sad and pathetic.
“Is the idea that a narrow ocean-influenced strip of Greenland might not reflect the entire globe so unthinkable to you?”
We weren’t discussing the globe were we? We were discussing the Arctic.
And the same ocean that would have made those stations warm in 1929/1932 would have melted the Arctic Ice.
But, if you do refute that the globe did warm in the 1930s and 1940s …
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/hadcrut4-1930-to-1949-by-month-dangerous-pre-co2-global-warming/
sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
Huh.
So you have a theory that because there was global warming (but to far lower than current global level) up to about 1940 — and which you claim isn’t a result of CO2 rise based on you ‘just know’ — and some regional Greenland ice stations were ‘as high as’ current levels, that you can leap to an equal Arctic melt to the current one, despite all contrary evidence?
That’s your reasoning,and you wonder about skeptical comments?
Bart: “but to far lower than current global level”
One 6th of a degree C less compared to current temperatures.
I wouldn’t call that far lower.
And do remember that 1878 , 1944 and 1998 are all peaks on the natural 66 year cycle.
It will stagnate and then cool until the next 66 year peak. Which is a long way away.
sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
The ‘natural 66 year cycle’?
The one that is an average of a 60 year span and a 72 year span that doesn’t exist before or after and can’t be found by any method of signal processing to a higher confidence than pure random chance?
You’re preaching a Cheshire Cat that only appears after you fall down a rabbit hole and get lost in the woods.
Bart R
Yeah. Me too, Bart.
Plus summer and fall, for that matter.
The record is too short to tell us much and then there’s Antarctic sea ice, which seems to be growing (even though IPCC has a hard time seeing it).
Seems to me to be a lot of ballyhoo and hype.
Max
No evidence for a 60 year cycle?
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
“Until then, I’m happy Antarctic Ice is at record levels. And Arctic is only a little bit lower in the spring.”
Funny. with no records prior to 1979 you claim the Antarctic is at record levels.
DocMartyn | April 27, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
Exactly. No evidence for a 66 year cycle.
Or a 60 year.
Or a 72 year.
Cycles in time series where there is too little data to complete three full cycles for analysis are considered simply insufficiently sustained by data, unless the precision of the observations is so narrow as to sustain quite high confidence with a simple, unmodified, cyclic function.
What’s the confidence on GMT?
Correlation of GMT to any simple unmodified cyclic function?
Certainly, there _was_ a qualifying cycle in the GMT, for almost sixteen decades or seven complete wavelengths: the Hale cycle. That cycle could be confirmed by the method of isolates, at above 93% confidence. The problem is, the correlation vanished in the mid 1950’s.
Sure, AMO and PDO influences make their marks on the GMT curve, but: A) AMO and PDO have different nonsynchronized periods;
B) AMO and PDO influence have also become virtually undetectable for three decades.
Where your source claims, “As can be seen from the above figures, the two cycles were nearly identical..” we actually see that the two so-called “cycles” bear little resemblance whatsover, and neither is very ‘wavelike’ when smoothed, either. People see what they hope to see, in cases like this; this is why utmost skepticism ought be applied to graphical analysis of time series with suspected periodic elements.
The cycle length is approximately 62 years..
Approximately? Approximately? Kills the argument for me right there. A cycle has a fixed period. Either the proponent is suggesting there is an actual period but he can’t figure out how long it is, or there’s pseudoperiodic behavior somewhere near 62 for the two periods he thinks he sees in the data. If the former, then the proponent has no mechanical explanation for the hypothesized periodicity and is just guessing fingoistically, or the proponent has just outright admitted to no real periodicity, and nothing that can be used to mathematically describe the curve.
Wavelet analyses can be interesting, but they’re also very novel and unproven, and in particular the Copeland & Watts claim is dubious.
What we see is a pastiche of claims, some of them contradictory, for periods from 60 to 65 years, based on specious application of tools the authors appear not to understand how to use, on too little data.
Hey! WILLARD!
“B) AMO and PDO influence have also become virtually undetectable for three decades.”
The Neanderthals want your critique.
captdallas 0.8 or less | April 27, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
Virtually undiscernable would be more apt, really, than virtually undetectible.
There’s clearly some influence, but it’s so washed out by noise that only guesses based on prior times when AMO and PDO influences were clearer have much force at all on analyses.
We’re many, many, oscillations of both the PDO and AMO from having a statistical base to attribute influence to one, the other, both, something else, or some emergent effect of several.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
Only the cognitively deficient are denying it still.
angech | April 27, 2013 at 9:56 am |
The problem with your hypothesis is that cold weather in the north isn’t cold global weather, it’s cold regional weather most likely largely caused by what winter warmth some regions normally would expect shifting elsewhere and becoming something else.
Some of that something else has thinned and reshaped the Arctic sea ice, leading to an early spring break up that amplified extent when the fissures refroze (releasing more heat) into even thinner slush.
Some of that something else has repatterned the jet stream to reinforce some of the regional winter chill in places while denying it to other places, or to have still more unusual effects.
You can no longer think in the terms that once worked for climate and weather. Those days are gone. The climate system is in a new state, and let’s face it, even at best in the old climate state of yesteryear, most expectations failed.
The new climate state may result in far different patterns than we have seen before. Frankenstorms might begin to be counted like hurricanes, and we might develop a ‘Frankenseason’ where we expect them to happen. We’re already up to Frankenstorm 2.0.
As for the El Madre conditions people keep plugging, that’s likely a pipe dream. Once upon a time for perhaps two PDO cycles, there was some poor but plausible correlation of phase of ocean circulation with ENSO dominated by cooling or warming. Now? Now that’s a ridiculous indicator to rely on.
An El Padre is just as likely.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
http://vlb.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/?parameter=tmp&month=12&year=2012&filter=1&state=110&div=0
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time
scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on
a multi-decadal time scale. Chylek, P., C. K. Folland, G. Lesins, M. K. Dubey, and M. Wang (2009), Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14801, doi:10.1029/
2009GL038777.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/SeaIceInFourArcticSeas20Polyakov2003.jpg.html?sort=3&o=51
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/chylek09.gif.html?sort=3&o=100
Seriously. Space cadets with a narrative.
Chylek was the dude who analyzed Greenland ice core temperature data (dye3) and claimed to find a signal amidst the noise.
This is the data and the PSD.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4329/greenlandcorepsd.gif
Do you see something in the power spectral density? No me neither. It looks like red noise.
Bart R
Forget about “cherry picking”.
Is it “cherry picking” to make a big deal out of receding sea ice in the Arctic while ignoring growing sea ice in the Antarctic?
Or is it simply “accen-tu-ate the positive, eli-mi-nate the negative”?
As far as past warming is concerned, there is no doubt that some Arctic locations (where there have been continuous measurement) have had similar warming in the late 1920s to early 1940s as they are having today. A good example is Illulissat, at the mouth of the Jakobshavn Glacier, where a temperature record exists that goes back into the 19thC.
The problem is that there are only a few longer-term temperature records and even fewer reliable records of sea ice extent in the Arctic – and practically none in the Antarctic.
The few long-term studies (Chylek, Polyakov, etc.) seem to confirm that the current warming is not unprecedented.
But I think you will agree that we don’t really know.
So, what should the “null hypothesis” (in view of limited knowledge) be?
– That current warming is part of a repetitive natural cycle of some as yet unknown sort?
OR
– That current warming is unprecedented and, hence, must have been caused by human greenhouse gases?
What would you say?
Max
webby is the Laplace demon – henceforth known as ‘God’ or ‘the patient’ who can solve every climate problem by imagining a curve or eyeballing in something or other.
For instance he can eyeball this – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F12.expansion.html – and conclude that ENSO cancels out exactly.
‘Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Here is an actual scientist and not someone who just posts fantasy physics and incompetent math on a loser blog.
@”Chief Hydrologist | April 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm “ your notion: “Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period.”
should take note that there was only a “Arctic warming period“ from
___1920 to 1940: “Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II: 1920-1950“; (by Tony Brown) http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
___more precisely: From winter 1918/19 to winter 1039/40: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/
ArndB.
I am not going to waste any more of my time reading random blogs with random climate theories. Either make specific points – with data from reputable sources and references to scientific literature – or get out of my face.
For instance webby’s ‘I can’t see it can you’ is regrettable nonsense and not substantive comment. But we are used to that from webby.
Please – I don’t know whether you have anything worth while to say or not – but there are far too many rubbish theories on rubbish blogs.
@ Chief Hydrologist | April 27, 2013 at 7:31 pm |
It seems worth to take note of facts on the timing of the Early Arctic since winter 1981/19 for example by::
___ Johannessen, O., et al. (2004) http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/6.jpg ;
___Scherhag; R; 1936: http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/5.jpg
___H:H: Lamp , 1982: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/img/c2-p3.jpg
in detail in the U.S.A book edition: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/ (2009, pages 108)
Chief, Thanks for reminding me to post my Chylek analysis on the blog. Tamino has already done a thorough job but its always nice to have auditing substantiation.
indeed, it is the case than cooling temperatures are noise and warming temperatures are diagnostic of cAGW; melting glaciers indicate global warming and expanding ones are artifacts.
Warm oceans are a normal and natural and desirable part of the well bounded cycle. The only time ice volume is rebuilt on earth is when the oceans are warm and wet. Then after the ice is rebuilt, it gets cold
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page20.html
Herman Alexander Pope | April 27, 2013 at 11:54 am |
The last time we know to high confidence that El Padre held exclusive away over the Pacific was during the Pliocene, when camels evolved in the 20C warmer Arctic and sea levels were meters higher than today.. and CO2 level was almost as high as the level we’ve just reached.
Maybe you should base your next theory on all the data available, not just the bits of it that you can trim to fit.
Bart, I use NOAA’s ice core data for the past 800k years from the South and Greenland ice core data from the North. What has occurred in the most recent ten thousand years is most important to forecast the next ten thousand years.
Herman Alexander Pope | April 27, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
Huh. If I went by that logic, I’d be speaking some long dead middle-European gibberish, instead of modern English.
What equilibrium conditions are most similar to current conditions is what is most important to predicting near future equillibria, not what dissimilar conditions recently did.
Herman Alexander Pope | April 27, 2013 at 12:56 pm said: ”Yes, Earth does not move rapidly from a Medieval Warm Period into a Little Ice Age”
Herman, do you have daily temp for Medieval Period from Australia, central Pacific, Antarctic ocean and continent? or,that 75% of the planet doesn’t belong to your planet?!
manacker | April 27, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
Is it “cherry picking” to make a big deal out of receding sea ice in the Arctic while ignoring growing sea ice in the Antarctic?
If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done correctly. The Arctic is the Arctic Ocean, with Arctic conditions and Arctic mechanisms that are the polar opposite of the Antarctic Continent.
Include the Antarctic sea ice growth, sure, in your figures, if you must. It’s still net decreasing in volume over time. Or disambiguate by separately analyzing the poles because they’re so dramatically different, which is a clearer way to go about it.
But partitioning the Arctic every which way and picking out just a few weather stations in just a few years in what are known to be special circumstances and provably different overall Arctic melt levels? Yeah, if you can’t tell the cherry-picking from the legitimate science, you may not be cut out for this discussion. If the only reason to pick the data is because it strengthens a weak argument, and not because of a plausible mechanism, it’s cherry-picking.
The few long-term studies (Chylek, Polyakov, etc.) seem to confirm that the current warming is not unprecedented.
Meh. Contentious wording chosen for its power to be contentious.
Is it precedented to you because it is warming now, and there was warming before, regardless of the quality or extent or conditions of the warming?
That’s a very loose precedent.
Narrower precendency might require similar conditions, rates and extents, which can be determined from inference on reliable data to high confidence.
– That current warming is unprecedented and, hence, must have been caused by human greenhouse gases?
What would you say?
Me? I wouldn’t say that. It sounds like a straw man.
I might suggest there is current global warming. There is a plausible GHE mechanism with strong evidence and the most parsimonious, simple, universal, accurate and plausible hypothesis is that the current global warming is largely a result of anthropogenic global Forcing, but not the only global result of anthropogenic global Forcing.
See the difference?
Bart R
I gave my viewpoint on the “unusual” nature of changes in Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice.
You gave me yours.
You then ask:
Yes.
I do.
Thanks for responding.
Max
The new NASA group of solar images at different wavelengths shoes
1. A smooth, bland, stable, steady emission of visible radiation from the H,He-rich layer of waste products that have accumulated at the top of the solar atmosphere, and
2. Irratic, patchy and violent upheavals of Fe-rich material squirting up in flares and eruptions and emitting light of shorter wavelength and higher energy
And.. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/26/pol-hansen-oliver.html features some bad blood between a Canadian famous for .. nope, sorry, can’t really get past Canadian + famous without Justin Bieber and Celene Dion popping into my head.
Still, worth watching the interview if you have eleven minutes for “the most influential man in the world.”
That’s an interesting page as it ranks the comments:
Top comment (6 to 1 positive ratio):
Worst comment (5 to 1 negative ratio)
It’s a mirror image of the realists vs fake skeptics on this blog’s comment section. Top ranks go to those who want to encourage good science versus lower ranking to those who will lie and misrepresent with FUD to further their agenda.
Well, I’ll give Hansen’s hat a positive rating.
This link is for Max Manacker and his fellow Swiss AGW skeptics
“Land O’ Lakes: Melting Glaciers Transform Alpine Landscape”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/melting-glaciers-turning-alps-into-lake-region-a-896729.html
Because of the AGW-assisted melting of the Swiss Alps snowcap, many regions below the glaciers are developing reservoirs, providing an unintended benefit:
also reported at the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna.
Typical skeptic argument progression leading to consolation:
1. Global warming is a hoax.
2. Global warming is good because humans like it hotter and CO2 is plant food, etc
This one fits in line with #2, along with the all-time fave Arctic sea ice disappearance leads to more oil exploration opportunities.
But the “skeptics” are opposed to any kind of planning that assumes continued warming effects, so they would logically be against putting money into efforts like Arctic oil exploration or hydro from melted glaciers because of their uncertainty that these effects will continue much. Clearly nobody is listening to them.
I plan on stocking up on firewood as it is about .7C colder in the region I live in than it was 5 years ago. And it was about the same temperature 50 years ago and 70 years ago.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/bc-canada-1988-2012-124-out-of-143-stations-last-5-years-have-been-the-coldest-or-2nd-coldest-out-of-25-years/
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/vancouver-and-victoria-airports-in-bc-colder-thans-1940s1960s/
Yep, it snows more when the oceans are warm and wet and that does cause colder.
A colder climate causes colder temperatures.
And Web, as the glaciers melt, aren’t they finding evidence of human habitation and farming under where the glaciers once were?
Thereby proving it was warmer in the past?
sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 11:06 am |
A more plausible picture would be — as we know that between 7K and 4K years ago the world was nearly as warm as it is today, but for over a millennium — past glaciers retreated slowly over centuries or millennia, followed by all manner of habitation or travel, then slowly over almost 4K years new glaciers (the present ones) formed and advanced.. until in just a few decades they have once more retreated as far as or farther than they retreated in millennia during the Holocene peak.
Bart, glaciers advanced after the MWP.
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
But during the MWP and Roman Optimum people lived where glaciers now exist.
We should be ecstatic the LIA finally came to an end and glaciers started retreating around 1850-1890 (long before CO2 would have had an effect).
sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 11:45 am |
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html
Aber’s claims are problematic and overconfident.
The MWP and LIA remain at best statistically dubious on more than limited regional spans that poorly overlap — in some cases, MWP-like conditions in some places appear to overlap LIA-like conditions in others.
Glaciers have come and gone.
Rate of glacial retreat, however, that vanishing of mountains or islands or continents of ice, is harder to verify and throws sharply into doubt the significance of your overly optimistic and vastly oversimplified analyses.
The warm wet oceans are bringing the snow that will rebuild again. just like after the roman warm time and after the medieval warm time. This is just one more like the many others.
sunshinehours1 said on April 27, 2013 at 11:06 am
“And Web, as the glaciers melt, aren’t they finding evidence of human habitation and farming under where the glaciers once were?
Thereby proving it was warmer in the past?”
__________
That doesn’t mean it was warmer than it is now.
The glaciers are melting because of warming, which tells you it’s warmer now than before the glaciers began to form, but doesn’t tell you how warm it was before the glaciers.
If people lived where the glaciers have just melted it was warmer when they lived there (or just as warm).
Heck, even Steig’s recent data suggests it was warmer in the 1870s.
See Fig 2.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/23/steigs-bladeless-hockey-stick/
HADCRUT4 shows it was just as warm as it is in 2013.
http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/hadcrut4-1875-to-1882.png
sunshinehours1 said: “If people lived where the glaciers have just melted it was warmer when they lived there (or just as warm).”
___________
No, the melting now doesn’t mean it was warmer than now or just as warm as now. All the melting tell you is It could have been warmer than now, not warmer than now, or just as warm as now.
Glaciers advanced after the Medieval Warm Period using snow that started falling during the Medieval Warm Period.
Because of the delay in the system, I think melting glaciers can only tell us it was colder some time between the pre-glacier period and now, but you can’t compare the temperature then and now from that information alone.
“Glaciers advanced after the Medieval Warm Period using snow that started falling during the Medieval Warm Period.”
200 years of snow never turned to ice until the MWP ended?
And then suddenly it was ice?
Ha ha ha ha.
The snow piles up on the tops of ice packs and Glaciers for many years while the tails and edges are still retreating and some warming can continue. The weight of the ice builds up and causes the ice to advance. Earth cools during the advance and the advance and cooling continue even after the oceans freeze and the snowfall stops. This gives a false impression that ice volume is still increasing when it really is not. The advance and retreat of the ice does control earth temperature.
The retreat of the glaciers since the Little Ice Age is well measured (not estimated). It is the result of
1) the fact that the glaciers were rapidly advancing during the LIA, becoming a danger to long established villages and
2) natural warming thereafter.
Since “AGW” started only in the 1970s, it obviously cannot be the cause for the melting of the glaciers in the 19th century.
I have no idea what the “normal” size of alpine glaciers is.
(What Hannibal left when he crossed the alps is currently under ice.)
“The snow piles up on the tops of ice packs and Glaciers for many years while the tails and edges are still retreating and some warming can continue. ”
Ahhh. The Magic Snow Theory. The magical snow refuses to turn to ice until the AGW cult said it could and then magically it turns to ice ….
Are their unicorns playing in the magical snow?
The advance and retreat of the ice happened as the temperature dropped and increased. Consensus Theory says something else caused the warming and cooling and the ice responded. That is backwards, the ice advanced and retreated and caused the cooling and warming. They do not have any means to have done this. Tiny changes in energy from all their forcings is all they have.
“1. Global warming is a hoax.
2. Global warming is good because humans like it hotter and CO2 is plant food, etc”
Actually, both of these could easily be true, and both probably are.
Andrew
Things go missing, this from tallbloke. Might post it
in ‘Serf Underground.’
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/tim-cullen-the-other-big-bang-theory/#more-12622
The information countering Climate Alarmism is now so overwhelming that even the mainstream media is starting to report on the inconvenient truth that despite the rise in co2 emissions global temperatures have remained stable for 16 years or more now. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574490-cli… In a sane world this would be good news. People can stop feeling guilty about destroying the earth from fossil fuel co2 emissions.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416 No need to commit economic suicide in the name of saving the planet.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/th…
“Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts. There has been no increase in mean global temperature for 15 years. Drought is not increasing, nor are wildfires. Tornadoes are not increasing in frequency or intensity. Routine hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina have been offered as evidence of climate change, but worldwide hurricane activity is near a 40-year low. Over the past 20 years, sea level has risen by about 5 centimeters an ominous trend unless you’re aware that since the end of the last Ice Age, global sea level has risen 120 meters.”
So why are the Climate Change Gurus doubling down on their fallacious and dire predictions of Climate Catastrophe from hurricanes, drought, the sea rising to swallow up New York, etc.? Could it be it is all driven by the quest for power and wealth plus a good dose of fear and loathing of humanity?http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c… Do any of the Climate Change Guru’s leading this Apocalyptic End of the Word Quest for a “fossil free” world care that if they achieve their goals the planet will also be pretty people free? Or is a people free world the hidden agenda of the Climate Change Guru’s? In their nihilistic world view Human’s are “killing” the earth and must be expunged in a slow moving genocide to “save the planet”. Denying people access to affordable and abundent energy from fossil fuel is just one way of driving more people into poverty and an early death.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html Sickos.http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/345-9/
Why the slowdown in warming. Has anyone looked at the snowfall records that have been created since last October. When you cover a lot more land with a lot more snow, of course you slow the warming. Look at the actual data. When the oceans are warm is when it snows more.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Historicaltsi-SORCEplots_zps323ffc48.jpg.html?sort=3&o=9
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tropicalcloud.png.html?sort=3&o=36
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/wunchetal2013_AMOC_zpsdd9da495.jpg.html
There is a problem with reducing a complex system to one simple factor. Ice albedo seems certainly the pacesetter for many transitions, the causes of ice changes are much more complex than changes in the hydrological cycle as a result of warming and cooling.
But the idea that climate is stable within limits of 20 degrees in places hundreds of metres of ice sheets is incredible nonsense. You can call it stable but I call it rapid and large scale transitions between climate equilbria.
Climate alarmists say warming causes stronger storms but they are wrong. It is temperature difference not temperature that causes high winds !
The fastest winds in the solar system are on Neptune where it is almost absolute zero.
In fact CO@ spreads the heat and makes storms MILDER !
A lot of storms are driven by latent heat. More warming means more water vapor and latent heat.
Except the papers show no more water vapour.
sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 11:07 am |
Cite, please?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
“An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
More warming was supposed to result in more water vapor and a constant relative humidity. The constant relative humidity means not much lapse rate feedback. Recent trends in specific and relative humidity are not following the prediction. Specific humidity rose less than expected, relative humidity declined, and lapse rate feedback (which is negative) is larger than expected. Water vapor feedback is net negative once the amount of clouds in the sky stabilizes with regard to solar energy available to evaporate seawater. Oceans warm until enough clouds form to block further warming. Clouds form a natural thermostat. Greenhouse gases only warm dry surfaces not wet ones. I defy anyone to find experimental confirmation that illuminating a body of water from above with mid-infrared radiation causes any rise in temperature. All it does is drive evaporation rate higher which results in a faster water cycle. No more and no less. All observations make sense in light of this simple fact that water cannot be heated (nor rate of cooling slowed) by mid-infrared illumination from above. OHC heat content is rising very very slowly (if at all because margin of error is such that the polarity of change isn’t reliable) so slowly that warmer river runoff from the continents can account for it. No doubt greenhouse gases can cause land-only warming and that warmer land means warmer rivers and warmer rivers means some extra heat delivered to the ocean. The key is it’s only about a third of the expected OHC increase because it’s only greenhouse gases over the continents that are contributing to it.
sunshine, do you think water vapor in the _whole_ troposphere has declined? It has increased, and will, with its close connection to ocean warming. Most the water vapor is lower down and is increasing as you saw in their first plot where the log scale hides its relative magnitude quite well.
Jim D,
Please look at Fig 4 Global month total precipitable water vapor NVAP-M.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/fig4c_tpw.jpg
“There is no evidence of increasing water vapor to enhance the small warming effect from CO2.”
And take a look at all the other graphs.
I would say that is following the surface ocean tempertaure change quite well. Look at the difference between the early and late part, especially in the minima, and as we know surface ocean temperatures have not risen much since 2000, even if deeper ones have, but that is what matters for this.
sunshinehours1 | April 27, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
Legitimate cite from original sources, please?
I don’t give WUWT my slim webtraffic. It originates no research to speak of, and its restatements have proven so unreliable in past that I never trust them now.
Or are blogs your only source?
I will quantify my response to the clivebest plot. Between the 90’s and 00’s the global SST rose about 0.25 degrees. The expected rise in water vapor from Clausius-Clapyeron would be about 2%. 2% of 25 mm is about half a mm, which looks about right on that plot.
Bart R, your instincts seem sound. The referenced WUWT article was contributed by someone from a Friends of Science, a mistitled organization whose web site has a list of global warming myths including the following:
” MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.”
Jim D, TPW should have continued to climb as CO2 continued to climb. Instead TPW declined after 1998.
Therefore CO2 has no effect on TPW. (Or, it appears, temperature)
Bart … such whining!
Max_OK | April 27, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
I can’t really support the word ‘instinct’. It’s too much like ‘intuition’.
http://www.dilbert.com/2013-04-24/
My dismissal of WUWT came after long observation and repeated experiment; WUWT is dysfunctional, and untrustworthy as a matter of statistically supported record.
However, the practice of citing original sources is far older than the Interweb, and reliable as an evidentiary principle. Intermediate sources ought be avoided unless they provide substantive additional value. Which, again, WUWT in particular and most blogs in general fail to meet as a standard.
Yes, that’s better than just relying on instincts.
Bart R
Wow.
Looks like you had the same experience with WUWT that I had with IPCC.
For me, I was pretty much going along with IPCC until around 2006, when Al Gore’s film came out and the hockey stick fiasco got legs.
I then became more skeptical, especially in early 2007, when IPCC’s AR4 report came out, with all the media ballyhoo that surrounded it. I started digging into AR4 (especially the SPM report) and found many exaggerations, inconsistencies, omissions of conflicting data and some outright untruths.
Since then I have become rationally skeptical of anything that IPCC claims, rather than simply accepting it at face value.
Max
sunshine, no, you showed a fundamental misunderstanding by saying that water vapor is directly related to CO2. It is actually directly related to SST. A slow rise in SST is consistent with a slow rise in water vapor. The connection of H2O to CO2 is indirect via the SST, which, as we know, is also affected by natural variabilities that reverse themselves on decadal time scales.
manacker | April 27, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
No. I had the same experience with the IPCC as you had with the IPCC, except that I didn’t fall prey to https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy when I did my checking of IPCC claims.
My experience with WUWT is nothing like with IPCC. For the IPCC’s (far lower) error rate, I can ascribe to incompetency and inexperience what at WUWT can only be ascribed to malice and mischief.
The IPCC, I make no excuses for. What they get wrong, they get wrong. What they miscommunicate, they miscommunicate. It’d be better if they didn’t get anything wrong. It’d be better if they communicated better. But there is substantial value in almost everything the IPCC attempts, even when it is not the value the IPCC thinks.
In many ways, the IPCC is little different from any of the colleges or universities or large research organizations I’ve worked with, and I’m amply critical of much of the Publish-or-Perish culture that leads to perverse rewards. The problem often commented on, of scientists corrupted by greed, is practically nonexistent in nineteen of twenty organizations entirely, and generally rooted out rapidly where it does take seed. The real problems are otherwise.
At WUWT, the experience is different. Textbook uses of techniques of propaganda are rife; textbook fallacies are endemic; the moderation policy and culture indulges and ensures a preference for fallacy and propaganda over any contribution of actual value.
So I shook the dust of the place from my sandals, and steer clear of it. I wish them well, I bear them no ill will. I just don’t have time for that.
There is some uncertainty due to changes in satellite sampling and the results could change, but there is no trend in water vapor as of the time of the publishing of this paper.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL052094-pip.pdf
League of Women Voter Support Carbon Tax
4/15/2013 BOSTON—The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts has submitted testimony in support of a bill proposing to create a carbon tax in the state to the Joint Committee on Revenue.
“The relatively low cost of carbon based fuels encourages their use and stymies conservation and investment in clean, renewable energy development. H.2532 focuses on the demand side of the carbon equation by pricing carbon to reflect its true social cost, a cost that has been borne by, but hidden from, the public,” the League testimony stated.
http://lwvma.org/league-of-women-voters-supports-carbon-tax-proposal/
And what are their credentials?
…other than that their opinions agree with yours?
They are American voters who live in Massachusetts.
so their opinions count for no more than any other group of individuals then.
I’m sure I could find a sizeable group of voters who believe in Santa Claus, for example – doesn’t mean I should have to listen to them.
phatboy | April 27, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
..doesn’t mean I should have to listen to them.
You sound like an elected politician.
So, what you want is for Max to go to his ‘binders and binders full of women’ and look through their resumes to find ‘some great gals’ who are ‘as qualified as a man’ before you take the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts seriously?
Now who else from Massachusetts recently made that same mistake?
So, maybe you sound like an unelectable politician.
But to address your credentials, http://lwvma.org/about/history/ explains some of why people find LWVMA to be credible.
phatboy, who asked you to agree with the Mass. League of Women Voters? This is simply a news article about their support of a bill proposing to create a carbon tax in the state.
It’s about what a group of voters want. After voters re-elected Obama did you ask for their credentials ?
No, just questioning why he mentioned such an irrelevancy in the first place.
Irrelevant for what reason?
1. They are women.
2. They are from Mass.
3. You don’t agree with them.
4. All of the above
Well, as Massachusetts taxpayers they certainly count more than the opinion of some phatboy from the UK !
The hypocrisy amongst fake skeptics is astounding.
WHT, just stay out of my face, huh?
Oooh, another BMOC.
None of the above.
In what way is their opinion relevant to climate science?
Their opinions are relevant to climate science based policies. They vote. They influence voters.
I like the idea of climate contrarians disparaging the League of Women Voters, so please continue.
They are women
They are from Mass.
If you ignore their opinion
They will kick you in the ….
Carbon Tax and Shift: How to make it work for Oregon’s Economy
“This study analyzes a carbon tax and tax shift in Oregon as
means of reducing market inefficiencies by placing a meaningful price on carbon emissions. This study shows that a carbon tax can reduce distortionary income taxes, and provide new revenue opportunities or Oregon. By taxing carbon emissions and reducing Corporate and
Personal Income tax rates, Oregon can reduce the negative incentives created by income taxes while generating revenue and reducing carbon emissions. The report shows that putting a price on carbon in Oregon can result in reductions in harmful emissions and have positive impacts
on the economy.”
The study can be found at
http://www.pdx.edu/nerc/sites/www.pdx.edu.nerc/files/carbontax2013.pdf
The study can be found at
http://www.pdx.edu/nerc/sites/www.pdx.edu.nerc/files/carbontax2013.pdf
Her’s the money quote from the report’s conclusion:
” In fact, if revenues are used to eliminate the distortionary effects of existing income taxes, a carbon tax might stimulate growth. This would leave Oregon with a tax system that disincentivizes emissions while promoting less-energy-intensive output. Additionally, a carbon tax offers a significant revenue generation option at a time when the state is evaluating new options to diversify Oregon’s revenue mechanisms. ”
Yup, it *might* stimulate grow, but *offers* a significant revenue generation option. Note which one is hedged and which one is certain. Almost Freudian I’d say with respect to the real intentions of the tax.
The study describes a growth stimulating scenario too, with the carbon tax revenue all or mostly going to reduce the corporate tax rate, if that’s what you prefer. This scenario should appeal to the GOP.
The Freudian in the first part of the conclusions is the key for me. If the purpose is to be revenue neutral, why mention that it “offers a significant revenue generation option?” Could it be the Oregon state government is looking at this as a Trojan horse?
I only hope the People of Oregon aren’t naive enough to buy into the scheme. It’s sorta like buying in to the projection in 1965 that Medicare would only cost $9B by 1990 (actual cost $67B). But I’m sure nothing could go wrong with THIS tax, no sir! This one is DIFFERENT!
By the way, anyone happen to notice that Congress has had to order the FAA to stop being stopped about the sequester “cuts”. Yup, I say we give those brilliant minds in the government all our money!
I don’t know where you are from k scott, but Oregonians are not the Trojans, they are the Ducks. The Trojans are from USC, and are rivals of the Ducks.
Oregon is progressive, rather than backward, which means anti-government ideologues don’t represent much of the vote.
I’m seeing double.
Max_OK
Cut back on the beer.
Max_CH
HA HA, when hell freezes over !
Anyway, I don’t drink this early in the day.
Don’t tell me you don’t see the same double I see.
Max_OK
Good news.
After that 10th beer, you get two for the price of one.
(There’s always a bright side.)
Max
cover one eye
It isn’t fresh off the press but here is a study involving OHT and solar variability.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/soon_legate.pdf
There is a ceiling and floor temperature for the glacial/interglacial cycle. The difference is understood to be about 10C from ice cores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Note the maximum temperature is reached at the very beginning of the interglacial period. Note that the current interglacial never reached the peak of the others and fell about 3C short when the melting stopped.
I highly recommend reading Alexander Pope’s Climate Theory for an explanation of why this interglacial is different. I’d also stipulate that temperature is limited by clouds when all northern hemisphere ice is gone and that limit is about 2C-3C above current GAT as indicated by the maximums of previous cycles.
Pope’s theory is that an ice dam broke early in the Holocene melt flooding the north atlantic with fresh water which halted the melt temporarily (Younger Dryas). The stutter in the melt prevented Greenland from losing its glacier and without the water locked in Greenland’s ice cap being released to raise sea level higher the melt is now stuck. Pope goes on to say that without a complete melt the oceans don’t get warm enough to produce enough snow in the northern hemisphere for glaciers to rebuild and hence the interglacial just goes on forever. Greenland’s glacier won’t melt off for thousands of years at the current non-rate of ice loss. Human artifacts are still being revealed in the current slow retreat indicating the glacier isn’t reduced now as much as it was reduced by natural causes during medievel warm period.
Pope’s got something going for him that most of the climate boffins are lacking – successful prediction of greater NH snowfall due to dimished summer ice extent in the Arctic. I pay attention to those who form hypotheses, make predictions based upon the hypothesis, and then see if those predictions are worth the paper they are written on. The way I see it the score is Pope’s Climate Theory : 1, GCM ensemble: 0. I cannot ignore the fact that after 22 years actual global average temperature has slowly but surely drifted outside the lower 95% confidence bound of the model predictions. There is no bloody reason in hell why I should believe that drift away from the ensemble prediction will not continue. The models are failing. Get used to it. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
David,
Thanks.
I would also sarcastically recommend Springer’s Theory of Climate for Boffins where he asserts that the ocean is a greenhouse fluid.
That’s a new one, not only do we have GHG’s but we have GHF’s.
Greenhouse fluid, pretty much, but a black body fluid is likely a better analogy. They produce two parts of the overall atmospheric effect.
Unlike having a solid surface for the black body that would be limited to conductive heat transfer, the liquid ocean provides for a more unique blend of mechanisms to transfer energy poleward. The oceans produce their own Shade and Blankets based on surface temperature called the water vapor greenhouse, that expands and contracts. That part of the greenhouse effect limits the lower temperature extreme to the freezing point of the liquid and the upper temperature point to the condensation point of the vapor creating a water/water vapor envelope.
If the surface were not liquid, the temperature extremes would be much greater. As it is, from glacial minimum to interglacial maximum, the range of deep ocean average temperature only changes about 2 C degrees. The difference between the freezing points of fresh and salt water.
Kind of amazing. Water produces the only near isothermal radiant source for the black body and the radiant shell is the turbopause, the real point of minimal turbulent mixing.
Of course you know there is a difference in the actual area of the black body source and the radiant shell that needs to be considered when estimating the impact of the WMGHG’s. Don’t forget that asymmetry. :)
And so if one were to continue the analogy, asphalt would be considered a greenhouse solid (GHS)?
Got to give it to you comedians.
No webster, both liquids and gas are considered fluids, just the liquid state is virtually incompressible, so you don’t have to worry about Cv and Cp. With liquid water having about 1000 times the heat capacity of air, it makes a much better black body source material and due to the latent heat of condensation, water vapor is a much more potent green house gas since is provides a more isothermal layer, though not at 100% the area of the turbopause.
It is pretty interesting. Most of the “surface” albedo is clouds and clouds are not a fixed albedo but a response albedo. A regulator if you will, so that the absorbed solar energy can be split between the liquid “surface” and the gas or in many cases, mixed phase, moist atmosphere “surface”. David would disagree, but since clouds are not “fixed” the “surface” requires a little different math to determine its “average” energy available.
A less viscous or solid surface could not transport as efficiently. Venus, with its supercritical CO2 also has a highly efficient black body source. It is all about how well the black body can be considered isothermal which depends on how will its black body fluid can transfer energy internally. Internal transfer on Earth is slow in comparison so there are more internal oscillations :)
Fine. The thing that is comical is that you guys consider the low albedo liquids and solids as a greenhouse instead of a very efficient absorber. You will say anything for the FUD effect.
Webster, “Fine. The thing that is comical is that you guys consider the low albedo liquids and solids as a greenhouse instead of a very efficient absorber. You will say anything for the FUD effect.”
Is FUD, Fundamental Understanding of Deterministic chaotic systems :)
Basically, you can’t separate the H2O fluids, but have to consider them as a separate system. H2O is just one of the layers of the onion.
Cappy Dick sez:
It is still a gas and shows the same polytropic atmosphere as the earth. This P-T diagram I made intersects the supercritical portion.
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2474/venuspolytropic.gif
Venus’s atmosphere is not isothermal either.
It’s amazing the amount of scientific-sounding word salad comes out of your mouth. I happen to be researching Venus at the moment and I would probably be impressed with what you are saying if I was more ignorant about the particulars.
Webster, isothermal surfaces. The atmosphere cannot be completely isothermal or there would be no radiant greenhouse effect.
The isothermal surface or shell is a product of the original experimentation in radiant physics, the furnace and hole problem. In order to measure the radiant energy, the flux had to be limited to one direction requiring an isothermal shell. That is fine until there is advection, then you have to shift from up.down radiant physics to classic thermo.
To reconcile, you need to consider the difference in areas of the two “surfaces” being considered. The black body source, the oceans, are approximately 70.7% of the ideal radiant shell at the turbo pause. The water vapor shell, is approximately 61% of the ideal radiant shell. Since sea ice extent varies, the area of the ocean black body and the associate water vapor greenhouse varies.
Once you are past the water vapor envelope, then the up/down radiant model becomes progressively more accurate.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~brose/page1/files/Rose_Ferreira_JClim2013.pdf
This is why I discuss OHT, the asymmetry of the hemispheres and longer term natural variability, instead of remaking all of the same mistakes.
There is a new world dawning webster, SOC is the pooh,
http://amselvam.webs.com/earlsel/socpp.PDF
Take a whiff :)
opps typo, that should be 81% not 61%.
Cappy Dick, such a clown. I suppose the surface of a sphere is “isoradial”.
He is Professor Irwin Corey.
LOL, Webster, “Cappy Dick, such a clown. I suppose the surface of a sphere is “isoradial”. I wouldn’t know about that. I do know that advection impacts the standard up/down radiant models and that the models are having issues, mainly with clouds and internal natural variability, both sources of major advection.
Not to worry, Greenhouse Theory will survive, but will need some tweaking to allow for advection and albedo resulting from advection. That should reduce the “sensitivity” to a doubling of CO2, not all radiant forcing, just WMGHG forcing, to about 0.8C from the current “average” ocean temperature baseline. Had it not been for the bad luck of catching the wrong up slope on a natural longer term pseudo-cycle, we wouldn’t be here.
@dallas
I guess web is in denial about the albedo of the ocean being lower than the surface of the moon. Or maybe he’s in denial about lower albedo things getting warmer than higher albedo things when both are exposed to the same illumination. Maybe he’s never stood barefoot waiting to cross an asphault and discovered the white line painted on the shoulder is a f*ck of a lot cooler than the bare asphault. It’s a lot to deny. Must be a very heavy burden for him.
That’s not a greenhouse effect. That’s an absorption effect. Greenhouse effects show an asymmetry wrt spectral wavelengths incoming and outgoing. Entropy plays a role as an adjustment of the temperature to accommodate the spectral filtering of wavelengths.
I am always about conventional physics and perhaps trying to simplify to the best of my abilities. You guys are about rewriting the laws to make it look like unrecognizable FUD, and invoking INTELLIGENT DESIGN whenever convenient.
Webster, “That’s not a greenhouse effect. That’s an absorption effect. Greenhouse effects show an asymmetry wrt spectral wavelengths incoming and outgoing. Entropy plays a role as an adjustment of the temperature to accommodate the spectral filtering of wavelengths. ”
Right, so the the Greenhouse effect is a half ass representation of a more complex system effect. It might be call Telescope Jockey Syndrome. That is trying to explain what you observe from one frame of reference only. Thermodynamics allows the use of several frames of reference. Then in thermo you would consider the fluid, not just one state of the fluid, and in Earth’s case the solid since there is a triple point.
Remember the real laws of thermodynamics are KISS, ASSUME and Frame of Reference.
So since you want to stick to the “GHG” Physics, you “surface” is ~5000 meters above sea level and your “shell” or ERL is the turbopause, the point where turbulent mixing ends, because the GHE doesn’t consider internal advective energy transfer. That part of the puzzle is fluid dynamics. Note “fluid” in the title and one of the better source for information if the General Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, GFDL.
Let’s see, Manabe, Toggweiler, Held are just a few names to remember.
Web, many people attempt to ‘snap freeze’ biological samples by placing the container in liquid nitrogen. They do this because they instinctively believe that the rate of cooling is a function of the temperature differential of the sample 300K and liquid N2, 77K. However, I often demonstrate that this is not the case by placing my hand in liquid nitrogen for a couple of seconds with no harmful effects.
When I want to freeze as sample I use ethanol chilled with dry ice, 200K.
The rate of heat transfer from ones sample at 300K onto ethanol at 200K is far greater than into liquid nitrogen at 77K. The reason is that adding heat to liquid nitrogen triggers a phase change and the sample is coated with a layer of gaseous nitrogen that have poor heat transfer properties whereas in ethanol the energy transferred becomes sensible heat.
Phenomenology is far better than theory.
No, what you do Cappy Dick, if you want to build from fundamentals, is try to use the basic equations of state and see what the deviations are. So you take the standard atmosphere of the earth or the observed atmosphere of Venus and apply the ideal gas law. Then you go through an analysis like this:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/standard-atmosphere-model-and.html
Seriously, look at the last section of the post, which I recently added.
Umm, why don’t you try to explain what you are talking about with regard to this profile
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/3849/atlantalapserate.gif
The lapse rate is essentially fixed for this mix of atmospheric gases according to a polytropic process. All that CO2 will do is add a higher concentration of GHG which will raise the height at which the atmosphere allows the IR to escape easily. Same goes for H2O. Since the MEAN lapse rate is essentially fixed, the surface of the planet will get hotter. This is so simple if you take the time to really understand it, and go through the trouble of writing and deriving the equations and making the charts like I have done.
Webster, “Seriously, look at the last section of the post, which I recently added.”
Actually, I had previously and mentioned that I was fairly impressed. What you haven’t done is looked at the implications of your own derivation. Since that applies to both Earth and Venus both have a common ERL at ~67Wm-2. That is the point were the energy of the atmosphere and the gravitational forces on the atmosphere balance providing a relatively stable “radiant shell” or approximately isothermal layer in their atmospheres. Note they have very similar gravity.
Both planets also have a much higher viscosity bottom “source” that is the effective black body providing energy to the atmosphere. On Venus, that layer covers 100% of the surface and on Earth that layer covers only ~70% of the surface. Because of the differences in rotational velocities, the dynamics of the bottom black body sources are extremely different. They do though provide two relatively stable reference layers.
The Tropopause/troposphere of Earth are not stable references. The “surface” of Earth, because of the assumption of no temperature dependence in CO2 forcing is also not a stable reference. I don’t think it is possible to chose two worse thermodynamic references.
Now your lapse rate derivation begins just above the atmospheric boundary layer, ~5000 meters. Below that there is another primary greenhouse gas with totally different characteristics. That is why I referenced the Water Vapor Greenhouse paper. You have to consider the thermodynamic boundary layers for H2O and CO2 with the transition region between the two being highly variable.
As I have been saying for some time, you have to consider the moist portion of the atmospheric effect separately from the dry portion. Now if you can derive a method of using the molar mass of water vapor and consider the phase changes at various temperatures and pressures for a true surface to ERL lapse rate, more power to ya.
Hey DocMartyn, Having worked with cryogenic UHV systems for years, I know the importance of cooling approaches, but relating what you say to climate may need more elaboration.
I absolutely understand that existing temperature gradients are secondary to the way that transient diffusion works. Entropy maximization is the process of thermal energy dispersing among the states of the system. This is a rather recent method of understanding thermodynamics and entropy as popularized by Leff and Lambert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29
In this case, that values of thermal conductivity or thermal diffusivity is a more important factor than the existing temperature gradient.
I think that’s why people like Springer and Chief have these wild ideas and cast aspersions toward physicists — because they don’t really understand the fundamentals behind non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is really the interplay between the master equation describing continuity of flow and the states of the system described by statistical mechanics.
The defining property of atmospheric greenhouse gases is transparent to shortwave and opaque to longwave. Water is transparent to shortwave and opque to longwave. Study that for as long as takes until you know the properties which distinguish greenhouse gases from other gases. Then, as CaptDallas points out, gases and liquids are both fluids. Ergo, CO2, methane, and liquid water are all greenhouse fluids.
Entertain the crowd by disputing any of that.
OK, if we had a layer of liquid water suspended over our heads at an altitude say of 10,000 feet, then certainly we would have a greenhouse effect. All of the SW light would come through, while none of the earth’s LW radiation could directly leave. That suspended layer of water would reach a temperature due to the reabsorbed IR at which it could start equilibrating ingoing and outgoing radiation. The lapse rate then would determine what the surface of the planet would be. It will be 10’s of degrees higher than the Stefan-Boltzmann law would naively predict. That is the greenhouse effect.
It is hypothetical but agrees with what conventional physics would say given the structure of the system.
It doesn’t need to be overhead. The sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the atmosphere. Shortwave from the sun penetrates the ocean hundreds of feet until impurities in the water that aren’t transparent soak up all the solar energy and thermalize the water through conduction. The thermal energy cannot escape the ocean the same way the short wave entered it because water is opaque to thermal radiation. Thus the energy that penetrated the ocean hundreds of feet must find its way to the surface by means other than radiation. The other means are slower. This is how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere work. Same thing happens in the ocean its greenhouse properties make it easy for shortwave energy to enter and hard for thermal energy to escape. Is it really that complicated or are you being willfully ignorant, WHUT?
Springer just described a heat sink.
He also can’t prove that a hypothetical world covered only with ocean and no atmosphere will be different than the mean black-body value (select an albedo corresponding to the estimated value).
If the answer is no different than the mean solid-material blackbody (BB) sphere with the same albedo, it ain’t a greenhouse. All the ocean does is provide a buffer to thermal transients, which I agree with.
The reason that this BB equivalence happens is that the ocean is so dense with IR absorbing H2O that it can no longer differentiate one IR spectral wavelength with another. And since this differential response to wavelength is at the heart of the Planck’s Law gray-body response, it won’t raise its temperature above the expected black-body response.
Listen buddy, I am not saying anything revolutionary with respect to well understood planetary and atmospheric physics, so your criticisms of me slide like water off a duck’s back.
You would be wise to develop a mathematical treatise to describe your hypothesis — because as it is, conventional physics will run rings around the holes in your argument. I am only the front-line advance guard that you have to defeat. There will be more after me, guaranteed.
Webster, does a heat sink work better with or without a cooling fan? Does a water cooler engine run at a more stable temperature than an air cooled engine?
This paper I link, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009PA001809/abstract discusses how changes in the circulation of the oceans impact global climate. Based on your logic, there is no mechanism that could cause that. There is though, The delta T between regions drive the winds that improve the efficiency of the heat sink. The circulation of the coolant is produced by rotational and tidal pumps, If your ideal solid black body material can efficiently transport energy poleward and respond to temperature changes with evaporation/condensation or freezing/thawing then you are right. Water though is a much more flexible greenhouse fluid than CO2.
Thanks for the advice webby but I’m letting mother nature do my proving for me and it’s been a wonderful delegation of responsibility so far. The pause is killing your precious narrative and all I have to do is be patient. Reality is a harsh mistress, huh?
ROFLMAO
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | April 28, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
“Springer just described a heat
sinktrap”Fixed that for ya!
If you want to call the greenhouse effect a heat trap that’s a fair characterization and I won’t bicker with it. Let’s sum up what we know now. The greenhouse effect occurs because shortwave energy from the sun has largely unrestricted passage into the system to be absorbed but longwave energy is largely restricted in its exit. This asymmetrical response to shortwave vs. longwave is what causes the greenhouse effect. If the atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which does not have the above described asymmetry, the atmosphere would not produce a greenhouse effect. Now then liquid water presents the same asymmetry as does CO2, methane, and other gases. Therefore it is also a greenhouse agent. Furthermore I posit that because the ocean is ALSO very low albedo which makes it a naturally warmer surface COMBINED with its greenhouse properties that even were the atmosphere devoid of the trace amount of CO2 in it, it wouldn’t make much difference in global average temperature because it’s the ocean that does the heavy lifting in regards to making the earth warmer than the moon.
ROFLMAO
Springer said again:
That is usually the case of someone with a straight-jacket on and knocked off his feet.
How can you type in that situation?
But in regards to the comparison with the moon.
A moon composed of water with no atmosphere will initially absorb all incoming radiation, apart from albedo effects. Yet, since it is completely water, the SW portion of the radiation will exit the opposite side. Transparent, get it? That would keep the moon very cool. However, a portion of the incoming radiation from the sun is infrared. So, according to Springer’s other theory, this infrared will peel off layers of water through direct evaporation of the skin layer, again keeping things cool. Springer’s theory does not allow any heat conduction down from the surface layer.
I thought the greenhouse effect was supposed to heat up its target, not cool it down. WHUT’s up wid dat?
Lesson learned. Don’t come up with some absurd hypothetical situation and try to make complete sense out of it. The reality is that we have an atmosphere and we have to deal with that fact. So we set up models of that atmosphere such as I have done here:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/standard-atmosphere-model-and.html
If you read this you will see analyses of the various atmospheres of the solar system. If you can get out of your straightjacket and get off the floor, maybe we could further discuss.
Hope that helps.
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | April 29, 2013 at 8:31 am |
“A moon composed of water with no atmosphere will initially absorb all incoming radiation, apart from albedo effects.”
No it won’t. Absent surface pressure the water will boil off. Violently boil off. Duh.
“Yet, since it is completely water, the SW portion of the radiation will exit the opposite side. Transparent, get it? That would keep the moon very cool.”
Yes. That’s why I’m usually careful to point out that it’s impurities in the ocean which absorb shortwave from the sun. I pointed it out in this thread at least once.
“However, a portion of the incoming radiation from the sun is infrared.”
Near infrared. Virtually no mid or far infrared. There’s this thing called a spectrum. Sunlight’s energy peaks in the visible portion of the spectrum and falls off to either side.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Water has some absorption bands in near infrared and these bands are, on average, extinguished before the radiation reaches the ocean by H20 absorption in the atmosphere. If you want to see how significant what remains might be in the big picture look at the chart above focusing on the H2O absorption bands (~900nm, 1100nm, 1400nm, 1900nm). The yellow portion is what’s absorbed by the atmosphere. What energy remains in the band is in red. Estimate the volume of the remaining energy in those bands against the total volume in red. It’s a very small percentage. Ergo we can ignore it in the first and probably second approximations of the ocean’s energy budget.
“So, according to Springer’s other theory, this infrared will peel off layers of water through direct evaporation of the skin layer, again keeping things cool.”
Not much. Water isn’t totally transparent to near infrared in the range of 900-2000nm thus, what little NIR is left in sunlight at the surface, penetrates well beyond the cool skin layer. The rule of thumb is this portion of the spectrum is extinguished in the topmost 1 meter which is quite unlike mid-infrared which is extinguished in the topmost 10 micrometers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png
“Springer’s theory does not allow any heat conduction down from the surface layer.”
The ocean’s skin layer, called the cool skin layer, is cooler than the water below it. How many times must it be pointed out to you that conduction goes from warmer to cooler? If the surface layer is cooler there is no conduction going to warmer water below it. PLEASE write that down.
“I thought the greenhouse effect was supposed to heat up its target, not cool it down. WHUT’s up wid dat?”
Pay attention. SHORTWAVE penetrates and warms the ocean to a depth of roughly 100 meters before impurities in the water extinguish it. LONGWAVE from the thermalized water cannot escape except at the very surface. Therefore the thermal energy must make its way to the surface mechanically instead of radiatively. The mechanical process is slower. This is EXACTLY how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere work – shortwave is transmitted unimpeded to an absorbing surface and then longwave emission from the absorbing surface is impeded on the way out. Unimpeded radiative warming path, impeded radiative cooling path. Write that down.
Springer, Good, now we are back to a planet with an atmosphere. So your tangent on a greenhouse liquid was pointless and irrelevant.
Hope that helped clearing things up for you.
David, I think you are going a bit over the Webster head. He still has to understand that the Earth is round and not a flat plate. How would have thought that the ones poking fun of the flat Earthers are the actual flat Earthers?
I recommend taking smaller steps with him. Start with Thermal inertia
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/04/more-thermal-inertia.html
Maybe he can grasp the water in the wave pool better, then you can move him into mechanical mixing later after he recovers.
David Springer said:
“I highly recommend reading Alexander Pope’s Climate Theory for an explanation of why this interglacial is different.”
———-
Each interglacial has its own unique pattern. During this interglacial a species learned how to pump large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere enhancing the greenhouse effect.
These so called “large amounts” are still only a manmade fraction of a trace gas. This can and likely did a trace amount of enhancing the greenhouse effect. This is in the noise and can’t be measured or even guessed at correctly.
The pattern, the temperature boundary change, happened early in this warm period, long before manmade CO2 became significant. This new pattern, this new well bounded cycle happened without manmade CO2.
Some are more unique than others.
Real life data that supports Pope’s Climate Theory
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/04/25/aers-judah-cohen-produces-amazingly-accurate-winter-outlook/
As a Chemical Engineer, I know that moving from the lab to the plant is a game of scale that one approaches very cautiously. Because every time one moves up in scale more unknowns are introduced. So even when one has a sophisticated model of the chemical reactions, transport phenomena, etc. one still runs experiments at various different scales; one does not go from lab to plant in one step assuming that “all other things being equal” is true.
So why hasn’t any of this experimental work been done in climate? Why hasn’t someone build a small scale experiment with water, land, wind, air, “sun”, etc. and then run experiments with varying levels of CO2 to see what happens?
Or has this been done and I just haven’t seen it?
Shoot, there are teams working on wave dynamics who take the experimental approach, why not for climate?
The problem with this is that what drives climate models is the little known carbon feedbacks and they don’t really know how to include the stuff they don’t understand.
Real warming for increasing CO2, if nothing else changed, is well understood and it is not enough to make much difference. I have attended lectures from the different sides and most come up with about the same for direct warming by manmade CO2.
Understood, but why no attempt even to do physical experiments?
Here is an actual experiment.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page44.html
I plan to repeat this and let some of my Grandchildren conduct the experiment while other grandchildren take photos and videos.
Our children and some of our grandchildren are old enough and do understand and maybe they can make a difference if I don’t.
R. Gates
No doubt the species did do just that, and increased its quality of life and life expectancy dramatically in the process, while expanding its population sharply.
The population growth rate has started to slow down now and is projected to sink even further, as underdeveloped nations develop their economies and improve the quality of life of their populations, to a large extent by providing them a reliable and low-cost source of energy, largely based on fossil fuels.
Whether or not (and, if so, to what extent) this development had anything to do with the development of this interglacial, is still very much an open question, as you and I both know.
It certainly had little to do with it prior to WWII, as the amount of CO2 emitted was insignificant.
So we are really discussing a relative tiny “blip” in the interglacial of 60 years or so.
Max
Here’s your “blip”:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Seaice-extent-past1450y-Nature10581.svg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d-800wi.jpg
k scott denison
As a chemical engineer, I have also asked myself the same question you ask yourself.
It seems pretty basic to me.
We have a IR absorption mechanism, which has been demonstrated empirically in the laboratory for CO2 H2O and other GH gases, but we have not carried this one step further, as you suggest, in order to establish empirically what the CO2 temperature impact really is.
Ironically, an alternate hypothesis ( the galactic cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis of Svensmark et al, which has gotten much less ballyhoo and hype) has also just completed the first step at CERN in Geneva. The GCR cloud nucleation mechanism, itself, in the presence of naturally occurring aerosols, has been validated empirically, but the researchers caution that more work is needed to test empirically whether or not and to what extent this mechanism works in our atmosphere.
But, unlike the AGW hypothesis, it is planned to go the next step for this hypothesis, by either corroborating and quantifying or falsifying it at CERN in a controlled experiment simulating our atmosphere.
Like you, I cannot understand why something similar is not planned for the AGW hypothesis.
I have seen rationalizations or excuses saying this would be “impossible”.
Why should it be possible for one hypothesis and not for another?
And don’t tell me it is “impossible” when we are able to send a robot to Mars.
If only half of the money being spent on “climate related” research were channeled into empirically corroborating and quantifying (or falsifying) the AGW hypothesis, I’m sure we could have some real answers.
Is the “consensus” community afraid of what these experiments would show?
Would it rather continue doing all its projections based on model simulations, which are easier to control (but which provide no real empirical evidence)?
I’m skeptical.
Max
Manacker,
The CERN work is NOT going to tell us how GCRs affect temperature. At best they will give an estimate of he forcing.
The AGW hypothesis has already undergone such experiments and PASSED.
Manacker, who is the “we” in sending a robot to Mars? Last I heard, the European Space Agency couldn’t land their probe.
You also said it elsewhere in this comment thread:
“After all, Pekka, we’ve sent a robot to Mars, which seems much more difficult to me.”
Congratulations to the Swiss for the great work that the Americans and Russians accomplished in landing their Martian robots and probes.
Manacker likes to take credit for accomplishments, and then to get into other peoples knickers over stuff he disapproves of. Quite the pain in the you know what.
Webby
“WE” means the world – not just one nation.
Ya gotta get rid of that xenophobia, Webby. Makes you sound like an old crank.
Max
How could I be showing xenophobia while being proud of the work that WE do at CERN?
lolwot
I suggest we wait until CERN announces its next set of CLOUD experiments and what they hope to learn from them before we already second-guess the results these experiments will bring.
The first round has validated the galactic cosmic ray cloud nucleation mechanism in the presence of certain naturally occurring aerosols, but the scientists have cautioned that more work is required before this effect of this mechanism on our climate can be corroborated and quantified (or falsified).
So let’s wait and see what the next step brings.
Max
Web
You may be a US citizen (and pay US taxes), but, other than that I doubt you had anything to do with the NASA success on Mars. But still you can say (as can everyone) “we = humanity” have landed a robot on Mars.
Get it?
Max
Yes, an analog model of the earth with wind, CO2, water surfaces, deserts, vegetation, snow-cover, sea-ice, atmospheric and ocean circulations, aerosols and clouds. What could be simpler?
Jim D
Nothing in life is simple or inexpensive – especially not in climate research, where the world is already investing billions of taxpayer dollars per year..
But if we can send a robot to Mars, it is certainly not “impossible” to empirically corroborate and quantify (or falsify) the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, and hence the “CAGW” hypothesis (as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report) experimentally.
“Easy?”, NO. But “impossible?”: also NO.
Max
A system that is simple enough to build in a lab is also simple enough to represent well on a computer. What you don’t get is feedbacks like clouds, ice, soil and vegetation changes and you don’t know how much of what type of aerosols to add. No one would be satisfied that this answered anything, and skepticism would be just as rife with any such experiment. It doesn’t solve the problem, only shifts it and adds its own uncertainties. At least with computer codes, you can investigate uncertainties in its parameters, and have something to verify against.
Jim D
Forget about clouds and natural aerosols for now – CERN is already working on that one.
Ice changes and well as soil and vegetation changes of the surface albedo are of relatively small impact and could be ignored for the first pass.
Impact of human albedo changes could be a separate study, but that isn’t the main concern. The main unknown today is “what is the 2xCO2 impact on our global temperature?”
Sure, there would be lots of problems, but I am sure that scientists, who are smarter than you or I, could come up with an experiment to establish 2xCO2 CS empirically and, thus, end the uncertainty of whether AGW is a problem for humanity or not..
It might not be easy or inexpensive, but I’m sure it could be done – if there were the WILL to do it.
Max
The evidence of a greenhouse effect can be seen in the different surface cooling rates of clear and cloudy nights, which is common knowledge, but it is a real problem getting people to see that it is a greenhouse effect. Explain it with radiative transfer theory and they’re completely lost unless they are curious enough to try to understand how the physics works.
Jim D
Sure.
Clouds act as an outgoing IR “blanket” at night and as an incoming UV reflector during the day. Sort of a “natural thermostat”. Believe that has been common knowledge for many years.
Whether CO2 plays much of a role in this is doubtful in my mind.
Max
k scott denison
Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate comments from engineers. They have an entirely different approach than scientists. Engineers are practical, pragmatic, and solution focused. Scientists are not. They will keep researching forever.
However, I don’t think we need the experiments you suggest. I think we should “get out of the cart”. We don’t need much more scientific analysis or experiment.
Instead what we need is to focus on implementing the robust policy analysis approach that JC has been advocating for a long time.
I believe we can apply it robust analysis now and if we did we would find we can have the technologies available, and economically viable, to cut global GHG emissions from fossil fuels by 50% by around 2060 and, importantly, be economically better off not worse off. More on how here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313509
and here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/19/open-thread-weekend-14/#comment-313514
Peter Lang
I agree with you on most things, but I do not believe that now is the time to undertake any “robust action” specifically to reduce CO2 emissions in order to “solve” a “CAGW” problem (as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report), a “problem”, which is very likely not to exist outside the virtual world of general climate models.
But we do need to know whether or not there really is a problem.
For that reason, the taxpayer funded “climate research” should continue, but this work should be largely redirected toward empirical research studies to establish what the climate sensitivity to CO2 really is. If such studies can be done to corroborate and quantify or falsify the cosmic ray cloud hypothesis (CLOUD project at CERN), then something similar could certainly be done tfor the AGW hypothesis.
It is clear that the importance of the IPCC as the “gold standard” source of climate information has already dwindled, principally as a result of its agenda driven forced “consensus” process, and it is very likely that it may become fully irrelevant, depending on how it handles its next AR5 report.
I do agree with you that undertaking economically viable actions to move away from declining resources of fossil fuels to competitive alternates (such as nuclear fusion for electrical power generation) makes sense.
And this will, in all likelihood, require political or policy actions to enable the construction of new nuclear plants. I do not see the need for any governmental subsidies to this industry, but rather the institution of permit procedures that enable new plants to be constructed within a reasonable time frame, while still maintaining the most rigorous standards of safety and prevention of discharge of radioactivity. I agree with you that the USA should take the lead in this; but, if they do not, China quite likely will.
And the development of potential new domestic fossil fuel resources should also continue, again with no direct taxpayer funded subsidies, but with reasonable but non-obstructive permit procedures.
I also believe in the continuation of taxpayer subsidies to selected basic research projects aimed at developing renewable energy sources (but not to operational boondoggles like corn ethanol, Fiskers or Solyndra).
So we are probably on the same page in all respects except the need to undertake robust actions to reduce CO2 emissions (where I disagree) and to define empirically whether or not there really is a “CAGW” problem (where you disagree).
Max
Manacker,
We’ve been through this before. I am advocating what I believe will get us a net benefit, ‘No Regrets’ solution.
There is a political issue. A solution is required to that. Simply repeating AGW is not a problem will not convince those who believe it is a problem. And they are a significant proportion of the voting population. They want something done about AGW. They also want economically rational solutions.
Options are: regulations to cut GHG emissions, carbon pricing or economically viable solutions. I am saying that ‘robust analysis’ leads to the third option. But most people do not understand what it is.
If you oppose this option, inevitably the political choice will be made between the other two options, as US EPA is doing, EU is doing, Australia is doing, NZ is doing, etc. Robust analysis is I suspect the best way to educate the people along the lines of Lomborg’s presentation to Congress, to stop wasting money and to get away from the enormous waste of resources directed to solving CAGW.
Manacker,
Could you please reread my comment. I think you have misunderstood what I said. I did not say “robust action” (which might imply high cost action).
Manacker,
Further to my previous two responses to your comment, I want to explain a bit more about the political reality and why it is not going to go away any time soon.
As an example of the political reality, The Australian Opposition is likely to win the election of 14 September and become the next Australian Government. They have vowed to repeal the Australian Carbon tax and ETS. But they are also committed to cut Australia’s GHG emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2020. To achieve that will be extremely expensive. They maintain support for the renewable energy targets (20% wind and solar power by 2020) and have a whole host of other mandatory schemes to achieve the target. They also say they will broker a deal between USA and China to solve the worlds GHG emissions issues. I know, this is a laugh, but it is domestic politics. All democracies have their own domestic politics.
My key message is that the politics of AGW are real and not going away.
Pragmatic people among us have to face the realities and find the best way to deal with the real issues – i.e. AGW is a real and divisive political issue. I urge that we look more carefully at the ‘Robust analysis’ approach. IMO it can help to educate people about the real costs and benefits and pragmatic choices.
Peter
You state that a majority of voters in your country would favor “no regrets” actions to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.
Agree on “no regrets” actions (building nukes for new electrical power generation) personally – but do not believe a majority of the voting population in most of Europe (except France) would agree.
Germany has a planned nuclear moratorium with a set deadline.
Switzerland has a mandated moratorium, but no time schedule set.
People are slowly becoming aware that there are no viable alternates from renewables (wind, solar, etc.) except on a very isolated small scale.
And I think the same is true in many other European nations.
I don’t know how the general population feels about this in the USA (maybe one of the US denizens here has some info on this), but I am pretty sure that there is no popular majority in favor of cutting back CO2 emissions to the extent required to have any perceptible impact on our future climate. (Even Hansen’s proposal of shutting down all coal-fired plants by 2030 and replacing them with nuclear plants would only result in a theoretical reduction of global warming by 2100 of 0.08C, so this is meaningless). If the shale gas (and oil) boom materializes, people will forget about fretting about CO2 emissions.
The leaders of China will do what’s best for China (including nuclear), as will India, Russia, Brazil, etc.
IOW most people across the world are lukewarm to cold on the idea of even “no regrets” actions.
IMO this could change if the world was convinced that there was compelling evidence that we face a real threat from AGW.
And this compelling evidence can only be provided by empirical validation of a high 2xCO2 ECS and the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC.
But I see that you and I disagree on this point.
So let’s leave it there.
Cheers.
Max
Manacker,
I don’t recall saying that. I did say:
That statement is correct.
I am a bit touchy about having my statements misrepresented at the moment, as you might understand. :)
My point was about ‘robust policy analysis’ not about nuclear. Nuclear is not viable for most of the world at the moment, including Australia. It is too expensive. I expect robust analysis would show that the developed nations that have nuclear power expertise, especially USA, should unblock the development of small, nuclear power plants and focus on getting the cost down and allowing companies to compete and innovate. But that is just one a possible outcome of ‘robust analysis.
I disagree with that statement. People are in favour of ‘no regrets’ (i.e benefits equal or exceed costs excluding the possible climate benefits. What they are concerned about is that they are told a policy will be ‘no regrets’ and it turns out to not be. Examples are: subsidising and mandating renewable energy, carbon pricing, government mandated and subsidised energy efficiency, etc.
K Scott, I have often wondered why no one seems to have have pumped the same amount of heat, in the form of photons, into a thermally isolated and pre-chilled 30 meter tube of sea water, changing the spectrum from 400 to 1000 nm in 50 nm chunks. I suspect that not all photon packets behave in the same manner in terms of inducing sensible and latent heat.
“So why hasn’t any of this experimental work been done in climate? Why hasn’t someone build a small scale experiment with water, land, wind, air, “sun”, etc. and then run experiments with varying levels of CO2 to see what happens?”
If you have to ask that question you will not understand the answer, but I will try.
The greenhouse effect happens because when you add C02 to the atmosphere the ERL is raised. The ERL is that altitude (kilometers high) at which earth radiates to space. You cant test the theory in small scale because the effect depends upon the temperature at the height of the ERL
Steven Mosher
You are telling us why it cannot be done.
That’s the wrong answer.
We are talking about experimentally corroborating and quantifying (or falsifying) the hypothesis that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will result in a significant temperature change in a controlled system that simulates our planet’s atmosphere, thereby providing empirical validation (or falsification) of the CAGW premise (as outlined by IPCC in AR4).
This would be analogous to the continued work planned for the CLOUD experiment at CERN for the cosmic ray cloud nucleation climate change hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark et al.
We need to get the best minds together to figure out how this can be done, not rationalizations for why it cannot be done.
Because if we are serious about trying to drastically curtail all future global fossil fuel combustion in order to avoid continued increase in atmospheric CO2, we’d better be REAL sure that this is a necessary thing to do.
And we aren’t yet.
Max
Max,
The scientist have been doing the proper research all the time and they continue to do it. At the present the most powerful approach is using climate models. The models have been built to take into account the knowledge from empirical observations as much as the scientists have been able to do.
Simulating in laboratory the Earth atmosphere and the GHE is totally impossible for the reason given by Steven. Laboratory experiments can be used to study many small scale processes, and they have been used successfully in that. We know from laboratory experiments, how CO2 interacts with IR. Therefore we can calculate reliably the radiative processes in specified atmospheric conditions. The difficulties are in determining the atmospheric conditions and making any laboratory experiment simulate them correctly is simply impossible,
Research like the CLOUD experiment are several steps remote from that. The goal of the experiment is to learn about certain micro level processes. Such additional knowledge may help gradually in understanding better cloud formation in real atmosphere but a lot of detailed additional research on the conditions in the real atmosphere is needed for that. Those results may in turn help in improving the description of cloud formation and cloud properties in the atmospheric models. Whether they do ultimately help in that is a totally open question. It’s equally possible (and perhaps more likely) that the description of cloud formation and cloud properties will remain based more directly on empirically observed correlations between parameters. There’s little, if any, indication that the CLOUD experiment would in any way provide support for Svensmark’s speculations.
A possible experiment is to relocate the flue gas emission point of a coal fired power plant to a pristine location or over ocean, which should create an artificial CO2 dome, with higher concentrations closer to the emission point. Then measure if the increased CO2 concentrations affect anything (temperatures, heat fluxes…) at the surface.
Pekka
Not to quibble, but model simulations do not provide empirical evidence (as we both know).
Agree that the Svensmark hypothesis has not yet been corroborated and quantified (or falsified). All that has been done so far is the validation of the GCR cloud nucleation mechanism in the presence of certain naturally occurring aerosols.
But, as I understand it from reports by the researchers involved at CERN, further work is planned under controlled conditions simulating our atmosphere to hopefully corroborate and quantify (or falsify) the hypothesis that this mechanism works in our atmosphere.
I cannot believe that it would be impossible to do something similar for corroborating and quantifying 2xCO2 climate sensitivity and the CAGW premise (as outlined by IPCC in AR4).
After all, Pekka, we’ve sent a robot to Mars, which seems much more difficult to me.
And this would seem to me to have very high priority.
Max
Since there is a flurry of suggesting experiments, I have a suggestion (mostly in jest, but the need is genuine).
The main justification for climate actions is the concern about low probability catastrophic climate change. So we should focus on truing to find out if the fat tail is a real possibility
Many climate scientists are concerned about the fat tail in PDF of the estimates of climate sensitivity. Weitzman (2009) http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/heep/papers/HEEP%20Discussion%2011.pdf talks about the possibility of massive releases of methane from clathrates as a possible mechanism for high climate sensitivity. So I suggest we tackle that issue. Here is my suggested experiment to test it.
Raise the temperature of the sea floor in test locations where there are clathrates and measure the CH4 emissions. Raise the temperature by 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C (and 0C for a control) in five experiment locations.
Three phases:
1. Get baseline measurements of emissions in the test locations before starting the tests – i.e. measure CH4 emissions from the sea floor before starting the test.
2. Seal the sea floor in the test areas and measure the emissions before starting the phase 3
3. Warm the sea floor by 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C (and 0C for a control) in five experiment locations.
How do we seal the sea floor test areas?
There are a few ideas come to mind; here is one:
Plastic sheet over the test area (e.g. one hectare for each of five test areas. Cover with sediment to hold it down. Pipes from the plastic sheet to a container (e.g. a plastic bag) to capture released gases from under the plastic sheet.
How do we heat the sea floor under the plastic sheet to 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C in four of the five test areas?
Heat water and pump it below the plastic bag.
There will also need to be boreholes down into the clathrates for instrumentation to measure the rate that the raised temperature is progressing down from the surface.
Leave operating and maintenance instructions for future generations so they can comeback in 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 years to measure and interpret the results.
A faster way to heat the clathrates would be to drill boreholes and insert heaters in the holes.
Before everyone goes ballistic, I do recognise that heating the clathrates in situ by just a few degrees and getting a temperature profile similar to what slow heating of the ocean would do, does pose some ‘slight’ problems. :)
“We are talking about experimentally corroborating and quantifying (or falsifying) the hypothesis that doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will result in a significant temperature change in a controlled system that simulates our planet’s atmosphere, thereby providing empirical validation (or falsification) of the CAGW premise (as outlined by IPCC in AR4).”
I’ll repeat you cannot do a scaled version of the system. But imagine we did. Imagine that we could build a device 100 miles high and do controlled experiments in it. What would skeptics say. They would say
” Thats a lab experiement– you left out the ocean.. you didnt have trees and trees cause rain, and look your device had no hurricanes it it and they shoot energy to space .. and there were not thunderstorms in your device.. all sorts of things that change the temperature in the real world so who cares, who cares if you showed that doubling c02 and holding all else equal lead to a temperature increase.. in the REAL WORLD all else is not equal.. so your experiment doesnt apply “
Steven Mosher
Thanks for response.
You are apparently already worried about the reaction of skeptics to the results of an empirical experiment to determine 2XCO2 climate sensitivity before the experiment has even been designed and carried out.
Isn’t that getting the cart before the horse?
The folks at CERN are apparently not already fretting about the response of true “consensus” AGW believers to anything they might find out in the further work they are planning on the Svensmark hypothesis.
Nor am I.
Knowledge is knowledge.
And we do not yet have that knowledge concerning the impact of raising CO2 levels on our climate. There is just way too much “uncertainty” whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere will be a problem at all.
It would seem to make more sense for us to use our brains to figure out how to perform a meaningful empirical experiment, not to already second-guess what the reaction of some people will be to the results obtained.
Don’t you think?
Max
.
Peter Lang
That’s a bad experiment IMO that does not even address the root cause we are trying to test experimentally.
Sure, if you artificially raise the ocean floor temperature by 6C (assuming there are methane clathrates down there) these will be released.
We can be pretty sure of that, based on simply warming up clathrates in the lab under various pressures.
The question is not whether clathrates would escape under drastically warmer ocean floor temperatures, but what the impact of a doubling of CO2 would be on our temperature.
And we do not know that yet, because we do not yet have any empirical evidence.
Max
Pekka
With all due respect, nothing is “totally impossible”.
If you put the most intelligent minds to it, I am sure that an experiment could be designed that would give us actual empirical data to either corroborate and quantify or falsify the hypothesis of a high 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (as is planned at CERN for the Svensmark hypothesis).
And by diverting just a part of the billions currently being spent on various aspects of “climate related science”, I’m sure that this could also be financed.
I detect a real reluctance to such a proposal, especially on the part of those supporting the IPCC “consensus” position.
Why is this?
Are they afraid the results will show that 2xCO2 ECS is relatively small and AGW is, therefore, relatively insignificant?
Would such an experiment lie outside the comfort zone of the model studies, which can be steered in the desired direction more easily?
Just asking.
Max
Peter Lang
There is a fairly high probability that human use of fossil fuels will continue, possibly with some token abatement but no real drastic reduction. A globally binding treaty to radically curtail fossil fuel use is unrealistic – it will not happen.
So it is likely that we will have atmospheric CO2 levels in the 600 ppmv range by the end of this century and possibly as high as 800 ppmv within 150-200 years from now.
This would be roughly 2x today’s level.
So one can say with some certainty that we will likely see a doubling of atmospheric CO2 within the next 200 years, maybe somewhat sooner.
But we do not have any notion what this means for our climate.
As our hostess has testified before an earlier US congressional committee:
Model predictions cited by IPCC six years ago told us 2xCO2 could cause warming at equilibrium of 3.2C+/-0.7C or 2.5C to 3.9C (AR4, WG1, CH.8, p. 633).
Several more recent studies, which are partly based on actual observations rather than simply model simulations, indicate that these earlier estimates were exaggerated by a factor of around two.
The difference between the two is dramatic, i.e. the “magnitude is highly uncertain”.
With the older estimate we could be facing a possible future warming of up to 4C (possibly resulting in CAGW as outlined by IPCC in AR4).
With the newer estimate the warming is constrained to a maximum of around 2C, which is not considered by anyone to represent a real problem for humanity or our environment.
This is why it is so important to get a better quantification of 2xCO2 ECS in my opinion.
Max
Observational studies say that the equilibrium value will be around 3C for CO2 doubling. So, you are off by a factor of 2, Manacker.
And with the propagation of uncertainty in the positive feedback denominator, we will have to place a fat-tail to higher values than 3C.
That’s how the math and observations work out Manacker.
Hope this helps with your understanding.
Web
You write:
Just writing it doesn’t make it true, Webby.
The most recent (partly) observation based studies (seven of them) come up with a value if around half this amount with no “fat tail”.
So your number has already been superseded by newer knowledge.
But even these are based on assumptions on natural forcing and variability.
What is missing is empirical evidence quantifying 2xCO2 ECS. We’re not there yet. Web. Uncertainty is still very great whether AGW is a real problem or none at all.
Hope this helps you in your understanding of the problem, Web.
Max
Manacker, Recent observational studies have shown the sensitivity is around 3C per CO2 doubling. This is based on looking at land-only temperature records, which are faster to respond as per the eventual equilibrium climate sensitivity. In contrast, the land+ocean temperature observations show around 2/3 of the 3C doubling value, due to the slow feedback transient effects of the ocean.
So, if we keep track of the land-only data, we have an idea of what the eventual warming will be. In other words, the ocean will be a delayed version of the land, and the global equilibrium value will asymptotically reach the 3C value.
The uncertainty is shifted to the high side of 3C due to the positive feedbacks occurring in the denominator of the sensitivity model. The propagation of uncertainty in a denominator value always pushes the error high, as anyone who has taken freshman physics labs and estimated uncertainty in a Time-of-Flight (TOF) gravity measurement experiment has experienced. Physics students learn this interactively because it is of value in doing experimental science, and simply writing it down doesn’t always help them retain that knowledge.
Hope this helps with your understanding of climate physics, Manacker.
Manacker @ April 28, 2013 at 3:30 pm
I agree it is a bad experiment but not for the reasons you mention. I agree it is a bad experiment because it is a ‘thought bubble’ it is not designed, and because of the impracticality of heating the ocean floor, uniformly over an area of say a hectare by 1C, 2C, 3C and 4C and simulating that temperature increase over a period of centuries so that the temperature progresses to depth as it would if the oceans warmed by these amounts of similar times scales. That is why it is a bad experiment.
But you seem to argue it is a bad experiment because the justification for it is wrong. I disagree with that. Many climate scientists are arguing that the justification for CAGW is the possibility, no matter how low the probability, that the clathrates could escape and drive temperatures much higher. Weitzman talks of 20 C in two centuries. So my justification for such an experiment is to see if this possibility of CAGW is feasible.
I disagree with this one-track approach. We’ve spent 25 years trying to get a handle on climate sensitivity. The central estimate and the uncertainty have hardly changed in this time, for whatever reason. It is putting all our eggs in one basket expecting that we will suddenly get to narrow the uncertainty of our estimates of climate sensitivity. And the CAGW alarmists are concerned about the fat tail. That is scary for the public. It needs to be addressed. So, I suggest we must also pursue the alternative path of narrowing the uncertainties about the fat tail. Release of methane from the clathrates seems to be one scary scenario. If that is not a real issue, then the “C” in CAGW becomes much less significant. [Also important is to reduce the uncertainty of the damage function and the rate of decarbonisation of the global economy that can be achieved]
By the way, I am a bit disturbed that for the third time in a day you have misrepresented what I’ve said. You said:
I did not say 6C. I said 1C, 2C, 3C and 4C. I also specifically said that proposed experiments would be done where clathrates are present and the area would be properly characterised before the experiment was done.
I am not advocating the experiment, but just pointing out that the misrepresentations of what I’ve said, three in a day, is concerning me. I hope you will not do so any more.
Manacker,
I don’t understand what you are responding to with your comment @ April 28, 2013 at 4:09 pm . It begins:
There is a fairly high probability that human use of fossil fuels will continue, possibly with some token abatement but no real drastic reduction. A globally binding treaty to radically curtail fossil fuel use is unrealistic – it will not happen.
I’ve stated many times that ‘a globally binding treaty to radically curtail fossil fuel use is unrealistic and will not happen’. However, I do not agree that the world will not radically reduce fossil fuel use this century. I believe we will. It will not be done by international agreement. It will be done by the markets and competition. IMO, it will be done more quickly if and when we (especially the USA) remove the regulatory and licencing impediments that are retarding the development of low cost nuclear power. This is just one example; there are many others, such as for transport fuels.
We’ve spent 25 years trying to get a handle on climate sensitivity. The central estimate and the uncertainty have hardly changed in this time, for whatever reason. The newer, lower estimates of climate sensitivity are not yet generally accepted. I see nothing to suggest we will suddenly make a breakthrough so we will suddenly get to narrow the uncertainty of our estimates of climate sensitivity. Therefore, I see no point in putting all our eggs in one basket. Instead, I’d advocate the following:
1. Robust analysis to develop robust strategies to reduce the risk, and develop and implement ‘no regret policies’
2. Reduce the focus and expenditure on climate sensitivity research
3. Increase the focus on the damage function research
4. Increase the focus on research to determine what rate of decarbonisation could be achieved, given the real constraints in the real world
5. Pragmatic policies that could achieve this rate of decarbonisation and the probability such policies would succeed in the real world
6. Educate the population about the robust policy approach.
Peter Lang
We are beating a dead horse, but since there appear to be misunderstandings on both sides, let me summarize how I see it.
I am of the opinion that we need a better definition of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, hopefully backed by empirical evidence.
It appears to me that you feel this is not necessary.
You suggested an alternate experiment:
[I misread your 0C as 6C. Mea culpa.]
While this experiment might allay some fears about massive methane releases from warming clathrates, I do not believe that this experiment will tell us much about the impact of CO2 on our climate, which I consider to be the main uncertainty at this time.
This appears to be our point of disagreement. So be it.
We agree that it is virtually impossible that a binding global CO2 curtailment agreement will be signed.
We agree that any “policy actions” to address the potential AGW problem should be “no regrets” actions.
We agree that a switch from coal to nuclear power could reduce the total atmospheric CO2 content and the amount of warming that could result from this by 2100.
And we seem to agree on a lot of other points, as well.
So let’s break off this exchange and “agree to disagree” on the few points where we do not agree.
OK?
Max
Manacker,
I agree with you on all the points we agree on :) :)
I guess I was overstating the one that you think we disagree on. I over reacted to your statement of “its a bad experiment” because, by definition is I say it is good, it is good (more smileys) :) :) :)
I do think we need to reduce the range of uncertainty of climate sensitivity, but I don’t see any reason to believe there will be a breakthrough before politics forces us to take policy action, and I don’t want the high cost policies that are being advocated by the alarmists. Therefore, I want more effort to tackle the other important inputs to cost benefit analysis and robust analysis. I believe we can achieve much more to informal rational policy by putting more effort into:
– improving our understanding and reducing the uncertainty in the damage function
– improving our understanding and reducing the uncertainty in the decarbonisation rate function (the rate the global economy can be decarbonised)
– trying to thin and/or chop off the thick tail of Climate Sensitivity that implies possibility of catastrophic consequences (hence: is it credible that the clathrates could release massive amounts of methane with just 1C, 2C, 3C of 4C of warming of the oceans – I don’t care how we tackle it, but I do think it is an issue that needs to be addressed)
– proper planning of the implementation and long term sustainment of proposed policies and estimating the probability they will be implemented and sustainable in the real world, which leads me to support:
– increased focus on economic analysis, cost-benefit analysis (like Nordhaus and Tol) and robust analysis.
In summary, I agree I think we agree on the substantial issues and preferred approach. The ‘clathrate experiment’ was a trivial thought bubble (a bit of a joke really) for the sake of sticking my nose into the discussion about experiments on the climate. It was never intended to be serious. Sorry for distracting you from your important work of educating those who are capable of being educated and attempting to educate those who cannot be (this is not meant to be sarcastic).
BREAKING NEWS on CLIMATE ETC
DocMartyn analyzes (for himself) the paleo evidence!
• Doc predicts if CO2 doubles “We are screwed as a species!!”
• Doc agrees with Hansen “Civilization isn’t going to survive”!!!
• Doc wonders “Can dust save us?”
——————–
Aye, Climate Etc lassies and laddies, that’s what happens to skeptics who disregard climate-change theory, disregard climate-change computer models, and disregard the modern “hockey stick” of instrument records — who skeptically discount three-out-of-four pillars of climate-change science — and who analyze the paleo data for themselves.
Result Skeptics who rationally contemplate the paleo data end up agreeing with James Hansen.
——————-
Conclusion The pace of extinction of rational climate-change skepticism is accelerating faster than an Arctic ice-melt!
As for non-rational climate-change denialism, the community of denialists is becoming more-and-more compressed, within a smaller-and-smaller “bubble”, of less-and-less-rational ideological conviction. That’s pure common-sense, eh Climate Etc lassies and laddies?
I think Fan is referencing this comment by DocMartyn
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/#comment-313686
I too think DocMartyn did a good job with his analysis. The GISS is a land+ocean data set and so anything derived from this leans to a transient estimate. DocMartyn gets a 2.37C change for doubling of CO2.
About half the heat is entering the ocean without leading to an immediate temperature rise, so that with 70% of the surface covered by ocean, we can pro-rate the eventual temperature change.
2.37 = 0.7*(1/2)*dT + 0.3*dT
Solving for dT, the equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 3.6C for doubling of CO2.
dT =2.37/0.65 = 3.65
This is above the mean estimate of 3C that most climate models have been converging to.
Well Web, I have asked our host to post a little doggerel I prepared on this very subject. If she is in the mood you will have far more datasets to mischaracterize.
It’s your analysis. You are the one that determined a 2.4C for a doubling transient. Given the transient nature of observational data, the equilibrium is certainly well above 3C for a doubling. That gives lots of room for a temperature plateau before the ECS starts to dip below 3C.
Perhaps your doggerel will recant your own analysis?
The ice core data is quite conclusive, insoluble dust varies levels in the ice cores vary by more than three orders of magnitude.
If one examines the the quite profound changes in temperature that result from quite modest changes in atmospheric models in the actual temperature record, following volcanic events, and in models, it is easy to see that aerosols have a huge impact on temperature.
This dust got to the Antarctic via the atmosphere.
This dust is metal rich and when it present in the atmosphere it would have done two things, blocked sunlight and fertilized the oceans photosynthetic biotica.
The relationship between Fe and CO2 in the ice cores is here:-
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/IronandCO2_zpsdc6e7798.jpg
Now, as a biologist, if I am asked what will happen to atmospheric CO2 when the unproductive ocean deserts are fertilized by dust containing the very trace elements required to sustain photosynthetic life I am going to go Emperor Nero on you.
As atmospheric levels of dust rise, temperatures fall and the levels of the biotic gas, CO2, in the atmosphere are going to fall.
Any reasonable person will accept that 1) atmospheric dust will cool the planet. 2) the three orders of magnitude changes in dust levels during the past 800K years correlate perfectly with temperature and 3) this change in mineral fertilization of the oceans will have profound changes in the bioproductivity of the oceans and the rate of carbon mineralization into aquatic carbon sinks.
this heat will one day jump out of the ocean like a Jack-in-the box
If this happened in the past ten thousand years, it may happen again and the temperatures will stay in the same range of the past ten thousand years, because that is what has happened for ten thousand years. History is the best forecast for the future.
‘the equilibrium is certainly well above 3C for a doubling’
You keep using that word, I don’t think you know what it means.
Thermalization of photons isn’t some magic process, light is absorbed and energy is transferred to the molecule that absorbs it. The sensible heat does not not then migrate to a magic place and jump out like a pantomime villain a few years later.
DocMartyn, You don’t seem to understand that much of the climate physics is well understood. I only use the terms that other climate scientists use, within the context that they apply them. So, I do agree that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is not strictly equilibrium, as nothing will every reach a true equilibrium. Yet they do need something to distinguish the transient from the steady-state, and this is what climatologists seem to use.
So what you should do is apply your linearization analysis that came up with the 2.4 C for CO2 doubling to the land-based temperature trends. The BEST data will work for this. What this will give you is a closer representation to what the ECS will be, since the transient heat-sinking effects are on a much shorter time-scale and we can actually see the true ECS on an observational time scale.
‘transient heat-sinking effects’
which are what exactly? Hidden heat? Pathetic.
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
The behavioral response of ocean heat content (OHC) is very straightforward to model with the transient response of the heat equation.
You shouldn’t fear conventional physics so much. And you shouldn’t always listen to science filtered through the mass media, or through eavesdropping on email conversations. The “missing heat” is a meme that will continue to get misinterpreted, because that is how memes work in the media. However, those same memes don’t work out so well when you have to write out the equations. Instead, they will reveal themselves as natural processes with a transient response.
@ WHT
Yes, in hindsight, perhaps quasi-equilibrium sensitivity/QECS would have been more informative. But it sounds silly and
may havewould have encouraged buffoonery, so perhaps we are better off with misnomer.Web here is a blow up of the graphic you have analyzed
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/deepoceanJPEG_zpsc6585990.jpg
note that the amounts of HEAT at the depth have increased in the last decade faster at 300-700 than at 0-300. As most rational people hold that energy input into the oceans is a function of incoming radiation at the surface, this change in heat is non-physical. Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén have observed a change that is against the laws of thermodynamics; which one has to admit is a nice gig if you can get it. Co2 transfers heat from the surface to the depths and then transports ‘cold’ up wards.
One presumes that you, along with Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén believe that this heat will one day jump out of the ocean like a Jack-in-the box thermalizing the surface.
the study of biology is the study of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and analysis of changes in steady states is what biologists do for a living. Dynamic systems that exist as entropy engines are what the biosphere is all about.
DocMartyn, there are many oceanographers who believe cold water comes to the surface and spreads in a process they call upwelling like off the coast of California. Crazy, huh? (not)
Jim would you like to share with the class how CO2 is able to draw forth the cold dense brines of the ocean depths and replace then with the warmer, less dense, surface waters?
Fan
Not really, Fan. Look around you.
Max
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The Sky is falling!
Chicken Little is alive and well!
This knowledge that the king has no clothes on is growing, day by day.
Seventeen years of no warming being announced by the head of the IPCC does indicate that even the most rabid climate alarmists know the end is near.
Skepticism is decreasing because skeptics have doubt. More and more people are becoming unbelievers instead of skeptics. We no longer have doubt, now we know the Alarmism is is based on Model output that does not match actual data for decades.
THERE ARE LESS SKEPTICS BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY MANY MANY MORE OF US UNBELIEVERS. We really don’t believe anything that has no actual real data to support it.
We have lost our doubt, now we are confident that seventeen years of forecasts of warming that did not happen is much more than enough.
For my 10 seconds of fame as a culture pundit, see this NPR article
Has Climate Change Created a New Literary Genre?
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/176713022/so-hot-right-now-has-climate-change-created-a-new-literary-genre
which related to my previous post on Cli-Fi
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/23/cli-fi/
If you missed this the first time around, it is a fun read.
Judith Curry
There were many “natural disaster” sci-fi books before it, but Michael Crichton’s 2004 techno-thriller State of Fear was one of the first I can remember that addressed “anthropogenic climate change”.
Max
great read!
“In fact,” Kramb says, “I think when [people] look back at this 21st century … they will definitely see climate change as one of the major themes in literature, if not the major theme.”
And then they’ll sigh and turn back gratefully to the literature of earlier centuries.
In fact, I think that Kramb is wrong, by 2030 no one will be interested in “climate change,” leaving 70 years of the century for non-cc-oriented literature.
Indeed the earliest literature concerned great floods that were visited upon humanity because of their sins. Great floods and cataclysms have featured in the literature of many nations from the Chinese to the grail tradition that began with the druids. There are seven stages of the grail vision ranging from a shining fish that many have seen to a vision that is profoundly secret but is accompanied by ascending physically to heaven leaving behind floods and other cataclysms.
The Dragon-Kings of the Orient controlled the waters and would punish people for theirs sins.
http://www.blackdrago.com/history/dragonkings.htm
In Norse mythology it is Ragnarök. ‘Before the end of the world, three winters without summers in between will happen in Midgard, and order will be lost in the human world. Fathers will fight their sons, siblings will commit incest, mothers will seduce their children, and brothers will tear at each other’s hearts. Midgard will be consumed with war.
The wolves Skoll and Hati will swallow the sun and moon, and the great wolf Fenris, son of Loki the trickster god, will run loose and kill Odin the All-Father, who steps forth to fight him. Odin’s son Vidar will avenge Odin by tearing Fenris apart. Thor will battle the Midgard serpent and slay him but be slain himself by the serpent’s venomous fumes. Many gods as well as all men and women save two, Lif and Lifthrasir, who seek shelter under the branches of Yggdrasil, will die. The sky will fall into a pit of flames and the earth will sink into the sea.
After the end of the world, the earth will rise renewed out of the sea and flourish. Grain will grow where no grain was sown; Lif and Lifthrasir will repeople the new world with their offspring and descendants. Odin’s sons as well as his brothers Vili and Vé will reconvene with the other surviving gods on the plain of Ida, where Asgard used to be, and hold council. They will reign over the new world as the ruling gods. So the earth was begun, and so it shall end.
My favourite recent post apocalypse read was Hunger Games – an unnamed disaster – climate related it seems – had resulted in hunger and violence culminating in the collapse of the high tech society that preceded.
Now here’s an idea for an epic song cycle.
Chief Hydrologist | April 27, 2013 at 8:47 pm said: ”’earliest literature concerned great floods that were visited upon humanity because of their sins. Great floods and cataclysms have featured…”
Chief, in the past, when Great floods and cataclysms occurred; they used to sacrifice couple of virgins and a sheep = problems solved. Now they don’t make virgins anymore… or as a Snake Oil salesman said: because of extra CO2 in the atmosphere, by 2017, there will not be a single virgin left in the democratic west… are we in real trouble… brimstone, floods and droughts… if the suckers don’t pay carbon tax?!
Most certainly we are in trouble if you don’t pay $1000 into my Swiss bank account immediately. As for virgins – an adult is free to act in whatever way is not actually harmful to other people. And hopefully we are looking after our children before that and educating them to be responsible adults.
According to Professor Judith Curry …’when novelists
tackle climate change in their writing, they reach people
in a way that science can’t.’ (so-hot-right-now-)
Thought fer Today: ‘Truth is weaker than fiction?’
I’m still not sure why people need to be reached, especially in a fictional sort of way. No one’s going to sell novels in which “climate change” turns out to be a dud, are they?
Been thinking about getting serf T-shirts made up Beth. Need a saying though…
PG, aspiring serf.
pokerguy, yer modesty already gives yer the potential :^ /
and if yer come up with an apt tee shirt slogan yer will
be awarded honorary membership together with a free
ferst-edishun copy of ‘Serf Under-ground.’ : ^ )
Bts
I’ll certainly be thinking on it, Beth especially with stakes so high. Have you read the recent New Yorker piece on writing…”The Writing Life” I think it’s called…It’s a nice piece of writing on writing, which isn’t easy. I know because I’ve tried. More than once.
(Do people down under…as opposed to serfs under-ground… read the New Yorker.Do people even say “down under” anymore? )
Hey, I’m an aspiring serf, how am I supposed to know?
I think all serfs must be writers while they’re out their working the fields, at least in their minds. Even aspiring serfs in their imaginary, aspirational fields. The main idea of that piece is to get a first draft going…even if it’s only a one line T shirt slogan. Or so I suppose.
If I were on the other team it might be easier. Max_OK and his crew might have T-shirts that read “I surf for serfs.” Sounds predatory, doesn’t it?
In fact, I’ve kind of scared myself. And it’s bedtime, I hate when I do that to myself..
.I wonder if all aspiring serfs are quite so timid?
pokerguy, I had a tee shirt made h/t ter kim,
which I presented ter James Delingpole while
he was down under … some of us still go with
the song fer fun. The message, white on black,
“Wage, wage war
Against the lying
and the fright….”
Daresay many Melbourne – ites read the New Yorker.
The serf company I keep are probably not up ter it
but I might have a look at it, gotta keep up now I’m
an in – sipp -iant under-ground editor !!
Beth
I’ve been a hard science fiction fan since forever. A work of fiction where the plot is about CAGW would technically be considered fantasy not science fiction.
+ 1
Thank you, thank you. Come back again. I’m playing here all week.
Anyone have any thoughts on the recent discovery of “dark lightning”? Apparently large amounts of gamma rays are ejected from the top of some thunderstorms into space. Made me wonder if this could be an important overlooked mechanism by which the earth sheds heat.
Steven, there are possibly one or two “mechanisms” nobody knows much about. Could be even more! What’s under our feet and flippers, for example, all the plasticky, mushy, hot stuff (aka most of the Earth)…that might be interesting to know more about. Hard to reduce it all to facile equations, of course. Our Green Betters like to keep their climate console down to a few familiar buttons, knobs and levers, like on the Enterprise.
Are you referring to the mushy warmed-over krackpot theories that counter the conventional science?
Plenty of those but no one buys any of them.
For “all the plasticky, mushy, hot stuff “:
See: “(aka most of the Earth)”.
I was just saying to someone today that we need to act urgently on the science. We need to make that movie about “settled” climate science while Jerry Lewis is still alive.
‘Scientists think the antimatter particles were formed inside thunderstorms in a terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF) associated with lightning. It is estimated that about 500 TGFs occur daily worldwide, but most go undetected.
“These signals are the first direct evidence that thunderstorms make antimatter particle beams,” said Michael Briggs, a member of Fermi’s Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He presented the findings Monday, during a news briefing at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Seattle.’
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/11jan_antimatter/
Beam me up Scotty.
Positrons are antiparticles of electrons, but calling positrons antimatter is really misleading. I wouldn’t expect that from NASA.
‘For every matter particle, there is a corresponding antiparticle — these antiparticles collectively are what we know as antimatter. They have properties that are similar but opposite to their corresponding matter particles — for example the same mass and the same magnitude but opposite sign of charge. When a particle and its antiparticle meet, they annihilate — disappearing in a burst of energy.’
‘A positron is the antiparticle of the electron. It has the same mass but opposite charge (positive instead of negative). When it annihilates with an electron, they turn into gamma rays.’
http://www.positron.edu.au/faq.html
NASA and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Antimatter-Matter Studies would disagree Pekka.
As I wrote positron is the antiparticle of electron, but the expression “antimatter” refers normally to more massive antiparticles or even antiatoms or antimolecules. Therefore this usage is misleading.
I did read what you said. But it seems you disagree with the experts Pekka – and your world of ‘normally’ doesn’t apply to the definitions used in the real world. If you would stop quibbling just for a moment – you might be treated with higher regard.
Pekka Pirilä | April 27, 2013 at 5:23 pm | Reply
“Positrons are antiparticles of electrons, but calling positrons antimatter is really misleading. I wouldn’t expect that from NASA.”
The old gray mare, she ain’t what she used to be.
Pekka is quite correct. One does not count neutrons, elections or protons as ‘normal’ matter as they only exist in their free state in plasma. The protons measured by a pH meter are virtual and hydrated, and are not independent entities.
We are talking about electrons and positrons that have mass and annihilate each in a gamma ray burst – seen at the top of thunderstorms.
But I quoted both NASA and the Australian Centre for Excellence in Matter/Antimatter Research. I could be silly and mention Bruce but I’m sure these people take themselves very seriously indeed.
Petty quibbles from amateurs notwithstanding – this is a fun bit of science. So if you want to insist that there is a scientific controversy here I suggest that you link to a reputable source or stop hand waving about yet another topic.
PekkaPirila and DocMartyn both need to assume the position for attempting and failing to be pedants about the definition of antimatter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
Hell the antimatter particles you bozos say aren’t antimatter are specifically used for examples of antimatter in the opening paragraph. You boys need to make sure you’re at least up to speed on encyclopedic knowledge before pretending to know more. You look ridiculous otherwise and there’s really no excuse except hubris for spending 5 seconds to make sure you’re right before accusing others of being wrong. Like f*cking duh.
Actually, on second reading, I’m the ass and ChiefHydrologist needs to assume the position next to me. Antimatter is material composed of antiparticles. Antiparticles join together like normal particles to form antimatter.
The pedants win one! Yay! Long live pedants!
LOL
Oh for God’s sake I gave you NASA the ‘Centre for Antimatter-Matter Studies (CAMS) and some other pinheads on youtube – and you give me wikipedia and pontificate about assuming the position. Seems par for the course. Did you read the urban dictionary entries? Try entry 2. Seriously weird. But whether you care to assume the position or not comes under the heading of things I don’t want to know.
Context Ellison. The context here was not sex, not crime, but rather what’s common terminology in particle physics. I say again get your mind out of the gutter.
As far as antiparticles and antimatter wikipedia supports Pirali and Martyn, I mistakenly claimed otherwise, then corrected my mistake. I realize that wikipedia is neither definitive nor authoritative but it’s usually accurate in non-controversial subjects regardless. But there’s more.
Here is further evidence wikipedia is correct:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/parcon.html
Notice the Quantum Physics index in the above highly acclaimed award winning online physics text lists “Antiparticles and Antimatter” as a single subject area. Mentioning both would be redundant in your opinion. This to me is evidence that particle physicists do indeed distinguish between antiparticles and antimatter using the latter term to describe atoms made of antiparticles. It’s not my nomenclature and if it were I’d make it like you think it should be but it appears the actual practioners don’t use the terms in that way.
If you say that being on all fours, naked, was not what you had mind with assuming the position – hell I can only go by urban dictionary.
But – and from your antiparticles and antimatter link.
‘Seeing that nature is in so many respects symmetric, a fundamental question is “Why is the universe made out of matter, with very little antimatter? We can create antimatter today in pair production, and in fact the processes of particle production produce equal numbers of particles and antiparticles. Something very early in the history of the universe tipped the balance toward matter to the virtual exclusion of antimatter. We see antimatter today only in pair production, radioactive decay and in the products of the high-energy particle accelerators.’
Are you really that incompetent?
I’ll grant it’s ambiguous. Babble on, Garth.
‘Scientists think the antimatter particles were formed inside thunderstorms in a terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF) associated with lightning.’ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/11jan_antimatter/
First it absolutely was with an excuse to insult Pekka, then it emphatically wasn’t with your arse in the air – finally it is ambiguous and you accuse me of babbling.
You are a total dingbat.
The definition of matter is something that has mass and occupies space.
Hence an electron or a positron is matter.
‘For every matter particle, there is a corresponding antiparticle — these antiparticles collectively are what we know as antimatter. They have properties that are similar but opposite to their corresponding matter particles — for example the same mass and the same magnitude but opposite sign of charge. When a particle and its antiparticle meet, they annihilate — disappearing in a burst of energy. What happens in between can be quite interesting, and is the focus of CAMS.’ http://www.positron.edu.au/faq.html#faq1
That seems clear enough. But why don’t you email and they will add to the FAQ – coo.cams@anu.edu.au
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-UOAYALT5E
Angels on pin heads – you can see them fluttering around springers head.
‘Assume the position’ happens when someone gets arrested in Australia – it is just hands on the wall or other surface and feet spread. Apparently not in the US – http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assume%20the%20position – and is vulgar, inappropriate, socially insensitive and quite possibly homophobic. The images of Abu Ghraib come to mind on reading the definition – I just really don’t need it.
Evidently there’s a categorical difference between antiparticles and antimatter in particle physics. Hey, it’s their nomenclature, their conventions. It’s petty to bring it up but we already knew the two characters who brought it up are petty and we know you can’t admit a mistake. Evidently I’m the only one secure enough to admit I was wrong and not so petty that I’d give a damn about proper nomenclature outside a formal setting. It was a press release not a paper appearing in Nature Particle Physics or whatever.
Assume the position is not vulgar. Get your mind out of the gutter. Depending on the context it means bend over and prepare to get a spanking or it can also mean prepare to be frisked. It’s mildly insulting in the latter case because whoever says it is implying that you get frisked enough to know what the position is without having it described.
Hell – http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/27/open-thread-weekend-15/#comment-316997 – and goodbye
Chief Hydrologist | April 28, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
“goodbye”
Promise? Oh happy days.
Well – good bye only to you and for the moment – you may have noticed. Bye. It is just such a pointless and trivial discussion from a nice bit of NASA science. You commence with a gratuitous snark and insist on being your typically bombastic and boorish self. Go argue with NASA you pompous twit.
‘Scientists using NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have detected beams of antimatter produced above thunderstorms on Earth, a phenomenon never seen before.
Scientists think the antimatter particles were formed in a terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF), a brief burst produced inside thunderstorms and shown to be associated with lightning. It is estimated that about 500 TGFs occur daily worldwide, but most go undetected.’ http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html
Chief Hydrologist | April 29, 2013 at 1:51 am |
“Well – good bye only to you and for the moment”
Drat. I knew it was a promise you couldn’t keep. It didn’t last even 12 horus. You’re pitiful.
Chief Hydrologist | April 29, 2013 at 1:51 am |
PS ESAD
Look that up in the urban dictionary. :-)
The Chief is right even if this is not a very standard way to talk about “antimatter”.
The particles (all of them) are governed by the laws of QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) for strong and weak interactions..
QCD is based on symmetries and contains all known particles –
fermions (quarks, electrons and neutrinos) and bosons.
Combinations of quarks make protons and neutrons and other composites like mesons, kaons etc.
Now every particle has its anti particle and a particle (like the Z boson) may even be its own antiparticle.
For instance the up quark has its anti particle up anti quark.
A composite like neutron is formed from udd quarks (1 up, 2 down) while the anti neutron is formed from UDD (1 anti up and 2 anti down).
Both have obviously charge 0 so the charge conjugation which is a symmetry transforming a particle in an antiparticle is not just a naive charge reversal – it does much more than only reversing charge, it reverses also several other quantum numbers which people have never heard about (strangeness etc).
So this defines with no ambiguity what an anti particle is.
And anti matter ?
Well it is any collection of anti particles which has mass. For example an antineutron (a collection of 3 anti quarks) is antimatter. An anti deuterium (a collection of an anti proton, anti neutron and a positron) is anti matter. etc.
Actually about anything from a single anti quark to an anti galaxy formed of bound anti particles can be called “anti matter”.
The one exception is the photon which is its own anti particle but as it has no mass, a light beam is generally not called “anti matter” even if strictly speaking it could be.
The question why there seems to be more matter than anti matter in the visible Universe is not solved.
CP symmetry violation which is proven for weak interactions shows that reactions particle-anti particle don’t happen with the same rate in both directions.
But this explains only a part – we should still observe plenty of anti matter.
Interesting question for future Nobels :)
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/27/open-thread-weekend-15/#comment-317370
It lasted 5 minutes springer – you talk such nonsense its hard to resist.
With an unreserved enthusiasm I greeted Dr. Curry’s mentioning ‘natural variability’ early on in her testimony; in a way of a salutation I shall state:
The CET 350 year long oscillating upward movement appear to be synchronized with the ‘up and down’ (mainly upwards) shifts in the frequency and intensity of the events of the far N. Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NVp.htm
Notice word ‘shift’, it is in vogue at moment, so why not exploit it.
Questions are acceptable, but the clear and concise answers may not be forthcoming.
@ vukcevic | April 27, 2013 at 5:22 pm “shifts in the frequency and intensity of the events of the far N. Atlantic.”
Why not just asking: What cause the early Arctic Warming starting in winter 1918/19, showing up first at Spitsbergen
__for example : http://www.arctic-warming.com/a.php ; http://www.arctic-warming.com/annexes/G/Spitsbergen.jpg ;
__in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/pdf/3_1.pdf
__during the 1920s (HH.Lamp): http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/img/c2-p3.jpg
___until about 1933 bin the U.S.A: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/1934-is-the-hottest-year-on-record
___in Europe until winter 1939/40: http://www.seaclimate.com/a/a3/mid/big/A3b-1.png
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. <strong?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://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=48
The emphasis is mine. The global scale multi-decadal variability – the 60 year pseudo cycle – is seen in high resolution proxies. Longer scale variability is intriguing.
This is very interesting from this week.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html
Not sure what it means. It was warmer a 1000 to 2000 years ago in many places – see especially the Antarctic. Wow and why? The average is said to be as warm 1400 years ago as today. It is warmer today than a couple of hundred years ago. We can see the hint of a millennial pattern in the longer European record.
It can be seen better in this 11,000 year ENSO proxy – the spikes that happen regularly on or about the 1000 year marks. ENSO as we have seen above is part of a coherent global system.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ENSO11000.gif.html?sort=3&o=107
The most intriguing aspect to my mind is the switch from La Nina dominant to El Nino dominant some 5000 years ago. The causes of this are of course unknown and I can’t begin to speculate.
While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO)…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“Each case of research fraud that’s uncovered triggers a similar response from scientists. First disbelief, then anger, then a tendency to dismiss the perpetrator as one rotten egg in an otherwise-honest enterprise. But the scientific misconduct that has come to light in recent years suggests at the very least that the number of bad actors in science isn’t as insignificant as many would like to believe. And considered from a more cynical point of view, figures like Hwang and Hauser are not outliers so much as one end on a continuum of dishonest behaviors that extend from the cherry-picking of data to fit a chosen hypothesis — which many researchers admit is commonplace — to outright fabrication. Still, the nature and scale of Stapel’s fraud sets him apart from most other cheating academics. “The extent to which I did it, the longevity of it, makes it extreme,” he told me. “Because it is not one paper or 10 but many more.”
“In his early years of research — when he supposedly collected real experimental data — Stapel wrote papers laying out complicated and messy relationships between multiple variables. He soon realized that journal editors preferred simplicity. “They are actually telling you: ‘Leave out this stuff. Make it simpler,’ ” Stapel told me. Before long, he was striving to write elegant articles.”
That was one long article. Notice how it all boiled down to a cut and paste spreadsheet error or he could still be tell us about our simple biases in life.
I wonder how many M&Ms were sacrificed in the pursuit of pseudo-science?
“An article about computational science in a scientific publication is not the scholarship itself, it is merely advertising of the scholarship. The actual scholarship is the complete software development environment and the complete set of instructions which generated the figures.”
D. Donoho
“What the public didn’t realize, he said, was that academic science, too, was becoming a business. “There are scarce resources, you need grants, you need money, there is competition,” he said. “Normal people go to the edge to get that money. Science is of course about discovery, about digging to discover the truth. But it is also communication, persuasion, marketing. I am a salesman. I am on the road. People are on the road with their talk. With the same talk. It’s like a circus.” He named two psychologists he admired — John Cacioppo and Daniel Gilbert — neither of whom has been accused of fraud. “They give a talk in Berlin, two days later they give the same talk in Amsterdam, then they go to London. They are traveling salesmen selling their story.”
The Donoho quote. Good on you.
I was talking to a senior colleague about this topic earlier this week. With funding levels low and most guided to a few ‘stars’, many papers in Science/Nature all look too good. The simplest thing is statistical analysis, they never have a rogue point which gives rise to large error bars. The kindest interpretation is that they either redo a whole study until all the results have the required ‘tightness’, or they do and experiment 7 times and present the ‘best’ 5 and claim and n=5.
I have seen people discard data because it was ‘wrong’ and then repeat until it was ‘right’.
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n6/full/scientificamerican1212-56.html
No doubt you’ve seen bad actors. It’s no secret that drug research needs attention in the integrity department.
Here is a fascinating result.
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has a very high correlation (R^2=0.968) with the sea level rise.
http://bit.ly/14v6sE1
Why?
There is a notch in the sea level data between the start of 2010 and mid-2011. This notch is even visible in the Gulf of Mexico, which is a very shallow basin and is less likely to respond to temperature changes.
I have no idea why sea levels dropped world-wide in 2010, but it wasn’t a transient cooling event or a single dodgy sensor.
I recall seeing it explained as extensive drought conditions with a tendency of pooled inland rain.
A glitch in the matrix is my guess.
A lot of snowfall did lead to that drop in sea level. That is how ocean water at the equator does get on land closer to the spin axis and Leap second data does show earth was spinning faster because less leap seconds were added.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page28.html
Because they’re both effectively linear with time? Did you ever check the correlation between temperature and pirates?
Don’t give him ideas.
it’s a plot of CO2 vs sea level. time scale is not part of that relationship.
doesn’t sea level follow temperature and CO2 follow temperature?
The snow falls when oceans are warm and that does drop sea level. The snow builds up and advances and temperature does cool later.
Thanks Steven for the link.
Very interesting.
Stapel did not deny that his deceit was driven by ambition. But it was more complicated than that, he told me. He insisted that he loved social psychology but had been frustrated by the messiness of experimental data, which rarely led to clear conclusions. His lifelong obsession with elegance and order, he said, led him to concoct sexy results that journals found attractive. “It was a quest for aesthetics, for beauty — instead of the truth,” he said. He described his behavior as an addiction that drove him to carry out acts of increasingly daring fraud, like a junkie seeking a bigger and better high.
Does anyone have a table which shows the volume of the worlds oceans at different depths? As in the volumes of 0-50, 50-100, 100-150, e.t.c. I know such information exists as it must have been used for calculating heat contents. But I cannot find this anywhere.
I would really, rally like this information so could some one indicate where I can access it?
DocMartyn | April 27, 2013 at 10:42 pm | Reply
“Does anyone have a table which shows the volume of the worlds oceans at different depths?”
Yes.
“I would really, rally like this information so could some one indicate where I can access it?”
It’s in my dining room. We usually keep a tablecloth over it. It’s a hand painting. Very rare. The table was orginally outfitted in the Titanic but was removed before the ship sailed in a legal dispute. Lucky table.
OK give me the volume of the worlds oceans at 50 meter slices please.
Maybe when we aren’t using the table for something else…
In the meantime try table 2 here which has enough volume & seabed depth data to get what you want with a little transformation and interpolation.
http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/218046.pdf
Thanks for that link, Springer.
The ocean has a mean depth of at around 3800 meters.
I did an uncertainty quantified analysis of the OHC here, which assumes that the average depth is beyond 2000 meters
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
This assumption makes the math come out much cleaner, with little or no error arising from the actual finite depth.
I’ve casually mentioned the ocean’s average depth is 4000 meters many many times on this blog. Glad to see you finally got that little factoid in your pointy little head. One down, one million to go. We’ll get you educated yet, boy. I can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you’d just stop making faces and spitting it out.
David, that you very much for the reference. I have just looked at the numbers and am shocked at my own uninformed bias. I had no idea of the 4000-5000m volume held the majority of the water.
My ignorance about the planet I live on is huge.
The numbers are a bit confusing at first. That’s the volume of water overlying seafloor at 5000 meters not the volume of water at 5000 meters.
I said you’d need to do some transforms and interpolation to get the volume at each 50m layer but I believe the information in table 2 is sufficient for that as it gives the percentage of seafloor and its depth. With 1000m gradations the interpolation may be more than you’d like however.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-us-history/
To paraphrase Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes – Damn you global warming, damn you all to hell!
And yes I know, weather is not climate, unless it’s warmer.
Please consider the possibility that it might be refreshing to let clean curiosity about nature overtake dirty political concerns.
It’s an open thread.
Let’s see if minds are open.
Can anyone think of a reason why variations in the rotation rate of the sun would be far better synchronized with Jupiter-Earth-Venus (JEV) tidal cycles than with the sunspot cycle?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/tlatov_makarov_22a_jev_r_anim.gif
I’ve shared background info in comments volunteered here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/paul-vaughan-comparing-jupiter-earth-venus-alignment-cycles-with-variation-in-the-solar-rotation-period/
Regards
Because… the parts cannot be separated from the whole and we have to look at cycles as a holistic process?
well they are going to be better synchronized with something and if you hunt around in cycles long enough you’ll find a perfect match. Thats the beauty of cycles they explain everything and therefore nothing
Almost any set of numbers will produce cycles.including random numbers and spurious trends with moving averages.
Mosher, my patience for your ignorance &/or deception has expired. Don’t ever address me again.
CLI FI LITERARY GENRE NEWS: – NPR on April 2o did a radio story about the new CLI FI genre of fiction, quoting Dr Curry as well. Link here, and the Christian Science Monitor picked up the NPR story and did their own copycat piece as well: – http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/176713022/so-hot-right-now-has-climate-change-created-a-new-literary-genre
Americans are addicted to gasoline, according to retired General Motors Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz, and there’s only one cure: higher gas taxes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/04/27/former-gm-exec-bob-lutz-suggests-higher-gas-taxes-would-help-americans/
Lutz believes raising the Federal tax on gasoline would encourage Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, and the tax could be used for infrastructure improvements.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
…or, outlaw cars and then we don’t need infrastructure or phony capitalists.
What’s the point of having a car if it’s not a wide-ass gas-guzzling road hog? All old timers know the measure of a man is how large his car is. If he ain’t got a big-un, he’s a sissy.
You simply can’t be a real man while driving a girly car like a Prius or some silly little Eurocommunist thing like a Fix-It-Again-Tony? Express your masculinity with a Hummer or an F-150, even if you really have no need to go off-road or haul anything.
One other thing … using lots of gasoline lets people know you are successful and have money to burn. If you drive a stingy car, people will think you are a stingy person.
…And so if… we’re only gonna do symbolic actions, I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn‘t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] let‘s have the NRDC, the, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their, all of their members, cannot fly on private jets, they must get their houses off the grid, they must live in the way that they‘re telling everyone else to live. And if they won‘t do that, why should we. And why should we take them seriously. [APPLAUSE] ~Michael Chricton
I bought my son a hybrid when he got into medical school. Now he’s going to be a neurosurgeon, so I found him a sports car that guzzles gasoline like a famished pig. Did I do OK on my redemption, Max?
Max_OK, Yes, vehicles are a status symbol in the US and many other countries and simple physics can be used to show that larger mass vehicles are significantly safer than lower mass vehicles. The same linear no threshold statistics that can be used to show that anything you don’t like is significantly harmful in some way shape or form.
So what’s your point? Your personal biases getting in the way?
There are also people that actually need those larger vehicles to make a living. There are people that need smaller engines and two cycle engines to make a living which high ethanol fuels damage. Having to replace or repair those vehicles and engines costs money that has to be transfer to the consumer typically with a 3 to 6 multiplier to maintain profit margins. It is like a warm and fuzzy snowball of unintended consequences.
JCH, you are a generous daddy. Mine wouldn’t buy me a car, but he did buy me a bicycle.
I used to want a sports car, but my tastes have changed.
Now that I can buy what I used to want, I don’t want it anymore. That sucks.
Imitating what Europeans have been doing for years is not an “idea”.
(And roads in Europe are not any better than roads in the USA.)
It’s an ideal idea. But I wouldn’t use the additional gasoline tax revenue for improving the infrastructure. I would give it to the oil companies to compensate for any decrease in demand for gasoline as a result of the tax. Making more money by selling less is a win win deal.
It’s the new economy–e.g., American capitalism that is being replaced by the liberal fascism of Euro-communism that runs on liberal Utopianism of symbolism.
Waggy, you lost me there.
Capt Dallas,
Here’s a Kenworth pick-up. I doubt the wheel-base is any larger than the old full-size station wagons. Haven’t seen a Kenworth mini-van. Of course, this is just a novelty.
I recognize the advantage of 2-cycle in small gasoline engines, but the motor oil is mixed with the fuel, burns along with the fuel, I don’t like the odor of burning motor oil.
Because the subject is raising the gasoline tax to encourage Americans to buy more fuel-efficient cars, I don’t see the relevance of ethanol, but perhaps I miss your point.
Woops, I forgot the Kenworth pick-up. Here it is
Max_Ok the point is the untended consequences of the action. Based on some optimist statistics, the tax would stimulate the transition to more fuel efficient “VEHICLES” without any unexpected economic consequences. There are always unexpected consequences.
In this case a fairly large segment of society that could least afford the more rapid transition was adversely impacted.
We have the same issue with commercial fishing regulations that impact the recreational fishing industry which is actually the larger monetary segment in Florida. Most warm and fuzzy legislative action has undesirable impacts.
To avoid those impacts requires flexibility. Mandates are not flexible. A better option with fuel efficiency is a staged approach that allows reasonable time to transition and options to modify policy based on response.
A good example is the cellulose ethanol mandate. The technology was not available with the potential EPA regulation for various pollutants concentrations not established. Two government policy segments not on the same page produced unintended consequences. Now some businesses are penalized for not using products that don’t exist because the government won’t allow them to exist.
Sounds like a circle jerk don’t it, because it is.
Just because in your sheltered would, revenue neutral carbon taxes with nothing but perfectly ethical execution can exist, does not mean that it can in the real world.
captdallas 0.8 or less said on April 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm
“Max_Ok the point is the untended consequences of the action. Based on some optimist statistics, the tax would stimulate the transition to more fuel efficient “VEHICLES” without any unexpected economic consequences. There are always unexpected consequences.”
______
I expect unexpected benefits to more than offset unexpected consequences.
___________
captdallas also said
“Just because in your sheltered would, revenue neutral carbon taxes with nothing but perfectly ethical execution can exist, does not mean that it can in the real world.”
_____
I have never lived in a sheltered world. I’m a graduate of the school of hard knocks.
The subject is raising the tax on gasoline. I don’t know why you wandered off to the revenue neutral carbon tax. Luntz didn’t propose reducing another tax while raising the gasoline tax. But I believe a revenue neutral tax would be an easier sell.
Max_OK, “I expect unexpected benefits to more than offset unexpected consequences.”
Of course you do, that is why you are in the for tax side of the debate.
In your opinion, the tax forces people to reconsider their gasoline use and train them to do as you think is best, and in the mean time produces revenue that will only be used for the greater good. You consider it a “gasoline” tax not a carbon tax even though the motivation for the tax is to reduce carbon which may or may not have severe environmental impacts. In your opinion, gasoline/transportation fuels based on fossil carbon products is bad, so tax it.
During that “in the mean time” period, the most adverse impact of the tax will be felt by the portion of the population least prepared to deal with the added expense. You can either, let them eat cake or divert a portion of the tax revenue to that portion of the population which tends to grow every time there is free money. The larger gasoline users will pay the tax, write off the expense, charge more or institute a “gasoline sur charge” to pass the expense to the consumer. Again the portion of society least prepared to deal with the added expense will suffer.
What you have is the “Stick” approach to management. If there were other options, like actually having alternative fuels available, then you could use a “Carrot” approach. Instead of having the foresight to provide the alternative first you would rather let them eat cake.
Capt Dallas, all else being equal, the larger the vehicle, the safer the vehicle. So I should drive a Kenworth.
Obviously, some vehicles are for work, and some are not. If I needed a truck, I would own a truck.
I hate 2-cyle engines.
What’s the relevance of ethanol ?
Max_OK, Two cycle engines have a higher power to weight ratio. So while I am not all that fond of their efficiency, if I have to lug an engine around, the Two-cycle is handy. The problem with Ethanol is the mandate. A lot of engines were not designed for higher Ethanol and a lot of older fuel systems cannot handle the different solvent properties of Ethanol. Those engines often expired. The sludge dislodged by the Ethanol solvent properties restricted the fuel flow causing the engines to run lean, over heat and died a premature death. Two 250 H.P. Mercury outboards in my case since my chosen profession is adult fishing entertainment. That is after using fuel additives and installing 10 micro fuel filters.
Phasing in Ethanol would have reduced the financial impact of that damage instead of hitting the economy of the poor bastards trying to actually make a living so hard.
For the Kenworth, soccer moms can’t generally handle the gearing and there is not enough room for the kids and groceries. A minivan is about a small as the average young family wants to go and if they are not strapped financially, they tend toward the SUVs for space, convinience and safety. Gas mileage is secondary to safety doncha know with convenience being in the middle.
captdallas 0.8 or less said on April 29, 2013 at 8:40 am
“Max_OK, “I expect unexpected benefits to more than offset unexpected consequences.”
Of course you do, that is why you are in the for tax side of the debate.
In your opinion, the tax forces people to reconsider their gasoline use and train them to do as you think is best, and in the mean time produces revenue that will only be used for the greater good. You consider it a “gasoline” tax not a carbon tax even though the motivation for the tax is to reduce carbon which may or may not have severe environmental impacts. In your opinion, gasoline/transportation fuels based on fossil carbon products is bad, so tax it.
During that “in the mean time” period, the most adverse impact of the tax will be felt by the portion of the population least prepared to deal with the added expense. You can either, let them eat cake or divert a portion of the tax revenue to that portion of the population which tends to grow every time there is free money.”
_____
Am I reading this right? Captain seems to be saying it’s bad to take something away from the poor, and once you have taken it away, it’s also bad to give it back.
Max_OK, “Am I reading this right? Captain seems to be saying it’s bad to take something away from the poor, and once you have taken it away, it’s also bad to give it back.”
Close, it is like no good deed goes unpunished. With the US tax structure when you impose a tax on what is considered basic need, it ripples up through the economy. Trying to redistribute some of that revenue requires resources that reduce the efficiency of the program. You are damn if you do and damned if you don’t.
With a Vat or Sales tax structure you get more efficient transfer with less negative ripple. Since energy in general is a basic need, provide reasonable alternatives that stimulate progress instead of penalizing initiative.
Currently regulations and tax codes are so screwed up that instead of making your million starting a business it takes two million to start one.
On WUWT, James Hansen the Movie.
” Paroxysms of Apocalypse.”…
‘How shall we be punished?’ Jim Hansen says,
‘Let us count the ways.The seas shall rise,
then boil..evaporate and that’s not half of it.
Those of us who still survive …we’re faced with
Snowball Earth!’
:- ( :-( :-( Not many of us and that’s a good thing …
pesky humans.
“That’s it for all the species on this planet.”
Hard to walk that one back. Hansen is as we say at the poker table, “all in.” He hasn’t a single chip left to toss into the AGW pot.
As usual, the extremists do themselves and their cause no favors. Do we skeptics have any better friends then the immoderate, tin foil hatted loons like Hansen and MAnn and the always entertaining Al Gore?
yes you have friends like Monckton, Delingpole, Ian Plimer, Burt Rutan, Easterbrook etc.
“There’s no practical way to transport life to another planet.
“The oceans will begin to boil.”
“Over centuries… we could…”
Surely not intellectual dishonesty from our ‘skeptic’ friends??
Micheal, “Surely not intellectual dishonesty from our ‘skeptic’ friends??”
Perhaps post-modern concepts of honesty are involved.
Jame Hansen is probably wrong on his speculation about a runaway on earth because of ACO2.
BFD. Wrong on speculation. What a flippin’ sin.
It sounds to me like the earth will end in fire. But some say ice. Maybe it’s like Chinatown:
Evelyn Mulwray: It’ll end in ice.
[Gittes slaps Evelyn]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: It’ll end in fire…
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: It’ll end in ice…
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: It’s ice, it’s fire.
[More slaps]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: It’ll end in fire and ice!
Case of mistaken identity I’m afraid, pokerguy,
enemies fer friends? ( Yer know what they call us?
Don’t mind bein’ recognised as a serf but that other
‘ D’ nomenaclature jist gits me goat.
A serf
Postscript, pokerguy, better hurry up with that tee shirt
slogan. The first issue of ‘Under-ground ‘ comes out soon.
Say, lolwot, wot good company!
Burt Rutan master aeronautical engineer, ahem,
say what do you do, lolwot?
Master serf.
Surely Burt Rutan’s catalog of climate blunders is more relevant to the subject than his irrelevant credentials!
I find it amusing when normally authority-challenging skeptics get their panties in a twist when serfs like lolwot dare challenge heroes of their cause.
I have an order of magnitude better grasp of this climate subject than Burt Rutan! Might be annoying, but it’s true!
Bart R and Jim D, sorry for the delay in replying, please see my post here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/#comment-316777
To all, I have given a quote from NASA which contradicts the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget. The quote comes from an old NASA page that was still teaching traditional physics.
I have been discussing this on WUWT in this thread, my last post here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/24/spencer-slays-with-sarcasm/#comment-1290239
It all boils down to this, it is not just me saying this. The NASA quote I give cannot be ignored, it completely contradicts your AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget.
You have to deal with it.
NASA used to teach:
“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.
“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”
The heat from the Sun we feel every day is the longwave infrared direct from the Sun which has been removed from the AGW GreenhouseEffect Energy Budget, KT97 and ilk, you have no heat in your world. You have no weather. You have no climate. What are you scientists of?
Deal with it.
hahahaahaha
The aptly named lolwot writes:
“hahahahaha”
I was only laughing because it’s true. The greenhouse effect is a fraud. I can see that now.
And again the aptly (?) named “pokerguy” fails to understand how applying sarcasm with a straight face works. Not much of a pokerface that I can detect.
Yes Web,, I’ve been falling to understand how applying sarcasm with a straight face works all my life. I do it right here on this blog at least 3 times a week. I’m as famous for that as you are for your sweet natured posts, and lolwot is for his firm command of the pause.
We all have our strengths…
Could the following be the reason for the early climate models estimate of 4.2 deg C for the climate sensitivity?
http://bit.ly/185BzVT
The linearity between CO2 concentrations incorrectly breaks about 1960. The rate of increase in CO2 for the Law Dome ice cores is 0.21 ppm/mm, but for the Mauna Loa data it is 0.75 ppm/mm. This shows the forcing after 1960s have been incorrectly multiplied by a factor of 0.75/0.21 = 3.6.
This gives a corrected climate sensitivity of 4.2/3.6=1.2 deg C.
If you were Moses or the head liberal-fascist-in-chief, what would be your 11th Commandment or 28th Amendment to the Constitution? How about something like–e.g., free breakfast at the Post Offices as well as free stamps, envelopes and writing material to everyone within the borders of the US who have no pockets.
There is no “free breakfast.” Everything we eat cost somebody somewhere something. I’m opposed to feeding bums who are too lazy too work. Our nation wasn’t built on handouts. Subsidize people for being poor, and the result will be more poor people. If the government wants to give money away, give it to the wealthy as a reward for being wealthy.
Give me some money, and I will create a job. I’ll stop mowing the lawn myself and hire someone to mow it. Also, we could use a maid.
But lolwot, ter didn’t answer the question about yore
credentials… ‘What do YOU do?’
:)
I’ve long had the theory that lolwot is eleven years old. I don’t think he does all that much except attend the 5th grade…
I’m hard at it Beth dear. I must say though, that one line is damned elusive, Like trying to get lolwot to fork over his C.V.
Maybe we could ask the aptly named WebHubTelescope to swivel his long, tube like head in the direction of lolwot’s house and try to peer inside for clues…
It can be two lines pokerguy :)
Oh God what an idiot I can be. You’re right. 2 lines. Why not? That helps. More to work with. Thanks, Beth. I’m feeling much better. :-)
Maybe someone here could comment?
I have been sking the following question since IPCC’s AR4 was published in 2007. I have asked people on blogs, emails, even scientists who were associated with AR4 – to no avail.
“Please point me to a recent empirical scientific study that concluded that a rise in atmospheric temperature was caused by a similar inclease in atmospheric CO2.”
Details are not important, since all I want to verify is an actual scientific study was conducted and that its conclusion supports AGW.
That’s it. Anyone? BTW, a projection from a Global Circulation Model does not count, since it is not empirical.
Thanks
Jeff
The only scientific studies are Actual Data and Actual Data does not support the alarmist theory and does not agree with the alarmist climate model output. Actual data, according to the head of the IPCC, says there has been no warming for 17 years while CO2 kept going up. Actual data shows multiple periods in which CO2 went up while temperature did not.
Herman,
To be honest, you know (or should know) that the Earth has continued to accumulate energy over the past 17 years, as both TOA and ocean heat content continue to confirm. All you can accurately say is that tropospheric temperatures have not increased, though they remain flat at record high levels.
They don’t measure heat content of the oceans.They can’t measure heat contents of the oceans. They take some data and then they use models to guess that the heat content of the oceans has continued to accumulate energy. It may well be true and the more heat content the oceans accumulate will lead to more and more increasing snowfall and the ice volume will continue to increase. In time, this ice will advance and cool the Earth just like it always has before.
Much like the record high levels during the Roman Warm Time and during the Medieval Warm time. After record high temperatures cause record high snow fall, temperatures do drop, again and again and again after warm times.
Herman,
The over 3,000 ARGO floats would disagree with your assessment that we can’t measure heat content of the ocean. Your statement might have been true 5 or 10 years ago, but isn’t now.
you are living in the experiment and it can’t be repeated.
a better question is show me the experiment that proves dumping
C02 in the atmosphere is risk free
Dumping CO2 in the atmosphere makes green things grow better with less water. That is very very good. Reducing CO2 makes green things grow less while using more water. That is risk we can all see and understand.
The experiments on how green things grow have been done and well documented. An enemy of CO2 is an enemy of all life on Earth.
Even if global temperatures didn’t rise, and atmospheric CO2 continued to riseI, I’m not certain the additional CO2 would benefit agriculture.
But CO2 is a warming influence, and heat hurts plants. If “warmer is better” were true, greenhouses would not be air-conditioned.
captdallas and pokerguy aren’t wimps. Both have the courage to take a risk that can’t affect them in their lifetimes.
Herman:
“Dumping CO2 in the atmosphere makes green things grow better with less water. That is very very good. Reducing CO2 makes green things grow less while using more water. That is risk we can all see and understand.”
Those are benefits. Your task was to show that dumping C02 was risk free. please note. there can be risks and benefits, the two are not logically incompatible. You might study logic. The risk is you will change your mind; the benefit is you might survive an exchange with folks on the internet without looking like a fool.
Steven Mosher
The best argument for the premise that adding CO2 to our atmosphere is “risk free” is:
We have been doing it at least since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and nothing bad has happened.
So the “null hypothesis” is that there is no risk (of anything bad happening) from adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Now we need someone to falsify that “null hypothesis”.
Volunteers, anyone?
Max
Steven mosher, How about a list of everything that is risk free?
Capn’ Dallas,
You beat me to it. Steve Mosher knows his comment is disingenuous. Not a capital crime, but we should call it what it is…
That’s a weird response to a simple request to show that the experiment we are running is risk free.
What possible logical connection would there be between a list of everything that is risk free and the question of the risk of dumping c02 in the atmosphere.
For example: Suppose I asked you for evidence that cutting taxes is risk free. would you respond asking for a list of things that is risk free?
No. you’d give me your best argument. But here you don’t give me your best argument, you ask for a list. And that list would say nothing about the risk of dumping c02.
for example: counting the keys on my keyboard right now is risk free.
there. whats that say about the risk of dumping c02? absolutely nothing. typing a period at the end of this sentence is risk free.
there, that said nothing about the risks of C02.
Steven Mosher, you of course know that nothing is risk free. You need to evaluate risk. Your question was BS and got the answer it deserved.
BTW, while counting the keys on your keyboard you missed the opportunity to make a valid point :)
Is there a risk with using more CO2? Yes. It there an immediate risk? Unlikely, if there is may as well party cause it is too late anyway. Is there a risk taking the advice of scientists that say there is a risk but overstate the confidence in their models that estimate the risk? Damn right!
Is there a risk taking the advice of scientists that screw the pooh by 20Wm-2 then sneak in a “minor adjustment” to fix their error? You betcha.
There is a risk of taking the advice of people with obvious agendas and post-modern concepts of honesty?
I prefer rational advisers.
@Steven Mosher…
All right, nobody (with any sense) is going to try to “prove” that open-ended addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is risk-free. Such “proof” would require pretty much the same sort of super-simplistic models that have been used to “prove” the “extent” of the risk.
The correct response is this: show that the experiment involved in trying to mitigate that risk is risk-free. Certainly not to politicians in Australia, or the “people in charge” in the EU! Not to mention the people suffering from those experiments.
Risk on both sides is unquantifiable. But the biggest problem of this whole approach (to the debate) is that it channels thinking into binary choices. Consider the following question (plausibly asked by politicians):
Is the risk of catastrophic climate change from dumping CO2 into the atmosphere sufficient to justify the risk to the economy of using taxes or other mechanisms to raise the price of energy?
Never mind the fact that “other mechanisms” include removing subsidies to existing tech, something most free-marketers would (or should) generally approve. Never mind the fact that not subsidizing energy enough has often been risky behavior on the part of “developing” country governments (IMO). The key point is that the whole question channels thinking away from other approaches, such as major subsidies for
somemany sorts for research. And how such subsidies should be implemented. And whether “intellectual property” laws need to be revamped as part of the package.IMO anybody who thinks “cutting taxes” is risk free is living in a dream world. There’s a variety of risks associated with it, but the one I want to point out is by analogy (and, yes, I know reasoning by analogy is suspect) with the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act. Despite my being a died-in-the-wool libertarian, it was obvious to me that there were serious risks associated with such sudden de-regulation, because very large corporate bureaucracies and management had been adapting for decades to their presence. AFAIK nobody even tried to predict how the removal of the tension between managers and regulators would distort behavior relative to that in a (fictional) steady-state unregulated world.
Similarly, removing or reducing a tax that distorts the “free” market includes the risk of all sorts of bouncing around relative to the (ideal) behavior if the taxes had never been where they were. Of course, the proposed, intended, hoped-for benefit might be considered worth the risk. Not the same thing.
I figured out Cappy Dick’s modus operandi. He always sticks in the bit of subliminal scientific innuendo that serves to condescend to whoever is reading it.
What? You don’t understand what the 20Wm-2 relates to, or what the “minor adjustment” is? Well, you are ignorant and we skeptics know what we are talking about. That’s CD’s message.
Paleoclimate is full of examples of this happening before.
Multi-decadal oscillation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:732/mean:252
If any of you are interested, I just did a blog on my take on the “pause” in global warming….cliff mass
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-pause-in-global-warming-what-does.html
Cliff Mass, I did a fast read. I think it’s a good summation.
At the end you say:
“But the bottom line is still clear, the human-induced warming signal will increase during this century to a point that its significance and importance will be undeniable. But the magnitude of this change is still uncertain.”
What’s certain is adding global-warming CO2 to the atmosphere is an experiment. We are on a path to levels of atmospheric CO2 modern civilization has never seen. It is a risky experiment.
Max said,
“We are on a path to levels of atmospheric CO2 modern civilization has never seen.”
——-
We are not on a path, we have long since passed the point of being at the highest GH gas (really need to include methane and N2O) levels that modern civilization has seen. Each year sees new records. We are now approaching Pliocene levels– all in just a few centuries! The human GH gas volcano continues to erupt, and like all such events, natural feedback processes become overwhelmed.
RE R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist April 28, 2013 at 2:10 pm
True, but I meant the level of atmospheric CO2 right now, which of course we have already seen.
Max_OK and R. Gates
Gates is right when he writes that the CO2 level is likely higher than it has been since human civilization started.
In fact, we have allegedly added over 100 ppmv to the estimated pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv..
The good news is that there has been absolutely no negative consequence that can be attributed directly to this added CO2.
So “adding CO2 to the atmosphere” has not had any negative consequences to date (and, quite possibly, some positive ones regarding plant growth, as has been mentioned here).
So, as I wrote Mosh up-thread, the null hypothesis, based on past experience, is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not result in negative consequences.
This is a pretty hard null hypothesis to falsify with empirical evidence but, hey, give it a go if you’d like to do so.
Max
Cliff,
That was a good post– nicely summed up many things. One criticism though- I think you do injustice to the ever increasing data related to ocean heat content increases. Tropospheric temperatures are a poor reflection of the overall energy storage of the Earth as a system, and several independent studies are now more accurately identifying how much energy is being stored in the ocean. Thus, while natural variability does account for much of the low thermal inertia troposphere variability, the higher thermal inertia oceans continue to gain energy that fairly closely matches the TOA imbalance caused by increasing GH gas concentrations.
I think the view should be split. One view for land only which will reflect the fast transient feedbacks and one for combination land+ocean which will show the heat sinking capabilities of the ocean. Hansen has already shown these plots with his ground-breaking papers of the 1980s but they don’t seem as prevalent now.
This may add confusion to some but to those of us that like interlocking puzzle pieces, they are a revelation.
R. Gates
Doubtless coincidentally, Bob Tisdale has been pouring FUD all over OHC at WUWT.
A re-run of the denial of surface air temperature reconstructions is inevitable.
Yawn or cry? That is the question. We need a third way. The way of the knowing chortle.
BBD,
Bob T’s a smart enough guy, but is sort of a one-trick pony. On some very basic points he fails miserably– and unfortunately, the basic points he fails at keep him from moving forward. But what Bob is most excellent at is dispensing psychotropic cherries– he picks them from his orchard of carefully selected “facts” and feeds them out to the eager masses.
IMO the haze is purple, not cherry red, but otherwise… ;-)
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist: “Bob T’s a smart enough guy, but is sort of a one-trick pony.”
Thanks for the compliment, but my pony has a more than one trick. Ocean heat content AND satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans warmed naturally. And in addition to sea surface temperature data, the ENSO-related steps/shifts/regimes also make their presence known in lower troposphere and land+sea surface temperature data.
Regards
Bob T.,
The issue is never one of how the oceans warm– they always warm naturally via solar SW. It is a matter of now they cool or give up that stored solar to the troposphere. The net flow of energy on this planet is always from ocean to atmosphere to space. Given that a large percentage of the energy in the troposphere at any given time came directly from the solar energy reservoir of the oceans, knowing all the factors that control the rate of the flow would be important. SST’s are tricky in that they tell us how warm the oceans are are on the surface and so make up part of the heat content of the upper level ocean, but they also can be good gauges for how much energy is actually leaving the ocean to the troposphere. Thus, SST’s need to be used with caution as they can tell us about energy that isn’t in the ocean anymore. Globally, the oceans have been adding about 0.5 x 10^22 Joules of energy per year for many decades, consistent with the TOA forcing from the additional GH gas concentrations. These GH additions are not adding energy to the oceans, but rather altering the rate of flow of that energy out.
BBD
Tisdale points out, quite correctly, that we do not have any meaningful measurements of OHC prior to ARGO in around 2003, and that since then the measured increase has been rather small (after correcting an initial cooling trend).
Them’s the facts, BBD.
We are talking about thousandths of a degree change over decades, and prior to ARGO this was measured by very spotty expendable XBT devices that even introduced a warming trend.
So let’s wait until we have a decade or so more of real data from a de-bugged ARGO system, before we even talk about OHC increase.
Max
The only difference between land and ocean temperature is the variability – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998
The oceans did warm very modestly in ARGO.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=17
But it CERES/MODIS shows it all as a result of cloud changes.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS.gif.html?sort=3&o=70
The world is not warming for a decade to 3 more – and the failure to
recognise this is groupthink space cadets all the way down.
Puzzle me this.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-LWCERES.png.html?sort=3&o=50
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Clementetal2009.png.html?sort=3&o=38
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tropicalcloud.png.html?sort=3&o=37
We have seen a definite shift of skeptics to the right on the sensitivity number. Now, as we see from Patrick Michaels at WUWT, they don’t even blink at values in the low 2’s. This convergence with the IPCC estimate is encouraging and has been rapid, having happened mostly in the past year. It used to be that no effect, no feedback or negative feedback were necessary to qualify as a “skeptic”, but now the category is more grey, especially as they now don’t disagree with the low end of the IPCC range. I would call all these people lukewarmers now. Some readers at WUWT may be suffering whiplash with their accepted views changing so fast.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/a-compilation-of-lower-climate-sensitivities-plus-a-new-one/#more-84904
Jim D
You mention the “encouraging shift of skeptics to the right on the sensitivity number”.
It appears that there is also an “encouraging shift of some climate scientists to the left on the sensitivity number”.
Maybe we’ll meet around 1.8C +/- 0.6C (the mean range of the seven recent studies, which have come out after AR4 was published).
Whaddaya think?
Max
Sorry. CO2 does nothing except correlate with temperature. All GHG IR “forcing” or thermalization caused by absorption/emission will be demonstrated in the physics lab to be zero.
The skeptics have been moving far faster than the consensus. I am fairly sure AR5 will still be near 3 for the average. The meeting point should be in the high 2’s, but then, of course, they wouldn’t be skeptics any more, unless they are evolving into the CO2-is-good-anyway type of skeptic. That is, they become skeptical of the harm rather than the warming per se. I think we are beginning to see this kind of shift too.
In the meantime the world is not warming – the background rate of warming is at most 0.08 degrees C/decade – and mainstream science is increasingly more about climate shifts than
You can start your post hoc rationalisations now.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-shift-synchronized-chaos.htm
Chief Hydro said:
“In the meantime the world is not warming…”
_____
If you define “the world” to be tropospheric temperatures 2 meters off the ground over land then you might be correct, but that’s a pretty narrow view of the world and certainly not scientifically supportable.
This is discussed in the thread above. I have discussed this a number of times in the past with you. It is some bizarre space cadet round-a-bout constantly going back to the same point time and time again.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/27/open-thread-weekend-15/#comment-316940
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/27/open-thread-weekend-15/#comment-316941
Is there a shift in ocean temperature in the mid 1970’s?
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/08-figure-4-levitus-2000.png
Not enough information – but intriguing timing. In the future cloud radiative forcing will keep changing associated with ocean and atmospheric patterns. Was most warming caused by cloud changes as the data says?
The sun quiets, La Nina intensifies, the climate shifts – the failure to see this or even allow for the possibility is down to groupthink and cognitive dissonance.
Chief Hydro,
Rather than lapse into name calling, perhaps you could instead scientifically explain your definition of “the world” to be temperatures as measured 2m off the ground over land. This seems a rather narrow perspective, or perhaps that is what you intend so as to make some rather narrow point?
Overall Chief Hydro, there has been less energy leaving the ocean than entering it, and hence the oceans have warmed. Given that oceans in general have far more energy than the troposphere 2m off the ground, they are closer to being “the world”, but of course, the best defintion would actually be “the world” including atmosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere, or is this too broadly accurate for you?
Rather than lapse in name calling? Lol, he would be down cutting and pasting.
My links are many and varied and go far beyond the surface temperature. It includes both surface and satellite cloud observation, TOA flux, ARGO and XBT data. It goes to the question of what changes and why.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tropicalcloud.png.html?sort=3&o=37
Ignore the data if you will – but the inability to consider it even as a possibility is groupthink and cognitive dissonance.
JCH,
You are an utterly pointless troll with nothing of any substance to contribute at all. Snarks about quoting peer reviewed science seem entirely without any merit other than to distract from a message you are ideologically incapable of acknowledging. No pretence even at science merely trivial AGW space cadet snarks. Groupthink in your case as you are incapable of cogitating about climate at all.
Gates makes the point again and again that I fail to look at the oceans when I have again and again discussed Karina von Schuckmann an ARGO. Groundhog day again obviously. I think I have said that to him before. A pointless nonsense. Insults? Please – move onto something new. Discuss the details. Accept the possibility that the world isn’t warming for at least a decade to 3. Sing songs. Beat a different drum. I don’t really care – but end the silliness that is the sum of your contributions.
Capt. D,
Old Chief Hydro makes some very good points, and some that I fully agree with. Unfortunately his style is quite rude, and I would rather you give him a bit more of your alter-ego reasonableness.
In terms of keeping an open mind- that’s great advice for anyone claiming to be a true skeptic, eh? And as long as we have an active large carbon-volcano going off on this planet (i.e. anthropogenic GH gas emissions) we know that there are indeed surprises in store.
Jim D
You say
Agree with you that the “consensus” moves more slowly.
Could it be that this is because dogma is difficult to change?
But I think it will be interesting to see whether or not IPCC accepts the several new studies, which all point to much lower 2xCO2 ECS than previously estimated by the models cited by IPCC, or whether it will “sweep them under the rug” (a term our hostess used in an earlier thread)..
It is a bit of a dilemma for IPCC, as I see it:
a) accept the new data and revise projections accordingly and risk losing the “fear factor”
b) ignore them or rationalize them away and risk losing the bit of credibility that IPCC still has
Sort of like being between a rock and a hard spot.
Max
Jim,
It will be interesting to see how the fake-skeptics shift in their view when the Arctic goes ice-free in the next few years. Perhaps they’ll just melt away like the summer Arctic sea ice.
I think they will ignore it they way they ignored the 2012 record as any kind of evidence of climate change because of their evident tunnel vision on the pause. When that is gone, then we’ll see what the new focus is, but the ‘outs’ are running out.
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008
warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale. Citation: Chylek, P., C. K. Folland,
G. Lesins, M. K. Dubey, and M. Wang (2009), Arctic air
temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14801, doi:10.1029/
2009GL038777.
Perhaps we are wrong and temperatures wont decline in the Arctic as elsewhere. Ignore it? Put it in some sort of reasonable context perhaps. The failure the acknowledge this as a possibility even is stupendously short sighted.
The Arctic sea-ice loss is an example of something happening faster than the climate models predicted, yet it draws less attention than the pause in global surface temperature where climate models are being criticized for seeming to be too fast unless you allow for natural variability.
Funny. Do you think we believe the models when they fail to include decadal variation? The nonsense continues unabated.
Chief Hydro,
At any given time, what percentage of the energy in the lower troposphere do you think came directly from the ocean– that is, it went from solar SW to ocean and then to troposphere in one form or another? Once you get that figure, then tell me how you see this percentage changing during the ENSO cycle, and finally tell me how you see this percentage changing as CO2 in the atmosphere goes from 280 to 400 to 500 ppm?
Your answers should be informative.
My answers are always informative – even if you are incapable of appreciating them. I will split it into a couple of comments.
Let’s assume this one is roughly correct.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
It assumes an energy imbalance at TOA and about the same energy imbalance at the surface. This results in warming of the world as a whole with all warming in the oceans. The imbalance is not measureable to anywhere near that precision. The complete energy equation is –
d(W&H)/dt = power in – power out
Where W&H is work and heat and includes kinetic and potential energy and enthalpy and we neglect the planetary heat source and the heat of combustion and anthropogenic fission. The latter are significant enough to be interesting. We will assume also that changes in angular momentum is minimal – but this is critically important to planetary heat transport, wind, clouds, currents and snow and ice.
Energy in changes by about half an effective Watt/m2 from a Solar Grand Maxima such as we had last century and a Maunder Minimum. Although you should not dismiss solar amplification through say top down Solar UV/ozone modulation of both the Southern and Northern Annular Modes.
With an increase in greenhouse gases the mean free IR photon path is decreased and more energy remains in the atmosphere at any one time. The atmosphere is warmer and the increase in downward IR decreases the IR loss from the oceans and the oceans warm. Theoretically – the coupled atmosphere/ocean system continues to warm until a new equilibrium is reached. At the new equilibrium the emissions to space are restored and the planet stops warming. The time to equilibrium is the theoretical ocean lag effect first enunciated by Carl-Gustav Arvid Rossby.
Practically the greenhouse gas changes are so small as to be invisible against a highly variable background. The so-called noise that always seem much more important than the signal. This is inextricably linked to ENSO and is 2 orders of magnitude greater than the theoretical interannual greenhouse signal. Cloud increases and the cloud top drops with La Nina and vice versa.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=31
Norman Loeb insists that ‘CERES data show that clouds have a net radiative warming influence during La Nina conditions and a net cooling influence during El Nino, but the magnitude of the anomalies varies greatly from one ENSO event to another.’ In other words the longwave effect of changing cloud dominates over the shortwave. It seems a bit counter intuitive for low level marine stratocumulous – but we will take it as science provisionally true.
We have of course the links of ENSO to – well – just about everything. Droughts, floods, biology, surface temperature and SSW.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Butler_2011_ENSO_SSW_zps1146ad8c.jpg.html?sort=3&o=7
When you step up from the interannual to the decadal things get more interesting.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tropicalcloud.png.html?sort=3&o=37
Over centuries – the pattern is intriguing. Have a hydrologist explain the implications.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/tropicalcloud.png.html?sort=3&o=37
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim
Over millennia the implications are mind blowing – repeated patterns of some 1000 odd years, mega-droughts and mega floods, the demise of the Minoan civilisation, the drying of the Sahel starting some 5,000 years ago.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ENSO11000.gif.html?sort=3&o=107
CH, regarding decadal variability in models. Did you see Cliff Mass’s blog that he linked in this thread. This shows that models do have decadal variation, too much if anything. He criticized the IPCC for showing the ensemble mean which just has smooth rising curves, because this is exactly what the skeptics are seizing on as an inaccuracy. I think he is right.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | April 28, 2013 at 7:27 pm | Reply
Not as interesting as everyone else in the northern hemisphere suffering through the harshest winters in 50 years while CAGW wave their pompoms saying “But the Arctic is warmer in the summer!”. ROFLMAO
You’re on the wrong side of this Gates. Mark my words.
Chief Hydro,
Your long winded answer and energy budget chart did not answer the question. A simple percentage is what the question was asking for. Apparently instead of simply saying you don’t know, you’d rather go on and on. Here’s a hint: the answer is not in your energy budget chart. Here’s another hint: it’s probably bigger than you think.
David Springer,
Too bad you apparently haven’t a clue as to why parts of the NH had such a harsh winter. Also, in terms of me being on the “wrong side” of this, as a true skeptic (as opposed to the, you know, fake kind), I can’t possibly be on the wrong side since all I care about is the truth of any situation. The fact that you think in terms of “sides” and who’s on the wrong and right side tells me the kind of “skeptic” you must be– you know, the wrong kind.
Oh for God’s sake – you ask a childish question and I give you a full blooded answer with all sorts of interesting facts. The answer is in the simple energy budget. All of the energy from that isn’t reflected from cloud or aerosols is reflected is converted to IR at the surface. This is reemitted from the surface and interacts with greenhouse gas molecules on the way back to space – as I said if you would bother to read.
Your question is stupid – and your response even more so. You have just lost what little credibility remained to you.
Let me rephrase.
Oh for God’s sake – you ask a childish question and I give you a full blooded answer with all sorts of interesting facts. The answer is in the simple energy budget. All of the energy from the sun that isn’t reflected from cloud or aerosols is converted to IR at the surface. This is reemitted from the surface and interacts with greenhouse gas molecules on the way back to space – as I said if you would bother to read.
Your question is stupid – and your response even more so. You have just lost what little credibility remained to you.
No – Jim – I didn’t check out another random blog on random climate science. And if you haven’t got it by now – just one more time. Initialised models for decadal projection and perturbed model runs for longer term probabilities. Fiddling around with demonstrations that models don’t monotonically increase seems the ultimate in absurdity. Of course they don’t – they are non-linear. Does this mean anything? Of course not.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | April 29, 2013 at 12:55 am |
“Too bad you apparently haven’t a clue as to why parts of the NH had such a harsh winter.”
Oh. And you do. LOL
“Also, in terms of me being on the “wrong side” of this, as a true skeptic (as opposed to the, you know, fake kind), I can’t possibly be on the wrong side since all I care about is the truth of any situation.”
Now there’s an honest admission from Gates “I can’t possibly be on the wrong side”.
Yeah I know Gates, you can’t possibly take the wrong side of an issue. You’re always on the side of truth, justice, and the American way.
“The fact that you think in terms of “sides” and who’s on the wrong and right side tells me the kind of “skeptic” you must be– you know, the wrong kind.”
You’re on the wrong side of that too. ;-)
David Springer | April 29, 2013 at 8:46 am |
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | April 29, 2013 at 12:55 am |
“Too bad you apparently haven’t a clue as to why parts of the NH had such a harsh winter.”
Oh. And you do. LOL
———-
Actually, I think I have a very good grasp of the dynamics of this NH winter weather. I can pretty much name the exact point at which the weather in much of Northern Europe changed- based on both the AO index and Central England Temperature, the two being highly correlated. December was quite balmy for England, but then around January 6 or so it all changed rapidly, with a wind shift to the east, and cold weather. The cause of all this is quite clearly apparent.
But such facts seemed wasted on you I suppose.
R Gates
January was not a specially cold month with the unexceptional northerlies and easterlies starting around the 10th of the month and ceasing for the last week of the month-so it was a m0nth of two halves as they like to say in football parlance.
http://uk.weather.com/story/news/020713_januaryreview-20130207
The high pressure was in such a position that it forced cold weather down to us and this was repeated in March. This of course, strictly speaking, is not winter, but that month was very notable for its northerlies/easterlies and very cold weather.
I know about easterlies as our house lies on the South Coast a few hundred yards from the sea and is not affected by any direction of wind except one from the East. An easterly also greatly affects our local beach. The easterly was exceptionally cold and strong for most of the month of March as our heating bills will testify.
tonyb
Chief Hydro,
Your “full blooded” answer unfortunately failed to give the actual answer. I did not ask about the overall surface to atmosphere energy interactions but specifically about ocean to troposphere energy flow.
So to make it clear to you once more here is the question slightly reworded: averaged over the whole earth, at any given time what percentage of the solar derived energy in the troposphere passed through the ocean first?
Rather than hand-waving and insulting and passing the question off a stupid, maybe you could just answer it. The flow of solar energy through the ocean to the troposphere is a key part of Earth’s climate and weather, as as the amount ebbs and flows over short and longer time frames, for a variety of reasons, so too does the weather and climate.
Tony,
Nice of you to step in here. You of course know that your weather is dictated quite strongly by the AO index and of course it started to go negative in early January. The strong SSW event at that time pretty much dictated the course of events for the rest of the NH winter as it destroyed the polar vortex, reversed the overall flow to easterly, and allowed cold air to spill out of the Arctic to lower latitudes. Alignment of the CET with the AO index and the SSW event in early January shows a very high correlation.
R. Gates, “So to make it clear to you once more here is the question slightly reworded: averaged over the whole earth, at any given time what percentage of the solar derived energy in the troposphere passed through the ocean first? ”
About 39% ~134 Wm-2 is the true “surface” insolation and the oceans are ~70% of that “surface”. That results in .7*134=93.8 Wm-2 of the ~240 Wm-2 “average” insolation and leads to the TOA emissivity of ~0.61
Using “averages” doesn’t really do the system justice, but since TOA “average” and the “surface” “average” are the references we are forced to use, that is one ballpark answer.
A more accurate answer is likely 88Wm-2 latent plus a percentage of the global “sensible” of ~24Wm-2 giving ~112Wm-2 which is close to the “average” meridional energy flux. That 88Wm-2 is somewhat controversial because of poor accounting practices used in the past, but close enough for government work.
This is approximately an 18Wm-2 imbalance in the merdional flux distribution due to the shift of the thermal equator aka ITCZ which causes a bit of additional uncertainty at the true surface though. That was part of that accounting error.
R Gates
I have been away for a few weeks so have only just seen your article over at Nevens. Well done! I have been suggesting for some time that you should write something. (no snark intended)
It is interesting as to how useful a proxy CET is for all sorts of things from the AO through to Northern Hemisphere temperatures and, to some extent, global temperatures. Always remembering Hubert Lambs maxim that ‘we can understand the temperature tendancy but not the precision’. Vuk also uses CET a great deal for his magentic correlations.
CET is also very highly scrutinsed so although it has its faults it is a useful measure and of course streches back into history, demonstrating a long slow thaw from 1690. Having now delved into the Met Office records I suspect the period around 1500 to 1540 or so was around as warm as today and from material in the Scott Polar Institute it appears the Northern sea route might have been open for the first time around those dates.
I am currently researching the Amount of UHI allowance the Met office factor in to CET. It seems very small bearing in nind the UK is one large heat island.
tonyb
R. Gates, btw, I second Tonyb on the article. Tsonis et al. mentioned the possibility of a Mongolian component in the NAO making the NAO a tripole. Since the ENSO region tends to shift from East to West, it likely has some influence on the strength of that portion of the longer term NAO pattern and likely QBO intensity.
Capt D,
Thanks for providing quickly what seemed difficult for Chief Hydro. I think your numbers are roughly accurate. Here’s the point, at any given time the oceans can be thought of as a quasi “second sun”, in that they provide a fairly healthy percentage of the energy in troposphere. Granted, this is just stored solar energy (actually similar in this way to fossil fuels), but given the delay or buffer they are, the notion of a quasi “second sun” is appropriate. Given this context, and considering the very small overall TOA imbalance that we are dealing with, it is enormously important to understand the short-term and long-term factors that control the rate of energy flow from this “second sun” to the troposphere. Current research in this area is quite important to the issue of the effects of increasing GH gas concentrations in the troposphere, in that they effect the rate of energy flow from the “second sun” to that troposphere and eventually to space.
climatereason, around 1500 the English fishermen discovered the Cod Banks of the US coast and further north. This led to an economic boom as salted fish was sold all over Europe. The salt fish exports were taxed and amount of salt fish sold by the English might show you something about the conditions.
R. Gates, ” Current research in this area is quite important to the issue of the effects of increasing GH gas concentrations in the troposphere, in that they effect the rate of energy flow from the “second sun” to that troposphere and eventually to space.”
Well, as you know I am pretty sure the impact of WMGHG is over estimated because of the illogical assumption that water vapor responds to WMGHGs instead of solar. The “second Sun” as you put it or the Earth true black body, as I consider it is the key to understanding climate on any longer time scale.
Chief does have a point on the synchronicity or chaotic part of climate. A large portion of the drop from 1955 to 1965 can be explained by Solar and OHT being out of phase and the warming/shift in Diurnal temperature range in 1985-90 by the two returning into phase. That is a larger than expected solar influence due to synchronization that is reducing the current estimates of climate sensitivity. Also because of the 1995 out of phase period, the amount of OH uptake during the in phase portion would be greater than otherwise.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-yFALetqmH8U/UX64etY_x2I/AAAAAAAAH0o/ehCcWQCKz8s/s912/thermal%2520inertia.png
Like they say at RealClimate, up until 1950 solar and aerosols where important climate influences. But they think that CO2 took over about 1950 instead of checking into why solar lost its edge. Solar phase shifted with internal ocean oscillations. Being married to a theory they lost the curiosity required to do their jobs.
Douglas et al. use phase locked loop modeling approaches which are better suited to locate these shifts and Tsonis et al, network analysis which also has merit.
So just keep an open mind. There are plenty of surprises in store.
Capt. D,
Old Chief Hydro makes some very good points, and some that I fully agree with. Unfortunately his style is quite rude, and I would rather you give him a bit more of your alter-ego reasonableness.
In terms of keeping an open mind- that’s great advice for anyone claiming to be a true skeptic, eh? And as long as we have an active large carbon-volcano going off on this planet (i.e. anthropogenic GH gas emissions) we know that there are indeed surprises in store.
Gatesy,
The energy pathways are apparent in the budget I provided – and which I discussed in some detail. You attempt a smarmy gothcha with some condescending idea that I don’t understand energy paths is this most basic sense and get it served up to you six ways from Tuesday.
You would do better to move on and think about the other implications of my comment. You asked about ENSO – I replied.
But you won’t. Far from being a sceptic – you are an AGW space cadet with delusions of moral and intellectual superiority operating from a position of groupthink and cognitive dissonance. You are light years away from being able to challenge your own assumptions.
‘R. Gates, “So to make it clear to you once more here is the question slightly reworded: averaged over the whole earth, at any given time what percentage of the solar derived energy in the troposphere passed through the ocean first? ”
So we are to make something of such baby physics? It is all derived from the sun. The SW heats the land and the top metre or so of the oceans typically which loses energy from the surface to the atmosphere in 3 ways. Seasonally at least – the ocean surface and the atmosphere are in thermal equilibrium. Or at least – that is the justification for using ocean water temperature for surface temperature. As the oceans are about 70% of the surface…
Utter nonsense. He would do better to consider the TOA radiant flux from Loeb – or any of the other data in my ‘long winded’ response. Yes it is a stupid questions repeated for reasons that have more to do with a smarmy AGW space cadet attempt at a gotcha than anything serious. Of course I am rude to such rudeness and nonsense. If he expects something different – he should behave with much more decorum.
R. Gates
You seem certain that the Arctic will go ice-free in the next few years.
By “ice free”, I presume you are talking about late summer minimum annual sea ice extent.
And I presume “ice free” means an extend of less than one million square km (not 0 square km).
Is that correct?
When do you project that will happen?
Are you taking any bets on your prediction?
Max
Jim D
Another way of putting this would have been:
In most cases, the model predictions have exaggerated warming, so this is probably the exception that proves the rule.
Max
Most of the people you call skeptics think that a doubling will cause between 1 and 2,5 degrees; my own estimate is 1.7. >3 is cAGW and any ‘hidden heat’ just destroys any possible that the ‘climate scientists’ and their fan club isn’t playing with a loaded deck.
This episode is going to be the modern Lysenkoism. It will be what older scientists teach the Ph.D’s. It will not only damage the charlatans, but the rest of research science.
How could that be when DocMartyn hisself said this just a few days ago :
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/#comment-313686
And that was on a thread called “10 signs of intellectual honesty”.
How could you DocMartyn? You have let the auditors down. Or have you given the auditors a reason for being?
Web. When the facts change, I change. After my initial estimate, I had a look at natural variability, and came up with a lower estimate.
The upper level for C.E. is IMO about 2.8 the lower level is about 1, but I will plump for 1.7, and guess that 2x[CO2] will happen about 2100.
560 ppm at 2100 would take a lot of global-scale mitigation, a reduction in carbon per capita despite global development and population growth, and leaving fossil fuels in the ground. While it is good to support global policies that restrict it to that, more likely values without global policies are in the 700 ppm range.
Web and Doc
Doc’s revised estimate of 2xCO2 => 1.7C checks very well with the several recent observation-based studies on 2xCO2 ECS.
Based on the most recent data available, it seems like a pretty good estimate to me.
Max
Jim D
You write:
560 ppmv is at the low end of IPCC scenarios and storylines, all of which are based on NO Kyoto style climate mitigation actions.
But let’s look at your figures.
Human CO2 emissions from all sources were around 36 GtCO2 in 2012.
Human population was ~7.0 billion, so per capita CO2 emission was 5.14 tons CO2
Human CO2 emissions from all sources were around 16 GtCO2 in 1970.
Human population was ~3.7 billion, so per capita CO2 emission was 4.32 tons CO2
So since 1970 human per capita CO2 generation increased by around 19% (with NO efforts to move from fossil fuels).
Population growth rate has already started to slow down from the exponential rate of 1.7% per year we saw from 1970 to 2000 (it was only 0.8% per year since 2000).
UN estimates project a further sharp decline in population growth, with world population reaching 10.5 billion by 2100 (check Wiki for projected development)
To reach 560 ppmv by 2100 would require a reduction in per capita CO2 emissions of over 30% by 2100. This could occur if all future coal-fired power generation were switched over to nuclear (Peter Lang’s proposal).
If we assume that per capita CO2 emissions will continue to rise, by 30% until 2100, despite some efforts to switch to other sources, such as nuclear and renewables, we end up with a CO2 concentration of ~640 ppmv by 2100 This seems to me like a reasonable upper limit.
If we assume that per capita CO2 emissions will remain at the present level, we end up with a CO2 concentration of around 600 ppmv by 2100.
So your 560 ppmv estimate for year 2100 does represent a reduction in per capita fossil fuel usage (as you wrote), which may not be reasonable, unless we switch new electrical power generation from coal to nuclear, starting now.
A more reasonable estimate in my opinion, assuming no Kyoto-type climate initiatives, would be 600 to 640 ppmv.
Max
Beth
A po’m bout a pail-ee-o-cli-muht event fer yer pub-li-cay-shun.
Noah’s Ark
Now this is a story and I know it’s true
‘Bout sin and retribution, too
‘Bout a righteous man named Noah, who
Built a great big Ark, like God told him to
So he could save himself and the animals too
‘Cause a big flood was coming in a day or two
So in went the animals, two by two
The big wooly mammoth and the kangaroo
The dodo bird and the cockatoo
And a whole bunch of bugs and reptiles, too
But poor old Noah never knew
That the flooding was caused by C-O-two
Or he could’ve stopped it like we now do
By plopping up a wind tur-bine or two.
Max,
This will be published in Controversy Corner
in the first edition of S U-g Journal… controversy
Corner is a collection of letters, poems, dealing
with serf concerns.. Your copy will be delivered.
Bts
I want the executive edition, with added hyphens.
By the way, not smart of Noah to save bower birds and brush tail possums. Not funny. Oh well, at least God made the rocks to chuck at ’em.
Guess that serf-like remark qualfies yer fer yer copy.
Say, what about submitting one of yer short stories
with a twist ter the ‘Serf Literary Section,’ mosomoso?
A serf.
A pity about the unicorns, though.
… Then Noah looked out through the driving rain
The unicorns were hiding, playing silly games
Kicking and splashing while the rain was pouring
Oh them silly unicorns
There were green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty-backed camels and some chimpanzees
Noah cried, “Close the door, for the rain is pouring
And we just can’t wait for no unicorns”
And then the ark started moving, it drifted with the tide
The unicorns looked up from the rocks and they cried
And the waters came down and started floating them away
That’s why you’ve never seen a unicorn to this day
(according to Shel Silverstein on Inside Folk Songs, 1962)
I have come across unicorns Faustino
Truth is stranger than fiction …
A Serf
Anyone could have predicted the warming since 1970.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:732/mean:252
As a result, how can they call it man made?
Anyone can predict what’s not man-made, but no one can predict what’s man-made ?
Hmmm…….I’ll have to think on that one.
Max_OK
In case you missed the message, Girma is referring to the IPCC logic when comparing the late 20th C warming period (IPCC’s “poster period”) with the statistically indistinguishable early 20th C warming period.
1. Our models cannot explain the early 20th C warming period.
2. We know that the statistically indistinguishable late 20th C warming period was caused principally by human CO2.
3. How do we know this?
4. Because our models cannot explain it any other way.
Go, team!
Max
Oh, I know that. So what ? If you want a naive projection, based on the assumption change in average global temperature is just a function of time, which is what Girma is suggesting, extending an OLS line out to the future beats his method. But time is not an explanation of causality, so neither is science.
Professor Curry,
I don’t think there should be a change in the CO2 versus Sea Level Rise relationship before and after 1960, but they do as shown in the following chart:
http://bit.ly/185BzVT
What do you think?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
“The CO2 Record in Plant Fossils
“Plant fossils obtained from sedimentary rocks and peat deposits are a relatively new tool being used to unravel Earth’s carbon dioxide (CO2) history. Tiny pores on plant leaves and needles called stomata regulate carbon dioxide absorption and water vapor release. Stomata numbers decrease during times of high atmospheric CO2, and increase when atmospheric CO2 is low.
…
“Because plant stomata numbers do not change after the leaves or needles fall from the parent plant, they make a good indicator or proxy of atmospheric CO2 in Earth’s past. What they show is that the popular belief that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were a steady 280 ppm (parts per million) may be incorrect.
“As illustrated below, studies of stomata for recent and fossilized plants show that atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years have been higher and much more variable than previously supposed. Much of what we think we know about CO2 levels of the past 800,000 years is based on the ice core record.
…
“The Last 15,000 Years– Reconsidered
Studies of plant stomata show that the currently-held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view. CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm– the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm (see ref. 10-20).
“Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm– not the exception.”
=============
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
“PLANT STOMATA
“Stomata are microscopic pores found in leaves and the stem epidermis of plants. They are used for gas exchange. The stomatal density in some C3 plants will vary inversely with the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Stomatal density can be empirically tested and calibrated to CO2 changes over the last 60 years in living plants. The advantage to the stomatal data is that the relationship of the Stomatal Index and atmospheric CO2 can be empirically demonstrated…
…
“When stomata-derived CO2 (red) is compared to ice core-derived CO2 (blue), the stomata generally show much more variability in the atmospheric CO2 level and often show levels much higher than the ice cores…
…
“Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.”
==============
“Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.”
Says it all, you only have to think of Keeling sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano after not finding enough carbon dioxide in Antarctica and know how Callendar cherry picked his starting point to see what been going on here.
“Says it all, you only have to think of Keeling sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano after not finding enough carbon dioxide in Antarctica and know how Callendar cherry picked his starting point to see what been going on here.”
The Mauna Loa background CO2 measurements match (plus or minus 2ppm) the measurements effected at Point Barrow (Alaska), Alert (Greenland), American Samoa, South Pole, a few more stations as well as samples taken from high-altitude balloons all over the world.
Of course it has. Ignore Myrrh he’s the village idiot.
Oh right, in a global warming scare industry noted for its manipulations of data, beginning with Keeling and Callendar, you think that measurements haven’t been tampered with?
So much so that you’d willingly ignore the ludicrous scenario of Keeling sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano in the world’s great volcanic carbon dioxide producing hot spot and this not ring alarm bells when it is claimed to be a “pristine unadultered by local carbon dioxide production measuring spot”..?
Keeling kept it in the family, his son took over running the data gathering from the stations at Scripps and then the whole shebang taken over by the US goverment corrupted agencies.
From a post I’ve just made elsewhere:
The Callendar/Keeling fraud to pretend to track increasing levels of the not possible to tell apart man-made from volcanic carbon dioxide* by cherry picking a low start point is contradicted by measurements by real scientists.
This AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect illusion has fraud written all the way through it.
* http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
“Both tectonic and volcanic CO2 are magmatic and depleted in both 13C & 14C. In the absence of statistically significant isotope determinations for each volcanic province contributing to the atmosphere, this makes CO2 contributions of volcanic origin isotopically indistinguishable from those of fossil fuel consumption. It is therefore unsurprising to find that Segalstad (1998) points out that 96% of atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from volcanic degassing. So much for the Royal Society’s unexplained “chemical analysis”. If you believe that we know enough about volcanic gas compositions to distinguish them chemically from fossil fuel combustion, you have indeed been mislead. As we shall see, the number of active volcanoes is unknown, never mind a tally of gas signatures belonging to every active volcano. We have barely scratched the surface and as such, there is no magic fingerprint that can distinguish between anthropogenic and volcanogenic sources of CO2.”
I’ve made CO2 measurements myself by both chemical and electronic methods. My measurements in Texas agree with those of Mauna Loa Observatory. Do I need to point out that I’m not part of a global conspiracy lying about CO2 measurements?
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and Mauna Loa measurements are duplicated everyfrickinwhere by amateurs and professionals alike. Write that down.
David Springer | April 30, 2013 at 6:02 am | I’ve made CO2 measurements myself by both chemical and electronic methods. My measurements in Texas agree with those of Mauna Loa Observatory. Do I need to point out that I’m not part of a global conspiracy lying about CO2 measurements?
What don’t you understand – they began measurements with a cherry picked low figure so they could pretend to show an increase – all they’ve done is get back to real pre industrial levels..
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and Mauna Loa measurements are duplicated everyfrickinwhere by amateurs and professionals alike. Write that down.
It is not well mixed in the atmosphere – because it physically can’t be. It’s heavier than air and all rain is carbonic acid. It’s heavier than air, it does not readily rise in air, so, where production of it there will be where you find it the majority of it, plants breathe it out as well as in. It can’t accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years, it can’t defy gravity.
Have you looked to see how they measure at Mauna Loa? They arbitrarily decide the cut off point between volcanic and the mythical “background” – “man-made” can’t be told apart from volcanic for any practical sense.
Keeling wasn’t a scientists, he was a man with an anti coal agenda, in less than two years! To show a trend. Wake up, that isn’t science. He had declared that he had found a trend that “man-made” was rising.. less than two years and no show and tell that he could tell it apart from volcanic.
If they can tell it apart from volcanic, why do they cherry pick when “volcanic” ends at Mauna Loa to then claim what is left is “background uncontaminated”?
The AIRS conclusion, from all their data including top and bottom of the troposphere which they still haven’t released, is that “Carbon dioxide is not at all well mixed in the atmosphere but lumpy” Much to their astonishment, because they were brainwashed in the education system to believe it was well mixed.
No Myrrh, I’ve personally observed, on my own measurement gear, the readings go up for the last 60ppm in perfect synchronicity with Mauna Loa. Not everything in the global warming brouhaha is a lie. The reliable facts are few and far between but among those are Mauna Loa’s CO2 measurements confirmed by others all around the world.
Myrrh in regard to CO2 being heavier and sinking. Oxygen is heavier than nitrogen. If atmospheric gases sorted themselves out by weight the first match you struck would be your last because it would be almost pure oxygen at the surface and the first spark would incinerate everything.
It’s statements like CO2 isn’t well mixed because its heavier than other gases that earns you the village idiot moniker.
Springer doesn’t know his periodic table and is ignorant of the composition of the atmosphere. Argon and CO2 are heavier than the main constituents.
That’s the kind of factless reasoning that places Springer and Myrrrh in the same boat, completely adrift of conventional scientific thought processes.
WHT –
just wanted to make sure that you saw this.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/28/the-art-and-science-of-effective-science-advice/#comment-317613
I’m telling you, most of this fake skepticism is just a put-on, driven by the same pranking urge that propels shows like coast-to-coast AM.
They hate it when the realists come around and spoil the fun. Unfortunately, unlike a radio show, where you can control the broadcast with the 7-second delay switch, you can’t prevent the truth from making an appearance on a blog comment.
Thanks for the tip joshua
WebHubTheCrackpot said: ”Springer doesn’t know his periodic table and is ignorant of the composition of the atmosphere. Argon and CO2 are heavier than the main constituents.That’s the kind of factless reasoning that places Springer and Myrrrh in the same boat”
Crackpot, the man that constructed the ”Periodic Table” camarad Mendelyeev; must be turning upside down in his grave… argon yes; BUT, CO2 is a molecule and will never be found on the periodic table. Encompassing CO2 in the periodic table = exposes your ignorance!
2] during the day, the ”carbon atom” in the CO2 molecule intercepts the sunlight -> that makes the 2 oxygen atoms in that molecule to expand much more than surrounding O&N atoms-> they lift him up = CO2 exposed to the sunlight IS NOT AS HEAVY AS ARGON OR FREE OXYGEN. At night is different story. same as: gas bottle is heavier than air, BUT, by warming the hot air balloon -> lifts the balloon and the bottle = same as carbon atom warms the two oxygen atoms. and goes and stays up all day. I told you to read everything that is on my website; you wouldn’t be making a fool of yourself, cheers!
All the Aussie crackpots come out when it is night in the USA.
Stefan meet your fellow Australian cranks Girma and the Chief.
This from an insane dweeb incapable of anything but contentless drivel, preening and prattling. Give it a rest – preferably just p_ss off because it is all so utterly tedious and trivial.
WebThe Crackpot said: ”All the Aussie crackpots come out when it is night in the USA. Stefan meet your fellow Australian cranks Girma and the Chief.”
Girma is a calatoral damage of the massive misleading propaganda; we should all feel sorry for him. They monitor on 6 000m3 temp; from that data – he knows the temp on the WHOLE planet, to a thousandth of a
degree…? his brains has being reduced to a 3y old chimp. poor thing…
on the other hand, the Chief is a bulshine merchant, same as you. I wander why you two are arguing…? Because of people like Captain kangaroo, captain Dallas and similar, I have given them the label ” Fake Skeptics” Warmist hope in 90% possibility of global warming in 100y; the ”captains” believe 101% in global warming, but classify themselves as
”skeptics”… ?! i hope their mother loves them
I perused some of the original stomata studies (rather than the conspiracy theorists who seems to be misinterpreting them in your quotes) and I found such caveats as : ” […] In our new SdF-inferred [CO2] record, reconstruction uncertainties are larger than that (combined reconstruction uncertainty is c. ± 67 ppmv), and can therefore not confirm the conclusion of significantly higher [CO2] values during the period Ad 1700–1850 with any level of confidence (Figure 4). The reconstruction uncertainty is almost as large as the [CO2] changes that occurred during glacial terminations as revealed by analysis of CO2 trapped in Antarctic ice cores (Lüthi et al., 2008). It is essential to reduce the reconstruction uncertainty.”
Stomatal-based inference models for reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 concentration: a method assessment using a calibration and validation approach,
W. Finsinger and F. Wagner-Cremer, The Holocene 19,5 (2009) pp. 757–764
Pierre-Normand | April 30, 2013 at 6:42 am | I perused some of the original stomata studies (rather than the conspiracy theorists who seems to be misinterpreting them in your quotes) and I found such caveats as : ” […] In our new SdF-inferred [CO2] record, reconstruction uncertainties are larger than that (combined reconstruction uncertainty is c. ± 67 ppmv), and can therefore not confirm the conclusion of significantly higher [CO2] values during the period Ad 1700–1850 with any level of confidence (Figure 4). The reconstruction uncertainty is almost as large as the [CO2] changes that occurred during glacial terminations as revealed by analysis of CO2 trapped in Antarctic ice cores (Lüthi et al., 2008). It is essential to reduce the reconstruction uncertainty.”
Stomatal-based inference models for reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 concentration: a method assessment using a calibration and validation approach,
W. Finsinger and F. Wagner-Cremer, The Holocene 19,5 (2009) pp. 757–764
You said “some of the original stomata studies” – is this the only such caveat you found?
What strikes you looking at say, the fig 5 on the debunk page which has that study?
What strikes you when looking at all the different historic measurements of CO2 since this began to be measured seriously?
For me, the first thing was that the ice core record looks out of place, like the Hockey Stick looks incongruous to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the variations in temps like the Roman Warm and MWP and LIA. So the ice core data looks just flat odd against all the variations noted in the earlier records, from which Callendar cherry picked a particularly low value and from a discredited study letting none of the higher number interfere with his agenda, and variations is what one would expect of carbon dioxide as a real gas eaten and breathed out by real plants – so my first thought on the odd flat ice core records was, of course, there isn’t the plant life there to be producing it in all its lumpy variety. As the AIRS study concluded from its whole study including the unreleased top and bottom troposphere, carbon dioxide wasn’t very well mixed at all, but lumpy.
Later I found that there were problems with the ice core data, particularly as noted by Jaworowski:
“Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C, (and) in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen– guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to — 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure — high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air.”
Zbigniew Jaworowski (8)
expert in the atmospheric deposition of radioactive contaminants in glacial ice http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
And as noted here: http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Global%20Warming&whichsubcat=Ice%20Cores the Siple problem still hasn’t been resolved..
“For example, the Siple Antarctic ice core indicates that carbon dioxide reached a level of about 330ppm in about 1900. Comparison with the 1960 initial Mauna Loa measurement of 260ppm suggests that either (1) the Siple data is just wrong, or (2) there was a drop of about 60ppm in carbon dioxide level between 1900 and 1960, or (3) it takes 80-some years for the carbon dioxide gas system to close.[4] This discrepancy does not appear to have been resolved;[5] but the smooth shape of the Siple core carbon dioxide curve as a function of core depth (approaching a constant level with increasing core depth/age) suggests it might not ever have been a closed system. Over time, carbon dioxide in the sampled Siple ice may have gradually equilibrated to a constant carbon dioxide value of about 280ppm now indicated for the 1720-year old and older layers. Also, this core suffered some melting during transport and prior to analysis.[6]”
As the last link says, there is a great deal of variety in the ice core records, some better correlate to periods of known warming and cooling and so on, and it’s this point that really annoys me – that the dedicated hard graft of real scientists working now and those in the past who conscientiously measured and kept records for the benefit of scientist in the future and through them for us all, have been completely undermined by this AGW fraud. Whatever has been found has a story to tell, other factors in play can’t be thought about clearly if there’s an over riding agenda building in a bias.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D.
“Attempts to support the global warming thesis with analyses of the carbon dioxide content of air bubbles in glacial ice samples, are based on fudged data and ignorance of the physical processes of glacial ice formation.
“From its very beginning, the hypothesis on anthropogenic
greenhouse warming was tainted with a biased selection
of data, ad hoc assumptions that were not verified experimentally,
and one-sided interpretations. Such symptoms of affliction,
which Irving Langmuir called “pathological science,”1
are evident in the publications of G.S. Callendar, who truly can
be regarded as the father of the modern “man-made climatic
warming” hypothesis. In 1938, Callendar revived Svante Arrhenius’s
idea of man-made climatic warming, now 100 years
old.2 Callendar claimed that because of fossil fuel burning, the
average atmospheric concentration of CO2 had increased from
the 19th century value of 274 parts per million volume (ppmv)
to 325 ppmv in 1935, that is, by 18.6 percent; and that between
1880 and 1935, this caused an increase in the global
surface temperature of 0.33°C.3- 5 However, the measured 19th
century CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere ranged from
about 250 to 550 ppmv (Figure 1), and the average concentration
estimated from these values was 335 ppmv.6
…
“The results of ice core analyses are supposed to be “the only possible validation of models
that were set up to describe future climatic changes caused
by anthropogenic emissions.”10 On the basis of these analyses,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change11 declared
that the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere was 26 percent lower than the current level. The
IPCC also declared that the pre-industrial concentration of
N2O was 19 percent lower, and that CH4 was 215 percent
lower than current levels. However, no study has yet demonstrated
that the content of greenhouse trace gases in old ice,
or even in the interstitial air from recent snow, represents the
atmospheric composition.”
In the AIRS conclusion, they said they would have to go away and learn something about winds, they might even find as I did that the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect doesn’t have any winds because their propertyless massless ideal gases zipping at great speeds through empty space not subject to gravity have no way of forming them, but I hope at least they can learn enough to see through the bs that passes for ‘science’ in AGW from the now corrupted national science bodies: –
“AIRS data show that carbon dioxide is not well mixed in Earth’s atmosphere, results that have been validated by direct measurements. The belt of carbon dioxide concentration in the southern hemisphere, depicted in red, reaches maximum strength in July-August and minimum strength in December-January. There is a net transfer of carbon dioxide from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere produces three to four times more human produced carbon dioxide than the southern hemisphere. Image credit: NASA”
The sleight of hand inclusion of total bs among facts to further the “well-mixed” meme..
It’s on the debunk link to see the graphic.
What is certain, among all these uncertainties, is that the fictions such as highlighted on the geocraft link from the IPCC and Gore from the agenda driven Callendar/Keeling manipulations of science are the norm in AGW’s Greenhouse Effect, showing a remarkable consistency of dedication to this science fraud.
Langmuir’s “pathological science” the only conclusion possible.
What I don’t get about Myrrrrrhhhh is that on the one hand he/she is so insanely ignorant about basic physics, yet on the other hand, he/she will go through this incredibly arcane biochemical argument concerning stomata as if it is perfectly solid science.
The juxtaposition between these two views can fill a canyon and it makes me think that Myrrrrrhhhh is just another one of those Aussie pranksters continuing to play a long-running joke on unsuspecting readers of the comments section.
Hope this helps.
signed,
Confused and Concerned (but not born yesterday)
Myrrh asked: “What strikes you looking at say, the fig 5 on the debunk page which has that study?”
What’s most striking about this figure is that the “debunker” fails to display the error bars from the original studies where the data comes from, and fails to mention that the standard error is much larger than the claimed discrepancy with ice core records, and also much larger than the apparent high frequency variability. The misrepresentation on this graph also consists in joining the separate original data points (that are not even shown) with a continuous curve when the original studies only present discrete measurements with large overlapping error bars. (The error bars, of course, mostly encompass the much more precise ice core record.) The “debunker” doesn’t even attempt to show running averages. He just goes out if his way to misrepresents error noise as a real high frequency signal. This constitutes, at best, a work of self delusion.
Pierre-Normand | April 30, 2013 at 11:19 pm | Myrrh asked: “What strikes you looking at say, the fig 5 on the debunk page which has that study?”
What’s most striking about this figure is that the “debunker” fails to display the error bars from the original studies where the data comes from, and fails to mention that the standard error is much larger than the claimed discrepancy with ice core records, and also much larger than the apparent high frequency variability. The misrepresentation on this graph also consists in joining the separate original data points (that are not even shown) with a continuous curve when the original studies only present discrete measurements with large overlapping error bars. (The error bars, of course, mostly encompass the much more precise ice core record.) The “debunker” doesn’t even attempt to show running averages. He just goes out if his way to misrepresents error noise as a real high frequency signal. This constitutes, at best, a work of self delusion.
Hmm, I see. So you didn’t find any other such in the “some of the orginal stomata studies” you perused – my question was:
“You said “some of the original stomata studies” – is this the only such caveat you found?”
So, which other ones did you look at?
So, back to figure 5, here’s what you quoted from in your previous post: http://www.umr5059.univ-montp2.fr/doc_finsinger/Finsinger_Wagner-Cremer_Holocene_2009.pdf
Gosh, what changed with Wagner? From his confident:
” “The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.”
F. Wagner, et.al., 2004
Paleoecologist and stomata research scientist (13)”
To the strange message under Finsinger assuming higher CO2 levels pre industrial must be wrong because they don’t fit the IPCC agenda, which has made a poster child of the unproven ice core claim that CO2 levels were unchanging pre our petty little foray into industry in the Industrial Revolution?
I like the bit were they say that maybe these higher pre IR figures are what drove the global warming – so which is it? Is it the satanic mills Industrial Revolution of the Hockey Stick fame that did the dirty on us and drove up CO2 levels, or, shock horror, maybe it was that the warming of our coming out of the missing from the AGW narrative LIA which drove up CO2 levels..?
The good thing about papers like this, is that do show us what they found. One day when the spell is broken and we can put the Hockey Stick and Yamal in the cess pit outside of science where they belong we could start looking for a cure for the sociopathic defect which has been driving this AGW fraud..
Myrrh rhetorically asked: “Gosh, what changed with Wagner? From his confident: ‘The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.’ ”
Nothing changed. That study purports to derive from stomata proxy reconstructions some centenial timescale 30ppm signals that may be smoothed over in the ice cores. (That may or may not be valid. I’m not competent enough to judge the validity of that study). It doesn’t, however, purport to display any systematic discrepancy from ice cores over multi-centennial timescales; it seems to simply assume that CO2 is well mixed; and it doesn’t hint at the rather larger swings that would result from ignoring the error bars from individual proxy measurements — what your ice-core ‘debunker’ had done.
Warning: sound bite
Whatever ECS turns out to be we’re going to find out the hard way because it’s politically impossible to mitigate CO2 emissions enough to matter.
Can I get a +1 on that? :-)
DocMartyn | April 29, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
“climatereason, around 1500 the English fishermen discovered the Cod Banks of the US coast and further north. This led to an economic boom as salted fish was sold all over Europe. The salt fish exports were taxed and amount of salt fish sold by the English might show you something about the conditions.”
When are you implying that Atlantic cod off the coast of North America actually became a significant contributor to cod market in Europe? I’d believe 18th century but before that I need a link. That fishery possibly discovered by Eurpeans before Columbus but my reading indicates it was a couple centuries before it was being exploited for European market.
David
Doc is exactly right.
Here is a link to my home town of Teignmouth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teignmouth
My house lies adjacent to the headland shown in the first photo on the left. 1 mile in the opposite direction is Labrador Bay, named for obvious reasons. Fishermen from my port have been fishing in the cod banks since 1492 and there are many records to illustrate this. Cod was salted in barrels on the beach not 200 yards from me.
Plymouth Docks around 30 miles away have records going back to the 12th century of catches made and cod has been prominent at varioius periods during that time. The coming and goung of fish is an excellent proxy for the climate change over the centuries as cold water and warm water fish change places.
tonyb
I wasn’t questioning English cod fishing in general in the North Atlantic. I was questioning the English sailing thousands of miles to the cod fishery off the coast of North America in the 15th century. Or any century for that matter. Atlantic crossings are too costly to undertake just to bring back a common fish that can found much closer to home.
Here is a link to the range where Atlantic cod is found:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gadus_morhua-Atlantic_cod_2.png
Hi David
From within the link I gave is this additional link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_fishing_in_Newfoundland
Cod was caught in the area by the Vikings but mostly at subsistence levels but around the 1400’s larger vessels, better nets, better salting techniques, were developed and the huge cod grounds off newfoundland was discovered. Salted cod was a valuable delicacy and traded all round Europe.
As for cod being found (in quantity) much closer to home, that depended on the climate of the time. The late 1400’s to around 1540 appear to have been around as warm as today and therfore cod may not have been as plentiful (or as large) closer to Home.
International Trading by sea was far more common than is generally recognised. Close by me is St Michaels Mount where tin has been traded for several thousand years. There are many accounts of regular visits by the Romans, indeed it was one of the reasons they invaded us.
tonyb
TNX tb for my Morning Mahan Moment.
======
Okay, I guess the fishing closer to home must have not been very good to make transatlantic fishing trips for a rough fish like cod profitable. I found this:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?paragraphid=hbk
The Atlantic cod trade: AD 1497-1583
The voyage of John Cabot in 1497 directs European attention to the rich stocks of fish in the waters around Newfoundland. Soon fishing fleets from the Atlantic nations of Europe are making annual visits to catch cod. They bring with them large supplies of salt. Summer settlements are established, on the coasts of Newfoundland, to process the fish before it is transported back to European markets in the autumn.
England plays a leading role in the trade, and in 1583 Humphrey Gilbert formally annexes Newfoundland on behalf of the English queen. It is a claim which does not go undisputed – particularly by France, whose fleets are the main rivals of the English in these waters.
“I was questioning the English sailing thousands of miles to the cod fishery off the coast of North America in the 15th century.”
Maybe they weren’t sailing there. Maybe they were using very long fishing lines.
Welcome back, tony.
Fish comings and goings a better proxy fer climate
change than tree rings I surmise …but not maybe
tomato growing. )
Beth the serf.
Hi Beth
I will be putting in our tomatoes in the next few days and shall keep you informed of progress. Whether this crop grows or dies is all anecdotal of course. However, when I reveal the results of the highly scientific tomato ring analysis everyone will sit up and take notice.
tonyb
Question of the day:
Is the pause in global warming over yet?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/04/29/cold-snowy-spring-weather/2121737/
But summer Arctic Sea Ice extent! LOL
Herman Alexander Pope predicted this last year based on summer Arctic sea ice extent. Good call Pope. You may be onto something.
—————————————————————————————-
Awful April: Spring hard to find across northern USA
Several cities had their snowiest single month of all time in April.
April has been a freakishly cold month across much of the northern USA, bringing misery to millions of sun-starved and winter-weary residents from the Rockies to the Midwest.
“The weather map … looks like something out of The Twilight Zone,” Minneapolis meteorologist Paul Douglas of WeatherNation TV wrote on his blog last week.
Record cold and snow has been reported in dozens of cities, with the worst of the chill in the Rockies, upper Midwest and northern Plains. Several baseball games have been snowed out in both Denver and Minneapolis.
Cities such as Rapid City, S.D.; Duluth, Minn.; and Boulder, Colo., have all endured their snowiest month ever recorded. (In all three locations, weather records go back more than 100 years.) In fact, more than 1,100 snowfall records and 3,400 cold records have been set across the nation so far in April, according to the National Climatic Data Center.
Unfortunately for warm-weather lovers, after some mild temperatures the past few days, the chill is forecast to return as the calendar turns to May: Accumulating snow is forecast overnight Tuesday night and Wednesday in Denver and in Minneapolis-St.Paul by Wednesday night and Thursday, said AccuWeather meteorologist Mark Paquette.
And across much of the central USA, temperatures will be from 25 to 45 degrees colder on Wednesday than they were Monday, according to AccuWeather. For instance, Denver should see a high of 35 degrees Wednesday, after a high near 80 on Monday.
As for the cause of the ongoing cold? A stuck weather pattern that’s continued to funnel frigid air into the central USA from Canada for the past few months. Specifically, the troublemaker is what’s known as a “blocking” area of high pressure over Greenland, eastern Canada and the North Atlantic Ocean, which favors a cold northwest flow of air over the central and eastern USA, Paquette said.
If you want warmth, he said, head west: Hot, dry, windy conditions will prevail this week in much of southern California and Arizona, where highs will top out in the 90s.
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, the snow, rain and sleet that has dragged well into April means money lost for golf courses that have been unable to open. Territory Golf Club director Doug Stang in St. Cloud was asked last week if he’ll ever see anything like this spring again:
“I don’t think so,” he said. “This is just too bizarre.”
Other chilly April 2013 records, according to AccuWeather and the Weather Channel:
•Both Bismarck, N.D., and Pierre, S.D., had their snowiest Aprils on record.
•International Falls, Minn., recorded a low of just 4 degrees April 20. In records dating to 1897, it had never been this cold before this late in April.
•Baton Rouge: The low temperature bottomed out at 39 degrees on the morning of April 20. This was the lowest temperature ever recorded this far into the spring season.
•Sheridan, Wyo.: Had a bone-chilling low of -1 degree on the morning of April 23.
•Amarillo, Texas: The low temperature dropped to 21 degrees on April 24. This is the coldest Amarillo has been this late in the season in records dating to 1892.
•Fargo, N.D.: The first 50-degree or higher temperature reading of the year occurred April 26. Previously, since 1881, Fargo had never had to wait past April 17 to get at least one 50-degree day.
David Springer
Europe also had a very cold and snowy winter – which has lasted up through April.
Max
Yeah but Europe drank the global warming Kool-Aid and the lesson is lost there. Critically the United States didn’t drink the Kool-Aid, never ratified Kyoto, and this serves to lessen the chance of it entering into any similar international treaty in the future.
Bush’s basket of bread turned to wine and roses.
=====
It’s not that simple, I think. In some ways, Europe is more skeptical. The most alarmists are from the US.
Yeah, it actually is that simple. The United States Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto climate treaty. The only other countries in the world who didn’t get onboard with it were Andorra, Palestine, Vatican City, and South Sudan. What the hell were all the rest of you thinking when you let your governments do that?
Of course the US has very influential alarmists. It’s got very influential everything on the world stage which kind of goes hand in hand with being a super-power fercrisakes. The fact remains that if you’re a CAGW skeptic the