by Ross McKitrick
One day after the IPCC released the AR6 I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that their “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless. Some of the errors would be obvious to anyone trained in regression analysis, and the fact that they went unnoticed for 20 years despite the method being so heavily used does not reflect well on climatology as an empirical discipline.
My paper is a critique of “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting” by Myles Allen and Simon Tett, which was published in Climate Dynamics in 1999 and to which I refer as AT99. Their attribution methodology was instantly embraced and promoted by the IPCC in the 2001 Third Assessment Report (coincident with their embrace and promotion of the Mann hockey stick). The IPCC promotion continues today: see AR6 Section 3.2.1. It has been used in dozens and possibly hundreds of studies over the years. Wherever you begin in the Optimal Fingerprinting literature (example), all paths lead back to AT99, often via Allen and Stott (2003). So its errors and deficiencies matter acutely.
The abstract of my paper reads as follows:
“Allen and Tett (1999, herein AT99) introduced a Generalized Least Squares (GLS) regression methodology for decomposing patterns of climate change for attribution purposes and proposed the “Residual Consistency Test” (RCT) to check the GLS specification. Their methodology has been widely used and highly influential ever since, in part because subsequent authors have relied upon their claim that their GLS model satisfies the conditions of the Gauss-Markov (GM) Theorem, thereby yielding unbiased and efficient estimators. But AT99 stated the GM Theorem incorrectly, omitting a critical condition altogether, their GLS method cannot satisfy the GM conditions, and their variance estimator is inconsistent by construction. Additionally, they did not formally state the null hypothesis of the RCT nor identify which of the GM conditions it tests, nor did they prove its distribution and critical values, rendering it uninformative as a specification test. The continuing influence of AT99 two decades later means these issues should be corrected. I identify 6 conditions needing to be shown for the AT99 method to be valid.”
The Allen and Tett paper had merit as an attempt to make operational some ideas emerging from an engineering (signal processing) paradigm for the purpose of analyzing climate data. The errors they made come from being experts in one thing but not another, and the review process in both climate journals and IPCC reports is notorious for not involving people with relevant statistical expertise (despite the reliance on statistical methods). If someone trained in econometrics had refereed their paper 20 years ago the problems would have immediately been spotted, the methodology would have been heavily modified or abandoned and a lot of papers since then would probably never have been published (or would have, but with different conclusions—I suspect most would have failed to report “attribution”).
Optimal Fingerprinting
AT99 made a number of contributions. They took note of previous proposals for estimating the greenhouse “signal” in observed climate data and showed that they were equivalent to a statistical technique called Generalized Least Squares (GLS). They then argued that, by construction, their GLS model satisfies the Gauss-Markov (GM) conditions, which according to an important theorem in statistics means it yields unbiased and efficient parameter estimates. (“Unbiased” means the expected value of an estimator equals the true value. “Efficient” means all the available sample information is used, so the estimator has the minimum variance possible.) If an estimator satisfies the GM conditions, it is said to be “BLUE”—the Best (minimum variance) Linear Unbiased Estimator; or the best option out of the entire class of estimators that can be expressed as a linear function of the dependent variable. AT99 claimed that their estimator satisfies the GM conditions and therefore is BLUE, a claim repeated and relied upon subsequently by other authors in the field. They also introduced a “Residual Consistency” (RC) test which they said could be used to assess the validity of the fingerprinting regression model.
Unfortunately these claims are untrue. Their method is not a conventional GLS model. It does not, and cannot, satisfy the GM conditions and in particular it violates an important condition for unbiasedness. And rejection or non-rejection of the RC test tells us nothing about whether the results of an optimal fingerprinting regression are valid.
AT99 and the IPCC
AT99 was heavily promoted in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR Chapter 12, Box 12.1, Section 12.4.3 and Appendix 12.1) and has been referenced in every IPCC Assessment Report since. TAR Appendix 12.1 was headlined “Optimal Detection is Regression” and began
The detection technique that has been used in most “optimal detection” studies performed to date has several equivalent representations (Hegerl and North, 1997; Zwiers, 1999). It has recently been recognised that it can be cast as a multiple regression problem with respect to generalised least squares (Allen and Tett, 1999; see also Hasselmann, 1993, 1997)
The growing level of confidence regarding attribution of climate change to GHG’s expressed by the IPCC and others over the past two decades rests principally on the many studies that employ the AT99 method, including the RC test. The methodology is still in wide use, albeit with a couple of minor changes that don’t address the flaws identified in my critique. (Total Least Squares or TLS, for instance, introduces new biases and problems which I analyze elsewhere; and regularization methods to obtain a matrix inverse do not fix the underlying theoretical flaws). There have been a small number of attribution papers using other methods, including ones which the TAR mentioned. “Temporal” or time series analyses have their own flaws which I will address separately (put briefly, regressing I(0) temperatures on I(1) forcings creates obvious problems of interpretation).
The Gauss-Markov (GM) Theorem
As with regression methods generally, everything in this discussion centres on the GM Theorem. There are two GM conditions that a regression model needs to satisfy to be BLUE. The first, called homoskedasticity, is that the error variances must be constant across the sample. The second, called conditional independence, is that the expected values of the error terms must be independent of the explanatory variables. If homoskedasticity fails, least squares coefficients will still be unbiased but their variance estimates will be biased. If conditional independence fails, least squares coefficients and their variances will be biased and inconsistent, and the regression model output is unreliable. (“Inconsistent” means the coefficient distribution does not converge on the right answer even as the sample size goes to infinite.)
I teach the GM theorem every year in introductory econometrics. (As an aside, that means I am aware of the ways I have oversimplified the presentation, but you can refer to the paper and its sources for the formal version). It comes up near the beginning of an introductory course in regression analysis. It is not an obscure or advanced concept, it is the foundation of regression modeling techniques. Much of econometrics consists of testing for and remedying violations of the GM conditions.
The AT99 Method
(It is not essential to understand this paragraph, but it helps for what follows.) Optimal Fingerprinting works by regressing observed climate data onto simulated analogues from climate models which are constructed to include or omit specific forcings. The regression coefficients thus provide the basis for causal inference regarding the forcing, and estimation of the magnitude of each factor’s influence. Authors prior to AT99 argued that failure of the homoskedasticity condition might thwart signal detection, so they proposed transforming the observations by premultiplying them by a matrix P which is constructed as the matrix root of the inverse of a “climate noise” matrix C, itself computed using the covariances from preindustrial control runs of climate models. But because C is not of full rank its inverse does not exist, so P can instead be computed using a Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse, selecting a rank which in practice is far smaller than the number of observations in the regression model itself.
The Main Error in AT99
AT99 asserted that the signal detection regression model applying the P matrix weights is homoscedastic by construction, therefore it satisfies the GM conditions, therefore its estimates are unbiased and efficient (BLUE). Even if their model yields homoscedastic errors (which is not guaranteed) their statement is obviously incorrect: they left out the conditional independence assumption. Neither AT99 nor—as far as I have seen—anyone in the climate detection field has ever mentioned the conditional independence assumption nor discussed how to test it nor the consequences should it fail.
And fail it does—routinely in regression modeling; and when it fails the results can be spectacularly wrong, including wrong signs and meaningless magnitudes. But you won’t know that unless you test for specific violations. In the first version of my paper (written in summer 2019) I criticized the AT99 derivation and then ran a suite of AT99-style optimal fingerprinting regressions using 9 different climate models and showed they routinely fail standard conditional independence tests. And when I implemented some standard remedies, the greenhouse gas signal was no longer detectable. I sent that draft to Allen and Tett in late summer 2019 and asked for their comments, which they undertook to provide. But hearing none after several months I submitted it to the Journal of Climate, requesting Allen and Tett be asked to review it. Tett provided a constructive (signed) review, as did two other anonymous reviewers, one of whom was clearly an econometrician (another might have been Allen but it was anonymous so I don’t know). After several rounds the paper was rejected. Although Tett and the econometrician supported publication the other reviewer and the editor did not like my proposed alternative methodology. But none of the reviewers disputed my critique of AT99’s handling of the GM theorem. So I carved that part out and sent it in winter 2021 to Climate Dynamics, which accepted it after 3 rounds of review.
Other Problems
In my paper I list five assumptions which are necessary for the AT99 model to yield BLUE coefficients, not all of which AT99 stated. All 5 fail by construction. I also list 6 conditions that need to be proven for the AT99 method to be valid. In the absence of such proofs there is no basis for claiming the results of the AT99 method are unbiased or consistent, and the results of the AT99 method (including use of the RC test) should not be considered reliable as regards the effect of GHG’s on the climate.
One point I make is that the assumption that an estimator of C provides a valid estimate of the error covariances means the AT99 method cannot be used to test a null hypothesis that greenhouse gases have no effect on the climate. Why not? Because an elementary principle of hypothesis testing is that the distribution of a test statistic under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true cannot be conditional on the null hypothesis being false. The use of a climate model to generate the homoscedasticity weights requires the researcher to assume the weights are a true representation of climate processes and dynamics. The climate model embeds the assumption that greenhouse gases have a significant climate impact. Or, equivalently, that natural processes alone cannot generate a large class of observed events in the climate, whereas greenhouse gases can. It is therefore not possible to use the climate model-generated weights to construct a test of the assumption that natural processes alone could generate the class of observed events in the climate.
Another less-obvious problem is the assumption that use of the Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse has no implications for claiming the result satisfies the GM conditions. But the reduction of rank of the resulting covariance matrix estimator means it is biased and inconsistent and the GM conditions automatically fail. As I explain in the paper, there is a simple and well-known alternative to using P matrix weights—use of White’s (1980) heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator, which has long been known to yield consistent variance estimates. It was already 20 years old and in use everywhere (other than climatology apparently) by the time of AT99, yet they opted instead for a method that is much harder to use and yields biased and inconsistent results.
The RC Test
AT99 claimed that a test statistic formed using the signal detection regression residuals and the C matrix from an independent climate model follows a centered chi-squared distribution, and if such a test score is small relative to the 95% chi-squared critical value, the model is validated. More specifically, the null hypothesis is not rejected.
But what is the null hypothesis? Astonishingly it was never written out mathematically in the paper. All AT99 provided was a vague group of statements about noise patterns, ending with a far-reaching claim that if the test doesn’t reject, “then we have no explicit reason to distrust uncertainty estimates based on our analysis.” As a result, researchers have treated the RC test as encompassing every possible specification error, including ones that have no rational connection to it, erroneously treating non-rejection as comprehensive validation of the signal detection regression model specification.
This is incomprehensible to me. If in 1999 someone had submitted a paper to even a low-rank economics journal proposing a specification test in the way that AT99 did, it would have been annihilated at review. They didn’t state the null hypothesis mathematically or list the assumptions necessary to prove its distribution (even asymptotically, let alone exactly), they provided no analysis of its power against alternatives nor did they state any alternative hypotheses in any form so readers have no idea what rejection or non-rejection implies. Specifically, they established no link between the RC test and the GM conditions. I provide in the paper a simple description of a case in which the AT99 model might be biased and inconsistent by construction, yet the RC test would never reject. And supposing that the RC test does reject, which GM condition therefore fails? Nothing in their paper explains that. It’s the only specification test used in the fingerprinting literature and it is utterly meaningless.
The Review Process
When I submitted my paper to CD I asked that Allen and Tett be given a chance to provide a reply which would be reviewed along with it. As far as I know this did not happen, instead my paper was reviewed in isolation. When I was notified of its acceptance in late July I sent them a copy with an offer to delay publication until they had a chance to prepare a response, if they wished to do so. I did not hear back from either of them so I proceeded to edit and approve the proofs. I then wrote them again, offering to delay further if they wanted to produce a reply. This time Tett wrote back with some supportive comments about my earlier paper and he encouraged me just to go ahead and publish my comment. I hope they will provide a response at some point, but in the meantime my critique has passed peer review and is unchallenged.
Guessing at Potential Objections
1. Yes but look at all the papers over the years that have successfully applied the AT99 method and detected a role for GHGs. Answer: the fact that a flawed methodology is used hundreds of times does not make the methodology reliable, it just means a lot of flawed results have been published. And the failure to spot the problems means that the people working in the signal detection/Optimal Fingerprinting literature aren’t well-trained in GLS methods. People have assumed, falsely, that the AT99 method yields “BLUE” – i.e. unbiased and efficient – estimates. Maybe some of the past results were correct. The problem is that the basis on which people said so is invalid, so no one knows.
2. Yes but people have used other methods that also detect a causal role for greenhouse gases. Answer: I know. But in past IPCC reports they have acknowledged those methods are weaker as regards proving causality, and they rely even more explicitly on the assumption that climate models are perfect. And the methods based on time series analysis have not adequately grappled with the problem of mismatched integration orders between forcings and observed temperatures. I have some new coauthored work on this in process.
3. Yes but this is just theoretical nitpicking, and I haven’t proven the previously-published results are false. Answer: What I have proven is that the basis for confidence in them is non-existent. AT99 correctly highlighted the importance of the GM theorem but messed up its application. In other work (which will appear in due course) I have found that common signal detection results, even in recent data sets, don’t survive remedying the failures of the GM conditions. If anyone thinks my arguments are mere nitpicking and believes the AT99 method is fundamentally sound, I have listed the six conditions needing to be proven to support such a claim. Good luck.
I am aware that AT99 was followed by Allen and Stott (2003) which proposed TLS for handling errors-in-variables. This doesn’t alleviate any of the problems I have raised herein. And in a separate paper I argue that TLS over-corrects, imparting an upward bias as well as causing severe inefficiency. I am presenting a paper at this year’s climate econometrics conference discussing these results.
Implications
The AR6 Summary paragraph A.1 upgrades IPCC confidence in attribution to “Unequivocal” and the press release boasts of “major advances in the science of attribution.” In reality, for the past 20 years, the climatology profession has been oblivious to the errors in AT99, and untroubled by the complete absence of specification testing in the subsequent fingerprinting literature. These problems mean there is no basis for treating past attribution results based on the AT99 method as robust or valid. The conclusions might by chance have been correct, or totally inaccurate; but without correcting the methodology and applying standard tests for failures of the GM conditions it is mere conjecture to say more than that.
a Monte-Carlo approach of the same problem: https://www.science-climat-energie.be/2021/08/16/how-to-build-your-hockey-stick-graph/ In a nutshell: 1 when you take the average of many noisy proxies and when the noise is of the same order of magnitude than the signal, you obtain a rather horizontal curve. 2- If you want to smooth your data, for avoiding any confusion between meteo and climate (taking the WMO 30 years period as hedge), and use for that purpose a moving average method, you smooth even more your data 3- if you combine these smoothed data with recent more accurate data, you have built a hockey stick curve. Congratulation ! you did as well as IPCC, just by using an Excel spreadsheet on your laptop. ;-)
.
Madonna scored a goal with God’s hands, therefore no goal has never been legal in the history of association football.
I can just see Diego Maradona singing ‘Papa don’t preach…’ unless this is a new chapter in the mythomania that characterizes Climate Ball. Maybe Maradona/Madonna was a ball hawk…
Perhaps Diego changed genders and started singing ‘Papa don’t preach?’
Or perhaps he became a Climate Ball hawk…
My auto correct only knows hockey.
AT99 is support of the Junk Science, it provides the required conclusion, I suspect it will be difficult to publish anything that would question the validity of it. I mean think of your grandchildren, forest fires and flooding…
Anyone who ignores the decrease in UV radiation from the previous solar cycle is a fool, because this radiation governs the temperature and circulation in the stratosphere.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
https://i.ibb.co/j6fPVGD/gfs-toz-sh-f00.png
This is the current distribution of tropopause ozone over North America.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f000.png
During periods of weak Sun, the geomagnetic field determines the distribution (and circulation) of ozone in high latitudes.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_f.jpg
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
Pay particular attention to the vertical component of the geomagnetic field and the winter circulation in North Hemisphere.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_z.jpg
I predict that the upcoming fall and winter season will give us an answer to how the circulation in the stratosphere at high latitudes will affect winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere .
“During periods of weak Sun, the geomagnetic field determines the distribution (and circulation) of ozone in high latitudes.” – IP
I see it differently. I think during periods of weak Sun, the gravitational forcing on Earth’s exotic core increases.
Madonna fears the Ice Moon will inflect the Curie point of the Iron Core of the Sun, leading to the wholesale capture of Varhenholt Rays by the Oort Cloud, Oliver Manuel’s rehabilitation as a ClimateBall referee, and a tipping point in the Afghan Decadal Overtuning Circulation
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-afghan-decadal-overtuning.html
… so we are suppose to spend trillions of dollars based on an uncertain combination of statistics that are themselves based on models of questionable fundamentals?
Ross –
This is interesting:
> Guessing at Potential Objections
Typically, in order to really make a fully comprehensive argument, one should interrogate the naysayer. In other words, one should anticipate counterarguments in good faith, such that the theoretical interlocutor will agree that they are good faith representations of their arguments, and then rebut those counterarguments.
Now that does seem, in a sense, what you’re doing there. But your language actually suggests otherwise. Why are you guessing? And why are they only “potential” objections. Even the use of “objections” is dubious.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe all you’re doing there is interrogating the naysayer. Maybe I’m just focusing too much on semantics. Nitpicking, in other words. Maybe. But then look below:
> 3. Yes but this is just theoretical nitpicking,
Ah. There we go. So much for a respectful and good faith interrogation of counterarguments.
Mike –
What makes you think I’m a “religious fanatic?”
What do you think I believe?
Do you have a response to what I wrote beyond just insults? How was what I wrote an outgrowth of religious fanaticism? In what ways were what I wrote wrong?
Is it just the fact that I disagree that makes me a religious fanatic?
Joshua, what do you want different? The wording of this section? Input from actual opponents?
Joshua, you must be aware, as I, of many of the comments on Ross McKitrick’s work saying that it is simply “theoretical nitpicking.” It is your “… a respectful and good faith interrogation of counterarguments.”
Review Ross’s work (as performed prior to their publication) and as deemed valid by one of AT99’s authors. If you have any deep statistical training, we might take your, to date, vacuous comments seriously.
Ross, ignore Joshua. He can’t find any counter-arguments himself, not even one.
So instead he whines about the way that you’ve neatly disposed of some possible counter-arguments, and claims without evidence that you’re not being “respectful” and you’re not acting in “good faith”.
Joshua, you are SO predictable …
w.
Willis –
> He can’t find any counter-arguments himself, not even one.
Of course not. I lack the technical skills and specific knowledge and brains to do so.
So I look at the structure of the arguments that people make. Bad faith characterization of opposing viewpoints is often a bad sign. It doesn’t prove anything, but it tends to show that a person is triggered when they’re making their own arguments – and that tends to inform about the probabilities.
Of course, sometimes I do see that someone’s technical arguments is laughably bad. Such as when you laughably argued with a good degree of certainty that no country would exceed at 0.085% population fatality rate.
And then when you doubled down in a defense, by pointing out that massive countries with strict “lockdowns,’ like China and India, have stayed below what you said was the outside limit of population fatality.
> Joshua, you are SO predictable …
Perhaps so, Willis. I will point out that we’re all pretty much predictable here. You, for example, are quite predictable, in that because I criticized Ross’s argument structure, you attacked me personally.
SO predictable.
If “Joshua” thinks I was uncharitable in describing reactions he has not seen the chatter on Twitter.
The key to being indifferent to reflexive damnation is to be equally indifferent to reflexive praise. I know what competent econometricians have told me about this work. I know what Allen and Tett have had to say (or not to say). I await the response of the detection and attribution people, and other serious readers. The rest is irrelevant.
Would CliSciFi and its cheerleaders be so clear and honest.
Joshua: Of course not. I lack the technical skills and specific knowledge and brains to do so.
So I look at the structure of the arguments that people make. Bad faith characterization of opposing viewpoints is often a bad sign
Without the technical skill and specific knowledge, how do you identify “bad faith” characterizations of view points you acknowledge you don’t understand.
If you are honest in your claim about lack of skills and knowledge, that goes a long way to explaining why your comments are so seldom on point.
… so we are suppose to spend trillions of dollars based on uncertain combinations of statistics that are themselves based on models of questionable validity?
Prof McKitrick, many thanks for your detailed analysis of important scientific results.
I think that the tale illustrates the problems that arise (going well, well beyond climate science) where important scientific results hinge on the appropriate use of sophisticated statistical analysis (healthcare and dietetics come to my mind here).
In some of the best cases I am aware of, preparation of important results of this kind has had direct involvement of professional statisticians, who can help ensure that the right statistical methodologies are employed in the right ways and also help ensure that the results are robust and reliable.
Given the importance of the work, climate science is well advised to follow this kind of approach.
mlkeed
Could it be that they don’t want that help for a reason?
Jerry
This is an excellent post. Am I naive to hope that the mainstream media will pick this up?
Naive doesn’t describe it.
Firstly, no churnalist is remotely capable of understanding this, so if they mention it at all, it’ll be prefixed with “McKitrick appears on the Denier Database of Desmogblog.
Secondly, their readership will be largely incapable of understanding it.
Actually some newspeople have studied statistics and multiple regression. Some of us have concluded that direct observation overrides math in showing that there is no need for climate alarmism. After even just a short time in the news business, any newsperson with a brain begins to see giant holes of logic in just about everything. Those who do not have functioning brains go into television.
Joshua, you are asking Mckitrick to prove that the pink elephant doesnt exist. He can’t do that and doesnt have to. All McKitrick is saying is that the climate modellers haven’t proved anything and they have violated mathematical statistical theorems that they were trying to use as proof. Using McKitrick’s process of laying out counter arguments cannot be used as a criticism of McKitrick’s criticism. Either the math/statistics is correct or it isn’t. Using straw man arguments of McKitrick’s questioning is tantamount to expecting McKitrick to prove global warming one way or the other.
Alan –
> Joshua, you are asking Mckitrick to prove that the pink elephant doesnt exist.
Hmmm.
No. I’m asking for a good faith interrogation of opposing viewpoints. Maybe they aren’t necessarily a requirement of a good argument, but I tend to think that they are.
That Ross includes a “Guessing at Potential Objections” suggests, actually, that he agrees with me about that.
Contrary-wise, bad faith arguments of opposing views is often a bad sign. It’s unfortunate, IMO, that he took at good impulse and executed it poorly.
> Either the math/statistics is correct or it isn’t.
Different people have different views on these very technical matters. There are very expert statisticians who have disagreed very strongly on some statistical analysis that Ross surely thinks is correct. How would I evaluate such a disagreement, except by proxy – but evaluating the forms of experts’ arguments? I dare say that you might not be in a position to evaluate extremely technical arguments by expert statisticians with differing view on technical merits either?
Joshua, I know a bit of stats and would be curious to see where ‘very expert statisticians have disagreed very strongly on some statistical analysis that Ross surely thinks is correct’. Can you give some links?
HAS –
I missed this earlier.
I was mostly thinking of Ross’s involvement in the whole Hockey Stick saga, but now that I think about it more I might be conflating Ross with Wegman to some extent?
I did do a quick Google, and found examples a bit harder to find than I expected. Relevant examples from Tamino and Annan popped up – but perhaps they’re somewhat less instructive here since they’re not independent of the climate wars?
So I’ll walk my statement back a bit. Thanks for calling me on it.
Nonetheless, I think my larger point stands, that I think we’d be hard pressed to find many topics, if any at all, that are very technical and polarizing in nature where there isn’t significant disagreement among experts, and thus to some extent we’re left with judgement algorithms rooted in the manner in which people present their views.
Joshua: Did you read the post? Ross says he provided his critique to the AT99 authors on several occasions and invited them to comment and critique his paper. That seems like “good faith” to me.
Bad faith would be the climate science community simply ignoring a critique of methodology that undermines the central claims of their primary position and hoping that no one will notice. If they can’t show where Ross is wrong, there are clearly hundreds of published per reviewed “climate change attribution” papers that should be retracted. But that would invalidate a couple thousand pages of the IPCC Sixth Report.
Rick C –
> Ross says he provided his critique to the AT99 authors on several occasions and invited them to comment and critique his paper. That seems like “good faith” to me.
Agreed. Imo, it add to the credibility of his critique. Don’t you agree?
Makes it thst much more unfortunate that he followed that up with bad faith rhetoric.
FWIW, I’d ask Ross to choose between the following street and the following sheets:
[STREET] The purpose of this comment is to encourage the authors of AT99 to do so by proving the six necessary conditions [N1]—[N6], or alternatively to advise readers of the implications if it is not possible to do so.
[SHEETS] Unfortunately these claims are untrue. Their method is not a conventional GLS model. It does not, and cannot, satisfy the GM conditions and in particular it violates an important condition for unbiasedness.
I don’t understand your question, but if you are alleging that the second quote is at odds with the wording of the paper, I refer you to, among others:
“Confidence in the results of the AT99 methodology rests on their claim that it satisfies the GM conditions and thereby yields unbiased and efficient coefficients, and that as long as the RCT yields a small score relative to the 5% critical values of the central χ2 distribution the variance estimator is valid. These claims are untrue. AT99 omitted a key necessary condition for the GM Theorem and misstated the others. The way the method is commonly used (with K<n) the GM conditions automatically fail."
“if it is not possible” is not the same form as “It does not, and cannot.”
Either it’s possible or it’s not possible.
Can’t be both.
It seems that climatology is willing to accept any level of junk science if it allows them to “progress,” e.g. Mann’s 1987(?) paper claiming that you could use correlation of temperature stations to fill in the gaps in the data, or the idea that you can resolve the average temperature to (+/-) 0.1C using thermometers that never had that kind of precision and for which the nature of the errors is unknown– they’re just assumed to cancel.
Enormously significant piece of work Ross. Commend your review approach, I doubt others would have been so magnanimous.
Attribution – nominally it’s the sun, stupid…
The Taliban burned teachers alive in front of their students because the terrorists believed little girls shouldn’t go to school. Is belief all it takes? It’s not always easy being a denier and perhaps deadly in Afghanistan but, being a climate change refusnik in America is the only moral course to take… if you believe in science. The null hypothesis of the Left’s conjecture that all global warming is the cause of humanity’s CO2– that all global warming is natural-– has never been rejected. That’s the science.
There are two approaches to attribution – the regression approach and the forcing approach. The latter shows that warming was all well mixed greenhouse gases offset by sulphate cooling. In this context transitioning to low carbon fuels would see additional warming emerge.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/ar6-forcing.png
There are a couple of scientific problems with this idea. The first is black carbon lensing by sulphate particles in mixed emissions that – rather than cooling – more than doubles black carbon warming.
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/ar6-forcing.png
And secondly – the fact that most warming in the 2010 to 2019 period was caused by cloud feedback to warm SST in the eastern Pacific Ocean.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
The cause of SST variability there is shifting patterns in the spatiotemporal chaos of the Earth flow field – which is a heck of a wrinkle.
The study on sulphate lensing – https://www.pnas.org/content/113/16/4243
Ross McKitrick,
Thank you for your excellent work in exposing these flaws. I wonder how long will it take for climate scientists and the IPCC to recognise and accept the errors you have pointed out?
“I wonder how long will it take for climate scientists and the IPCC to recognise and accept the errors you have pointed out?”
It will be ignored As was the hockey stick analysis Ross and Steve McIntyre produced. AGW serves a higher political cause.
According to the Kalnay reanalysis, the Southern Hemisphere is no warmer in December and January than fifty years ago. Respectfully, we in the Southern Hemisphere, don’t have the disease. Can we opt out?
On that basis it’s really surprising that modelers can detect an anthropogenic signal. Witchcraft perhaps? Lousy econometrics a strong possibility.
erl: What about all the other months?
GISS finds the Southern Hemisphere average surface temperature of the 2010s to be 0.65 C warmer than that of the 1960s.
According to their latest data December is 0.64 C higher, and January is 0.61 C higher.
data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/SH.Ts+dSST.csv
Yes, David, there is warming in winter. Rate of change increases slowly from February to September and falls dramatically between September and November. The important thing to note is that the warming is time dependent. Given the mode of action of the hypothetical atmospheric forcing, and the fact that the atmosphere is always well mixed, any knucklehead would conclude that the change due to this mode of forcing is zero.
I don’t know what GISS is doing with their data but if they quote a uniform rate of warming across all months I think they are constructing it. A potent mode of climate change that is entirely natural in origin is systematic change in the difference between sea surface and 1000 hPa air temperature indicating change in air flows. In high latitudes the difference increases in winter, especially in the northern hemisphere. You would be aware of the Arctic Oscillation and the Northern Annular Mode. As the high latitude sinks strengthen in winter warm air is drawn from the low and mid latitudes. When the sinks collapse, the chill sets in. Cold air of Arctic or Antarctic origin floods across the continents and observers start talking about wandering jet streams and blocking highs. Witness the recent event in Brazil.
If GISS has removed the Antarctic and the Arctic Oscillation from their data what credibility do they have?
The 1960s had a cooling trend and the 2010s had a Super El Nino. Unwary readers must beware of statistics. You know, Mark Twain and all that.
The correct data for the last 40 years: https://i.imgur.com/cARKDSP.png
Erl,
reanalysis is a combination of model and obs data.
I am not convinced that such a mix is a reliable predictor on either side of interest?
Jerry
Gerald, all published data is the product of interpolation between sampling points. If you are going to do it accurately you would use a computer and base the interpolation on a cross check of all known relationships.
What does GISS do? I suspect they rely on reports of surface temperature and sampling that is at best, thin on the ground.
Reanalysis data is an internally consistent report of the character of the atmosphere at 15 levels from the surface to the limits of the atmosphere. The cross check is rigorous. The purpose is to present an internally coherent set of data that is suitable for attribution studies.
erl,
I know that models are used in that process and if the models are fllawed
so is the resulting reanalysis data.
Jerry
“Court Blocks a Vast Alaskan Drilling Project, Citing Climate Dangers,” NY Times, 8/18/21.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/climate/alaska-willow-oil.html
Legal trivia that any competent environmental professional could easily address. The term ‘arbitrary and capricious’ is used in the Administrative Procedure Act – that is not an environmental act.
‘In short, BLM’s greenhouse gas emissions analysis suffers from the same
flaws the Ninth Circuit identified in Liberty. Accordingly, the Court finds BLM’s
exclusion of foreign emissions in its alternatives analysis in the Willow EIS was
arbitrary and capricious.’
“Legal trivia”
What more should one expect from the local DA; one who spends his many leisure hours combing through climates stats looking for drive-by ankle bite fodder.
And lawyers have deep understanding of climatic oscillations..
More accurate headline:
“Judge requires US and the rest of the globe to buy more oil from Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Canada, citing the unique properties of American CO2 molecules that nobody in science can identify. “
I am wondering if Ross could comment on the methodology used for Emergent Constraints which in my view appears to have similarities with the attribution part of Detection and Attribution. I do not have the link handy, but I recall a paper that had some criticism of the Emergent Constraints along the lines I see from this McKitrick thread/paper concerning attribution methodology.
I have played with the Emergent Constraints for constraining the modeled Transient Climate Response (TCR) with observed temperature data. I used both Bayesian and frequentist approaches (Total Least Squares) and the Cowtan and Way temperature series. I obtain a mean value for TCR of 1.35 that is the same value as was published in a paper by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry who used an energy balance approach with the Cowtan and Way series.
Ken – my only foray into this is my 2020 paper with John Christy that shows the historical global LT and MT trends in CMIP6 models are too high, and the bias rises with ECS. A model that matches past observations would likely have to have a very low ECS.
With a 45% increase in CO2, since 1750, we have had 1.2C rise in temperature. Therefore TCS and, by implication, the ECS, can’t be on the low side. It is more likely to be at least 2.3C.
Hi Ken,
I think this is the paper you are thinking of that Nic Lewis critiqued in regards to, among other things, the emergent constraints issue:
https://patricktbrown.org/2017/11/29/greater-future-global-warming-inferred-from-earths-recent-energy-budget/
Here are Nic’s blog posts on it from 2017-2018.
Fascinating! Nick shows atmosphere only CliSciFi GCMs constrained by observed SSTs yield lower ECSs. I remember some discussion of SST constrained models yielding better land temperature GCM results.
Ross and Ron, thanks for your replies. I found the link to the paper I was attempting to recall. It was the Williamson paper titled “How Are Emergent Constraints Quantifying Uncertainty and What Do They Leave Behind?” and linked here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/100/12/bams-d-19-0131.1.xml
That paper talks about and criticizes the lack of focus in finding a variable to analyze based on its physical aspects – like the extreme case of data mining for relationships. It also gets into the statistical aspects and promotes a Bayesian approach to get around several limitations concerning issues like, independence of models and models coverage of the observed reality, that it sees with a frequentist approach. It does not go near the more basic question posed by the McKitrick post here concerning the Gaussian Markov theorem.
Nic Lewis’ posts were more detailed and critical of specific published accounts of the application of Emergent Constraints.
All the presentations mentioned here are, in my view, well worth the time to read and attempt to understand.
“The AR6 Summary paragraph A.1 upgrades IPCC confidence in attribution to “Unequivocal” and the press release boasts of “major advances in the science of attribution.” In reality, for the past 20 years, the climatology profession has been oblivious to the errors in AT99, and untroubled by the complete absence of specification testing in the subsequent fingerprinting literature. These problems mean there is no basis for treating past attribution results based on the AT99 method as robust or valid.”
–
Blind or willfully blind?
I assume you have made these objections known and that your opinion was presumably considered and then dismissed?
–
We are talking about a lot of published papers by a lot of savvy and some not so savvy scientists.
You are implying that there must be a lot of people out there with the statistical chops to recognize these shortcomings and yet they have not openly done so.
–
Where are the other mathematicians and statisticians out there to help back up your findings?
–
Look at the ozone hole in 2020 and the temperature of the stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2020.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
This is evidence that statistics in climate prediction are unreliable. All it takes is a strong drop in UV radiation in the upper stratosphere and the winter temperature near the surface drops immediately.
https://i.ibb.co/Dp0hVfK/zt-sh.gif
Let’s look at sea surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/1QBdnNg/global-small-fc.gif
Very happy to see a real live observer. Very cold temperature in the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere relates to a gradual recovery of surface pressure over the Antarctic continent that goes along with a cooler stratosphere as seen here: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/30mb6590.png
The descent of very cold mesospheric air containing oxides of nitrogen that are hungry for oxygen and ozone conditions the ozone content of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere. See temperature at 50 hPa here:https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/50mb6590.png
Look at the evolution of temperature at 50 hPa last year.
The globe is still recovering from the climate shift of 1976-8 when surface pressure collapsed over Antarctica and the temperature of the stratosphere and upper troposphere suddenly increased.
Global albedo is least in July and greatest in December. Cloud cover is driven by heating of the atmosphere by land masses. The temperature of the upper troposphere conditions ice cloud density. As albedo hits its annual peak in December, and the sun is over the tropic of Capricorn with the Oceans of the Southern Hemisphere beneath, and insolation 6% more intense than in July due to orbital considerations, the ocean picks up energy with no observable change in sea surface temperature.
The northern Hemisphere radiates more energy than it picks up from solar insolation, The Southern Hemisphere emits less than it absorbs. Transport by the ocean and the atmosphere accounts for the difference.
This is reality. Warming by back radiation is fantasy.
Is there an Argo buoy showing a surface temperature higher than 32 degrees C anywhere in the tropical Pacific?
This winter in the Southern Hemisphere, the average temperature falls below the 1979-2000 average.
https://i.ibb.co/vVNkv3N/gfs-world-ced-t2anom-1-day.png
Dave Fair
“Actually, Gerald Browning has an excellent point: Willard, by not providing his real name, education and work experiences renders any attempt to assess the validity of his comments moot”
–
I disagree.
Willard is an excellent commentator.
A lot of people prefer anonymity on the web [myself included].
Willard providing such details only opens himself up to attacks off the blog which is plainly not fair.
–
If you do not like his comments then defend your position.
No point in attacking the player if his comments are irrefutable.
This is a very reasonable site, moderation wise.
No-one has to know who you are, just what you think.
This applies to all commentators.
–
Thanks
Anonymity is appropriate only if one’s livelihood is on the line. Your excuse is people might use your real name when saying bad things about you. Meh.
The climate model embeds the assumption that greenhouse gases have a significant climate impact.
This is simply not true. Climate models embed observed physical properties of greenhouse gases and the rest of the atmosphere. The climate impact emerges as a consequence. It’s over 50 years since the first radiative-convective climate models were built. Surely if a model accurately incorporating these observed properties could produce an insignificant climate response from an increase in greenhouse gases one would have been built by now.
Or, equivalently, that natural processes alone cannot generate a large class of observed events in the climate
Also not true, there is no such assumption in climate models. They routinely produce substantial climate effects from designated natural processes e.g. the ~ 1degC cooling following the 1815 Tambora eruption. Likewise models are routinely run in simulations with big TSI increases, with consequent warming. That such events have not occurred in reality within the time frame under discussion is an observation, not an assumption.
Of course the underlying complaint expressed here is correct: Optimal fingerprint attribution is dependent on the physics of the greenhouse effect, so for anyone who doesn’t believe in those physics it’s likely to be kind of meaningless.
But I also think the extent to which optimal fingerprint methods are important for the main IPCC attribution statements, and how they have changed over time, is somewhat overstated. Ultimately a probabilistic attribution statement is a slave to an estimate of natural internal variability, which is independent of the optimal fingerprint method. The reason for increased attribution confidence over time really has nothing to do with methodology and is simply a consequence of temperatures continuing to go up while our estimates of internal variability stay roughly the same size.
The problem with all of what you just said is that models that can take changes in ocean heat transport and recreate all of the warming we have experienced and they haven’t disproven a long term change in ocean heat transport. That means when they start out with the assumption that the warming has been due to CO2 they adjust all their parameterizations with that in mind and also the forcings themselves have a lot of play and can be adjusted to support their bias. Attribution without a clear idea of what ocean heat transport has been doing is just a joke on mankind.
Steve’s perception
they start out with the assumption that the warming has been due to CO2 they adjust all their parameterizations with that in mind and also the forcings themselves have a lot of play and can be adjusted to support their bias.
Reality
The majority of CMIP6 modelling groups report that they do not tune
44 their model for the observed trends during the historical period (23 out of 29), nor for equilibrium climate 45 sensitivity (25 out of 29). ECS and TCR are thus emergent properties for a large majority of models.
IPCC AR6 1.5.3.2
I don’t expect the reality to have any impact on Steve or indeed most denizens.
No, what you say isn’t likely to have any effect on Steve. Perhaps it will on someone else though, you never know.
So tell me VTG, if they run their model and the results suck do they try to figure out what is wrong with them? What do they think might be wrong with them, things that are chiseled in stone or things that have some play in them? How can so many models with varying climate sensitivities come up with reasonable replications of the past? I was born at night but it wasn’t last night.
stevenreincarnated
read the report.
I extracted the part for your first piece of nonsense already, but really, life is far to short to do all your homework for you.
I agree. Life is too short to waste time on foolishness and thinking models aren’t tuned just because they call it something else is representative of foolishness.
Next time you meet the pro at your golf club, steven, do not ask him to correct your swing. You’ll be cheating or something.
Same for your woodbench. Never recalibrate it when you see that it starts to give you weird planks. That’d be totally dishonest.
steve,
See comment above. They have to tune their results to match obs, e.g. the model does not know when a volcano will errupt so the modelers add an ad hoc forcing at the known time of the eruption. This is tuning and no one can deny this example or other similar tricks they use.
Jerry
Willard, I’m not saying they shouldn’t try to fix their models. The common sense thing to do is to try to make them replicate reality. That’s why I know they do it. They’d have to be completely incompetent not to. I didn’t say tuning was dishonest. Doesn’t change the fact that tuning is what it is.
Willard, while I await my initial response to appear perhaps you could look through what I said and figure out how you managed to put the words you insinuate I said in my mouth.
Steven,
My point was to remind you that calibrating our instruments is quite a normal thing to do. Once we accept parametrization as necessary, there’s no amount of incredulity that will prevent modellers from going forward. Witness Sylvie:
https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/14/2525/2021/
Appealing to ignorance never wins.
Don’t see where I said they didn’t need parameterizations. I do see where I said they could adjust them to support their model (bias). My writing is straight forward. Feel free to argue with me if you want but read what I say first.
The operative bit is “very normal thing to do,” Steven.
The crux of your appeal to ignorance is here:
Are you claiming there isn’t a great deal of play in the parameterizations? Are you aware that when they change the depth of solar penetration that it changes ocean currents and those depths are feeds and not outputs? That’s just one of many. That’s why so many models can replicate the past despite being so different in sensitivity. That isn’t an appeal to ignorance. It is pointing out ignorance. If there wasn’t so much ignorance the models would be a tight group in sensitivity.
> That isn’t an appeal to ignorance. It is pointing out ignorance.
That’s a distinction without a difference. Models are used for the very reason you invoke against them: to explore what we don’t know. Pending Earth holodecks, climate scientists will continue to run simulations the best way they deem. And since we don’t even know that, they split into different teams and run things differently.
At least until an alternative is offered. What would you suggest?
I don’t have a problem with people working on models. They will never improve if they aren’t worked on. I don’t see them being ready for anything more than formulating hypotheses at this point. They certainly aren’t ready for providing synthetic data. My recommendation would be a lot more paleo work especially when it comes to ocean heat transport since that is widely acknowledged as a climate changing mechanism.
Fair.
If you ever research that area, feel free to share.
‘Because parametrizations are only approximate representations of physical processes, model parameters are not well constrained by theory. As a result, they are typically tuned, or optimized, to ensure that there is a good balance between incoming solar and outgoing terrestrial irradiances at the top of the atmosphere and that this balance is achieved at as close to the observed global temperature as possible.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
‘We are suggesting a new approach to climate model development (23). This approach should aim to reduce climate models’ dependence on subgrid parameterizations where possible and account for their uncertainty where not. To be successful, this approach must master and motivate technological innovations, particularly in computing, and be given a sense of purpose commensurate to the task at hand.’ op. cit.
https://nosc.noaa.gov/tpio/images/ObsSys.jpg
‘Global storm and ocean-eddy resolving [O(1 km)] models make it possible to directly simulate deep convection, ocean mesoscale eddies, and important land–atmosphere interactions. Prototypes of such models are already being developed (21), 3 examples of which are compared with a satellite image. By avoiding the need to represent essential processes by semiempirical parameterizations, the simulated climate of such a model is more constrained by the laws of physics. This can be expected to lead to the reduction or even elimination of many systematic biases that plague the present generations of models.’ op. cit
High resolution, initialised, decadal scale models providing probabilistic forecasts. Poor wee willie imagines he has science on his side but he is a zealot making unrealistic assertions.
Steve: There is no doubt that a slowing of vertical mixing in the ocean can create warming at the surface. An El Nino is due in part to a slowing of upwelling of cold water off the west coast of equatorial South America and a slowing subsidence of warm water in the western Pacific. The local warming produced by this process is comparable to the warming projected for doubling CO2 and has nothing to do with a radiative imbalance at the TOA.
Nevertheless, modelers aren’t free adjust heat uptake from the surface to the deep ocean so that they can match observed warming! We now have the ARGO network which has been observing ocean heat uptake for almost two decades. ARGO says that approximately 1/3rd of the heat from current radiative forcing has gone into the ocean and the other 2/3rds is being radiated to space because the planet is warmer. Furthermore, we have measured the uptake of CFCs (and C14 from atmospheric testing of atomic weapons) into the deep ocean over more than half a century. AOGCMs are run with CFC’s added to the atmosphere and their uptake into the deep ocean is compared with observations. Therefore, it seems unlikely that ocean heat uptake is a serious problem in ATTRIBUTION. Ocean heat uptake doesn’t have any effect on ECS (equilibrium when no more heat is flowing into the ocean). It does impact how slowly we approach equilibrium.
The difference between TCR and ECS is caused by ocean heat uptake (dQ). You can get an idea of how differently various climate models are handling ocean heat uptake using the following math:
TCR = F_2x*[dT/dF] ECS = F_2x*[dT/(dF-dQ)]
TCR/ECS = 1 – dF/dQ
Frank, I’m not talking about vertical mixing. I’m talking about the depth of penetration of solar energy.
Impact of different solar penetration depths on climate simulations.
Zhou et al
www.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/tellusa.v67.25313
VTG and Paulskio: Thanks for discussing this issue. VTG notes that most models are no longer tuned to agree with warming over the historical period or produce a particular climate sensitivity. These are emergent properties of the models. However, this wasn’t always true in the past. And the most recent changes in cloud parameterization were expected to increase climate sensitivity.
Since modelers have chosen to tune their models more fairly, many of them have a TCR greater than 2.0, 50% higher than expected from the historical record. This has happened despite often producing a more negative aerosol indirect effect that was already higher than the value preferred by experts. The aerosol indirect effect is tuned, not an emergent property.
If you look at the attributions made by optimal fingerprinting (whether statistically valid or not) in AR5 Figure 10.4, the multi-model mean over-projects warming by GHGs by about 25% (-5% to 75%, 90% ci) and cooling by aerosols by 60% (-25% to 100%). These values are the reciprocals of the scaling factors minus 100%. If the IPCC had to rely only on this analysis, this data wouldn’t support the IPCC’s attribution statement that it is virtually certain the at least half of warming is due to rising GHGs.
Even using optimal fingerprinting to rule out the sun as a cause of warming is complicated by the problem of properly accounting for ozone destruction. Both rising GHGs and falling ozone cause stratospheric cooling. (Observations showing little change in TSI are far more compelling.)
Finally, models appear to produce less unforced variability than we observe. Model runs rarely produce Pauses in warming like the one observed from 2001 to 2013. Critics of energy balance models assert that there is a huge difference between ECS and ECS_hist, allegedly because unforced variability has resulted in almost no warming in parts of the Western Pacific for the past several decades. Unforced variability is likely the main reason the error bars in AR5 Figure 10.4 are so wide.
Today, AOGCMs are mostly being used to tell policymakers how much fossil fuel can be burned if they want to keep forced warming below a certain amount. These models clearly aren’t fit for that purpose.
> AOGCMs are mostly being used to tell policymakers how much fossil fuel can be burned
I think you’re referring to SSPs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways
GCMs are prospective tools used to explore our understanding of the various aspects of the climate system. That’s one of the reasons we have so many.
When addressing limitations of today’s models, Willard asked: “At least until an alternative is offered. What would you suggest?”
I’d suggest that the IPCC be completely candid about the fact that most of their models grossly over-estimate historic warming, despite those models producing more cooling via the aerosol indirect effect than most experts think is most likely. When they suggest that this discrepancy could have been produced by unforced variability, they should admit that even 100 runs with one climate model failed to produce even one run which showed as little warming as we have observed. Then, I’d like them to clearly point out that models grossly fail to produce enough marine boundary layer clouds, the most cooling clouds on the planet and therefore must have been tuned to compensate for this problem. Finally, I’d like them to preface every projection made using their models with the phrase: “If the multi-model mean central estimate for climate sensitivity is correct, then we project that ….” If climate sensitivity estimated from observed warming and forcing is used, then we project that …”
paulski0 | re
“The climate model embeds the assumption that greenhouse gases have a significant climate impact.”
–
This statement,
“The reason for increased attribution confidence over time really has nothing to do with methodology”
is so blinkered I was almost at a loss for words.
Attribution is dependent on comparing the different natural and anthropogenic drivers and quantifying their contributions.
This means the right methodology has to be used including assessment of the changes and ideas with climate models.
In your haste to dismiss Ross’s work you toss in this golden line, dismiss science and use whatever your choice of divination for the day is.
–
“nothing to do with methodology”?
–
Then you state
“it is simply a consequence of temperatures continuing to go up while our estimates of internal variability stay roughly the same size.”
–
Natural variability has quite a large range and only evens out over the course of hundreds or thousands of years. It is impossible to state that natural variability has had no effect over this time period.
If attribution was simply to notice a change in one direction and link it to another type of event without methodology and reason you could find any number of things that you could attribute said warming to.
For instance the stock market,or the consumer price index which purely coincidentally mainly went up at the same time apart from a hiatus or two.
paulski0 | August 19, 2021
The climate model embeds the assumption that greenhouse gases have a significant climate impact.
You say “This is simply not true.??
Then you go on to observe that the models show a climate impact.
So your statement is false.
Climate models do embed observed physical properties of greenhouse gases and the rest of the atmosphere.
They also embed assumptions on the amount of positive feedback that might exist without having the science absolutely support such feed backs,
“The climate impact emerges as a consequence”.
Of course it does.
As a consequence of those very assumptions [not just the physical properties] put in. So when the programs are run they can only produce one set of outcomes for any specified input which with these models must always produce erroneously high levels.
” Surely if a model accurately incorporating these observed properties could produce an insignificant climate response from an increase in greenhouse gases one would have been built by now.”
Simple really, run one with just the observed physical properties and no unproven assumed feed backs.
Which they have done, its called a baseline, strangely one does not see such baselines published.
> So your statement is false.
Showing isn’t the same thing as assuming, Doc.
paulskio,
>Also not true, there is no such assumption in climate models. They routinely produce substantial climate effects from designated natural processes e.g. the ~ 1degC cooling following the 1815 Tambora eruption
How does the model know when a volcano will erupt? Only by the programmer entering a discontinuous forcing at that time. This is tuning of the model, i.e., tuning the model to match the obs. If the model did not have this forcing added in an aposteori manner, the model would not match the obs.
I am including a referenc that discusses the use of discontinuous forcings in models with multiple time scales such as climate models. The conclusion is that such forcings cause discontinuities in the continuous solution and hence destroy he accuracy of the numerical method. Note that almost all of the parameterizations in the model are discontinuous.
The Impact of Rough Forcing on Systems with Multiple Time Scales
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1994)051%3C0369:TIORFO%3E2.0.CO;2
Thanks,
Gerald Browning | August 19, 2021 at 4:39 pm
“paulskio, >Also not true, there is no such assumption in climate models. ”
Paul S needs to be called out on all these misleading comments.
I am not totally surprised that he has made them given his strong viewpoints but there was a time a few years ago where he was very diligent on making accurate and pertinent comments and calling on others on both sides to use correct protocol and science.
I wish the old Paul S was here to correct the new, improved version.
Willard “> So your statement is false.”
“Showing isn’t the same thing as assuming, Doc.”
The curtains have fallen down and Paul S is exposed Willard.
–
Paul S
“The climate model embeds the assumption that greenhouse gases have a significant climate impact.” true.
“This is simply not true.” false false false
Paul S switches the debate with a half truth and omission
Correct statement
“Climate models embed assumptions of both observed physical properties AND the assumed physical properties such as positive and negative feedbacks.” true
But Paul S cleverly only mentions observed physical properties which have a known but not particularly significant effect.
He deliberately avoids all the known unknowns of positive and negative feedback.
Which in all these models comes out [emerges] as a significant effect.
Because these assumptions were deliberately put in in the first place.
Paul is right and you’re wrong, Doc.
Try it yourself:
https://scied.ucar.edu/interactive/simple-climate-model
It even has a “recommended temperature limit” like you keep requesting!
Willard,
If you accept this model you just killed all the grants for the IPCC climate modelers. Hooray.
Jerry
I doubt I have this power over grants, Jerry.
Back to you.
“Ultimately a probabilistic attribution statement is a slave to an estimate of natural internal variability, which is independent of the optimal fingerprint method.” No, it’s not independent, it is part of the RC Test score via the C matrix. And while the total response for forcings is an emergent property of the model, as you point out, no one has built a model in which the forcings produce an insignificant response. Models also suppress low-frequency variability to maintain stability. This is an example of an assumption that can’t be relaxed for the purpose of constructing an RC test score.
If one counts the citings of the paper in question one gets 35 hits after 2020 in Google Scholar. The demolition should have an ompressing impact
frank,
It won’t be cited by any climate or weather modeler. That is one way they suppress revealing facts. Only cite your buddies. But the math stands
and that is why they could not suppress the manuscript. Heinz always said it take years before things change.
Here is my latest manuscript which you might finfd amusing as it describes the dynamical system the modelers should be using and why that is the case. I would be happy to answer any questions you have about that manuscript or the Bounded Derivative Theory.
The unique, well posed reduced system for atmospheric flows: Robustness in the presence of small scale surface irregularities
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037702651930096X
Jerry
>> Heinz always said it take years before things change.
There is the saying that old ideas do not change, they die out.
frank,
Citings are not necessarily the measure of a manuscript for the reasons I stated if that is your insinuation. The Bounded Derivative Theory and its implications will long outlive clinate modeling. That theory has already had impacts in many other fields. An oceanograper at MIT based his new model on the BDT, cited us once after asking us if he could use our ideas and then has had thousands of cites. Typical physical scientist approach to the use of mathematical and numerical analysis theories.
Jerry
All,
Note the following cite of our manuscript
Diagnosing Summertime Mesoscale Vertical Motion: Implications for Atmospheric Data Assimilation
Christian Pagé1, Luc Fillion2, and Peter Zwack3
Zwack was a well known and respected atmospheric scientist and he used our ideas on mesoscale storms to investigate if our theoretical ideas could be applied in practice. That they did apply and could be used to initialize a real mesoscale model (never done in a theoretical manner before) is a manusript that modelers have also ignored. But it shows that good atmosperic scientists have accepted the BDT. I suspect the dishonest ones will use those results ignoring the original sources.
Jerry
Dave, Willard has been commenting as Willard since Al Gore invented the internet. The only reason you would need to know who he is and what his qualifications are is if he made an appeal to authority which would be a logical fallacy anyway.
No. Knowing one’s qualifications is just another way (among many) to access the weight to give to someone’s opinions in certain matters. This is, in fact, a scientifically oriented blog.
Additionally, anonymity allows one to make excessive and derogatory comments without the healthy fear of consequences.
I don’t care much about someone’s opinions no matter what their credentials. I look for evidentiary justification to their conclusions.
I agree with you in general. But one must have some expertise to evaluate the “evidentiary justification” of a stated opinion. For example, many of the citations from UN IPCC CliSciFi reports are misleading at best. Additionally, the U.S. National Climate Assessments are downright dishonest.
The average person can be (and is) deceived by ostensibly credentialed speakers quoting official publications. Need I go into specific quotes?
Pingback: The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed – Watts Up With That?
Ross, this is fascinating, and thank you for your work. This may be asking too much, but it would be helpful if you put out a version with greater explanation of some of the core concepts for lay people. Maybe even a video?
Pingback: The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed |
The attribution problem does not only start with global warming, but already with the GHE and the role of respective GHGs in it. A big error is introduced by assuming a surface emissivity of 1. With water spectral hemispheric emissivity is only 0.909, which is a huge deviation from 1 already. Ironically highest emissivity is within the range of the atmospheric window and on top of that, emissivity to surface normal is a lot higher than hemispheric emissivity. Circumstancially, since satellites look straight down, this provides the erroneous impression of water being almost a perfect emitter (0.97-0.99).
Within the main absorption band of CO2 (13.1 – 17.2µm) average hemispheric emissivity is only 0.895, meaning almost 8W/m2 of the GHE provided by CO2 do not exist in the first place. Beyond that in the 17.2µm far-IR range, which happens to be the main absorption band of vapor, hemispheric emissivity drops even lower to 0.875. This “detail” eats away roughly 50%(!) of the GHE of vapor.
https://greenhousedefect.com/fileadmin/user_upload/water_hemispheric.png
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/deception-with-emission-spectra-part-1
“Another way of quantifying the effect is to look at the difference between the infrared radiation emitted at the surface of the Earth, and the amount that is emitted to space at the top of the atmosphere. In the absence of the greenhouse effect, this would be zero (in other words, no difference). In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space”
–
Apples and oranges.
The TOA surface area is far larger than the surface of the earth.
All the radiation goes back to space.
The amount of energy in the surface of the earth emissions is the amount of energy going back into space.
The difference in the intensity is purely a matter of where you measure the surface area.
At the TOA the energy is always in balance with the energy out. There is no extra 150W per meter squared heating up the atmosphere.
Uh, the thickness of the atmosphere is lost in the noise compared to the radius of the Earth. People forget how thin the atmosphere actually is. The area of the TOA is only fractionally larger than the area of the Earth’s surface.
Dave Fair .
“The area of the TOA is only fractionally larger than the area of the Earth’s surface.”
Dave, There are two factors at play
The increased surface area at TOA and the 4th power energy effect combined.
A globally-average earth radius is usually considered to be 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi]
Surface area is ~ 510,064,471.91 square kilometers.
TOA
10 K altitude 511,666,935.491 square k
30 k altitude 514,879,402.474 square k
100k altitude 526,202,205.053 square k
Remember that the amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than its temperature rises—outgoing energy increases with the fourth power of temperature.
Pingback: The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: The IPCC’s attribution method is essentially wrong – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News
“The TOA surface area is far larger than the surface of the earth.
All the radiation goes back to space.”
Well, it is about 1.5 per mille larger if we assume an average emission altitude of 5km, not making much of a difference. What will make a difference however is allowing for real surface emissivity, which is only about 0.91. Accordingly surface emissions are only 355W/m2, while clear sky emissions are 270W/m2. That is a difference of only 85W/m2, instead of 150W/m2.
https://greenhousedefect.com/what-is-the-surface-emissivity-of-earth
You’re still playing the ref, Dave. Judy already told you where she stands. This wastes her time. That’s trolling.
You’re trolling using your own name, a name that means little, a name shared with all the other Dave Fair’s (and variants thereof) of this world.
That defeats any argument you think you might have, and in fact shows why Judy’s policy is sound.
If you don’t like Judy’s policy, you can always go back at Tony’s. He tolerates pseudonyms, but only when he likes them. If not, there’s always Roy’s.
“After several rounds the paper was rejected. Although Tett and the econometrician supported publication the other reviewer and the editor did not like my proposed alternative methodology. But none of the reviewers disputed my critique of AT99’s handling of the GM theorem. So I carved that part out and sent it in winter 2021 to Climate Dynamics, which accepted it after 3 rounds of review.”
Ross,
That sounds reminiscent of a delaying tactic by the ClimateGate gang to get AR6 SPM and WG1 draft products published and hyped before your paper caused problems for WG1AR6 Chapter 3 claims.
In WG1AR5, Chapter 10, I find 6 direct in-text references to AT99, and undoubtedly many of the other referenced papers on attribution have AT99 embedded as method reference as well.
WG1AR6 Chapter 3 (Draft), 3.2.1 Methods Based on Regression, only references AT99 twice, and Allen and Stott, 2003 only once. Much of AR6WG1, Chapter 3 attribution now seems to rest on the newer statistical methods of Aurélien Ribes of CNRM, Météo France.
Ribes, et al 2017 (published 2016) writes, “We introduce estimation and testing procedures based on likelihood maximization, and show that climate modelling uncertainty can easily be accounted for. Some discussion is provided on how to practically estimate the climate modelling uncertainty based on an ensemble of opportunity. Our approach is based on the “models are statistically indistinguishable from the truth” paradigm, where the difference between any given model and the truth has the same distribution as the difference between any pair of models, but other choices might also be considered.”
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6
The paper is paywalled and I can’t find it anywhere else, so I haven’t looked it beyond the Abstract and the references cited.
That Ribes2017 claimed ” ‘models are statistically indistinguishable from the truth’ paradigm, where the difference between any given model and the truth has the same distribution as the difference between any pair of models,..” seems to me to be a testable assumption using statistical approaches.
Joel,
Unfortunately considerable damage has been done to quality science by these gate keepers who have a vested interest in supressing the truth.
Jerry
Prof McKitrick,
Did any of your look backs include Marotzke and Forster (2015)?
I was initiated to the climate science at about that time and remember the debate on whether Nic Lewis’s claim of circularity in their paper was valid.
Marotzke used model means regressed against forcings to evaluate the correlation with obs temps. Yet the forcings were derived from Forster’s earlier paper analyzing obs temps. They got F from Tdt and then used F to find Tdt. Marotzke seemed to have successfully weathered the storm by having the climate establishment backing. No corrections were made.
Thank you for your efforts on this. We need voices like you, Nic and many others to continue to push to audit for accurate climate science.
The Ribes et al 2017 paper is a time series analysis which doesn’t deal with nonstationarity issues. I have some work underway comparing models and observations based on time series characteristics. As with the subject of this thread, its squarely in the realm of econometrics and deals with long-overlooked issues.
Dave,
Like Willard
Jerry
Willard,
I believe Dave has the same opinion of you as I do, but you can ask him.
Did you notice that I am starting to add references to my comments – the ones that you were unwilling to search for on google scholar.
Jerry
On the contrary I feel very secure. And humor misses many. That is why it is always dangerous to use humor. But the fun of it is so satisfying that the downsides of people missing it is negligible.
Agreed, Dave. Your threat was quite funny!
What threat?
It’s gone now, Dave. But it was funny!
Your “It is pretty obvious, though” was playing the ref too. Show more respect. Say “yes, Madam” and that’s it.
Cecil Terwiliger was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydraulical Engineer – in some cultures he opined – it was a sacred vocation. In that light – we have in cousins Joshua and poor wee willie a couple of slack jawed yokels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDLUfMM0z9I
It is not about math and science – they literally don’t know any – it is about showing how clever they are by ridiculing contrarian right wing provocateurs with obsessive repetitions of the same juvenile jibes. It seems nothing else but social engineering designed to reinforce IPCC scary scenarios in the service of remaking society and economies. Centralised command and control from all of them whatever they want to call it.
I did once have a long exchange with Joshua by replying to comments without reading them. He still hasn’t yet got over it. But tell me why should I spend any time rereading the same empty rhetoric?
I posted this yesterday – it is from AR6. Not that I have read any IPCC document since 2007 – but I knew something like it was there so scanned the SPM. I read primary literature and don’t waste much time in climate echo chambers either.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/ar6-forcing.png
Despite Ross’ well meaning and no doubt well informed paper there is no doubt that greenhouse gases are changing climate. It does not rely on regression analysis or models but on fundamental physics. There are other anthropogenic changes to the Earth system that are equally if not more problematic. There are pragmatic responses that have benefit to cost ratios in excess of 1. Advanced nuclear engines, conserving and restoring soils and ecosystems and building resilient infrastructure. That requires something more than subsistence desperation.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
I had a long session of talking past the gormless poor wee willie under the most recent week in review. He doesn’t care for solutions – I presume because it doesn’t align with the transformation agenda. Most of the world doesn’t agree with him.
Robert I. Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
> He doesn’t care for solutions
Which is exactly why I kept asking for empirical evidence, Chief, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/23/week-in-review-science-edition-128/#comment-957663
See you soon.
Mike Hulme’s preference for solutions and not more scary stories emerging from AR6 is not remotely a hypothesis requiting validation. Poor wee willie remains weirdly at odds with reality.
Oh – btw – https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/23/week-in-review-science-edition-128/#comment-957668
RIE repeats the theme “… there is no doubt that greenhouse gases are changing climate.”
In good faith, I have tried and tried to observe myself and to read in credible scientific publications, “where is the observational evidence that GHG are changing climate.
Sure, climate is changing, but how much depends on how and what you measure and how large the variation is. Linking general change specifically to GHG happens all around us, but in words that lack observational evidence. Sure, there is a little evidence for warming in many parts of the globe since (say) 1900, but there is only a small change or a hard-to-explain no change in many places. But the globe has warmed and cooled without GHG helping many times before now, so a hypothesized link between warming of the air and the cause being GHG is far, far from established. Yes, the lab physics support GHG causing gases to heat, but we have to look beyond lab results to the whole complex of factors that have been observed to affect air temperature, such as cloud extent and height.
You seek to portray the science as compelling or near-conclusive, whereas I can seem to find one observation after another to put a question mark next to settled, when I delve deeply into a matter. (BTW, I concluded a while back that the fault with a lot of accepted climate science is a lack of depth of study. If you attack the data with deep intent, you will find a near-terminal problem every time. That tells you that the science is far from settled. Mature science does not suffer much at all from these easy nit-picks, in between major, rare revisions.
Ross is doing that deeper digging. He is dissecting settled climate wisdom and finding it lacking in ways that need answers.
……….
So, I have asked you several times to name a few ways – even one way – in which you personally have felt an undoubted effect of man-made, GHG induced climate change. Several times you have refrained from serious answer. Can you have a decent try, please? Geoff S
Climate change from greenhouse gas emissions are superimposed on natural spatiotemporal chaotic variability. There are fundamental physics worked out in great detail. As I have said elsewhere – there is more than one approach to attribution. I am sure Ross would agree.
e.g. https://hitran.org/about/
The effect has been observed from space.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
Natural variability occurs on scales of moments to eons. I have for decades been of the opinion that hydrological records are far too short to identify statistically significant changes due to anthropogenic warming. Why should I change my mind now? We can identify Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic regimes and transitions but not trends.
e.g. https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/
But there are fundamental physics – including laws of thermodynamics – that say that the hydrological cycle should change due to AGW that is occurring without much doubt.
The nonlinear nature of natural system feedbacks is a future risk. Abrupt change that is not necessarily warming.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4
Geoff assumes that changes should be globally uniform and temporally linear. That is not how the world works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VbgzCahx8o
The pragmatic response includes advanced nuclear engines, conserving and restoring soils and ecosystems and building resilient infrastructure. Actions that have greater benefits than costs without AGW.
Geoff, please also visit Ron Clutz’s blog:
Science Matters
Article: “How to Calculate Planetary Temperatures”
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
“He doesn’t care for solutions.”
It’s worse than that.
“In total, over 100 million people now live in a community with an official 100% renewable electricity target.”
“Nuclear, natural gas, coal, oil based, or any other forms of carbon-based energy production are not included as clean or renewable sources of energy. ”
https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100/commitments
They got eight states in the US, so far, to adopt fictional “plans” drawn on mythology. In Europe the “solutions” ideas are so bad that they’re shutting down emissions-free power and even the “climate chancellor” signed off on and paid for switching manufacturing to natural gas power (supplied by Russia no less.)
Having helped accomplish this, Wee Willie spends half his time advocating that the world ignore CO2 produced by the world’s largest emitter because “basic physics” is regional or something.
Basic logic suggests a complete lack of interest in climate change at all, much less solutions.
> Having helped accomplish this
If only, Jeff.
So you might need to revise your basic logic.
“If only, Jeff.”
Now, now, give yourself credit. The Sierra Club couldn’t have successfully replaced action on climate with meaningless partisan press releases without a dedicated cadre of people attacking scientists who deviated from the political narrative.
Without climateballers the climate crusaders would have to go back to babbling about peak oil and population growth. Now you can look forward to years of additional demands for more funding for mandatory Easter Bunny production. How useful is a doomsday forecast if someone does something ridiculous like solves it? Let’s ask the peak oilers and population control enthusiasts- they’re all already attending the climate ball.
100 ‘renewables’ isn’t a solution for industrialised economies.
> give yourself credit
I leave you give me straw, Jeff.
We all know you like to punch hippies. We both know I’m not one:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/going-nuclear/
Please give it a rest.
Elly says “Climate change from greenhouse gas emissions are superimposed on natural spatiotemporal chaotic variability. There are fundamental physics worked out in great detail. e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4” – which adds nothing to his argument.
He neglects, as usual, the less than 5% contribution to CO2 by humans, and the exponential decline (yes, Elly, that is logarithmic) in GHG effect – as well as the lack of historical support for CO2 causation as opposed to correlation for climate change. GHGs are indeed one of the eight forcings that influence (and often cause) climate change. Co2 at this time, at these levels, is a minor one
CO2 is the major human emission of a radiatively active molecule – although there are others of course. At high economic growth rates when powered by fossil fuels – levels in the atmosphere could reach in the order of 1000 ppm by the end of the century. Levels not seen for some 50 million years. Being clever at science and technology – unlike jiminy – is a better idea for many reasons.
Geoff wrote: “In good faith, I have tried and tried to observe myself and to read in credible scientific publications, “where is the observational evidence that GHG are changing climate”
Geoff, I know you have significant concerns about the reliability of the land surface temperature record in Australia and perhaps elsewhere. However, there is also the ocean surface temperature record, and Argo and troposphere temperature measured from space by microwaves.
HoweverI prefer to start my analysis of climate change with radiative forcing rather than temperature. The physics of thermal IR interacting with GHGs has been well-understood for nearly a century and its predictions have been tested in the atmosphere. Calculations show that a radiative imbalance of 1 W/m2 at the TOA is enough power to warm the a 50m mixed layer of ocean and the atmosphere at a rate of 0.2 K/yr. The current forcing from rising CO2 alone is at least 2 W/m2. Where is that enormous amount of heat going? IF IT ISN’T ALL BEING REFLECTED BACK TO SPACE, then the law of conservation of energy demands that it must be warming somewhere below the TOA. I personally don’t need any temperature records to believe that GHGs are warming the planet.
If you believe that the climate is warming, it is easier to find answers to this dilemma. A warmer planet radiates more thermal IR to space: 3.2 W/m2/K, if it behaves like a blackbody. More like 2.2 W/m2/K if we account for the effect of rising absolute humidity and changing lapse rate. (2.2 W/m2/K is what we observe from space when the Earth warms seasonally about 3.5 degK because the heat capacity of the NH is lower than the SH.) If you believe ARGO, 0.7 W/m2 of heat is being taken up by the ocean.
The other solution to this dilemma to hypothesize that more SWR is being reflected back to space. If that change is caused by negative SWR cloud feedback in response to warming, then you are admitting to warming and we could discuss how big this feedback is in terms of W/m2/K. Otherwise some other fortuitous cause for increasing albedo is needed.
Frank, CO2 forcing slows poleward ocean heat transport. There is your negative feedback.
Steve: It is easy to show mathematically that the planet radiatively cools faster when the heat is spread most evenly, end not concentrated in equatorial regions. Your alleged negative feedback would be a positive feedback. Feedback varies regionally, causing “pattern effects”. The Equatorial Pacific is where feedback is most positive.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/18/jcliD191011.xml
Frank, if that’s the case then what they should probably do is just throw all the models in the garbage and hang up ever making one.
Why ocean heat transport warms the global mean climate
https://miami.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/why-ocean-heat-transport-warms-the-global-mean-climate
Just one of a multitude of model exercises that show increasing ocean heat transport warms the globe.
The OHC does not warm by itself tho:
> In each model the warming is attributed to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse trapping, primarily clear-sky greenhouse trapping, and a reduction in albedo.
Right Willard, those are responses to the change in ocean heat transport.
In the study, the authors themselves cranked up OHT up to 100%. What would cause that?
I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Steven. Bigger OHT, bigger feedback; lower OHT, less redistribution. Where’s the problem?
‘We compare top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes observed by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) and simulated by seven general circulation models forced with observed sea-surface temperature (SST) and sea-ice boundary conditions. In response to increased SSTs along the equator and over the eastern Pacific (EP) following the so-called global warming “hiatus” of the early 21st century, simulated TOA flux changes are remarkably similar to CERES. Both show outgoing shortwave and longwave TOA flux changes that largely cancel over the west and central tropical Pacific, and large reductions in shortwave flux for EP low-cloud regions. A model’s ability to represent changes in the relationship between global mean net TOA flux and surface temperature depends upon how well it represents shortwave flux changes in low-cloud regions, with most showing too little sensitivity to EP SST changes, suggesting a “pattern effect” that may be too weak compared to observations.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
Observations show a major energy dynamic mechanism – a mechanism for internal variability still missing in most GCM. Changing SST and low cloud feedback in the eastern Pacific shift on decadal to millennial scales with a predictability window of months at best.
Willard, models show increasing CO2 slows ocean heat transport. That’s a negative feedback. Understand now?
Here’s another one, older but more sensitive.
Increased ocean heat transports and warmer climate
https://doi.org/10.1029/91JD00009
> Understand now?
Not at all. On the one hand, more ocean heat content increases ocean heat transport and decreases sea ice (duh):
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05540-8
What’s on the other hand, again?
The other hand is with less OHT you get more low level clouds and more reflected SW radiation. Duh.
> The other hand is with less OHT you get more low level clouds and more reflected SW radiation.
Again, not sure where’s the contradiction. Also, the CO2 has gone from your hand. Is it in your sleeve?
Willard, what you linked they are artificially increasing the SST. Sure, if you maintain the volume and increase the heat content you will get more warming. No doubt about that.
The CO2 I ignore because it is pretty much common knowledge that the models show it slowing ocean heat transport.
A cite would still be nice. Here’s one that tells a story that makes sense to me:
> We find that the global energy conservation requires the compensation changes in the atmosphere and ocean heat transports.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16661
All the studies in this thread have artificially increased or decreased some bolts and nuts. One of the fun thing about modulz is that one can toy with them. They’re more ant boxes than truth machines.
Yes, I’m aware of the ocean/atmosphere compensation hypothesis. The models say the ocean is actually more important. I would never point to model results and say the truth lies there. I would say that’s important and needs to be answered. On the other hand the model results make sense to me and fit my biases rather well so I’ll just go with them in this case. The fact that they have used ocean heat transport to explain past climate change doesn’t hurt matters as far as I’m concerned either.
I haven’t had a chance to actually read this one but at a glance it appears to be what you want.
https://agu.pubs/onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL067931
Bad link. I’ll try a different one but give the name this time so if this one doesn’t work you are on your own,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067931
Large-scale ocean circulation-cloud interactions reduce the pace of transient climate change
Steve wrote: “CO2 forcing slows poleward ocean heat transport. There is your negative feedback.” And: “Why ocean heat transport warms the global mean climate”
https://miami.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/why-ocean-heat-transport-warms-the-global-mean-climate
That was an interesting paper on how a massive increase in ocean heat transport could cause warming. If heat is moved from the tropical oceans, there is less driving force for the Hadley circulation to move heat poleward. Less Hadley circulation produces fewer clouds in the tropics and slower trade winds produce less evaporative cooling. However, the details of how this modeling was done matter. Some modeling exercises involve slab oceans when heat is magically transported or not transported poleward by the model, regardless of whether the winds driving ocean currents have changed. I couldn’t read the full text of your paper, but found a later paper that cited yours. Those investigators were exploring an aquaplanet with no continents or ice caps. Real ocean currents are driven by winds and the sinking of cold salty ocean water at high latitudes. As a general rule, paleoclimate studies show that polar regions have warmed much more than equatorial regions. The authors of the paper I looked at the methods used were interested in the Eocene and Pliocene, when polar regions were ice free, equatorial regions weren’t much warmer than today, and the continents were in different positions without Panama connecting North and South America. It isn’t obvious why the artificially increased ocean heat transport in these models have any relevance the real world today.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/18/jcli-d-13-00192.1.xml?tab_body=pdf
The only way that I know of that CO2 slows polarward ocean heat transport is by melting ice caps in the NH, making Arctic surface seawater less salting and thereby preventing it from sinking to drive the MOC. This phenomena is believed to have halted the MOC in the North Atlantic as the last ice age was ending and returning the NH to ice age conditions during the Younger Dryas. There is a lot of speculation that the MOC is already being slowed by WARMING in the Arctic – not directly slowed by rising CO2. You claim rising CO2 is not causing warming, so you can’t cite the possibly slowing MOC as evidence that CO2 causes reduced ocean heat transport. An superb job of trolling, given that you don’t believe in AOGCMs or GHG-mediated global warming. (:))
Does any of your nonsense invalidate my argument that radiative forcing plus conservation of energy means GHGs must cause warming somewhere below the TOA? Probably not. However, as soon as warming develops in response to a forcing, there are responses – feedbacks (W/m2/K) – to that warming that determine how much warming occurs before radiative balance is restored across the TOA: Planck, WV, lapse-rate, surface-albedo and cloud feedbacks. Your paper reminds me that there may be more feedbacks that we don’t know about, such as a coupling between the Hadley circulation and ocean heat transport. Due to energetic constraints, the Hadley circulation must slow in response to global warming and perhaps that makes cloud feedback more positive.
Frank, I’ve never looked at trying to disprove either that CO2 is a GHG or that GHGs cause warming. I considered that a waste of time given experimental evidence that both are true. Now I did make a comment that you can explain the warming without invoking CO2 but that was merely to illustrate the difficulty of a proper attribution.
It isn’t obvious to me why ocean heat transport isn’t important unless you can prove being a reasonable doubt that there hasn’t been any.
I’ve been talking about how varying the depth of solar penetration affects ocean currents in models. With long wave radiation that depth doesn’t vary much so either it slows the currents or the change is so insignificant as to be overwhelmed by the hosing effect since most if not all models show CO2 slowing poleward ocean heat transport.
Now you have just tossed a bunch of nonsense in my direction while claiming I am talking nonsense. LOL
BTW Frank, even if I didn’t think CO2 caused warming my response to you would be but you do so what difference does it make?
It’s a forcing. Transport systems can only act as feedback mechanisms. Dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow risks creating instabilities. So that makes all the difference in the world.
Willard, my point was it doesn’t matter to my argument that I believe CO2 causes warming. It only matters that the person I am arguing with does.
Also you don’t know that ocean heat transport changes have to be forced. It could be random or not so random internal variability.
The same as you just said, Steven:
[VLAD] I only need you to believe P!
[ESTR] Oh, but I only need *you* to believe non-P!
Nobody needs to believe anything.
Gulf Stream density and structure during the last millennium
Lund
https://ui.absads.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.444..601L/abstract
Here, Steven:
ipcc.ch
Look it up. I don’t have time &c.
Dave,
Keep your cool and don’t respond to Willard.
Jerry
Not to worry, Jerry. I’ve had real people using real guns and real knives against me. I have the scars and Purple Heart to prove it. Trolling Devices and keyboard cowboys are nothing.
Good one, Dave!
You’d had to have been there to truly appreciate it. Comments from the peanut gallery are automatically discounted.
Wow.
Another Internet tough guy.
Imagine if Dave and Don got together! as a tag team! China had better watch out.
Show me yours, Joshua.
> Comments from the peanut gallery are automatically discounted.
Reminds me of when Chief and David Young and Don constantly respond to my comments to tell me they don’t read my comments.
Dave –
Purple hearts as old as the Spanish American war are impressive in an historical sense, but aren’t really that intimidating.
Intimidating? How would a simple statement of fact be intimidating, Joshua? Did you get your panties in a wad? Need a safe place?
Mentioning a Purple Heart is meant to inform others that the recipient has endured extreme stresses beyond the normal human experience. It means that comments from the peanut gallery just bounce off.
BTW, what’s this about the Spanish American War? The Purple Heart was originally created as the Badge of Military Merit by George Washington in 1782 and only 3 were issued by him for service in the War of Independence. The Purple Heart medal replacement was created in 1932, the Centennial of George Washington’s birthday. The Rough Riders predated the Purple Heart medal, Joshua.
It’s cool, Dave. Respect.
Godspeed.
I have no idea as to what you are talking about Willard.
I was acknowledging your sacrifice and taking my leave, Dave.
But since you insist, allow me to answer your rhetorical question with an example and a citation:
[HOW TO THREATEN WITH FACTS] I have a gun and I know how to use it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346106533_I_have_a_gun_and_I_know_how_to_use_it_A_phenomenology_of_handgun_ownership_by_evangelical_Christians
I’m sure you mean well, but what you’re trying to do is self-defeating.
Good night.
Dave –
Very impressive. I’m sure that behind that keyboard sits a very tough guy. .
Dave,
Amazing. Bet none of the other antagonists have those credentials.
Thank you for your service.
Jerry
Thanks, Jerry. I joke that I prepaid my healthcare in Vietnam.
Dave ,
I would hope that is a joke, but am afraid you are being facetious.
Jerry
They didn’t state the null hypothesis mathematically or list the assumptions necessary to prove its distribution (even asymptotically, let alone exactly), they provided no analysis of its power against alternatives nor did they state any alternative hypotheses in any form so readers have no idea what rejection or non-rejection implies.
Yes the null hypothesis has always been a thorny problem for climate alarmism. It needs to look like the garden of Eden. However stasis is absent from the climate record which is fractal – endless variations with a log-log magnitude-frequency relationship. But how would you prove climate change against a null hypothesis that is also climate change?
“But how would you prove climate change against a null hypothesis that is also climate change?”
You get millions in grant funding per year while making slow but steady progress.
I have a comment on “The climate model embeds the assumption that greenhouse gases have a significant climate impact”: I have three comments about this, for assumption that greenhouse gas change causes a climate change:
1) Is there an assumption that because greenhouse gas change on a specific part of climate change is something like 85-94 % of the way proved (such as that this will make tropical cyclones more intense or go more poleward while maintaining tropical cyclone status), tropical cyclones in general got worsened as badly as climate models say they did, so a specific amount of tropical cyclone worsening as predicted by climate models was considered as expectable of the amount of global warming predicted by climate models for analysis for what percentage probability that global warming was a significant factor severeness of thst specific tropical cyclone? While ignoring that global temperature is currently less than predicted by the consensuses of the CMIP6, CMIP5 and the CMIP3 models. Doesn’t accounting for global temperature being less than predicted by most of these models decrease the expected amount of intensification of tropical cyclones, and also decrease the percentage probability (although still a positive number) that global warming was a significant factor for the severity of a specific tropical cyclone?
2) Is there an assumption that because existence of proof that manmade increase of greenhouse gases causes climate change, that it causes every kind of climate change claimed by climate activists including activist scientists, including the claimed magnitude and direction of every kind of change claimed by climate activists including activist scientists? Does this cause rejection of the null hypothesis for kinds of changes in specific kinds of weather events where climate activists and the mainstream media claim change is in the opposite direction that weather records indicate, such as severe cold and snow in Texas and drought in the eastern ~60 % of the US?
3) Is analysis of heavy rain events for climate change signal done without consideration of a ~2003 change in rain gauge technology at US airport weather stations that decreased underreporting of heavy rain events? I expect that heavy rain events are actually increasing, but to an extent overstated by rain gauge records because of this rain gauge technology change, which means overstatement of a warming climate signal for heavy rain events measured at US airport weather stations.
Paul is wrong.
You both know it and yet you persist in saying black is white.
The UCAR climate model puts in assumptions about positive feedbacks, Willis
” temperature rises about 3° C for each doubling of CO2 concentration (the climate change sensitivity). So, for example, if the concentration goes from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv, we expect to see temperature go up by 3° C.”
Does not matter what you do ,up it goes by an unphysical for ghg 3C
Note this is not an emergent phenomenon, it is wrongly programmed in.
Zeke Hausfather explains CO2 physical properties.
“”In the absence of a water vapor feedback, doubled CO2 would increase global temperatures by around 1 to 1.2 degrees C”
Also why there should be no water vapor feedback [though he believes in it.*]
“The primary reasons why water vapor cannot be a cause of climate change are its short atmospheric residence time and a basic physical limitation on the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere for any given temperature”
and why the models are wrong
“This cloud feedback varies significantly between models, ranging from 0.3 to 1.1 degrees C (0.5 to 2 degrees F).”
Note clouds are difficult to observe and model and have major TOA / albedo effects which are known to not be modeled properly.have
> Paul is wrong.
Except that he’s not, Doc. The claim that modulz embed a significant climate impact is untrue. The claim that natural processes alone cannot generate a large class of observed events in the climate is also untrue.
Perhaps I should clarify that the page on which you clicked does not emulate a climate model. Were that the case, we’d save lots of computer time. It’s just a small application for beginners.
The next step is to read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametrization_(atmospheric_modeling)
I would advise against trying to suggest that the IPCC ignores what one can read on an introductory entry.
I’ll add both to my “but modulz” bingo square.
Thanks for that.
The claim that natural processes alone cannot generate a large class of observed events in the climate is also untrue.
out the double negatives
–
re
“The claim that natural processes alone can generate a large class of observed events in the climate is also true. ”
–
Would I/Did I disagree with that statement? not at all. That is exactly what I am saying
–
“I would advise against trying to suggest that the IPCC ignores what one can read on an introductory entry.”
You certainly may advise that, that does not help the situation.
Ross says they are working on wrong assumptions and many people do believe the IPCC does include parameters which are not physical and not yet measurably known.
PS thanks for the comment at ATTP. I will try to address it further.
> Would I/Did I disagree with that statement?
I mungled the claim, Doc. Sorry about that. Here’s how I wrote it in my Bingo page:
I can’t link to my website at Judy’s, so you’ll have to find it yourself.
Do you still agree with that claim?
angtech,
Willard has already admitted that climate models use tuning to predict volcano effects on climate by using historical facts (volcanoic eruption dates) and the addition of an ad hoc discontinuous forcing at the time of the eruption to the model. This is tuning the model to match the obs.
Then to claim the model reproduces the obs is nonsense. There is no way a model can predict if and when a volcano is going to erupt.
Jerry
> Then to claim the model reproduces the obs
That wasn’t the claim, and I only admitted what you could read in the report if you could only RTFR.
Thank you for your scientific output.
Willard,
> Please try to focus on what you know best. If you don’t know PaulS, you’re about to find out that your silly “but volcanoes” won’t work with
If they were Volcanoes Circulation Models, you might have a point.
And that is exactly what they are attempting to do by tuning!
>Let’s grant the following premises:
P1. We can’t predict volcanic eruptions.
P2. Stoopid modulz need to be tuned accordingly.
The conclusion is still missing.
It might help to complete an implicit premise of the form: since stoopid <modulz need to be tuned for volcanic eruptions, etc.
I made a simple and short example so that even a lay person could understand climate modelers are misleading the public. The fact that you
couldn't understand the argument doedn't bode well for your abilities.
You asked me to cite some references which I have done. You obviouslly have not been able to refute them or would have. One reference proves that using discontinuous forcing like all climate and weather models do
leads to discontinuous solutions that require unrealistically large dissipation that destroys the numerical accuracy.
The second proves that climate and weather models are using the wrong dynamical system of equations and introduces the correct system.
This was reviewed by two prominent atmospheric scientists. So how can a climate model forecast anything about the future if it is approximating the wrong continuum system?
And finally you did not disprove Sylvie Gravel's results, only tried to dismiss them because Heinz and I were coauthors. Typical dirty trick by your ilk.
Jerry
Jerry,
Thank you again for this very scientific contribution.
I’m still waiting for the conclusion.
You don’t need me to peddle your schtick.
Willard,
The conclusion is that any dependence by the IPCC on climate models is nonsense and that you support the IPCC means either that you are a climate modeler or IPCC author. Your inane comments just prove how little mathematics you know.
Jerry
Jerry,
Thank you again for this very scientific comment. It shows how important it is to you to present tight and valid arguments.
Quick question: how does your pet system of equations deal with volcanoes?
Willard,
So you did not disagree that you are a climate modeler or IPCC
author. So now it is clear to everyone what your motives are.
No model can predict a volcano. Only a climate modeler would use
a known date of a volcano, use tuning in an attempt
to match the obs and then claim because the model matches the obs using an ad hoc curve fitting method that the model can predict the future. Numerical analysts know about extrapolation outside the domain of known function points.
At least the reduced system is the right dynamical system.
Note that you used to run climate models for hundreds of years.
Now you are only running them for a few decades and the results can be more closely compared against obs. Ross has shown how that is going. Pretty soon you will run them for days and we know how that will go.
Jerry
BTW Isee you use avatar to hide your identity
You are wasting your time Jerry. Poor wee willie is a zealot with no math at all. You need to understand that a conventional discourse is not possible and the best you can do is talk past him to people wo act in good faith.
Jerry,
Thank you for your wonderfully scientific comment.
Let’s see how your argument fares:
P1. We can’t predict volcanic eruptions.
P2. Stoopid modulz need to be tuned accordingly.
C. Any dependence by the IPCC on climate models is nonsense and that you support the IPCC means either that you are a climate modeler or IPCC author.
I do hope you see that there’s a discrepancy between your premises and your conclusion.
A follow-up question: if no model can predict volcanoes and until we have a model that does modulz are stoopid, why are you insisting that we use your own pet system of equations?
Please, do continue to enlighten Denizens of your indomitable power of reasoning.
Robert,
I only want for others to see what nonsense he is spouting by pointing out his contradictory statements and to point out the assumptions the climate and weather modelers have made that contradict the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory. That theory has produced the correct dynamical system that should be used and it has very different mathematical properties than the hydrostatic system, e.g., it does not amplify the velocity at the,lower boundary.
Jerry
> his contradictory statements
That should be easy to establish, Jerry. Show two statements I made.
Meanwhile, you jumped in this thread by misidentifying the claim being made, and you have yet to own it.
Do continue to bring your Very Scientific perspective!
Willard.
You are as good at cherry picking as your cohorts.
.
1. I clearly pointed out that you cannot get the right answer with the wrong dynamical system.
2. Curve fitting (tuning) is only good within the domain of known functional values. Outside of that range is known to be unreliable for any system.
3. Climate models are known to have large continuum errors (excessive dissipation, inaccurate parameterizations of which the boundary layer is just one example, insufficient resolution and numerical accuracy (for the wrong system).
4. Modelers have very little understanding of basic mathematical or numerical analysis theory, especially the Bounded Derivative Theory.
If the IPCC is dependent on these models for any of their claims, then those claims are of dubious value.
Jerry
Jerry,
None of your points address the gap between the premises and the conclusion:
P1. We can’t predict volcanic eruptions.
P2. Stoopid modulz need to be tuned accordingly.
C. Any dependence by the IPCC on climate models is nonsense and that you support the IPCC means either that you are a climate modeler or IPCC author.
Please, do continue to wave your arms while ignoring the question asked or by refusing to support your claim that I made contradictory claims!
Willard,
Prove which of my four clearly laid out points is wrong and quit trying to side step the main issue.
If not the conclusion is obviously correct.
And by by the way I know Gerald Meehl (NCAR climate modeler and IPCC contributor) and when I asked him some details in a seminar he was giving about the climate model he was using he was incapable of answering them. He squirmed out of the problem by wanting to take the discussion off line.
Jerry
Tell me how the truncation error of a numerical method is determined.
Jerry,
Thank you for sharing your Very Scientific war stories.
You interposed here by recalling your claim about volcanoes, and now you refuse to return to it.
Should I interpret that as squirming?
If you want to play the Internet tough guy, you need to follow an argument, more so when it’s yours in the first place.
Avatar Willard,
You finally got something right. The adjective should have been evasive and not contradictory comments. Now that we have that straight,
please disprove any of the four points I made which you evidently cannot do or would have.
1. I clearly pointed out that you cannot get the right answer with the wrong dynamical system.
2. Curve fitting (tuning) is only good within the domain of known functional values. Outside of that range is known to be unreliable for any system.
3. Climate models are known to have large continuum errors (excessive dissipation, inaccurate parameterizations of which the boundary layer is just one example, insufficient resolution and numerical accuracy (for the wrong system).
4. Modelers have very little understanding of basic mathematical or numerical analysis theory, especially the Bounded Derivative Theory.
If the IPCC is dependent on these models for any of their claims, then those claims are of dubious value.
As a starter show me how smart you are by describing how to determine
the accuracy (truncation error) of a numerical model. If you can’t do that then you have no business using numerical analysis theoretical results in any model.
I await your attempt to disprove any of the four statements without an evasive answer.
Jerry
Jerry-Gone-Emeritus-2002,
Thank you for your Very Scientific minimization. I got more than one thing right, in fact you have yet to spot one incorrect thing I said. And I will continue in my correct streak: your latest laundry list still fails to address the “but volcanoes” argument you portrayed as a trump card against PaulS. Let’s repeat it, for it’s the only point relevant here:
P1. We can’t predict volcanic eruptions.
P2. Stoopid modulz need to be tuned accordingly.
C. Any dependence by the IPCC on climate models is nonsense and that you support the IPCC means either that you are a climate modeler or IPCC author.
Your task is to add premises so that C obtains in a way that does not turn the whole argument into a trivial gotcha. The more braggadocio you bring into your formal flexes, the more it reinforces your Very Scientific aura. Keep on flexing, and you’ll become Mister Climate Universe!
Avatar Willard,
As I thought you cannot disprove any of the four points and continue the evasive answers. And evidently do not know basic numerical analysis
but are more than willing to apply it incorrectly.
I guess you forgot that this retired mathematician just published a
peer reviewed manuscript that proves that your climate models are using the wrong dynamical system of equations. Great extrapolators.
No wonder you hide behind an alias.
Jerry
Jerry-Who-Met-Lucia,
Your “but volcanoes” argument is ill-posed. I see you squirm instead of correcting it. From these two facts I infer that you are in no position to play the Very Scientific Riddler, still arguably what you do best.
For instance, let me recall how Lucia summarized one moment of her encounter with you at the Auditor’s, ca 2007-12-04:
https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/17/exponential-growth-in-physical-systems-3/#comment-118594
Now, some might argue that Lucia has more wisdom than I when she washes her hand by saying: Clearly, we are done. I will not attempt to explain the full ridiculousness of individual statements your response; it’s pointless. But as Larry asks further what are we going to do with all these broken chairs?
Let’s say that I’m doing it for all the chairs you broke over the years.
So pray tell more about your ill-posed “but volcanoes” argument.
Avatar Willard,
Well isn’t this hilarious. You cannot refute any of my manuscripts or my four points and cannot explain how to determine the truncation error of a numerical method. So you go to the statements of another modeler
on a now defunct webside.
Maybe Lucia can describe in numerical analysis terms how the truncation error is determined. At least that would be a step forward.
“Your “but volcanoes” argument is ill-posed. I see you squirm instead of correcting it. From these two facts I infer that you are in no position to play he Very Scientific Riddler, still arguably what you do best.”
This simple example shows that previous arguments by climate modelers that they were not tuning the climate models to match the historical data were lies, pure and simple. And then extrapolating the results with models that are based on the wrong dynamical system is good science?
“For instance, let me recall how Lucia summarized one moment of her encounter with you at the Auditor’s, ca 2007-12-04:
My repeated questions sprung up during Jerrys discussion of Silvie’s manuscript. Silvie [sic] was modeling a boundary layer. During this conversation, Jerry began to say that viscous dissipation and eddy viscosity are unphysical when used in the flow Silvie [sic] describes– see for example #126 and #130.
Saying these are unphysical during a conversation about boundary layers is nonsense.
But, knowing blog conversations can be confusing, I began asking Jerry to clarify what he meant […]
Then, after posting several non-answers, suddenly in 148, Jerry decides I must be quizzed.
But I am not quizzed on the content of Silvie’s manuscript which we were discussing. I am suddenly quizzed on the contents and a heretofore unmentioned manuscript he called “The multiscale manuscript”.
”
And she is expert in which field? Sylvie’s results show that the boundary layer dissipation was added in an ad hoc manner to slow down the growth of the velocity at the surface. It had no physical basis as an arbitrary method worked just as well., i.e., another tuning game. Note that the correct dynamical system does not need that artificial dissipation near the surface and in fact damps small scale errors at the surface.
I am still waiting for you to enlighten us with your numerical analysis skills.
Jerry
Jerry, Riddler Dear,
You still fail to correct your ill-posed argument. Allow me to help:
P1. No model can predict volcanic eruptions.
P2*. Until we can, we should not use them.
C*. We should not use modulz for they’re too stoopid.
See? That is a well-posed argument. Now, let’s personalize P1:
P1. Jerry’s pet theory cannot help predict volcanic eruptions.
P2*. Until he can, Jerry should not use it.
I’ll let you work out the conclusion.
See? That is how we show that your question was a silly gotcha.
Thank you for all your Very Scientific deflections. They show all there is to know regarding how you value and evaluate questions of integrity.
Poor wee willie’s endless repetition of the same whine requires no math or science – that’s handy as he has none – and little thought.
I leave endless repetitions to you, Chief.
Since you’re so big in maths, why don’t you tell Jerry what he thinks of Tim’s project of increasing the computational power of the modulz. You might be surprised. I’l sure Denizens will appreciate a Jerry-v-Chief arm waving fight.
I’m only here for the argument, especially the well-formed one. Since Jerry has problems identifying the claims and the arguments he makes, you’ll have to excuse the baby steps. It takes a while to take all the pieces that are en prise.
And if you don’t get why I insist on well-formedness, well that’s par for your course.
Robert,
Avatar Willard only digs himself in deeper and it becomes clearer to other readers that is the case when he responds evasively to direct questions.
Jerry
To dig oneself in a hole, Jerry dear, one has to commit to more claims without backing them up. Which is exactly what you do. Refusing to play the Riddler’s game is a perfect way not to dig.
Here is another way to see the difference:
https://climateaudit.org/2017/05/18/how-dependent-are-gistemp-trends-on-the-gridding-radius-used/#comment-772513
Still an interesting thread to read to know about your Riddler modus operandi, if you ask me.
You still have to substantiate your “claim the model reproduces the obs,” and you still have an elementary argument to correct. Alternatively, you can ask Chief about Tim Palmer’s project.
No rush.
Avatar Willard,
Well since you brought up Climate Audit let us point out the fine work that Steve McIntyre has done. Steve, being the honest person he is, uses his real name. He proved that Michael Mann misused a different area of mathematics to create the fallacious “hockey stick”. Then quality science IPCC used it to push their agenda.
And before misusing mathematical terms like ill posed or well posed, please note that they apply to partial differential equation and numerical analysis theory of which you obviously have no knowledge. You cannot even provide a description of how to determine the truncation error of a numerical method, the most basic part of numerical analysis theory.
Typical evasive answer by not citing Lucia’s area of expertise. As we have already pointed out , any one can make comments on a blog, even ill informed people such as yourself.
Jerry
Jerry,
I did not brought the Auditor’s identity. I brought how you behaved with Lucia. So make that two deflections. Both of them exemplify your silly browbeating.
You’ve been warned by Judy. I already told you that your argument was invalid. You still persist.
Perhaps you know Margo? How about Nigel Persaud? When was the last time you contacted Sylvie? Tell me what should be the conclusion to this argument:
P1. Jerry’s pet theory cannot help predict volcanic eruptions.
P2*. Until he can, Jerry should not use it.
While I still wait for an answer, especially regarding this well-posed argument since it’s the only one that matters here, allow me to rekindle your love for the Auditor’s:
https://climateaudit.org/2017/05/18/how-dependent-are-gistemp-trends-on-the-gridding-radius-used/#comment-772496
Please, do continue.
“…let me recall how Lucia summarized one moment of her encounter with you at the Auditor’s, ca 2007-12-04”
So that’s what you do instead of looking at climate change and alternatives to fossil fuels- you read 14 year old comment threads. How much does Gazprom or China pay for a gig like that?
Avatar Willard,
Note that Lucia uses her real name. She is a mechanical engineer and not an expert on partial differential equations or numerical analysis.
She worked on the disposal of radioactive waste and was an assistant professor at Iowa State University.
You wanted to use comments from Climate Audit but not mention one of the main purposes of Steve’s blog, namely the incorrect use of a mathematical method by Michael Mann to create the fallacious hockey stick. As Lucia has just pointed out a number of Mann’s lawsuits against the media have been tossed out.
You have yet to disprove any of my manuscripts or four points. Obviously
you cannot or would. Instead you continue with evasive answers.
Jerry
Jerry,
Since you’re a Riddler who can’t buy a clue, allow me to clarify. I brought your episode with Lucia because it shows how she wasted her time playing your silly quizzing game. It became a Procrustes Bed that made you look like a crank. (It still does, are you’re doubling down.) Your crankiness was even more obvious when looking at how you behaved with Nick.
Here are two claims you made:
[J1] Any dependence by the IPCC on climate models is nonsense and that you support the IPCC means either that you are a climate modeler or IPCC author.
[J2] This simple example shows that previous arguments by climate modelers that they were not tuning the climate models to match the historical data were lies, pure and simple.
See? That is to keep digging.
Please tell me how you go from J1 to J2.
If could you to give examples of the “previous arguments” to which you handwave.
Best of luck!
all,
Steve McIntyre is back on line!
His latest quote:
Although climate scientists keep telling that defects in their “hockey stick” proxy reconstructions don’t matter – that it doesn’t matter whether they use data upside down, that it doesn’t matter if they cherry pick individual series depending on whether they go up in the 20th century, that it doesn’t matter if they discard series that don’t go the “right” way (“hide the decline”), that it doesn’t matter if they used contaminated data or stripbark bristlecones, that such errors don’t matter because the hockey stick itself doesn’t matter – the IPCC remains addicted to hockey sticks: lo and behold, Figure 1a of its newly minted Summary for Policy-makers contains what else – a hockey stick diagram. If you thought Michael Mann’s hockey stick was bad, imagine a woke hockey stick by woke climate scientists. As the climate scientists say, it’s even worse that we thought.
If Mann was paying his own legal bills I bet he wouldn’t be suing anyone.
Jerry
Clueless Riddler Jerry,
Thank you again for this Very Scientific contribution.
Let’s analyze this challenge:
> You have yet to disprove any of my manuscripts or four points.
This presumes that to disprove your “manuscripts” or your four points is (a) possible, (b) relevant, and (c) necessary. These presuppositions have yet to be established.
One does not simply disprove a “manuscript”: that’s pure handwaving. Discussing your manuscripts won’t buttress your “but volcanoes.” The scientific community can certainly continue to ignore your results (which you have the audacity to present as “mathematical proofs”), if only because it will shield them from your sadism.
Recall that science is a race, not a boxing match. Sylvie moved on. You have not.
Your fourth point is infalsifiable, your third is trivial, your second is misspecified, and your first has yet to be grounded, notwithstanding your huff and puffing. But let’s grant it: will a model based on your pet theory succeed in meeting your High Expectation Father demands? If it needs to predict volcanoes, my Eight ball tells me that the outlook ain’t so good.
***
So let’s recap:
Your flaming campaign failed. Your argument against pseudonymity failed. Your argument against volcanoes failed. Your Procrustes Bed against Lucia failed. Riddling Nick also failed. He in fact has beaten you on very trivial points, e.g. dimensionlessness. Considering that he is a competent mathematician, you are the perfect illustration that the tenure track system enables abusive people to hide behind a façade of illustriousness.
So you have shown that you can’t formulate arguments that are well-posed and that you contribute little else than chest beating and obtuse self-promotion. The Internet is forever. You are not. This will be your legacy.
Well played!
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709
I haven’t spent the time needed to understand Jerry’s claims. Climate models are built on numerical solutions of Navier-Stokes partial differential equations on a grid in 3 dimensions. Lorenz’s simple set of nonlinear equations has 2 state space dimensions – shifting between states in a seemingly random manner. Climate models have many state space dimensions. With the climate system each point in space are coupled with all others creating an uncountably large number of fractional state space dimensions. While continued observation of shifting spatiotemporal chaotic patterns is the scientific foundation – the mathematics are still beyond us. In my view – real time modelling using data from diverse monitoring systems now available is a better approach. This is the new modelling paradigm.
And poor wee willie is of course a game playing zealot with not the slightest clue.
Good morning, Chief.
Here is the quote I challenged you to post:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
I must have missed that ‘challenge’. What do you think it means in context? Models have failed and we need a new approach would be one interpretation.
> I must have missed that ‘challenge’
Here, Chief:
I have been reading Tim Palmer papers and watching his videos with for a decade now. Does he begin to understand the context of the passage he quotes? Or does he imagine that it supports his ignorant posturing?
Modelling the Earth system at cloud resolving scale would require 1000’s of times more computing power. Quantum computing perhaps. But reduction in grid size and better parametrization reduces model instability. And the idea is to perform near real time initialisation with big monitoring data to develop probabilistic forecasts from seasons to perhaps a decade. It is a brand new class of model. The old class has failed but poor wee willie is zealously clinging to a forlorn hope that they – and he – have been right all along.
‘What we find more difficult to talk about is our deep dissatisfaction with the ability of our models to inform society about the pace of warming, how this warming plays out regionally, and what it implies for the likelihood of surprises.’ Palmer and Stevens 2019
It depends on how one interprets deep dissatisfaction.
Deep dissatisfaction at the
More importantly, it depends on its scope, which in your case is infinite.
Whatever that might mean in the context of interpreting deep dissatisfaction with models. .
[CHIEF] The old class has failed
[TIM AND BJORN] Comprehensive climate models have been effective and essential
You quoted that same editorial more than twenty times, Chief:
“Comprehensive climate models have been effective and essential to address the concern that such a basic understanding could be overly simplistic (i.e., missing something important, such as the existence of a mode of internal variability, which could, if it were to exist, explain trends in global mean temperature).”
Although not the same passage. Too bad the models missed internal variability. Necessarily so. Although I have a great respect for Tim Palmer – poor wee willie nor so much – this need to be put in a mathematical and epistemic context – not just a few words. For which of course zealous poor wee willie has no capacity.
Kravtsov et al, 2018, Global-scale multidecadal variability missing in state-of-the-art climate models – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
These three words refute your claim that Tim and Bjorn consider that teh stoopid modulz failed, Chief.
That’s good enough for me.
Wrong three words.
Avatar,
Nick Stokes was a modeler. Interesting that you tried to hint that I should be ignored because I am emeritus but he should not. Has he published anything since retirement? And are any of his manuscripts theoretical?
He can’t hold a candle to mathematicians like Peter Lax (Lax equivalence theorem), Fritz John or Heinz Kreiss (Bounded Derivative
Theory).
Clearly you have not looked at our manuscripts. The hydrostatic system has never been proved to be close to the full system of dynamics (and cannot be), but the multiscale system has using the Bounded Derivative Theory. And if the hydrostatic system were the correct reduced system it would not be ill posed for the initial/boundary value problem (Oliger and Sundstrom 1977). Kreiss developed the BDT in order to solve the latter
paradox because the full system is essentially hyperbolic and with proper boundary conditions (also theory developed by Heinz for hyperbolic systems and corresponding numerical approximations) should be well posed. Using that theory in my 2002 manuscript we demonstrated what initial and boundary conditions must be used for the initial/boundary value problem for the multiscale system to produce a well posed
initial/boundary value problem that evolves on the slow time scale for large scale and mesoscale storms presence at the same time.
In my 2020 manuscript I derived the well posed reduced system as introduced as part of the BDT and it is not the hydrostatic system used in all climate and weather models. Feel free to disprove any of the original mathematical theory or the proofs in our applications of the theory with your obvious lack of any mathematical skills.
I will award you a BA in evasive skills.
Note that Steve McIntyre has used matrix theory to shoot holes in the hockey stick and the above theory shoots holes in climate models.
Jerry
evolves on the slow time scale for multiple,scales,of motion
Avatar Willard,
What is your citation count?
After the Bounded Derivative Theory was published by Heinz in very
reputable mathematical journals, we published applications in atmospheric science, oceanographic and plasma physics journals to introduce the applied sciences to the new concept. Fully accepted by the latter two especially in oceanography as I indicated earlier.
We fully expected that the climate and weather modelers would not cite the manuscripts as the theory had serious implications about the errors they made. I didn’t care because all I was interested in was working with one of the greatest mathematicians of our era.
As per usual you nitpicked parts of my comment because you are unable to refute any of the theory.
As far as parameterizations go, as long as a modeler does not claim that
it is reality but a trrial and error method fine. But that is not what climate modelers do.
Jerry
That’s where you’re wrong, Chief:
I produced a quote and a challenge.
A challenge that I missed and a quote from a paper on the failure of models and the need for a new class? Instead of defending the indefensible – on nonsensical grounds – poor wee willie could try coming to terms with the nonlinear realities of climate models.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1) the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer, 2011, Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction – https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
Poor wee willie is a deliberately obnoxious tool and he should slink off in disgrace.
But doubling CO2 does NOT have an effect of 1-1.2K, or a forcing of 3.7 to 4W/m2 respectively. You get this figure by ignoring real life surface emissivity (~0.895 within the CO2 band) and overlaps with vapor and clouds.
If at least allowed for the overlap with vapor, as Happer did in recent papers, you only get 3W/m2 of forcing. However if you do the proper thing and allow for all factors, to give a real estimate, the forcing is only 2W/m2 or 0.53K. And that fact alone, as all feedbacks will be relative to this perturbation, cuts ECS in half.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
The weak magnetic activity of the Sun is not only a decrease in high-energy UV radiation, but also an increase in galactic radiation. Galactic primary radiation produces cascades of secondary radiation. This radiation is focused by the geomagnetic field (see vertical component of the geomagnetic field) at high latitudes, especially in areas where the Earth’s field is weakening. The effect of galactic radiation on the temperature of the stratosphere is more pronounced in winter when UV radiation decreases. The distribution of radiation is uneven, which affects the polar vortex.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
“The Earth’s own magnetic field also works to protect Earth from these particles largely deflecting them away from the equatorial regions but providing little-to-no protection near the polar regions or above roughly 55 degrees magnetic latitude (magnetic latitude and geographic latitude differ due to the tilt and offset of the Earth’s magnetic field from its geographic center). ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/galactic-cosmic-rays
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_z.jpg
At the same time, neutrons as secondary radiation produce C14 in the stratosphere and eventually CO2 in the upper troposphere.
“Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.”
“The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_z.jpg
” neutrons as secondary radiation produce C14 in the stratosphere and eventually CO2 in the upper troposphere… The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.”
What an utterly vaccuous thing to drag in !
So low is the concentration of carbon 14 atoms in air- one part per trillion,, that only one atmospheric CO2 molecule in four hndred million ocntains one.
The production of C14 carbon is just an example of the ionization of the atmosphere by primary and secondary galactic radiation. Importantly, the action of the GCR is clearly visible in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere.
https://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
If the IPCC is really a scientific organisation, it will quickly acknowledge that its attribution argument has no more valid proof.
My prediction is that with the current very weak solar cycle, a strong El Niño will not form and global temperatures will not rise.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2021&month=08
Pingback: What We’re Reading: Fossil Fuel Fuss, Mask Mania, Taliban Gas Jockeys … And More – Issues & Insights
What I have discovered is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
It states that “Planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root“.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law should be applied to every infinitesimal spot and at every infinitesimal instant…
The New equation theoretically calculates planets’ mean surface temperatures very much close to the satellite measured.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
The New equation is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law applied to rotating sphere (planet) irradiated by parallel solar beams.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What Christos has discovered is energy from nothing. Does he incessantly repeat this nonsense elsewhere?
“The closest to the sun planet Mercury receives
15,47 times stronger solar irradiation intensity than the planet Mars does.
However on the Mercury’s dark side
Tmin.mercury = 100 K,
when on the Mars’ dark side
Tmin.mars = 130 K.
These are observations, these are the by satellites planets temperatures measurements.”
I don’t understand the comparison but it might be important to know Mercury is a tidal locked. The dark side never faces the Sun and also has no atmosphere. Mars rotates and has a thin CO2 atmosphere.
The excerpt Mercury/Mars temperatures comparison is from my home page:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mercury is not tidally locked to the Sun. There is not dark side never faces the Sun issue…
Please also visit Ron Clutz’s blog “The Science Matters” article “How to calculate planetary temperatures”:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Thank you for your support Ireneusz!
Ron, the excerpt in Ireneusz’ comment about Mercury/Mars temperatures comparison is taken from my home page:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ron, Mercury is not tidally locked to sun, there is not a dark side that never faces sun for Mercury.
Also, Ron, please visit Ron Clutz’s blog “Science Matters” the article “How to calculate planetary temperatures”.
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Pingback: The Cover-Up Of Problems In The IPCC Report (by Prof. Antero Ollila) + The IPCC’s Methodology Is Fundamentally Flawed (by Ross McKitrick) | altnews.org
Pingback: The Cover-Up Of Problems In The IPCC Report (by Prof. Antero Ollila) + The IPCC’s Methodology Is Fundamentally Flawed (by Ross McKitrick) – Climate- Science.press
Interesting discussion
I keep looking at this as a practitioner.
I’ve worked in the global industries who are being “asked” to change dramatically – by scientists and politicians.
Helped create US CAFE and emissions regulations – so have first hand data on how these are politically negotiated in back rooms
I’ve traveled and mapped out the relevant industries and user groups on the ground worldwide.
Have traveled millions of miles mapping autos, energy, healthcare, global internet expansion, etc.
Example: traveled world carrying bag of communications devices watching in person how more than 1 billion people got wired – and how this changed the global physical world. See Amazon and Alibaba.
Over the past 10-15 years a group of us have been traveling energy and waste supply-demand-recycling-waste networks that will determine real effects of climate “solutions”.
So what?
First: no matter the details, all human forecasts are at least partly wrong. All the time.
Second: climate forecasts are interesting but have almost nothing to do with the physical realities of changing ALL human systems to meet politicized IMAGINED futures.
There is – mathematically – zero reality in the IPCC forecasts
Why?
Because the future does not yet exist –
– so no matter how expert people are – there is no way a few hundred, or thousand fallible humans can FORECAST the future behavior of 8 billion humans, billions of animals, and massive energy forces – with any more accuracy than any humans in the past.
So what?
I find it more useful to pay attention to the past and existing “solutions” humans have built to “solve” various forecasted problems.
Example – humans built millions of LARGE cars – that now emit only fractions of the tailpipe emissions forecast by CAFE scientific “experts” a few short decades ago.
These large cars were supposed to be disasters.
At the same time – small petrol engines around the world – completely missed by fuel economy experts – are now some of the largest polluters in the world.
The bottom line – even if the IPCC happens to be correct in their abstract forecasts – they are by no means experts at getting 7 billion humans to change their behaviors
And they are ignorant about important things – like the batteries in a Tesla cannot be recycled –
– but ALL the parts in a modern gas car can be re-used as used parts, and then easily remelted into new parts, with a fraction of their original fabrication energy use
So therefore – the most probable statistics are these:
A. 7 billion humans will never agree to – or understand – the chatter of a few thousand academics or policy makers
B. Things like the current EV’s will be massive polluters over their life cycles
C. Billions of tons of solar panels will end up as more e-waste in developing nations
D. Billions of tons of utility batteries will follow those solar panels
E. Politicians and industrialists will continue to seek money from the rest of the world – for various causes – as they have for thousands of years.
Best strategy?
Love the one you are with.
FWIW
Consumers buy what they want – entrepreneurs make a profit meeting the market. It is a fairly simple idea.
I look at it as an engineer and environmental scientist.
‘All Nonroad sources account for approximately 242 million tons of pollutants each year, accounting for 17% of all VOC emissions, 12% of NOx emissions, 29% of CO emissions, 4% of CO2 emissions, 2% of PM10 emissions, and 5% of PM2.5 emissions.’ https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/banks.pdf
But looking at my local DIY warehouse – batteries are appearing in more products all the time. I have batteries – swap them over on discharge – that fit a number of tools.
https://www.sgs-engineering.com/help-advice/which-ryobi-one-battery-is-for-me/
These are recyclable – the secret is automation. Alternatives to lithium chemistry would help.
I also am an engineer in the field of enviironmental safety and health. You must know that solar panels are 20 percent efficient at best. That tells us that on a solar farm, 80 percent of available solar energy will be waisted.
It will heat up the environment. That’s just for starters, there are a lot of other losses before the power gets to the consumer. It is very likely that the overall efficiency would be less than 10 percent.
jimh59
“You must know that solar panels are 20 percent efficient at best. That tells us that on a solar farm, 80 percent of available solar energy will be wasted. It will heat up the environment.”
–
Energy is not wasted.
I would have thought that if 20% of the heat absorbed is turned into electrical energy that goes elsewhere the amount of energy to”heat up the environment” is now 20% less..
How 20% less heat might cause more heating is interesting.
Dark surfaces absorb significantly more solar radiation, which causes urban concentrations of roads and buildings to heat more than suburban and rural areas during the day.
Yet at night roads get colder .
The areas under the solar panels would be in continual shadeand cooler.
> the most probable statistics are these
You just suggested that there is zero reality in that kind of claim because the future does not exist yet, Marty.
Pingback: Two Boxes – McKitrick Opens Box 2 | phenell
Thanks for video. Will help me illustrate why so many politicians, scientists and modelers are wrong about what happens in the real world – all the time.
The pilot plant in the video is amazing. The technology actually pretty simple.
Indeed if and when electricity in battery form scales to a global level, the crude technology here (grind and dissolve) will become widespread and very important.
And the journey from now to then will illustrate very well why history proves:
– most long term forecasts are at least partly wrong all the time
– small errors in forecasts have whipsaw effect and unintended consequences
– that the IPCC forecasts for climate change – and – the resulting reaction of biological humans and social sector – will be proven wrong and surprising all the time.
I don’t believe in lecture or trying to prove something – especially not in the written word.
I find that the socratic method and physical travel to the reality behind theories and models – are much more effective in helping people learn
So
Here is the rough outline of an executive level class – or research project – related to the video and thus to the current assumptions and “science” of climate remediation.
1. How many liquid fueled internal combustion engines are in use worldwide?
2. How many IC motor vehicles are in use worldwide?
3. What are the average life cycles of these engines and vehicles?
4. What happens to these life cycles as economic conditions change? Timing? Materials flows? “Fleet/stock” quantities?
5 How many fossil or carbon fuels are used in these mobile – and all the stationary sources of global energy? (Don’t forget things like trees and grass)
6. How many human activities worldwide are dependent on the realities above? What is the total physical quantity of this human activity?
7.What is the “economic value” to this human activity – to whom? When? Where?
8. What is the role of “barter” in the systems you are discovering above?
9. What is the role of “barter” in the “science” of “economics?”
10. What are the global supply and scrap chains for the systems you are discovering when conducting the research above?
11.What is the role of “money” for the various systems you are discovering above?
12. If one sought to replace the global IC motors above with electric motors:
– How do the product in-use “fleet/stock” models change? (cars, scooters, houses, refueling stations, etc?
13. What are the physical logistics and energy patterns of the battery recycling pilot. plant – at global scale?
14. If one converts 20% of the IC motors in the world to electricity:
– What is the effect on global water?
– How much hard rock mining is needed?
15. Human Factors involved in the above
– What are the Rational, Political, and Emotional forces at work in the human systems you have researched above?
– How do these affect the physical and energy systems you have discovered?
This would be enough for a 1 year starter class in understanding the systems that have direct implications for the pilot plant for recycling 18650-style batteries.
Your mid-term exam question:
1. Both petrol-fired and electricity driven vehicles take up about 140 square feet of space
2. It takes approximately 3-7 minutes to refuel a petrol vehicle for 275-550 miles of travel
3. It takes approximately 30-120 minutes for current Electric Vehicle to refuel for 80-300 miles of travel.
4. How much land would be required to refuel EV’s if they reached 30% of the global fleet of vehicles?
5. Where would this land be needed? What are the differences in land use patterns in New York City, Los Angeles, London, Beijing, Butte Montana, etc?
If you pass this course with a “B” or better – then you will qualify to take the next level course…
“Application of Lessons Learned Above to Emerging Global Solar Energy and Storage Systems”
Best wishes.
So batteries can’t be recycled or it is simple chemistry? Which is it? The real problem is in low cost dismantling.
Capitalism doesn’t need central planning. Some ideas work and some don’t. Technology change is fast as it created by nimble entrepreneurs in a process of capitalist creative destruction. Markets are made by billions of consumer decisions. I don’t try to second guess it.
You have a penchant on the other hand for simple back of the envelope calcs extrapolating either/or scenarios to pronounce on a future notoriously hard to predict. I reject it entirely.
I suggest you read Schumpeter on creative/destruction or Hayek on central planning.
Here is an example of a high end EV product with a 3 minute leased battery swap out. Excellent sales growth year on year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTsrDpsYHrw
There are physical limitations. The energy density of wind and solar for instance. I expect that instead of wind, solar and batteries the future is much more likely to be powered mostly by advanced nuclear engines now coming on line.
Robert
“I expect that instead of wind, solar and batteries the future is much more likely to be powered mostly by advanced nuclear engines now coming on line.”
Robert
“What Christos has discovered is energy from nothing. Does he incessantly repeat this nonsense elsewhere?”
Christos – you apparently “discovered” the equation. Could you please derive it from known laws?
George:
“Christos – you apparently “discovered” the equation. Could you please derive it from known laws?”
Equation is based on known laws, but also it is based on New laws I have discovered. The New laws are based on known laws.
Those New laws are not accepted as known laws yet…
Example: the “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not accepted as known law yet…
Everything I have discovered I explained the best I can in my site:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you for asking.
Robert,
I notice several things.
1. You IMAGINED what you would see on your real-world “Gemba walk” – and drew rapid summary “mental model” conclusions from your imagination – not from exploring new things.
2. This means you missed out on what could have been an amazing learning experience for you. I have followed your comments for a long time, and know you would learn significant new things from this year-long journey.
3. You assumed I make back of envelope calculations extrapolating either/or scenarios. If you had actually done the year of exploration, it would be much easier for you to understand the many layers of complexity involved in the human responses to uncertainty – which is why so easy for practitioners to be skeptical of anyone trying to boil the environment of Earth (which extends far into “space”) down to a single “consensus” forecast.
4. Thus you made assertions without evidence, which I believe is not quite the scientific method
5. I read the sources you mentioned decades ago – as an *introduction* to theory. But quickly learned that abstract thoughts are useful – but trying to use them to get people to do complex work – like changing global industries – is almost impossible.
6. I have built huge computer models – some of which are still in use in the federal regulation of transportation energy and emissions. I had to do that in the old days before one could assemble models from this little bit and that little bit of pre-stored math. Our team built these models to run UPWARD from real-time behavior. (Driving) Not downward from tiny committees of experts.
7. I have read all the feeder documents from the bottom up in several of the IPCC summaries of policy makers. So I can see that they miss several extremely important sources of real-world data – like hundreds of millions of small IC motors, each of which may pollute more in a year than an advanced auto in a small city.
8. Most important, you did not do the homework. Did not even try to calculate the – relatively simple – question of amount of land required to charge 100 million EV’s….or 1.2 billion of them.
9. If you are similar to any of the many groups around the world who have tried to answer that simple – back of the envelope – EV charging question – I suspect you would have had a pretty amazing learning experience – not just a missed opportunity to learn.
10. And you made an assertion – without any facts – to close your comment:
” I expect that instead of wind, solar and batteries the future is much more likely to be powered mostly by advanced nuclear engines now coming on line.”
Sounds a little like the assertions of the IPCC. Without waiting for the results of even scaled pilots of that technology – which has been trying to get off the shelf for decades.
You still have time.
You could try to at least explore some of the course design questions.
Best – Marty
Robert.
Glad you linked the battery swap technology.
Some follow up questions:
1. How much money and other resources would be required to scale this battery swap application to 1 billion motor vehicles?
2. What would be the exact engineering configuration of the battery, and the receiving frame in the vehicle?
3. Would this battery-frame combination be standardized across all 1 billion motor vehicles? If yes – how? What would be the capital cost of this? How would the capital cost be allocated/recovered across the target populations?
If not, then how done?
4. What initial price would you charge for the battery? Would you base this cost on labor and materials? What about overhead?
5. Where in the world would you make these batteries?
6. Where and how would you repair them?
7. How and where would you scrap them?
8. Given that almost all new technologies stimulate large lawsuits – how would you handle these? Who would you hire and how much would this cost?
9. How – exactly – would you recycle these batteries? How does this recycling industry get started and scaled?
Just some thoughts about applying a neat idea.
Robert I Ellison: I expect that instead of wind, solar and batteries the future is much more likely to be powered mostly by advanced nuclear engines now coming on line.
Could you link to some examples of advanced nuclear engines now coming on line?
There have been some 400 years of operational experience with fast neutron reactors. The Chinese prototype went online in 2011. They are close to construction completion of a highly efficient 600 MWe demonstration plant and have started on another. Rosatom broke ground last year for a Russian version.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/China-starts-building-second-CFR-600-fast-reactor
A comment disappeared into the never never. Note the Chinese prototype went online in 2011.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/China-starts-building-second-CFR-600-fast-reactor
Robert I Ellison: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/China-starts-building-second-CFR-600-fast-reactor
Thank you for the link.
Marty
You make an assertion about battery recycling that was incorrect. You made an assertion about EV charging that NIO circumvents with their swap out technology. The concept is to lease battery packs – reducing upfront costs and solving a fundamental problem. NIO has doubled sales in the past year and that’s the bottom line. They are high end status symbols. You may imagine whatever roadblocks you like but what matters is whether it works in markets.
Nuclear power is a technology that works. Advanced nuclear engines use advanced materials and techniques to produce designs that can be factory built – realising economies of scale that way rather than by building bigger reactors. All of the major players in the nuclear industry are developing versions. Versions that work in markets will rapidly transform the energy landscape – just as the Austrian political economist Joseph Schumpeter said was the way markets work. Making your simple back of the envelope ‘learning experiences’ – that I have considered and moved on from – downright irrelevant.
You also repeat an unquantified assertion about the pollution from small internal combustion engines that does not stand up to scrutiny. The bulk of your comments seem to me to be supercilious waffle. Try to pare your word count down to only what is essential to convey a point. The rest is just noise that obfuscates rather than explains.
Robert. I just checked. You did not seek to answer any of the questions that I can see.
If you had invested $1 million in the battery swap technology, you would have learned the following within a year:
1. The inventory required to support a 5 minute swap time for 1 billion vehicles – at their diverse locations worldwide – would swamp the global mining systems, land use, and recycling chains
2. You clearly have not done any research on small IC engines. You may not have even read the IPCC documents on them. Nor have you apparently researched the – real world – approach in China to replacing small IC engines with lead acid batteries. This is a form of battery recycling that has been in place for decades, and is significantly more environmentally friendly than the hypothesized battery swap experiment you cite
Once again – the best course designs are ones that get people out to the real world -where the discoveries cannot be predicted – and learning happens in amazing ways.
Homilies like “nuclear power works” do not pay the bills or take out the trash.
I’ve always loved your speculations and thoughts
But that wonderful thinking is a long way from messy implementation of real things with real people.
I do have a small investment in NIO – and it is a not billion cars. The battery swap out is not hypothetical. I linked a recent pollution inventory for small internal combustion engines from the US EPA. The growth of battery powered tools – including mowers and such – was based on my local home hardware warehouse.
Ignoring real world markets and their dynamics and positing instead a few simple minded abstractions is a waste of time. As is this.
Not saying he is a dill but I note that McKitrick, like most deniers, is not a physical scientist. Like many he is at best a “social’ scientist, if there is such a thing. And like all the rest, resorts to the usual claptrap of money underlying the science work, completely and very conveniently overlooking the ongoing billions made by the fossil fuel mob and the outfits they fund to keep the devil from their door. But I do note the denier movement seems to be taking a step back and shutting down.
Mathematics is inherently racist.
Yeah that counts as a very strong proof of the required result that the expert in statistical analysis, Ross McKitrick, has called into question. It is a pity so many climate scientists were so much worse at statistics that none of them realized the error in the original assertion in 20 years.
No, Ganesh, Ross McKitrick uses actual statistics to show how CliSciFi practitioners abuse statistics. One doesn’t need to be a “physical scientist” (whatever that is) to see when someone is abusing concepts with which one is an expert.
Your hatred of non-believers is manifest. Read more of their work to get a balanced viewpoint.
To show a flaw in a statistical argument, a statistician is the right person.
Ganesh you sound like a hard sciences person. Go look at the better papers in your favoured discipline, and see how many use statistics in their experimental design, and with those how many have a statistician buried in the list of authors.
The only researchers that don’t need statisticians are those that deny the uncertainty, and you wouldn’t want to be one of those pesky ‘deniers’ would you?
Ganesh – I don’t know you, but your comment prompted some thoughts.
Simple math:
1. There are fewer than 100,000,000 physical scientists in the world – depending on how one defines that class of human.
2. There are about 7.9 Billion citizens of the world.
Therefore, one can assume that most of the WORK required to change the World – lies out there in that vast poly-dynamic “society”
So – some mathematical questions:
1. What is a “denier”?
2. How many actual “deniers” are there in the world?
(Please be precise – in order to clarify the – physical – quantity of “most” deniers you mention.)
3. What is a “social scientist?” How many of them are there in the World?
4. You imply that a “social scientist” is a lower form than a “physical scientist” – can you explain this – assertion – with physical evidence?
Then think about this question:
“Who is more important in maintaining or changing the climate of the world?”
– Physical scientists?
– Social scientists?
– Political leaders?
– Industry managers and workers?
– The other 7.7 billion humans
Just reflecting based on thoughts stimulated by your comment.
Surely it is the honesty, integrity and character of the ‘scientist’, whoever they are, that matters most and not the discipline they favoured. How many professors are there who only got where they are because they sang the right song rather than demonstrated whatever it is that professors should demonstrate?
Academia is not what it once was and the decline has happened from a time when you didn’t believe it could get any worse.
If you are going to attack McKitrick’s paper, you need to do by proving his statistical analysis to be incorrect, not by hand waving and calling him a “denier.”
Pingback: THE IPCC’S METHODOLOGY IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED + THE COVER-UP OF PROBLEMS IN THE IPCC REPORT … – CLIMATE CHANGES – Folly & The Future
Ross McKitrick, thank you for this essay.
Professor McKitrick, thank you for your post. If your paper is correct, I say if because I do not have the ability to critique it, it presents us with an interesting experiment regarding the individual and bureaucracy. Your challenge is not just with the statistical methods, but with the ability of the ‘climate bureaucracy’ to adopt new information that requires a recant of its current mandate. This will be very interesting to watch. There’s nothing less than the honesty and integrity of a scientific discipline at stake. If you are correct, then the time it will take, if at all, will depend on the groundswell of supporting papers in the field. Even if unsuccessful, the attempt itself is worthy of high praise.
“The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed”… Who cares?!
The attribution argument is central in the IPCC reports.
Yes, but clearly no one cares that it is [allegedly] fundamentally flawed!
This is the AR6 attribution. It lacks some fundamental geophysics.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/ar6-forcing.png
From ERBS data wee see cloud changes resulting in SW warming and IR cooling.
‘With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, −2.1, and 1.4 W m−2, respectively.’ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/16/jcli3838.1.xml
In data from purpose built CERES instruments we see the same.
‘This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
There are unmistakable influences on very long term global temperature centered on the eastern Pacific Ocean.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334662695/figure/fig4/AS:784418545352741@1564031363707/Unscreened-proxy-network-a-e-As-for-Fig-3-but-using-the-full-unscreened-PAGES-2k.jpg
Professor McKitrick wrote: “As I explain in the paper, there is a simple and well-known alternative to using P matrix weights—use of White’s (1980) heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator, which has long been known to yield consistent variance estimates.”
Ross, the obvious follow up question is what happens when White’s method is used with optimal detection instead of P matrix weights? Perhaps I missed the answer somewhere.
“There are unmistakable influences on very long term global temperature centered on the eastern Pacific Ocean.”
That sounds familliar:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/08/new-monckton-hypothesis-pause-that.html
No Russell – it comes directly from PAGES2K 2019 – from whence the diagram comes. And I really won’t follow a link to your silly little blog.
If any of the estimated average global temperatures had any significant meaning in explaining past, present, or future climate then global average wind speed would be even more useful. More important than that would be global average rainfall.
But really any of that will tell everyone nothing about climate.
Pingback: The IPCC’s Attribution Methodology | Transterrestrial Musings
I studied plants because I am weak with math, but I think I understand a significant conclusion from McKittrick’s findings (if not I will just project my own conclusion); the natural range of climate variability makes it impossible to attribute any change in climate (much less weather events) to co2.
I have much more to say, but chrome and wordpress comment section daareenot compatible.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Te…….Tmean…..Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K….325,83 K….340 K
Earth…….255 K…..287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ….223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……..209,91 K….213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I read your justification of a higher surface temperature of a rotating planet. This is my understanding:
1. A slower rotating planet heats up to a higher temperature on the day side.
2. As it is hotter than a fast rotating planet, it loses more energy as radiation.
3. Therefore a hotter planet is really colder.
What did I miss?
P.S. I wanted to comment on your website, but my comment was too long.
perhaps if one points out enough potential inconsistencies.?
As Mars orbits the Sun, it completes one rotation every 24.6 hours, which is very similar to one day on Earth (23.9 hours).
The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis
Yet Christos states at his site
Mars rotates 28,783 times faster than Moon does.
Could you explain your derivation of 28,783 times Christos. I thought people could observe the features of Mars with telescopes and have not seen any comments about rapid spin before.
Nor do I see the moon spinning around 1000 times a day from my earth rotational view[same rotation speed as Mars]?
George, please visit my site page
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444032320
I am explaining there why the faster rotating planet is on average warmer.
Thank you for asking.
Christos – did I somehow misrepresent your explanation?
George, no you did not misrepresent my explanation. You have agreed with my explanation. I see it clear now.
Thank you George!
Pingback: NEWSLETTER: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections. - Dr. Rich Swier
All things being the same – energy in and therefore energy out do not depend on the angular momentum of a body. By the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Robert
“All things being the same – energy in and therefore energy out do not depend on the angular momentum of a body. By the 1st law of thermodynamics.”
That’s right!
Please visit my site page
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444032320
I am explaining there why the faster rotating planet is on average warmer.
I am assuming oceans and atmosphere – and that albedo doesn’t change. On a faster rotating planet the sunlit side warms less and the night side cools less. By all means explain why the average temperature is warmer – other than with energy from nothing.
Robert
“I am assuming oceans and atmosphere – and that albedo doesn’t change. On a faster rotating planet the sunlit side warms less and the night side cools less. By all means explain why the average temperature is warmer – other than with energy from nothing.”
On a faster rotating planet the sunlit side develops lower temperatures (and, consequently, emits IR EM energy less, so it accumulates more) and the night side emits more (because the “energy in=energy out” concept should be necessarily met).
Please visit my site page
Please visit my site page
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444032320
I am explaining there why the faster rotating planet is on average warmer.
In short, when rotating faster if on daytime the average temperature is Δ1C less, on the nightside the average temperature is >Δ1C more.
As a result the entire planet mean surface temperature results to be higher.
Please visit my site, I have illustrated the phenomenon with numerical examples. https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444032320
As the planet spins faster the day side has less time to warm and the night side less time to cool.
The average temperature must stay the same because the energy content doesn’t change. That energy comes from outside the nonequilibrium system.
But science requires experiment. You have no empirical evidence for this ill conceived mechanism. And you repeat your nonsense multiple times sometimes in a post.
Robert
“As the planet spins faster the day side has less time to warm and the night side less time to cool.”
Planet rotates, planet does not have a separate day side and a separate night side.
And you repeat your nonsense multiple times sometimes in a post.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How does a sunlit side and a night side imply separation?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/spinning-earth.gif
Robert,
Because a non-spinning planet will have a higher temperature on the one side and a infinitely fast spinning planet will have a average temperature on all sides, the non-spinning planet will emit more heat than the spinning one, as the heat given off is based on the difference in the temperature of the radiating body and the receiving body (in this case space). As far as I can tell from the websites that cover this,
The formula is
T^4 = (1-A)L/(16B*pi*d^2)
as N goes to infinity.
and the formula is
T^4 = (1-A)L/(8B*pi*d^2)
when N = 0
where T is temperature in K
N is rotations per day
L is the luminosity of the sun
A is the albedo of the planet
d is the distance from planet to sun
B is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
This I derived or copied from the http://sgoodwin.staff.shef.ac.uk/temperatures.pdf
website, any mistakes are my own.
So as you can see the two formulas differ by a factor of 2.
This is of course theoretical, and the actual lab results or results in space are not going to be this clean as there will be “leakage” of heat from the planet exposed side to the unexposed side. Also, I do not propose that the average temperature will increase linearly as the spin increases. I assume (having not done the experiment) that the temperature will increase rapidly with a little spin and then taper off to approach the maximum value with additional spin, as the day and night side temperatures approach each other.
The problem with the formula that is proposed above is that it does not agree with these formulas, not with the spin being a factor.
The problem that I have with Christos’ derivation is that somehow the laws of physics are different on the planet than they are in space, which I propose is not the case.
For most planets the approximation is made that they spin fast enough to make the first formula a good approximation, and that is the formula that is used in the literature. I have not seen the second formula used.
Thanks, you supplied the missing part: an infinitely fast rotating planet will have a uniform temperature. As the loss of energy is proportional to T^4, a locally increased temperature will cause a disproportional loss of energy.
I have problems with both a non-spinning planet and one with an infinite spin rate. Not sure either how the 8 and 16 constants are determined from the angular velocity. None of it factors in oceans and atmosphere. As shown by your source
Robert,
The luminosity is not constant, but can be measured at the earth (doesn’t mean that it is the same at the planet in question). The variance is also measurable, so this is at least known within a certain precision.
The albedo of the planet is not constant, is not directly measurable, etc. but values can be found for most planets that we can at least look at how they are derived and talk about how good those values are. I have serious doubts about the usefulness of a single value in this case.
The distance from the planet to the sun is inferred by red shift and other methods, and as we have been doing this for a long time I have confidence in this measurement at least within the limits of the methods.
The Stephen-Boltzmann constant can be measured on earth so it should be very precisely known.
As stated above the literature does not use N, they just assume that the infinite spin equation is good enough given the errors in the other parameters.
Both the non-spinning planet and the infinite spinning planet are obviously theoretical.
As far as weather or climate goes, the greater the variance of temperatures the more climate energy a planet has, and therefore it stands to reason that there will be harsher weather (stronger winds, more hurricanes, stronger currents, etc.) so the speed of spin of a planet will have impacts on the way the atmosphere behaves, and on the ocean currents as well.
One final comment, I have been using the speed of spin very loosely, and likely need to clear that up. This is measured in rotations per day. This means that a planet that spins at the same rate that it revolves around the sun has a value of zero. It is the spin of the planet with reference to the sun that matters, not the total amount of spin.
Overthinking this much? Energy in equals energy out whatever the spin of the planet or the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This implies that the average temperature does not change with angular velocity.
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/planet_energy_in_equal_out_400x300.png
https://scied.ucar.edu/earth-system/planetary-energy-balance-temperature-calculate
Robert
“Overthinking this much? Energy in equals energy out whatever the spin of the planet or the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This implies that the average temperature does not change with angular velocity.”
Let’s start with the image you provided. It shows energy in =energy out applied to a spherical object. Energy in comes from one side, energy out gets radiated from the spherical object from the entire surface uniformly!
Please visit:
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/planet_energy_in_equal_out_400x300.png
Planet does not emit IR EM energy uniformly. And this implies that the average temperature necessarily changes with angular velocity.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What the schematic shows is solar energy coming from a source and IR emissions globally. Average global emission are sufficient such that energy out is equal to energy in – showing that there is an average global temperature – as emissions are temperature dependent – and that is of course not uniform. Whatever the temperature distribution – some places warmer some cooler – the average must be such as to result in maximum entropy at TOA. Energy out is equal to energy in at an average temperature that the body arrives at regardless of spin.
Robert
“Energy out is equal to energy in at an average temperature that the body arrives at regardless of spin.”
Of course!
What spin does is to amplify the average temperature that the body arrives at.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Which shows that you are oblivious of the fact that it violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. You assume a constant albedo – and yet expect that if the planet were somehow spun up it would become warmer and thus emit more energy.
You have np mechanism for climate change other than slow orbital changes. You have no oceans and atmosphere. It is simple minded nonsense that you obsessively repeat in every post.
Robert
“You assume a constant albedo – and yet expect that if the planet were somehow spun up it would become warmer and thus emit more energy.”
I never said Earth spun up…
What I have discovered is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is You Robert are oblivious of the fact that it violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.
It is simple minded nonsense that you obsessively repeat in every post.
You fit constants to dodgy data and announce that you have discovered an impossible new law of physics at least once under every post. I just call it for what it is.
atandb
“For most planets the approximation is made that they spin fast enough to make the first formula a good approximation, and that is the formula that is used in the literature. I have not seen the second formula used.”
We cannot accept “most planets the approximation is made that they spin fast enough to make the first formula a good approximation”.
For Earth N = 1 rot/day, for Mars close to N = 1 rot/day, for Moon N = 1/29,5 rot/day… it is not fast enough.
“The formula is
T^4 = (1-A)L/(16B*pi*d^2)
as N goes to infinity.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert I. Ellison | August 23, 2021
“All things being the same – energy in and therefore energy out do not depend on the angular momentum of a body.”
Sidestepping a little. There is a difference between energy emission and temperature of the emitting body I think. Could be wrong.
While the energy in equals the energy out the temperature the emitting surface gets to to allow that radiation out might have some relationship to spin [the act of turning] and surface exposure, while not depending on angular momentum which is an independent measurement of a spinning force.
The Stefan Boltzmann stuff does mean that the average temp of a non spinning body externally heated from one side is lower than that of a spinning body in the same situation .
Robert
explained here by Roy Spencer
The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature
September 28th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
“This is a followup to my post from yesterday where I provided time-dependent model results of the day-night cycle in lunar temperatures.
One of the fascinating things about the model result (which I would not have expected) is that all other things being equal, the faster a solar-illuminated planet rotates, the warmer its average temperature will be. The calculations I provided are for planets without an atmosphere (e.g. the Moon).
Before examining the issue, I would have guessed that the rotation rate would not matter. Or, maybe I would have guessed that a more-slowly rotating planet would get warmer, since the period of sunlight is longer and higher daytime temperatures would be achieved.”
Far be it for me to suggest that Roy Spencer’s Stefan-Boltzmann nonlinear thesis is nonsense. But energy in equals energy out whatever the rate of spin. Energy out is temperature dependent.
Robert I Ellison: But energy in equals energy out whatever the rate of spin. Energy out is temperature dependent.
Energy out depends on the distribution of the temperatures, not just their aggregate mean.
Still – energy out cannot exceed energy in. It is the first law after all.
Both formulas are derived by energy out = energy in. The “ability” of a planet to retain heat represented by average temperature goes up the more of the surface is involved with that transaction. If I heat up a very small portion of the planet the spot that I heat up is going to be at a higher temperature than if I used the same amount of energy to heat up the entire planet. Because that tiny portion of the planet is at a higher temperature it will give off more heat to the surroundings than the planet that I heated everything up equally because of the temperature to the fourth power affect of the formula. It is counter intuitive, but true none the less. Further it is not just true in space, it is also true here on earth, and you can do the experiment and find out. Any object that is heated in a steady state (energy out = energy in) in a spot with the same energy that the same object is in another run of the experiment is uniformly heated will have a smaller average temperature than the uniformly heated one. This is due to the higher temperature object losing more energy to its surroundings than the lower temperature one.
If you only heat a portion of the planet – the rest will be colder. If it is heated uniformly – the surface will be uniformly warmer. But as the emitted energy is unchanged – the hypothetical bodies must have the same average temperature. All other things being equal.
The constant 8 in the non-spinning planet formula applies to only half the planet. You still haven’t revealed how the 16 constant in the infinitely spinning case is derived. But the result is not in accord with first principles.
The average temperature of the moon – btw – from the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment is 200K – not the 220 K that Christos insists on. .
https://phzoe.com/2020/02/12/average-moon-temperature/
Earth radiates from the surface to the upper atmosphere – the surface temperature can’t be measured from space. There are rover measured temperatures for Mars but the average temperature is derived from insolation and albedo calculations. The average temperature is about 207 K. Collectively – they are not a convincing basis for deriving a new physical law. With not the slightest nod to the physical properties of Earth’s atmosphere or the dynamics of ocean and atmospheric circulation.
Robert
“Still – energy out cannot exceed energy in. It is the first law after all.”
Yes
Energy in = Energy out.
But
Many different solar fluxes (for equal albedo) can create the same mean surface temperatures.
And
Many different global temperature distributions (for equal albedo) can balance the same solar flux.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The 16 parameter is for all of the planet as derived at the website I posted, and is the standard formula. The 8 parameter is for half of the planet as you rightly stated. The equation that has 16 in it is the standard equation that you should find if you google it. The equation that has 8 in it I derived from first principles using the same methodology as the website. It is not a new formula, just a mathematical derivation of the known formulas. Pretty much the same thing as saying E=mc^2 or c^2=E/m. Further if there are errors in my math, then so be it. If you can show me the errors I will acknowledge them.
If you were referring to Christos’ formula, I agree that “they are not a convincing basis for deriving a new physical law.”
The 8 constant for a non-spinning planet is derived at the site you linked. Half the planet is warmed – so what. Energy out still equals energy in. Unless I missed it – 16 for an infinitely fast spin – on which you base your contention that a faster spinning planet is warmer – isn’t.
No, the 16 equation is derived by the website. Towards the bottom of the first page.
“If the planet is rapidly spinning, then we can assume that the whole surface of the planet is heated and re-radiates as a black body, so we can solve for the surface temperature:
Tsurf ={(1 − α)L/(16πσd^2)}^1/4 ”
Note their assumption is that the whole surface of the planet is heated. If the whole planet is not heated their derivation is not valid. However, in the case that it is spinning fast enough then the equation is a good approximation.
‘The formula is
T^4 = (1-A)L/(16B*pi*d^2)
as N goes to infinity.
and the formula is
T^4 = (1-A)L/(8B*pi*d^2)
when N = 0
where T is temperature in K
N is rotations per day
L is the luminosity of the sun
A is the albedo of the planet
d is the distance from planet to sun
B is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant’
Yes – you are right – based on Stefan-Boltzmann and geometry of a spherical body. For the Earth the blackbody temperature is some 250 K. The mystery is now how you get 8 for a non-spinning body. But it is not at all relevant to the contention.
Suppose we have a planet spinning away absorbing and emitting energy. Now imagine that it is somehow spun up. All other things being equal – and if it is not we have a different and much more complex hypothetical – it still absorbs and emits the same energy by the 1st law of thermodynamics – and therefore must be the same average temperature by the Stefan-Boltzmann relation. .
The temperature of a body is not preserved. The average temperature of a body is not preserved. However, energy is preserved. The energy given off by a body according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is E = σT^4
Where T is the temperature and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
If I heat up an object to 2 degrees, and record the energy given off it will be
E = 16 σ
If I heat up an object to 1 degree, and record the energy given off it will be E = σ
It is not linear.
So if now half of an object is heated to 2 degrees and the other half is heated to 1 degree, then the half that is at one degree is radiating at σ, while the half that is at 2 degrees is radiating at 16 σ, for a total of 17 σ.
But if I heated the whole thing up to 1.5 degrees (the average temperature), Then both halves are radiating at 5.0625 σ for a total of 10.125 σ
The energy in this case and the average temperature are not the same in this case. Energy is the property that you have to preserve, not temperature or you will get the wrong answer.
We are not adding energy to this hypothetical spun up planet. Energy is conserved – energy out is equal to energy in. Energy out depends on temperature.
E = σT1^4 = σT2^4 => T1 = T2
atandb
“If I heat up an object to 2 degrees, and record the energy given off it will be
E = 16 σ
If I heat up an object to 1 degree, and record the energy given off it will be E = σ
It is not linear.”
Do you mean that you heat a blackbody surface from T=0K?
You are still confusing energy with temperature they are not the same thing. Energy is preserved, average temperature is not.
The energy in is dependent on the energy given off by the sun, the distance to the planet and the area receiving the energy.
The energy out is dependent on the actual temperature of the emitting body (not average temperature) and the area emitting the radiation.
The area receiving the energy stays the same. Only the daylight side receives energy in any case. The distance from the sun to the planet stays the same. The sun’s energy out stays the same.
The planet’s energy out stays the same as well. However, the area emitting radiation in the theoretical example of a planet that has only one side that sees the sun has half of the area for emission. Further any variance in temperatures will cause the average temperature to decrease. The math doesn’t work out otherwise as in the example that I gave above. This is not anything but a consequence of the physical laws that have been firmly established by experiments conducted and reconducted over time, and the mathematical properties of the formulas.
Energy and temperature are related via the Stefan-Boltzmann relation. If we have a body at one temperature and spin it up it does not warm to another temperature.
j* = σT1^4 = σT2^4 => T1 = T2 when averaged over the body. It cannot be any other way.
Robert
“We are not adding energy to this hypothetical spun up planet. Energy is conserved – energy out is equal to energy in. Energy out depends on temperature.
E = σT1^4 = σT2^4 => T1 = T2”
What I have discovered is
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Energy out depends on average temperature and on (N*cp) product.
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the planet mean surface temperature equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
atandb
“The energy out is dependent on the actual temperature of the emitting body (not average temperature) and the area emitting the radiation.”
What I say is planetary surface emits from every infinitesimal spot at every infinitesimal spot’s absolute temperature…
Net emission is a function of average temperature.
atandb
“So if now half of an object is heated to 2 degrees and the other half is heated to 1 degree, then the half that is at one degree is radiating at σ, while the half that is at 2 degrees is radiating at 16 σ, for a total of 17 σ.
But if I heated the whole thing up to 1.5 degrees (the average temperature), Then both halves are radiating at 5.0625 σ for a total of 10.125 σ”
If you consider planet as a blackbody surface, then it cannot have two uniform temperatures T1=1K and T2=2K.
Blackbody has only one uniform temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos states at his site
Mars rotates 28,783 times faster than Moon does.
His site suggests he may have included putting in the orbital time for Mars as the rotational time.
Sorry Christos.
angech, we use commas in different way in Europe.
Example: the known π number is 3.14 at the place you are. But it is π=3,14 in Europe.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: The Media Balance Newsletter August 23, 2021 - Australian Climate Sceptics blog
angech
“Yet Christos states at his site
Mars rotates 28,783 times faster than Moon does.
Could you explain your derivation of 28,783 times Christos. I thought people could observe the features of Mars with telescopes and have not seen any comments about rapid spin before.
Nor do I see the moon spinning around 1000 times a day from my earth rotational view[same rotation speed as Mars]?”
“Could you explain your derivation of 28,783 times Christos. “
Of course I can. In Europe we write 28,783 times – in USA you write 28.783…
So what you saw as 28,783 times should mean for you 28.783…
Here in Europe the opposite would have happen. If I had written 28.783 it means 28 thousands 783.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert I. Ellison said “I have problems with both a non-spinning planet and one with an infinite spin rate.”
I have the same problem.
From what I can see N is included in Christos derivation which causes the problem of no heat with no spin and infinite heat with infinite spin.
While this is great from a Quantum viewpoint it is not valid in a Newtonian universe.
angech
“From what I can see N is included in Christos derivation which causes the problem of no heat with no spin and infinite heat with infinite spin.”
Thank you for bringing it up.
There is no planet with no spin.
There is no planet with infinite spin. Those are thought suggestions… Infinite spin is impossible… There is a limitation – the speed of light. Planetary surface cannot move faster than the speed of light.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Many of the politicians in the free world are committing their countries to self-harm by banning fossil fuels. They have been deceived by the IPCC and multiple faulty Global Climate Models (GCMs). The GCMs have erroneously determined that carbon dioxide (CO2) is contributing to Global Warming/Climate Change. CO2 has no significant effect on climate; never has; never will.
The GCMs are fundamentally wrong. One mistake is the way they handle water vapor (WV). It is calculated within the GCMs with the result being that calculated relative humidity (RH) is approximately constant as the temperature increases (some simply assume constant RH as the temperature increases). WV has been accurately measured globally using satellite instrumentation and reported as Total Precipitable Water (TPW) since Jan 1988. The measured WV increase has been about 1.49% per decade. The measured WV trend has been about 43% more than the trend calculated by the GCMs. This is shown graphically at https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Lv6QmsSb5cgBmpa02DxEhxEG3GFLufK/view?usp=sharing which also has links to supporting data and analyses.
WV is a greenhouse gas (ghg). The part of the WV increase that is not accounted for in the GCMs is approximately the amount above that which would result from just temperature increase. This ‘extra’ WV is enough to account for all of the average global temperature increase attributed to humanity. The ‘extra’ WV comes mostly (about 90%) from increasing irrigation.
Another mistake in the GCMs is failure to account for the delay between the time a ghg molecule absorbs a photon and when it emits one. This delay is called relaxation time. It allows radiation energy absorbed by CO2 molecules in the troposphere (below about 8-16 km, depending mostly on latitude; higher at equator) to be ‘redirected’ to WV molecules which emit it at a longer wavelength. Much of the outward directed radiation from WV molecules in the troposphere makes it all the way to space. Details are in the links at the above graph.
The rate of increase in water vapour in the atmosphere given at the Remote Sensing Systems website is 1.14%/K. Much more consistent with expectation of water vapour in a warming atmosphere.
https://images.remss.com/figures/climate/vapor_global60.png
https://www.remss.com/research/climate/
Dan’s link doesn’t work – btw
Yes, “file is in owner’s trash”.
1.14%/K is an enigma to me. The adiabatic lapse rate is about 1 K per 100 m. Does it mean that it got a little closer to saturation, or that we have to subtract 100 m from elevation?
RIE,
RSS should know better than to display such a seriously wrong value. Oh wait, they didn’t. In your eagerness to refute, you did a typo and wrote /K instead of /decade. That 8-yr old graph probably used output from their work with a faulty GCM. Their value of 1.14%/decade is not terribly different from 1.04%/decade that I calculated using HadCRUT4 temperatures and 6.1%/K increase in WV (6.1%/K is an approximate average increase in saturation vapor pressure for the planet). As I said, the measured WV increase trend has been 1.49%/decade so thanks for corroborating the observation that the WV calculated in GCMs is substantially less than measured by NASA/RSS: http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txt
Interesting. The link in my previous post worked for me but carried the message “file is in the trash”. First time I have seen that. The message does not appear if I access the file from ‘My page’ so the only way I can find out it was censored is by using the link and interrogating it there. Sneaky. The graph can be seen as Fig 7.1 at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com .
I was of course thinking of the The Clausius-Clapeyron equation – that gives some 7% increase in water vapour in the atmosphere per degree Kelvin.
A pure typo doesn’t invalidate the measured increase in water vapor over oceans of 1.14% per decade as shown on the Remote Sensing System site I linked to. This is close to the expected value. You appear to have calculated a higher value from the same data.
The graph – btw – is far from 8 years old and is very obviously not model output.
RIE,
That 9-yr old graph does not include the high WV measurements since then. If the data thru 2012 is used (trend = 0.03434 mm/yr) and the average TPW is rounded up to 30 mm the result is 1.14% per decade. Using the data thru Jan 2021 (0.04313 mm/yr) and average TPW of 29 mm results in 1.49%/decade. The WV data is graphed on Fig 5 at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
So your entire premise rests on a linear trend that suggests post 2012 saw a vast increase in irrigation? It did not – the variability is temperature dependent obviously.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/monitoring/dashfigs/humidity_q.png
RIE,
Perhaps you qualify:
“It is DIFFICULT to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends on him NOT UNDERSTANDING IT”. Upton Sinclair in the intro to An Inconvenient Truth. Ironically this is true also when applied to ‘climate alarmists’.
As you should and probably do know, 2012 was towards the end of a ~14-yr hiatus while the long-term temperature trend is still up. Irrigation explains the long-term trend, ENSO, etc. explains the short term. I anticipated this argument you are making in Sect 8 & 9 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
The Clausius–Clapeyron equation explains why there is increasing water vapor content with increasing atmospheric temperature. The cause of warming is irrelevant. Although there are multi-decadal cloud effect feedbacks in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Notably in the ‘post hiatus’ period.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
What does this have to do with Clausius-Clapeyron equation? That one determines a saturated vapor pressure for a changing water temperature, not a relative humidity of the atmosphere.
It defines the partial pressure of water vapour at different atmospheric temperatures.
Dan: Although some simple one-dimensional models assume constant relative humidity, the AOGCMs used by the IPCC calculate relative humidity in a far more sophisticated manner. The rate of evaporation from the surface of the ocean to the atmospheric grid cell above is proportional to the wind speed and the (absolute) unsaturation of the air in that grid cell. Over land, the same factors apply, but vegetation and current soil moisture also have an impact. When the air in some grid cells is warmer and less dense than the air above, it rises, expands and cools. When it gets cold enough, water vapor condenses to form clouds and precipitation. The water vapor in each grid cell is the net result of all of these processes. AOGCM’s do contain parameters that control evaporation and precipitation and these and other parameters are tuned within plausible limits to produce a model that behaves similar to our planet.
As best I can tell, current AOGCMs used to make climate projections do not take into account irrigation. The reference below asserts that warm biases and too little modeled clouds in the central US in summer are due to lack of irrigation. Those developing regional climate models certainly need to account for irrigation, but on a global scale evaporation from irrigated land may be relatively trivial. (Since AOGCMs are tuned, they can contain lots of flaws that are offset by parameterization on a global scale.)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/2017JD027194
Fra,
All of my work addresses the issue from the stand point of global averages; the issue being GLOBAL warming. I didn’t get into anything local except for determining where the extra WV comes from.
Thanks for the discussion on how GCMs determine WV. That is about what I expected. However, my interest is only in the net result. I expressed this with “It is calculated within the GCMs with the result that calculated relative humidity (RH) is approximately constant as the temperature increases”. They (GCM users) have available a history of WV distribution with seasonal changes over the globe. Seems to me there would be less uncertainty if WV was used as an input to GCMs.
The important factor to global warming is the increase in average global WV. According to NASA/RSS, WV trend has increased about 6% since they started accurately measuring it worldwide in Jan, 1988. A study, presented in Sect 6 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com indicates about 90% of the human contribution to WV is from irrigation, 8.5% from elec power cooling towers and only 1.5% from everything else. A graph of average global temperature 1850 to 2020 is Fig 10.6 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Dan – I always wondered what the “total precipitable water” meant. Are you sure that it is a water vapor? Liquid and solid water excluded? How can satellites measure it accurately in the presence of clouds? Can satellites also measure liquid and solid water in clouds?
WV and TPW are discussed here: https://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/ and you can get to the data that I use from there. The data they report is clear sky over non-ice-covered oceans. I have read someplace or other that 99% of the water molecules in the atmosphere is WV with only a % of liquid and/or solid in clouds. There are worldwide maps and even animated maps but I needed the numerical data for average global.
“The data they report is clear sky over non-ice-covered oceans.”
“I wonder why no one else uses the MEASURED amount of water vapor.” [Dan Pangburn @ 12.33, August 30]
Dan, what percentage of the Earth’s surface is it? Over 10%, or under? How good a “measurement” is it?
The trend is what matters. The coverage is widespread enough to represent the trend. The trend demonstrates that WV has been increasing faster than possible from temperature increase.
Dan’s plot shows TPW increasing at a rate of 0.427 kg/m2/decade. The average TPW over this period is about 29 kg/m2, so this is an increase of 1.47%/decade. The key question is how much has the atmosphere been warming. If we say it has been warming about 0.2 K/decade, that would represent an apparently reasonable 7.4 %/K increase in water vapor. The warming rate depends on which temperature record you use: RSS, UAH, or one of the surface temperature records. Due to use of differing corrections for drifting satellites, there is currently a huge discrepancy between RSS and UAH about how much the troposphere has warmed. Both correction strategies have passed peer review, so picking one over the other might reflect personal bias (IMO) rather than unambiguous science.
I’ve heard (but can’t cite a reference) that half of the water vapor in the atmosphere lies below 2 km, so it might be better to consult the warming rate of surface temperature records (rather than a record by places more weight on warming higher in the atmosphere where there is relatively little water vapor. There is better agreement between these records; they average about +0.18 degC/decade. That gives an increase in humidity of 8.2%/degC.
How much is saturation water vapor pressure (and constant relative humidity) supposed to change with temperature? Many people use 7%/degC, but this number actually varies with temperature. The colder it gets, the greater the percent change in saturation vapor pressure per degC change. IIRC, the change is 10%/degC at -20 degC (about 5 km above the surface) and closer to 6%/degC at the surface in the tropics. So it is not easy to say how much TPW “should” have increased with time – assuming relative humidity remained constant. (There is, of course, no reason that relative humidity must remain constant.)
A better question to ask is whether the increase in TPW projected by AOGCMs agrees with the observed increase in TPW. However, your graph clearly slows that the increase in TPW has been quite noisy. The confidence interval associated with the central estimate for the slope of 0.427 kg/m2/decade could easily be +/-10-20%. There is a good chance any difference between observations and projections won’t be statistically significant.
Your flawed attempts to use TPW to invalidate AOGCMs aren’t going to have any impact in the “reality-based” climate science community. In that community, the greatest concern is the roughly 0.1 kg/m2 of liquid or solid water in clouds in the atmosphere, not the reasonably well-understood 29 kg/m2 of water vapor. The greatest uncertainty in climate sensitivity resides in how reflection of SWR by clouds and emission of LWR by clouds changes with global warming. AOGCMs do a lousy – and mutually inconsistent- job with clouds.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017237
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/e3f195b4-f6e2-4d53-bbc9-4a9a67b0caeb/jgrd17848-fig-0001.png
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568
Fra,
The added WV is driven into the atmosphere by the increase in surface temperature and according to the saturation vapor pressure vs temperature for water. This is shown in Figure 4 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . Area weighted for temperature and compounded it amounts to about 6.1%/K. The increased atmosphere temperature provides ‘room’ for the added WV forced out by the increased surface temperature. There is something wrong with any assessment much more than this. Don’t just accept what others say or trust your intuition. Do the analysis yourself.
I wonder what it will take for Climate Scientists to stop fooling themselves. I wonder if anyone else noticed that when humanity’s CO2 output declined for covid there was no associated change in the reported trend. CO2 change is responding to temperature change, not causing it.
Dan: The average water molecule remains in the atmosphere for 9 days after evaporating and 5 days in the tropics. (This can be calculated by taking dividing TPW by average daily precipitation.) consequently, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changed by changing temperature much faster than water vapor can warm the temperature by acting as a GHG. Therefore, climate scientists chose to handle water vapor as a feedback response to warming (reported in units of W/m2/K) rather than as a forcing (W/m2).
However, it is possible to treat water vapor as a GHG. According to Modtran, a 1 degC increase in surface temperature in the tropics causes a 2.8 W/m2 increase in the amount of thermal IR reaching space through a cloudless tropical sky if water vapor remains constant but only a 1.7 W/m2 increase if relative humidity remains constant. So a roughly 7% increase in relative humidity would produce a forcing 1.7 W/m2 – if it weren’t being handled as a feedback. If a doubling of CO2 produced 3 degC of warming at equilibrium, the forcing from WV would be about 5 W/m2, somewhat greater than the forcing from CO2 alone. AOGCMs use the same method (the Schwarzschild Equation) as Modtran to calculate how rising water vapor changes the rate of radiative cooling to space. There is no doubt AOGCM’s correctly calculate the changes in radiative fluxes produced by changes in WV and CO2. They just use a different formalism – forcing and feedback – to explain what is happening. Forcing describes changes whose effects are independent of temperature – such as the reduction in radiative cooling produced by a hypothetical instantaneous doubling of CO2. Feedback describes changes that depend on temperature – such as the reduced radiative cooling to space produced by rising absolute humidity.
Dan writes: “I wonder what it will take for Climate Scientists to stop fooling themselves. I wonder if anyone else noticed that when humanity’s CO2 output declined for covid there was no associated change in the reported trend. CO2 change is responding to temperature change, not causing it.”
I wonder what it will take for amateurs to realize that the “obvious problems” they claim to have found were resolved decades ago. Steve McIntyre, Nic Lewis and Ross McKitrick are experts in statistic and spent a long time understanding what consensus climate scientists were doing. You, for example, don’t even realize that the amount of warm “expected” during the pandemic was 0.02 degC/yr and that GMST is far too noisy to even come close to showing a change in 2020 due to a 7% reduction in CO2 emissions. Ludicrous.
Franktoo notes “…the amount of warm “expected” during the pandemic was 0.02 degC/yr and that GMST is far too noisy to even come close to showing a change in 2020 due to a 7% reduction in CO2 emissions. Ludicrous.”
There is a symmetry to consider. If society decided to increase emissions by a similar 7% for a time similar to and after the Covid emission reduction, it follows that the consequence would be equally undetectable.
This can be checked roughly by comparing actual data from pre-Covid history, where the gross emission per year can be compared with the measured CO2 change.
I have not bothered to do this cross check because I have no certainty that we are measuring reality. For example, there is a possibility that concentrated CO2 emissions from small sources, such as a fossil fuel power station, are taken up by local sinks long before they get anywhere near Mauna Loa. Some of this effect is seen from measurements near the ground, near habitation, but these have been largely dismissed from consideration because the air is not well mixed. Catch 22. Geoff S
>> remains in the atmosphere for 9 days after evaporating and 5 days
>> Therefore, climate scientists chose to handle water vapor as a
>> feedback response to warming
a) One does not result from the other
b) the residence time of a single molecule is rather irrelevant here and not part of any climate simulation
c) water vapor is clearly not used as feedback response to warming and neither is it, as it would need to change dramatically from winter to summer for example
>> If a doubling of CO2 produced 3 degC of warming at equilibrium,
>> the forcing from WV would be about 5 W/m2, somewhat greater than
>> the forcing from CO2 alone.
This sentence contradicts itself! The direct effect for doubling CO2 from 280 to 560ppm is typically assumed to be about 1°C under norm conditions. The rest is computer world voodoo, not science.
>> There is no doubt AOGCM’s correctly calculate the changes in
>> radiative fluxes produced by changes in WV and CO2.
I doubt it and many other too, one reason would the cloud forcing uncertainty, as water vapor does not necessary stays water vapor.
Would you say that the effect from solar radiation/ the correlation with the sunspot numbers, which likely work via water vapor, is correctly built into your AOGCMs? (which would be most surprising as AFAK this is still under debate)
Frank wrote: “Franktoo notes “…the amount of warm “expected” during the pandemic was 0.02 degC/yr and that GMST is far too noisy to even come close to showing a change in 2020 due to a 7% reduction in CO2 emissions. Ludicrous.”
Geoff wrote: For example, there is a possibility that concentrated CO2 emissions from small sources, such as a fossil fuel power station, are taken up by local sinks long before they get anywhere near Mauna Loa. Some of this effect is seen from measurements near the ground, near habitation, but these have been largely dismissed from consideration because the air is not well mixed. Catch 22.
There is no doubt that local CO2 concentration near the surface varies. Some skeptics cite measurements (made by someone name Beck?) a century ago that show “impossibly variable” CO2 levels as high as 400 or 500 ppm. It’s my guess that these were measurements distorted by the local environment. I’ve anecdotally heard that the CO2 in a cornfield on a sunny still day is significantly depleted by photosynthesis and even air between blades of grass can be depleted. Molecular diffusion in still air is really slow. There are seasonal changes at Mauna Loa. During the 97-8 El Nino, CO2 increased an extra 1 ppm (due to CO2 release from a warmer ocean?) and the 98-99 La Nina CO2 increased 1 ppm less than normal (due to increased uptake by the colder ocean?)
However, most of the atmosphere through which thermal IR escapes to space is fairly well mixed and well above the surface. We now have a satellite that is measuring the change in “global CO2” to supplement our local measurements. I don’t think that data changed the big picture about rising CO2.
After reading about it, I was impressed with the choice of Mauna Loa as the first site for measuring long-term changes in CO2. Tropical trade winds regularly bring in a new batch of air every day from about 1000 miles away. Measurements are only made at night, when the surface wind blows off-shore from the warm land, and fresh air is subsiding from well above a mountain top that is already 4 km above the ocean surface. This site really is representative of the bulk troposphere, at least in the vicinity of 30 degN.
The big picture is that we emit enough CO2 every year to raise CO2 by about 4 ppm/yr and about half of that disappears into sinks every year. A 7% change for one year isn’t a significant change. Reducing emissions by 50% should be enough to stabilize CO2 as long as land sinks don’t saturate. In the end, almost all of the CO2 we emit will be taken up by the ocean as it overturns every 1500? years. IIRC, even if we reach 800 ppm of CO2, levels should drop below 400 ppm. The so-called Anthropocene will be the shortest geological period in history.
“Temporal” or time series analyses have their own flaws which I will address separately (put briefly, regressing I(0) temperatures on I(1) forcings creates obvious problems of interpretation).”
Is it possible to expand on this a little for the less technical of us. How long are the time periods of monitoring or concern here?
Earth, Moon and Mars – two very important observations – conclusions
We are ready now to make two very important observations.
1. Moon and Mars
Moon’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Mars’ satellite measured Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
These two observed temperatures on the different planets (Mars and Moon) are very close.
The solar flux on Moon is So = 1.361 W/m².
The solar flux on Mars is S.mars = 586,4 W/m².
Thus we observe here that there can be planets with different solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) the same mean surface temperatures.
So we may have:
Many planets with different solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) the same mean surface temperatures.
Conclusion:
Many different solar fluxes (for equal albedo) can create the same mean surface temperatures.
2. Moon and Earth
Moon’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Earth’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
These two observed temperatures on the different planets (Moon and Earth) are very different.
The solar flux on Moon is So = 1.361 W/m².
The solar flux on Earth is So = 1.361 W/m².
Thus we observe here that there can be planets with the same solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) very different mean surface temperatures.
So we may have:
Many planets with the same solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) different mean surface temperatures.
Conclusion:
Many different global temperature distributions (for equal albedo) can balance the same solar flux.
These two very important observations – conclusions lead us to the discovery of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Where do you get that the moon and mars have equal albedo?
According to https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html
Mars has an albedo of 0.25
According to
https://www.universetoday.com/19981/moon-albedo/
The moon has an albedo of 0.12
Please state your source for albedo of mars and the moon. I find that they are not the same according to my sources.
atandb
“Please state your source for albedo of mars and the moon. I find that they are not the same according to my sources.”
Of course they are not the same!
Moon’s Albedo a.moon = 0,11
What is left to emit for Moon Φ(1-a)Soπr²= 0,89ΦSoπr²
and
(0,89ΦSo)¹∕ ⁴ =0,9713(ΦSo)¹∕ ⁴
Mars’ Albedo a.mars = 0,250
What is left to emit for Mars is Φ(1-a)Soπr²= 0,75ΦSoπr²
and
(0,75ΦSo)¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9306(ΦSo)¹∕ ⁴
for the final result – the mean surface temperatures moon/mars comparison the difference from albedo variation is small 4,3%
that is where it comes from: (for equal albedo)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Okay, where do you come up with the values you use for Φ?
Normally in science the values would be the result of extensive experiments in the lab. That is what happened to derive the equation you are trying to replace. I do not see anywhere on your website how I can repeat your experiment and determine the values for Φ for an as yet undiscovered planet. Further I see no real explanation as to how you picked the values you did for the planets that do exist, except that you needed a parameter to make the results come out correctly.
Is the Okay for “Earth, Moon and Mars – two very important observations – conclusions” part?
No, the okay is for the albedo values, they match within reason to what I find.
Why not? There are not any parameters involved in “Earth, Moon and Mars – two very important observations – conclusions” you mention about.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
“What is left to emit for Moon Φ(1-a)Soπr²= 0,89ΦSoπr²”
Has Φ in it.
Those bodies all have the same Φ=0,47 – it does not make a difference.
Then I do not get the point of the exercise if your parameters do not make a difference in the result. Why use a different formula from the one everyone else uses that has been demonstrated to work by an experiment that anyone can repeat?
atandb, here is a list of planets and moons and their Φ-factor values:
Planet
or moon…………Φ
Mercury………..0,47
Venus……………1
Earth……………0,47
Moon……………0,47
Mars…………….0,47
Jupiter……………1
Io…………………..1
Europa………….0,47
Ganymede…….0,47
Calisto……………1
Saturn…………….1
Enceladus……….1
Tethys…………….1
Titan……………….1
Uranus……………1
Neptune………….1
Triton……………0,47 (?)
Pluto………………1
Charon…………..1
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dan wrote: “Another mistake in the GCMs is failure to account for the delay between the time a ghg molecule absorbs a photon and when it emits one. This delay is called relaxation time. It allows radiation energy absorbed by CO2 molecules in the troposphere (below about 8-16 km, depending mostly on latitude; higher at equator) to be ‘redirected’ to WV molecules which emit it at a longer wavelength.”
This is nonsense. The excited state(s) created by CO2 absorbing 15 um photons are “relaxed” by collisions many orders of magnitude faster than they are “relaxed” by emission or “re-emission” of a photon. IIRC, the vibrationally excited state of CO2 takes an average of 1 second to emit a photon, collides with other gas molecules about 10^9 per second near the surface and is relaxed by about 10% of those collisions. Some say the excited state produced by absorbing a photon is “thermalized” by collisions – becomes part of the kinetic energy (temperature) of the gas surrounding the CO2 molecule. 99+% of thermal infrared photons are emitted by GHGs that have been excited by molecular collisions, not by absorption of a photon. Consequently, emission of photons in the troposphere and lower stratosphere depends exclusively on the local temperature of the atmosphere and not the intensity of the local radiation field. The fraction of CO2 molecules that are in an excited state is therefore controlled by the local temperature and a Boltzmann distribution of energy among energy states. Where such a Boltzmann distribution exists, we say that Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) exists. LTE doesn’t imply that the radiation field must be in equilibrium (absorption = emission) with GHG’s; when such equilibrium exists the radiation intensity is determined by Planck’s Law. Absorption and emission are not in equilibrium at some wavelengths and altitudes in our atmosphere and are at others. In most of the troposphere, temperature is controlled on the average by the lapse rate (convection), not the radiation field.
The Schwarzschild equation for radiation transfer is used by AOGCM’s and is not missing any physics that encompasses re-directing of radiation from one GHG to another. The energy from absorbed photons becomes kinetic energy/temperature and is “redirected” to other GHGs by collisional excitation. The predictions of the Schwarzschild equation have been confirmed measurements of radiation transfer made in the atmosphere agree. The parameters need to use the Schwarzschild equation have been carefully measured in the laboratory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild%27s_equation_for_radiative_transfer
Not all materials that emit photons are in LTE. Above the stratosphere, collisions are infrequent enough that re-emission of a photon can compete with collisional relaxation and a Boltzmann distribution and LTE don’t exist. We have created devices (LED and fluorescent lights, lasers, microwave ovens) that can use electricity to create excited states that emit photons without collisional excitation and high temperature. If the radiation field is intense enough, stimulate emission of photons becomes significant. None of these phenomena are significant in the troposphere and stratosphere.
Franktoo wrote “The excited state(s) created by CO2 absorbing 15 um photons are “relaxed” by collisions many orders of magnitude faster than they are “relaxed” by emission or “re-emission” of a photon. ”
Which of the two dominates would depend of the density of the medium, right?
With “equilization via collisions” hapening near ground level and re-emission happening higher in the atmosphere as the atmospheric spectra collected by satellites show quite clearly.
Absolutely correct. I published a response to an epidemiology paper in Emerging Infectious Diseases 16 years ago pointing similar problems in which the author tried to use a stepwise logistic regression model (due to a small number of observations) while tossing in a stewpot of variables on three endogenous conceptual levels (like having a gene for shigatoxins, the strain of E. Coli (in part determined by a shigatoxin gene), presence of hemolytic syndromes (caused by shigatoxins)) that were endogenous by definition. Due to the inefficient estimation and his tossing of variables with a low p-value, the conclusions he drew were basically meaningless – and in many cases the observations were correlated because the same strain infected multiple cases in the cohort, which introduced biased estimators and made the problem worse.
I have been attacked for criticizing the models AGW enthusiasts on similar grounds to yours, and for pointing out that the “correction factors” used in a code snippet revealed in the Climategate e-mails and used in producing Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” model created a situation where even stochastic data would produce his predictions. Among other things, someone published questioning what someone from a health economics background would know about climate change. Aside from the fact that anyone taught econometrics by Bryan Dowd has one hell of a lot more statistical expertise and training than the average geophysics PhD, the commenter did not bother to check my background and realize before pursuing my graduate degree in health economics/health service research I spent over a decade as an environmental chemist and served on some national committees on environmental measurements. The truth is that a physical scientists gets little if any formal training on statistical models or the epistemology of experimental design, far less than the average economist, even one with only a bachelor’s degree.
Pingback: CLINTEL goes to court – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: CLINTEL is going to court docket – Watts Up With That? – Daily News
Pingback: CLINTEL goes to court |
I read somewhere that Facebook think likning to Ross’s paper are against their ”community rules”.
Anyone else seen or heard about this?
Pingback: CLINTEL goes to court – Climate- Science.press
The IPCC in AR6 finds no physical drivers for modern warming other than anthropogenic emissions. Statistics are irrelevant.
https://wordpress.com/media/watertechbyrie.com
Whoops.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/ar6-forcing.png
Robert I Ellison: The IPCC in AR6 finds no physical drivers for modern warming other than anthropogenic emissions. Statistics are irrelevant.
The IPCC claims that the excellence of their statistical method supports their inference that “[not finding another physical driver]” means that there isn’t another physical driver. the statistical method is the key (heart, keystone, lynch-pin etc) of their argument.
The heart of the matter is geophysical and not statistical. Feel free to add another physical reality to the graphic I linked to.
RIE – adding/removing any number of “physical realities” won’t change the predetermined conclusion. Are clouds represented there? Of course not.
Robert I Ellison: The heart of the matter is geophysical and not statistical.
Maybe, but that isn’t the claim made by the IPCC
Which claim?
The IPCC claims that well mixed greenhouse gases caused a little over 1.5 degrees C of the modern warming – with some 0.5 degree sulphate cooling. It is known how that works and the quantitative calculations are based on millions of Observations since 1960’s US Air Force radar experiments. If there is nothing else – how is attribution not simple as?
Unless you have a plausible additional mechanism and confirming observations it means SFA.
That’s what I was asking for – do contrarians have a plausible additional mechanism for modern warming?
Franktoo,
Thank you for your responses.
Concerning GHG warming of air, I have owned a number of good spectrometers and operated several more in one part of my career. There is no part of the spectrometry story that you relate that I find challenging, apart from the reality that there are dozens of essays by diverse authors about what happens between air and GHGs, from which you have select3d one to align yourself with.
My objection is to what happens in the air after presumed GHG heating. It has been said before, but there is little agreement about quantitative heat flow, in particular how the flow is affected by clouds.
The loop has not been closed. People have not yet dug deep enough into the subject to produce an overall picture that people like me cannot fault. In essence, the greater part of all climate research seems to stop and be published, often as ‘settled’, when there is a lot more work to be done.
Yes, colleagues and I have studied the Aussie BOM record of temperatures over the years. Recently we looked at more examples of official publications like the official Australian Commonwealth Year Books of the 1950, which have extensive data on temperatures around Australia before that 50s era. When we compare the temperatures selected, often adjusted and often rejected by the BOM, we cannot find more than half of the warming that BOM claim today. Either the best scientists of the 1950s were wrong, or the BOM are wrong. Simple as that. It is dangerous to assume that one is right and proceed to use it in support of government policies that have a profound effect on every Australia.
A wise approach would reconcile the differences before proceeding to put trillions of $$$ at risk.
The work has not been followed to depth, the finer detail has not been investigated enough.
Other colleagues have just publicized a comparison of temperatures of sea waters around the Great barrier Reef taken from a ship on a scientific survey in 1871. We cannot find these temperatures to be materially different to those that the BOM and a cluster of other acronyms use today to inform policy and press that the Reef is in danger from global warming heat, please send billions for more research. We ask, what heat? Dig deeper into the measurements, explain the differences by scientific means like physics and chemistry.
There have been other sceptics who have dug deeper and found the science far from settled. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have been doing this for nearly 20 years now. There should be a message in the frequency with which they find unsettled official results when they dig deeper. If you read Climate Audit blog, the last 3 essays are so critical that some like me think there is adequate evidence for official fraud investigations. Problems like this are not solved by sacking the messenger, as in Peter Ridd’s studies of the Reef, or by trying to ignore adverse findings and arguing from authority. Proper science does not work that way. Ross is demonstrating more problems, major problems, once again, in this very blog post.
In another part of my career, we explored for new ore bodies and we found a dozen or so, at a success rate equal to the global best. Decisions to proceed to mining, or to walk away, are made for every developing mine. The quality of the science behind the data can and does affect whether there emerges a viable, profitable operation or another belly flop. Those who do not delve deep enough into the scientific data and/or try to fraud their way through can be sent to jail. There is no room n this type of work to ignore criticisms or to dismiss those people with opposing views of the science, like its accuracy. It all has to add up before the decision is made to mine.
Franktoo, my strong and basic objections to climate research is simply that a lot of it does not reach a comple, satisfying conclusion. There are potentially fatal flaws in just about every part of it that I have investigated in greater depth. I have yet to achieve a satisfactory, official explanation for any that I have questioned. There are many, many more sceptics than lonely me, most more educated. Geoff.
Geoff wrote: “There is no part of the spectrometry story that you relate that I find challenging, apart from the reality that there are dozens of essays by diverse authors about what happens between air and GHGs, from which you have select3d one to align yourself with. My objection is to what happens in the air after presumed GHG heating. It has been said before, but there is little agreement about quantitative heat flow, in particular how the flow is affected by clouds.
You may have missed my point. I don’t care what happens to the heat in the air from GHGs absorbing outgoing thermal radiation (and emitting less than they absorb because upwelling originates were it is warmer.) I only care about the energy fluxes crossing the TOA. If less energy exits the TOA because of rising GHGs, then conservation of energy demands that it must be warming somewhere below the TOA, but not necessarily at the surface,
I don’t worry about the heat in the atmosphere, because I know that convection will always speed up or slow down so that a marginally stable lapse rate is left behind on the average in most of the troposphere. If the upper troposphere is warming, the surface must be warming too.
And the reason I’m sure that rising GHGs will slow radiative cooling to space is calculations made using Schwarzschild’s equation for radiation transfer. Until I saw this equation, I didn’t understand anything about radiative forcing or radiative transfer calculations. I eventually became so enamored with this equation that I wrote a Wikipedia article. Beer’s Law describes absorption of radiation that is so intense that emission can be ignored. (Your spectrometer has a intense light source so that thermal emission from your sample can be ignored.) Planck’s Law tells us about radiation where absorption and emission are in equilibrium with a field of quantized oscillators (in the atmosphere known as GHGs). Unfortunately absorption and emission of radiation in our atmosphere isn’t fast enough at some wavelengths and altitudes, so it doesn’t emit a blackbody spectrum of thermal IR to space. Schwarzschild’s equation tells us how RADIATION traveling through the atmosphere is changed by absorption and emission, but it doesn’t tell us how local temperature is changed by absorption and emission, because convection also plays a big role in temperature. So I focus on the reduction outgoing LWR crossing the TOA and conservation of energy to conclude rising GHG’s must produce warming.
I have some answers for what happens after it begins warming and what happens to the heat absorbed by GHGs, but they are more complicated than reduced radiative cooling to space + conservation of energy means the planet must warm.
I don’t care what happens to the heat in the air from GHGs absorbing outgoing thermal radiation (and emitting less than they absorb because upwelling originates where it is warmer.)
Again with the conservation of energy.
How can any non heart/energy producing body continually [implied] absorb more radiation than it emits.
I’m sorry but if a CO2 absorbs a photon of IR , generally speaking it is not going to absorb another one on top of that.
Is it?
It can then run around as long as it likes before it emits it, thus allowing itself to take up and emit another photon.
It is in balance with the incoming radiation.
It does not matter what level this occurs at or whether it upwells or downwells.
A lot of the energy coming from the sun is in the IR range.
Which CO2 molecule does it hit first?
” I only care about the energy fluxes crossing the TOA. If less energy exits the TOA because of rising GHGs, then conservation of energy demands that it must be warming somewhere below the TOA, but not necessarily at the surface”
The TOA is not a boundary that less energy can exit from.
By definition it is simply the imaginary boundary where energy in equals energy out.
It has nothing to do with the flux across it because, by definition it is in balance.
If more energy goes in [no clouds say] then more energy comes out.
The particles emitting that energy emit more frequently. The temperature detected goes up.
Not because it is retaining more energy. Because when it is releasing that energy that is what you record as the temperature.
There are millions of observations confirming atmospheric radiative transfer theory. Human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the world – measured with enough precision to be settled. The attribution question is by how much. The IPCC claim is almost all – based on radiative transfer calculations and the lack of other plausible physical mechanisms.
e.g. http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_about
For clouds to be relevant to climate variability one needs a mechanism linking long term shifts in coupled ocean and atmospheric circulation – not just decadal scale oscillations – to changes in cloud and therefore energy dynamics. And confirming observations – otherwise it is not science.
‘Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark,
subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud
system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.5,7′ https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/reprints/Koren-Tziperman-Feingold-2017.pdf
Marine stratocumulus cloud deck feedback to warmer SST is positive. This added to warming in the past 40 years – and to modern warming over the past century in response to an increased frequency and intensity of warm Pacific states since the turn of the 20th century. That is of course a less certain and more complex hypothesis.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
Beyond that there are inevitable surprises in our nonlinear world. Although a THC transition at the height of the current interglacial would not be entirely unanticipated.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4
Despite Geoff’s ramblings polls show that contrarians do not have the numbers. It seems politically expedient to reduce pollution – there are other gases and aerosols – restore soils and ecosystems, build resilient infrastructure and deploy advanced nuclear engines.
Robert: What evidence supports this statement: “Marine stratocumulus cloud deck feedback to warmer SST is positive.”?
Climate models do a horrible job of producing observed amounts of Marine Boundary Layer clouds. According to the talk from Tapio Schneider linked below. the average AOGCM produces 40% too few marine boundary layer clouds. These clouds reflect enough SWR to lower the planet’s temperature by 8 degC. There must be large compensating errors in other parts of AOGCMs when they are tuned to agree with the amount of SWR satellites show is reflected back to space. Nevertheless, this problem goes undiscussed, which is why I only have a reference to a talk given by Tapio Schneider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnGQkT0rQs beginning about 12:30.
Marine boundary layer clouds are much too small to be represented in the grid cell of an AOGCM. They cloud are entirely represented by parameters in AOGCM. Parameters are derived from experiments with high resolutions models where only a small chunk of marine boundary layer cloud can be modeled at high resolution. These small high-resolution models suggest that feedback from warming SST will reduce the amount of marine boundary layer clouds and produce positive feedback. Unfortunately, marine boundary layer clouds are not generated from local phenomena: they develop at the interface of the boundary layer and free atmosphere where dry air that rose thousand of kilometers nearer the equator is subsiding over sub-tropical ocean and cold currents and upwelling cooling the ocean. With flawed AOGCMs, these distant inputs are problematic and with flawed inputs these high resolution studies are dubious.
Tapio Schneider modelled clouds using equations of state at fine scale. To do the same planet wide would – as he says – require 1000’s of times more computing power. It would still be wrong to ignore his results. But observation – as I keep saying – is what matters.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clement-et-al-e1512080464744.png
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract
The closed and open cell cloud discussed in the Koren 2017 reference form in the atmosphere warmed by an ocean below. It is an example of Rayleigh-Bénard convection.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific
Closed cells persist for longer over cool oceans than warmer before raining out to leave open cells. The effect is most evident over the eastern Pacific with its SST variability. It modulates the global energy dynamics over moments to eons.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
There are millions of observations confirming atmospheric radiative transfer theory. Human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the world – measured with enough precision to be settled. The attribution question is by how much. The IPCC claim is almost all – based on radiative transfer calculations and the lack of other plausible physical mechanisms.
e.g. http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_about
For clouds to be relevant to climate variability one needs a mechanism linking long term shifts in coupled ocean and atmospheric circulation – not just decadal scale oscillations – to changes in cloud and therefore energy dynamics. And confirming observations – otherwise it is not science.
‘Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark,
subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud
system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.5,7′ https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/reprints/Koren-Tziperman-Feingold-2017.pdf
Marine stratocumulus cloud deck feedback to warmer SST is positive. This added to warming in the past 40 years – and to modern warming over the past century in response to an increased frequency and intensity of warm Pacific states since the turn of the 20th century. That is of course a less certain and more complex hypothesis.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
Beyond that there are inevitable surprises in our nonlinear world. Although a THC transition at the height of the current interglacial would not be entirely unanticipated.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4
Despite Geoff’s ramblings polls show that contrarians do not have the numbers. It seems politically expedient to reduce pollution – there are other gases and aerosols – restore soils and ecosystems, build resilient infrastructure and deploy advanced nuclear engines.
Robert I. Ellison | August 29, 2021
–
There are millions of observations confirming atmospheric radiative transfer theory.
OK
Human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the world
No
–
Hard to get this point over to you but I will try this way.
First point.
CO2 is a stable molecule.
By itself or in countless numbers it emits no heat.
All the CO2 in the world, underground or in the atmosphere or sea is not making energy that it is releasing.Never will.
Your statement is poorly phrased and hence factually wrong.
Second point
When fossil fuels are burnt, producing inert CO2, energy is released. We really do heat up the world. So we can look at the energy budget for all that heat that was produced per ton of CO2 produced and make an estimate as to both human and non human CO2 production amount of heat /energy extra in the world.
Conclusion Non human production of energy by CO2 production dwarfs any
human production. It becomes insignificant.
Human production of greenhouse gases adds some warming to the world
– measured with enough precision to be settled.
No,
not because of measurement precision but because your statement is incorrect.
The attribution question is by how much.
No
because your statement is incorrect.
RIE,
To complete your quote try this –
“Human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the world – measured with enough precision to be settled. Human emissions that warm the world also eventually go away, otherwise there would have been runaway effects from positive feedbacks. The quantitative pathways from local warming to its eventual cooling are not known with adequate accuracy to allow the science to be described as ‘settled’. The current reliance on TOA measurements is poor science because of an inability to verify subjective assumptions made to overcome large instrumental response differences between different satellite platforms.” Geoff S
This really is a very inadequate description of the quantum mechanics of radiative transfer. I have just discussed this elsewhere.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/#comment-958799
Modern instruments are purpose built and mounted on dedicated mission platforms. There are precise and stable and there are planned overlaps to ensure continuity. There is an intercalibration problem between incoming and outgoing energy – but that is resolved with ocean data.
Your habit of finding any and all data not reliable isn’t at all persuasive. Even contrarians rely on it – yet you seem to think that no science meets your standard.
Robert I. Ellison | August 29, 2021
–
There are millions of observations confirming atmospheric radiative transfer theory.
OK
Human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the world
No
What you mean to say perhaps is Human emissions of greenhouse gases are adding more final emission points of IR to space at a higher level.
Since you are so keen on pushing atmospheric radiative transfer theory, as I am, you have to use it in its proper context.
Unless you wish to contradict yourself and start believing in free energy.
Each CO2 molecule is not a miniature sun.
No GHG molecule is a miniature sun.
Its like electricity going through a wire, they just conduct the flow.
To take your second comment about clouds in this context.
If you do not mind
“For GHG’S to be relevant to atmospheric heating one needs a mechanism linking production of energy in their atmospheric circulation – not just nanosecond oscillations as the energy flows into and out of them – to changes in energy dynamics. And confirming observations – otherwise it is not science.”
Robert I. Ellison | August 29, 2021
What you mean to say perhaps is Human emissions of greenhouse gases are adding more final emission points of IR to space at a higher level.
What happened to all the heat produced in making CO2 over the millenia?
Say 600 GT of CO2 in the atmosphere usually for a billion years.
Turnover rate [new production 120 GT a year,
Recent human contribution 10 GT a year.
Where did all that heat go?
Has it remained, like the Human CO2 for tens of thousand years contributing to our current temperature or burrowed into the deep sea to emerge at some later date.?
No
There are millions of observations confirming atmospheric radiative transfer theory.
It all goes out to space once produced.
There are millions of observations confirming atmospheric radiative transfer theory.
But very few following all the implications in your statement.
All substances have to obtain enough energy to irradiate.
The only heat source we need to consider for the energy is the sun [ All the rest is minuscule.]
How the energy gets in, how it gets to the points it irradiates back to space from, what the energy levels of these irradiating spots are is the basis of
atmospheric radiative transfer theory.
Hence the warmth of any particular part of the surface, earth , water or air is what determines how the amount of energy that comes in goes out.
We know it all goes out again, The earth is not generating any extra energy, just transferring it to the radiation sites.
The earth is not going to slowly heat up due to radiative imbalance because it produces no new energy of its own.
Because at the TOA energy in equals energy out for any non energy producing body, black or white.
lausible physical mechanisms.
By definition there can be no energy imbalance.
Yes we can have colder or warmer atmospheres. But not due to GHG producing energy.
More greenhouse gases keep the heat in the system bouncing around molecules for a little longer. And of course a warmer atmosphere in a thermodynamically nonequilibrium system tends to restore a transient energy equilibrium at TOA.
“More greenhouse gases keep the heat in the system bouncing around molecules for a little longer.”
Counter intuitive.
But hard to see.
When something heats up then loses heat there is a momentary delay.
The molecule with the extra energy has to decide what to do about it.
Why did it accept it in the first place?
A it had an energy deficit compared to some other molecules around it.
Generally referred to as “moving slower”
Why does it give it back?
A everything is in constant motion hence energy in the form of motion is continually being given to and taken from molecules.
So at some short moment afterwards it gains enough rest energy to not need the extra photon energy. Which it emits.
Note, even without energy input, a body of molecules not at absolute zero will be emitting IR. Important because this explains why the energy going out balances the energy coming in.
When it goes back to space either as itself or as part of the background IR going out anyway the net effect is a balance of the energy in and out.
The heat in the system is not bouncing around as you put it though it looks like it does when you consider reabsorption and reemmision.
It is merely transmitting like an electric current.
To emit any radiation the molecules have to be at a certain energy level from the input only. That is the only true energy source.
Note that in a bare patch of atmosphere less moon surface the same incoming radiation hits all of its targets in the 1st mm of moon dust.
The heat in the system keeps “bouncing around” as you put it in the top 30 cms for a “little bit longer” as you put it.
In reality there is no more bouncing around between molecules in 30 cms of solid dirt and 15 kilometers of air and 25 cms of dirt, is there?
The energy in is the energy out. The energy being emitted determines the temperature we measure for that emitting substance, not the other way around.
The air is measured as hot because its components have to emit the energy that they have received and there is a lot of energy in the air at ground level They are not a heat source producing heat but a heat transmitter.
Anyway it is only an idea, easily disproved I guess.
“More greenhouse gases keep the heat in the system bouncing around molecules for a little longer.”
They do not. They cannot.
Otherwise eventually the atmosphere would become hotter than the sun it is receiving its energy from.
Molecules at temperature above absolute zero have kinetic energy according to the kinetic theory of gases. But they also have internal energy that in quantum theory is related to electron orbits – and the ability to absorb and emit photons. Emissions increase exponentially with temperature – which is a negative feedback. All big name physics.
Molecules have a temperature related to their average kinetic energy. The change in heat and work is equal to energy in less energy out. The planet warms and cools related to the energy dynamic at TOA – nothing can stop that as the sun changes a little and ice, cloud, dust, vegetation and greenhouse gases change a bit more.
Δ(H&W) = Ein – Eout
Which is the 1st differential global energy equation.
Thanks, I think.
The link between internal energy and kinetic energy is difficult to conceive.
Presumably some of the energy on absorption of a higher or lower IR photon package is transmuted to a gain or loss of motion depending on what was left over when the photon was absorbed or emitted.
As in the IR has an energy range but the photon presumably is fixed at a set amount or energy level?
.
To paraphrase Feynman – those who claim to understand quantum mechanics – don’t. As far as I get it – perfectly inelastic collisions with ‘packets of energy’ – that seem to have a mysterious wave/particle duality – impart kinetic energy as vibrations, translations and rotations on collision with molecules with a resonant cross section. The ‘packet of energy’ is sometimes absorbed with a quantum jump in electron orbit to a higher energy state related by the Planck constant of proportionality to the frequency of the particle. The latter seems not to make sense as an English sentence. How can a particle have a frequency? On ‘relaxation’ the molecule emits a photon of the same energy – and as we all know e = hv.
Thanks again.
appreciated.
as always good value.
An interesting discussion for which I thank both of you.
Do electric storms have an effect on atmospheric molecular radiation properties both long and short term, and, if so, can we determine what those effects may be? Are such storms a part of nature’s energy balancing act perhaps as a cleanser of imbalances? We know from observation that the lightning events strike both ways – up and down.
Just a thought.
Angech: Solids have a kinetic energy of their (bulk) motion of 0.5*m*v2. Gases can have bulk motion (such as wind), but the molecules in gases that have no bulk motion still have kinetic energy associated with the random motion of individual molecules in all directions (aka translation). Diatomic and polyatomic gases can also have energy associated with their molecular vibration and rotation analogous to the energy in macroscopic simple harmonic oscillators and rotating objects. Finally all atoms or molecules can have energy associated with electrons being found in higher atomic or molecular orbitals. The energy in rotation, vibration and rotation is quantized, so we talk about emission or absorption of photons by electronic, vibration and rotation “states”. All of this energy that is not associated with molecular states – and not associated with the bulk motion – is called internal energy. When a gas receives energy – say before a piston is pushes on the gas and compresses it (doing PdV work), we say that the energy from that work becomes a part of the “INTERNAL ENERGY” of the gas. And if the gas pushes on a piston, the PdV work done by the gas on the piston comes from the internal energy of the gas.
Only impulse imparted what gas molecules collide with the walls of a container create pressure, and that energy only comes from the kinetic energy associated with translation of gas molecules. Temperature is on the other side of the Ideal Gas Law and only the kinetic energy of translation proportional to temperature.
Since energy is partitioned equally among all accessible states, it can take a different amount of energy to raise the temperature of a gas or other material by 1 degC. This quantity is called the heat capacity of a gas or other material. For more, see the “Kinetic Theory of Gases”
Franktoo | August 30, 2021 despite other comments thank you for the courtesy of that explanation as well as the chief’s. Any discussion of science per se is very welcome.
I wonder why no one else uses the MEASURED amount of water vapor. How long the WV molecules stay in the atmosphere is not relevant. What matters is the concentration at the time which has been increasing 1.49% per decade. Measured WV increase explains humanity’s contribution to warming. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Because H20 is a much larger GHG warmists refuse to consider it so as it would dilute the CO2 message.
Sorry, rhetorical wasn’t it?
Dan and Angech: When DESCRIBING our climate system in terms of forcing and feedbacks, climate scientists choose to describe changes in water vapor as a feedback – as a RESPONSE to warming measure in W/m2/K – rather than as a temperature independent cause of warming measured in terms of W/m2. One reason is that water vapor changes in response to a change in temperature in a few days while it takes a few years for GMST to respond to the weak forcing from water vapor and CO2. Water vapor clear doesn’t force warming like other GHGs do. A second reason is the water vapor is not a well-mixed homogeneous GHG that has the same effect on radiation everywhere. Finally it is simpler to
When CALCULATING the effect of absorption and emission on radiative fluxes, the same equations of radiation transfer as used for all GHGs. Dividing phenomena into temperature-independent forcings and temperature-dependent feedbacks is a mere formality.
WV is rising roughly 1.5% per decade because surface temperature has been rising about 0.18 degC/decade. In other word, water vapor has been rising at about 8%/degC about what is expected for constant relative humidity. However, most water vapor absorption lines are saturated in the lower troposphere, so the water vapor that has the biggest effect on outgoing LWR is in the upper troposphere.
The forcing produced by expected changes in CO2 (roughly a doubling) and H2O (roughly 7%/degC of warming). The change in water vapor is determined by how much warmer it gets, ie climate sensitivity.
Fra,
Are you afraid to do the math or do you not know how? Average global water vapor has been increasing about 43% faster than possible from just average global temperature increase. This demonstrates that there has to be another source of water vapor. That other source of water vapor contributed to the start of the warmup. The CO2 level just tagged along.
Ostensibly water vapour in the atmosphere increased after 2012 due to a dramatic increase in irrigated area.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2021_v6.jpg
Franktoo | August 30, 2021 at 12:55 pm | Reply
” climate scientists choose to describe changes in water vapor as a feedback – as a RESPONSE to warming measure in W/m2/K – rather than as a temperature independent cause of warming measured in terms of W/m2.”
Interesting choice of terms Franktoo.
” climate scientists choose”
-to make up and go along with a consensus?
to have toast for breakfast?
-to have a walk this afternoon?
Science is not about choice.
There is no choice with maths, no choice with physics.
Something is proven, not chosen.
So they chose one rather than another did they?
Which enabled them to pretend H20 is not a GHG when it is.
To pretend that it does not have a residence in the atmosphere when it clearly does.
How convenient is science by choice of the masses
rather than science what one knows is true.
Pingback: CLINTEL goes to court – Stop Technocracy
Journal Bias
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/04/06/the-corruption-of-science/
Intersting tweet – considering.CAGW!!!!
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1432786640943173632?t=Gaxu9KauO0BvBiIyi9JarQ&s=19
Here is the tweet by Michael E. Mann,
“There is already substantial policy progress & CURRENT POLICIES alone (ignoring pledges!) likely keep us below 3C warming. We’ve got to–and WILL do–much better. But we’re not headed toward civilization-ending warming.”
3.Mars’ Mean Surface Temperature calculation Tmean.mars = 210 K
Tmean.mars
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin………..130.K…210.K…308.K
(1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32 Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
Mars’ albedo: amars = 0,25
Mars performs 1 rotation every 1,028 day
N = 1 /1,028 = 0,9728 Rotations /day
Mars is a rocky planet, Mars’ surface irradiation accepting factor: Φmars = 0,47
cp.mars = 0,18cal/gr oC, on Mars’ surface is prevalent the iron oxide
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Mars’ Mean Surface Temperature Equation is:
Tmean.mars = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.mars = [ 0,47 (1-0,25) 1.361 W/m²*(1/2,32)*(150*0,9728*0,18)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
=( 2.066.635.457,46 )¹∕ ⁴ = 213,21 K
Tmean.mars = 213,21 K
The calculated Mars’ mean surface temperature Tmean.mars = 213,21 K is only by 1,53% higher than that measured by satellites
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K !
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Te…….Tmean…..Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K….325,83 K….340 K
Earth…….255 K…..287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ….223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……..209,91 K….213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So suppose we spin up the Earth to make it warmer – with the same energy in and energy out. Where j* is the energy emitted at temperatures T1 and T2 respectively.
j* = σT1^4 = σT2^4
No – that wont work. Not without violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.
In this form of the equation j is the energy per unit area. If you have an area (for simplicity the whole area of the earth) and you give it an energy per unit area of j/σ, then your T1 =(0.5j/σ)^0.25 as you can only expose half of the planet to the sun at a time.
Now if we heat up half of the planet with the same energy, then the temperature for that half is T1 = (j/σ)^0.25
The energy for the stationary planet is double as you are only exposing one side, not both sides and the temperature goes up as expected. However, because of the fourth power the average temperature of the earth is less.
The average temperature of the earth in the second case is 0.5(j/σ)^0.25, as half of the earth is absolute zero.
(0.5j/σ)^0.25>0.5(j/σ)^0.25
taking 0.5^0.25 on the left side yields
0.84 … (j/q)^0.25>0.5(j/σ)^0.25
This can be completed for any combination of temperature that you like. The one with the temperatures the same everywhere will be at the maximum average temperature because of where the 0.5 appears in the equation.
You could for instance take the average temperature on the day side and the average temperature on the night side, plug them into the formula and if there is a variance, any variance in temperatures will yield a lower average temperature than the case where there is no variance.
‘However, because of the fourth power the average temperature of the earth is less.’
It is immaterial what the temperature is – the exponent is irrelevant. With constant total energy emitted the average temperature must be the same related to temperature as it is by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant of proportionality.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is related to actual temperature not average temperature. As I clearly demonstrated above confusing the two will lead to the wrong result. For every area of the object in question you have to take the actual temperature at that area, calculate the energy and then sum all the energy up. Energy is conserved not temperature.
If there is a surface at different temperatures emitting radiatively it must sum to a total emission (constant in terms of the thought experiment) related to an average temperature as I have clearly shown with fundamental physics.
With the Earth – that surface is at TOA. Unchanged emissions must be associated with a constant average temperature.
You have gone down a rabbit hole and refuse to emerge.
Robert I Ellison: If there is a surface at different temperatures emitting radiatively it must sum to a total emission (constant in terms of the thought experiment) related to an average temperature as I have clearly shown with fundamental physics.
You have to work with the distribution of the temperatures, not the mean temperature. Depending on the distribution of the hottest and coldest spots, two planets alike in every other way but spinning at different rates may show equal radiated energy at different mean temperatures.
Refer to Jensen’s Inequality.
Where the temperature is less – there is exponentially less emission. Conversely where it is warmer there are higher emissions. But the total doesn’t change with different angular velocities – in the terms of the thought experiment. Therefore the average temperature doesn’t change regardless of spin.
j* = σT1^4 = σT2^4
=> T1 = T2 = (j*σ)^0.25 = constant
It can’t be any other way.
Robert I. Ellison |
“If there is a surface at different temperatures emitting radiatively it must sum to a total emission (constant in terms of the thought experiment)”
Yes
“related to an average temperature as I have clearly shown with fundamental physics.”
No
Total energy out is the same as total energy in.
Average temperature is that amount of energy going out at that one temperature probably for a black body.
When different areas of the surface emit at different temperatures and you try to average the temperature instead of the energy you hit the SB
problem
4 times as much energy out for the same 1C change in temperature.
“With the Earth – that surface is at TOA.”
The TOA is extremely variable in height and surface area and constantly changing.
What you may find is the TOA is very close to the planet surface on the cold side with only a small emitting surface area
whereas on the hot side it balloons many kilometers before it is cold enough to reach TOA emission level and the surface area is much larger.
” Unchanged emissions must be associated with a constant average temperature”.
Only from a sphere.fully illuminated or spinning rapidly.
Nothing but words. You have to sum emissions over the planet. From that you can derive an average temperature.
T = (j*/σ)^0.25 – which is constant regardless of spin.
Robert I. Ellison |
You have to sum emissions over the planet.
From that you can derive an average energy emission.
Which we both sort of agree was the energy in.
You cannot determine an average temperature this way because
temperature only equals energy emission in 3 specific cases.
A black body radiating energy [equal amounts in all directions hence the 4th power diminution]. This assumes that the energy does not go back out directly but goes all over the surface immediately**, then out.
*The spectral distribution of the thermal energy radiated by a blackbody (i.e. the pattern of the intensity of the radiation over a range of wavelengths or frequencies) depends only on its temperature.
** Not real
A body spinning at or close to the speed of light. In which case every part of the sphere receives its share of the energy diluted to the 4th power]
In effect both these cases equate to the 3rd case
A body surrounded by a globe giving an equal input of energy all over which then can come back out equally all over. Obviously the power input is a 4th down because it does not have to be as hot as a sun or point source.
Still the same energy in in all cases and out in all cases.
However when you introduce spin you change the emission temperature. It is no longer uniform.
Which is the prime requisite for energy to equal wavelength.
Now you have to average temperatures at different spots with energy outputs at different spots.
If you have one very hot spot 10% where 90% of the heat is radiating out but the temp only goes up to 4 degrees.
4c plus 10 % energy for the other 9 areas each up 1C , 9C
equals 13 C average temp 1.3
if an even 2 degrees all 10 areas average temp 2 C although same energy out.
[example figures only ].
Robert I Ellison: Nothing but words. You have to sum emissions over the planet. From that you can derive an average temperature.
T = (j*/σ)^0.25 – which is constant regardless of spin.
You can not simply insert the mean temperature into the S-B equation to get the correct emission total. Or compute a mean temperature from the sum of the emissions.
To get the total emission, you have to integrate the emissions with respect to the density of the emissions. To get the mean temperature, you have to integrate the temperature with respect to the density of the temperatures.
Again, refer to Jensen’s Inequality.
By the terms of the thought experiment j* is constant.
T = (j*/ 5.670374419…×10−8)^0.25
Matthew tells me what I can’t do that bears no resemblance to what I am doing.
Let’ calculate Mars Te then
Surface temp…Tmin…Tmean…Tmax
Kelvin………….130.K..210.K…308.K
The planet blackbody effective temperature equation is
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Mars’ Albedo a = 0,75
Solar flux for Mars S= 586,4 W/m²
Please, Robert, would you like to calculate Mars’ effective temperature Te?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
correction: Mars’ Albedo a = 0,25
Let’s spin up Mars then to make it more habitable – with the same energy in and energy out. Where j* is the energy emitted at temperatures T1 and T2 respectively.
j* = σT1^4 = σT2^4
=> T1 = T2
No that wont work.
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Radiant emission by the Stefan-Boltzmann law is:
j* = σ T^4
If we have two planets absorbing and emitting the same amount of energy but spinning at different rates. In Christos’s scheme – the faster spinning planet is warmer and thus must be emitting more energy. That is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Jemit = constant
and
planet is not at uniform temperature, so planet does not emit as a uniform surface temperature body.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Christos you have a term for rotation for length of rotation which may be a problem for you.
Two problems
The first that for a non rotating planet Jemit = 0 as N=0
The second Jemit approaches infinity as the planet gets extremely fast rotation.
I also do not think you should call it a constant if it actually varies with rotational speed.
Could you explain the maths again with some clarity this time.
angech, in the equation
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
For a non rotating planet Jemit = infinity as N=0
And Jemit is zero as the planet gets infinity rotation.
Let’s see
the equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
For a very high N, will you get a very hot planet?”
Answer:
For the final Tmean result N (rotations/day) value is operated twice in fourth root .
Example: Let’s say N = 100.000.000 rotations/day
[ ( 100.000.000 )¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 100 )¹∕ ⁴ = 3,1623
And
for N = 1000.000.000 it is 3,6525
But
for N = 10 it is 1,1548
If Earth were rotating 10 times as fast, Earth’s mean surface temperature would be:
288 K * 1,1548 = 332,58 K
https://www.cristos-vournas
angech
“Could you explain the maths again with some clarity this time.”
angech,
the equation
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
is a result of the entire surface area the infinitesimal spots’ IR emission integration. At every infinitesimal spot ιthe IR emission intensity is considered constant for the infinitesimal spot’s area.
angech,
Please also visit the page in my site “An Important Theorem”.
Link to the page:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/449683314
Your ’empirical’ equation only works with unrealistic assumptions and inconsistent data. It is not derived from 1st principles. I believe that you don’t understand the difference. And you repeat things that are not remotely what I have said.
Where on the planet the temperature is less – there is exponentially less emission. Conversely where it is warmer there are higher emissions. The total doesn’t change with different angular velocities – in the terms of the thought experiment. Therefore the average temperature doesn’t change regardless of spin.
j* = σT1^4 = σT2^4
=> T1 = T2 = (j*σ)^0.25 = constant
It can’t be any other way. The only way the faster spinning planet can be warmer is if accompanied by more energy out. Energy is 1st and foremost conserved – so you would need more energy in. Your equation that you incessantly repeat well beyond the point of absurdity excludes that. You don’t have any idea of a feasible mechanism that does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. What do you hope to accomplish?
Robert
“Where on the planet the temperature is less – there is exponentially less emission. Conversely where it is warmer there are higher emissions. The total doesn’t change with different angular velocities – in the terms of the thought experiment.”
In the above excerpt you are accepting that with different angular velocities there are different temperatures distributions.
Robert
“You have to sum emissions over the planet. From that you can derive an average temperature.”
Different temperatures distributions develop different average surface temperatures… Not the same, but different.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Day and night are presumably both shorter on our hypothetical faster rotating planet. How do you imagine that this is a relevant point.? The energy emitted when summed over the planet remains the same – as it must unless energy absorbed changes. From the Stefan-Boltzmann law – a temperature can be calculated.
T = (j*/σ)^0.25
It is the same whatever the spin as energy is conserved and that is related to temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann proportionality constant.
Robert
“The only way the faster spinning planet can be warmer is if accompanied by more energy out. Energy is 1st and foremost conserved – so you would need more energy in. Your equation that you incessantly repeat well beyond the point of absurdity excludes that. ”
Please, Robert, there is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon we should take in consideration:
A thought experiment numerical example:
Assuming a planet with two hemispheres’ Te temperatures
Te.solar1 = 200 K, and Te.dark1 = 100 K
Assuming this planet rotates somehow faster (n2 > n1), so assuming the new Te.solar2 average temperature resulting
Te.solar2 = 199 K.
What would be the planet’s Te.dark2 then?
Jemit.solar1 = σ*(Te.solar1)⁴ ,
σ(200 K)⁴ = 1.600.000.000*σ for (n1) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 = σ*(Te.solar2)⁴ ,
σ(199 K)⁴ = 1.568.000.000*σ for (n2) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 – Jemit.solar1 =
= 1.568.000.000*σ – 1.600.000.000*σ =
= – 31.700.000*σ
is the difference in the Te solar side emitting intensity when (n2>n1) and 199 K – 200 K = – 1°C
So we have ( – 31.700.000*σ ) less emitting intensity on the solar side (2) when n2>n1.
It should be compensated by the increased emission on the dark side ( + 31.700.000*σ ) for the energy balance equation to get met:
Jemit.dark1 = σ*(Te.dark1)⁴ ,
σ(100 K)⁴ = 100.000.000σ
Jemit.dark2 = σ*(Te.dark2)⁴ ,
σ(Te.dark2)⁴ = (100.000.000 + 31.700.000)σ = 131.700.000σ
The dark side higher temperature (2) to compensate the solar side cooler emission (2) by ( – 31.700.000σ ) would be
Te.dark2 = (131.700.000)¹∕ ⁴ = 107,126 K
As we see in this numerical example, when the planet rotating faster (n2>n1) the Te temperature on the solar irradiated side subsides from 200 K to 199 K.
On the other hand the Te temperature, when planet rotating faster (n2>n1) on the dark side risesfrom 100 K to 107,126 K.
So when rotating faster (n2>n1) the solar irradiated planet’s side gets on Te cooler by -1 degree °C, the planet’s dark side gets on Te warmer by +7,126 degrees °C.
And as a result the planet’s total Te temperature gets higher.
It happens so because when rotating faster (n2>n1) the planet’s surface has emission temperatures Te the new distribution to achieve.
Consequently, when rotating faster, the planet’s mean temperature rises.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A warmer planet emits more IR radiation – an inescapable physical fact. But you exclude greenhouse gases and albedo change as factors leaving you with ‘reverse Milankovitch’ to explain climate change. LOL. It is completely deluded.
Also you, Robert, said above:
“You don’t have any idea of a feasible mechanism that does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. What do you hope to accomplish?”
You use your ’empirical’ equation to construct a numerical example to prove your empirical equation. Rinse and repeat incessantly. Try somethin new for a change. .
And you said:
“Radiant emission by the Stefan-Boltzmann law is:
j* = σ T^4 ”
Excellent!!!
Rather strange reaction to this law of physics.
Robert, isn’t it wonderful we agree on
“Radiant emission by the Stefan-Boltzmann law is:
j* = σ T^4 ” !!!
Let me simply this whole discussion.
You have a non-spinning object with two sides. One side of unit area is facing the sun with a temperature given by j* = σT1^4. The other side faces empty space with a temperature that is essentially absolute zero.
the average temperature is 1/2 * T1 because both the front and back have equal area.
If you spin the disc really fast, the incoming and outgoing photons are split equally between the two sides, so now you that same unit area of flux being spread over twice the physical area. In effect, j* has been cut in half, but you no longer divide the hot side by two to find the average.
If σ = 1 and the solar flux was 10,000, the hot side T1 is 10 degrees because 10^4 = 10000, and the average temperature is 1/2 of T1 or 5 degrees.
But when you spin it you’re spreading the same flux over twice the area (by giving each side a 50% duty cycle), so the solar flux acts like only 5,000. This gives a temperature of 8.41 degrees, which is warmer than 5 degrees.
We don’t have a non spinning body. But even then I am not convinced that one side is at absolute zero. The thought experiment involved a body spinning at different rates.
Energy out is constant in the terms of the thought experiment – summed over the planet – and an average temperature can be calculated:
T1 = T2 = (j*/σ)^0.25
Sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and is not one. Outgoing flux j* is defined as being constant. And:
T = (j*/σ)^0.25
If j* is 240 W/m2 that temperature is 255 K. Which is the average greybody temperature of Earth. Spin it up and that temperature remains the same necessarily.
This non spinning Earth causes more confusion than clarity. Consider instead different rates of angular velocity.
Robert I Ellison: Spin it up and that temperature remains the same necessarily
Not necessarily — it depends on whether changing rotation speed changes the distribution of temperature.
Consider Jensen’s inequality, and that T^4 is a convex function of T. Then the mean energy radiation is greater than then energy radiation calculated for the mean temperature.
You repeatedly claim falsely that only the mean T matters, whereas the distribution of T matters in the calculations.
Emitted power flux is unchanged by angular velocity by the terms of the thought experiment.
T1 = T2 = (j*/5.670374419…×10−8)^0.25
A physical law and simple math. It bears no resemblance to Matthew’s hand waving at irrelevancies.
The average of a set of temperatures is not equal to the average of the fourth root of those temperatures raised to the fourth power.
The series 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 averages to 3. 3 to the 4th power is 81, so one might be tempted to use 81 for the average radiation. But the fourth power of the series 1 through 5 is 1, 16, 81, 256, 625, which averages to 195.8, nowhere near 81. The fourth-root of 195.8 is 3.74, not 3.
Temperature distributions don’t have the same radiation flux as the average temperature would. Simple calculations based on such temperature average aren’t accurate. You have to go deeper into the analysis, which is where these discrepancies arise.
Temperature is not averaged – total emissions are known. Solving for T gives the greybody temperature.
T = (j*/σ)^0.25
Calculating a graybody temperature based on an average temperature is the problem.
Let me explain in algebra because it’s easier.
You have an average temperature T, so the calculated radiation from it will be based on T^4.
But suppose that average temperature is calculated from a set of pairs of temperatures, each measured pair consisting of T+d and T-d, where d is some deviation. No matter what d is, it cancels out in the averaging process which is why the result is guaranteed to be exactly T, the planet’s average temperature.
But the radiation is the sum of all the little areas that radiate, and those aren’t necessarily T, they are all pairs of T+d and T-d.
So the fourth power of the first of the pair is always
T^4 + 4T^3d + 6T^2d^2 + 4Td^3 + d^4,
and the fourth power of the second of each pair is always
T^4 – 4T^3d + 6T^2d^2 – 4Td^3 + d^4.
If you sum those together and divide by 2 (for the average) you always get.
T^4 + 6T^2d^2 + d^4
This is always greater than T^4 by 6T^2d^2 + d^4.
So the bigger the temperature deviations, the larger the increase in radiation, and the larger the back-calculated gray body temperature, even though the planet’s actual average temperature is exactly the same value, T, because of the way we paired all the deviations, d.
The difference from using the simple average temperature T, which would be based on just T^4, is always positive because 6T^2d^2 + d^4 can only produce positive numbers. That shift from T doesn’t average out.
I thought about doing that math, but never did. So the divergence is not only related to the deviation from the average, but also related to the average temperature itself. Very interesting.
I always assumed that the deviation was small, but from this result, that is not the case at all. For a 1 degree difference (plus and minus 1 degree), so 2 degrees total, and using earth’s mean temperature of 288 K, and your formula the error from taking the average with their being just two different temperature regions is 6T^2d^2 + d^4 = 497,665 which would be the error in energy units, but taking the fourth root yields 705 degrees.
Solving for T in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation isn’t averaging temperature. It is knowing what emissions are and calculating an emission temperature. It is not a temperature at the surface but somewhere effectively higher in the atmosphere.
@atandb
Well, you also have to multiply through by the Stefan Boltzmann constant and emissivity to get back to a temperature. Also note that a deviation is probably going to be much smaller than the actual temperature (270K +- 27K). When you take that to the fourth power, the temperature component in my example will be 10,000 times bigger than the deviation component. (270^4 = 5.3E9, 6T^2d^2 = 0.318e9, and 27^4 = 531,000).
@Robert Ellison.
Solving for T in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation isn’t averaging temperature. It is knowing what emissions are and calculating an emission temperature. It is not a temperature at the surface but somewhere effectively higher in the atmosphere.
What I’m pointing out is that solving for T is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation doesn’t necessarily produce the average temperature of anything being measured. If the object has two different temperatures, it has two different radiative fluxes. If you sum those fluxes into a total measured flux and use Stefan Boltzmann to calculate a temperature, that temperature isn’t the average temperature of the two emitting surfaces.
The answer the SB equation produces will be higher than the average temperature, sometimes significantly so. And due to the nature of the math, you could have shifts where the SB temperature goes up while the average planetary temperature drops, and vice versa.
The fourth power law means the emissions don’t necessarily track with temperatures if the emitting body is non-uniform. You could say that a warm oven with the light out will potentially look colder than a refrigerator with the light on, because the light’s emissions are so out of kilter with the average temperature state of the whole object.
A little playing around in a spreadsheet will show how fraught with difficulty such calculations are, and why simple averages don’t provide much useful information other than very rough estimates.
And of course Stefan-Boltzmann is a law of physics in the same way Bode’s law of planetary distances is. The maximum junction temperature of a $2.00 Cree daylight LED is 473 Kelvin, but Stefan Boltzmann would calculate its temperature as 5000 Kelvin. When violating the law is cheap and easy, I wouldn’t bet the planet on the calculated results without really crunching the numbers in fine detail.
Robert I Ellison: Emitted power flux is unchanged by angular velocity by the terms of the thought experiment.
What changes with angular velocity is the distribution of the temperatures that leads to emitted energy matching received energy. Jensen’s inequality is not hand waving — you and the readers could look it up.. Your insistence that only mean temperature matters, and not the distribution of temperature, is incorrect.
In case anyone is interested in Jensen’s inequality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen's_inequality
There isn’t a simple relation between mean T and total energy emitted.
There is. It is called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
Robert I Ellison: There is. It is called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
That is false. S-B relates the energy emission at a place to the temperature of that place. Total energy of a large region, over time, requires the integral of the energy emitted per place and time with respect to the distribution of the energies emitted. That isn’t a simple function of the integral of the temperature with respect to the temperature distribution. It would be if the S-B equation were linear in temperature, instead of being a function of T^4.
The Earth warms to a temperature at which energy out equals energy in. The emission is proportional to T^4.
Robert, what I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert I Ellison: The Earth warms to a temperature at which energy out equals energy in.
That is a good line to end on: Earth warms to a temperature
The Earth warms to a temperature at which energy out equals energy in. The emission is proportional to T^4. How is this not a simple idea backed by experimental and theoretical physics? Whatever the spatial variation in temperature is?
Matthew would have you believe that mean temperature changes with a changing temperature distribution while total emissions stay the same. It is the sort of unphysical nonsense I expect from him.
Robert I Ellison: Matthew would have you believe that mean temperature changes with a changing temperature distribution while total emissions stay the same.
That is what I would have you believe.
Mean[t^4} does not equal [Mean t]^4; there isn’t a simple relationship between the two terms.
j* = σT1^4 = σT2^4
=> T1 = T2 = (j*/σ)^0.25
Whatever the distribution – mean temperature is proportional to total emissions.
That mean temperature changes and emissions stay the same is unphysical.
RE
“In Christos’s scheme – the faster spinning planet is warmer and thus must be emitting more energy. That is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.”
While not wanting to contribute to Christos ‘ reasoning flaws this is not a violation of the first law.
Only if emitting from all the same points at all the same higher temperature,
then you would be right.
Energy in is energy out.
Christos is not saying that the energy coming out is different [or is he?].
He is saying that the energy output from the centre of the hot side on a non rotating planet is far greater than that from a rapid spinning planet.
Take the planet up to warp speed and it is still energy in equals energy out.
What you are saying is right for a spinning planet.
When it slows down, stops is best, you then get a heat map from 0 longitude central very high radiation with the sun permanently overhead to cold frozen areas at 180 on both sides.
Due to SB much more heat comes into and goes out of a small central area which is very hot but does not go up as much in temperature as the large colder areas go down with no energy.
The average temperature for a rapidly spinning sphere ] is the true temperature of even radiation in and out.
The temperature average for a still sphere is lower due to the averaged temperatures not equaling the median temperature.
What is needed is a schemata or map of the whole earth surface over 24 hours
In Christos’ scheme – the faster spinning planet is warmer and thus must be emitting more energy – without an increase in absorbed energy. Surely that’s obvious? So the spun up Mars ends up emitting more energy than is being absorbed – however the planetary heat is distributed. That is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Emitted power flux is unchanged by angular velocity by the terms of the thought experiment – therefore the average temperature is unchanged.
T1 = T2 = (j*/5.670374419…×10−8 )^0.25
A physical law and simple math.
NASA Study Goes to Earth’s Core for Climate Insights
Mar 09, 2011
“Our research demonstrates that, for the past 160 years, decadal and longer-period changes in atmospheric temperature correspond to changes in Earth’s length of day if we remove the very significant effect of atmospheric warming attributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases due to mankind’s enterprise,” said Dickey. “Our study implies that human influences on climate during the past 80 years mask the natural balance that exists among Earth’s rotation, the core angular momentum and the temperature at Earth’s surface.”
Still other studies have observed a link between the long-duration variations in Earth’s length of day and fluctuations of up to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.4 degree Fahrenheit) in Earth’s long-term global average surface air temperature.
The daily variation is in the order of milliseconds and has been attributed to variability in trade winds. That in turn reflect changes in the Pacific Ocean state importantly – and thus global temperature.
This post reminds me of a blockchain. Ever growing.
They all talk about summing energy flux over the planet. But we know power flux in equals power flux out – eventually. And the average temperature can be calculated from power flux.
T= (j*/ 5.670374419…×10−8)^0.25
A physical law and simple math. No assumptions required.
I set out to show that Christos’ novel physical law violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. A faster spinning planet is warmer he insists incessantly. To avoid the need for an atmospheric greenhouse effect.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures/_jcr_content/articleContent/image.img.jpg/1374177879538.jpg
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html
A warmer planet radiates more energy – so unless there is an empirically demonstrated mechanism for absorbing more incoming energy – spinning up a planet cannot cause it to be warmer. Emissions of greenhouse gases to Earth’s atmosphere does.
Curious George
Not as big as the IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion thread.
Unresolvable.
Both sides arguing across each other based on different premises.
Roy Spencer explains it.
Short of either side calling a friendly and respected physicist and mediating it will continue to blockchain.
Said my piece several times so no more.
Would you care to give some opinion at the other post on Optimum temp or optimum CO2 level in your view?
I know you do not usually comment but I think WG1 needs more input.
Thanks.
Would appreciate RE to comment there as well if he wishes as he usually puts up a very good precis when he comments which I respect as well.
This is resolvable with fundamental physics.
Apparently there is a belief that the planet can be warmer while emitting the same amount of IR.
New theory doesn’t have planets emitting on average…
In New theory planets emit in TOTAL!
Earth emits in TOTAL:
Φ(1-a)1361 ( W/m²) *πr² (m²) = 0,47(1-0,306)1361*πr² (W) =
= 443,93*πr² (W) = 444*πr² (W)
the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
substituting for Earth, we obtain Tmean .earth = 288K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Old theory has the planet emitting at a temperature that is not the surface temperature but somewhere higher in the atmosphere.
In total emissions are equal at maximum entropy to power flux in. If power flux out is constant when the planets angular velocity changes – then there is a constant greybody temperature that can be calculated for that body.
T1 = T2 = (j*/5.670374419…×10−8)^0.25
Although there is some odd notion that the spun up planet can be warmer without emitting more IR. Certainly it may be warmer or cooler in places but this T is calculated for a total emission.
But I think we have a consensus that Christos’ ‘new physics’ constants are aberrations and there is no further need to add to the hundreds if not thousands of the same comment.
Robert
“If power flux out is constant when the planets angular velocity changes – then there is a constant greybody temperature that can be calculated for that body.
T1 = T2 = (j*/5.670374419…×10−8)^0.25 ”
Of course, Robert, it can be calculated… But you have already cleared it out above, “planet does not have uniform temperature” thus one cannot calculate for planet surface a constant greybody temperature.
What you refer to Robert, is an imaginary object having constant uniform temperature.
This imaginary object of yours is not solar irradiated from one side, but as you put it, the imaginary body is already warmed up to the calculated temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Absolutely not what I said. There is no uniform temperature. Some places are warmer some cooler – a physical reality that changes constantly.
A global temperature – however – is an emergent property and is a function of the total emission – j* – summed over the planet.
T = (j*/5.670374419…×10−8)^0.25
A physical law and simple math. The greybody temperature of Earth is some 255 K. The observed surface temperature is about 288 K.
The reason why becomes apparent when planetary temps and atmospheres are compared. Which is just the tip of the iceberg of atmospheric science.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures/_jcr_content/articleContent/image.img.jpg/1374177879538.jpg
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html
And Christos has the effrontery to claim to throw it all over with an imaginary new physical law. It joins Alan Lowry in the abyss of contrarian blog science.
Robert
” The greybody temperature of Earth is some 255 K. ”
An imaginary greybody…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But I think we have a consensus that Christos’ ‘new physics’ constants are aberrations .
Certainly the explanation is not clear.
angech, what constants are aberrations?
There is only one constant:
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
Φ – is the solar irradiation accepting factor, it is not a constant, for different planets Φ-factor varies between
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
Please visit my site, the page “SOLAR ENERGY BUDGET”
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448704125
The problem that Christos has is that he believes that the laws of physics are different in space (for planets) than what is observed on the earth. This is not the case. If I take a ball, suspend it on a string and then use a bulb to generate heat I can test the physics. I will need to either produce a vacuum between the ball and the heat source, do it in space, or account for the air, but I assume that all of the above have been done as we have the technology to do all of these. The formulas are a result of experiments like this.
Further, “Although the Stefan–Boltzmann law and constant were first determined experimentally, both can be derived mathematically from Planck’s law. ” https://www.cv.nrao.edu/~sransom/web/A2.html
Apparently, if Christos were correct, we would be talking about altering not just the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but Planck’s law, which if it were correct would be a major breakthrough in our understanding. However, his formula does not follow very basic sanity checks that can be performed. For instance, when N is zero his formula simplifies to T=0. So for a body that does not spin with reference to its heat source its temperature is absolute zero, as the temperature in this formula is in Kelvins and T=0 means absolute zero where objects do not emit energy. We know from basic physics, and experience that heating up a stationary object means that the object will give off heat. One does not have to spin your food to get it to heat up. Spinning it will distribute the heat more evenly, but either way the temperature is going to increase.
Robert I Ellison: Although there is some odd notion that the spun up planet can be warmer without emitting more IR
Who has written that odd notion?
It is the temperature of a body emitting a power flux. That doesn’t change with angular velocity. Earth’s observed surface temperature is higher because of our atmosphere.
The current approach to global climate is a forcings-based one. Select a parameter – temperature is popular – then study as many forcing factors as you can, to see how much they can change a temperature.
Broadly, an alternative approach would be based on principles described as recovery-based. If a part of the global system has been perturbed, how does the system come back to the generally stable state that has been revealed by just about every study so far. By stable, I mean an absence of severe tipping points, with ‘severe’ being a subjective matter.
Global temperature variations are still in the process of being measured, re-measured and validated. Assuming that we can get an approximate idea that is good enough, we then use the recovery-based style of thought to explore what is happening with temperatures. We assume that there is a near-equilibrium state that says that TOA energy coming in just about equals energy going out, with fluctuations about a steady mean, because no processes we have measured show how the global system can create or consume excess energy.
A current forcing-style postulate is that GHG are warming the air through radiative physics principles and so the oceans as heat sinks are extracting warmth and becoming hotter. The recovery explanation might be that processes like ocean overturning have recently brought warmer-than-usual water to the surface globally, that this has reacted to the partial pressure physics of solubility and released CO2 into the air for a temporary time period until the surface ocean temperatures fall again from mixing.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive exposition, so much as a plea to keep open minds about processes that seem to have become dominated by group think. Question the science, then question it again and again. That is how knowledge advances. Geoff S
The strikingly peculiar thing about climatology, which is much concerned about the behavior of time series, is that well-established analysis techniques for signals and systems are almost never employed. Instead, various forms of regression analysis, wholly inadequate for analyzing time-varying variables, are blithely relied upon. Small wonder that the results obtained are almost never consistent, let alone convincing.
Regression isn’t used to analyse time series but to attribute causation of changes in time series. But to do that requires knowledge of all the physical processes driving change. Including natural variability.
‘Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, offer grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs on all time scales, from minute to geological, but our limited senses and life span, as well as the short time window of instrumental observations, restrict our perception to the most apparent daily to yearly variations. As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are just a short-term “noise” superimposed to the daily and annual cycles in a scene that is static and invariant in the long run. According to this perception, only an exceptional and extraordinary forcing can produce a long-term change. The hydrologist H. E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.’ http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1351/
The Hurst exponent is the product of a simple statistical procedure.
e.g. https://blog.quantinsti.com/hurst-exponent/
It provides a measure of departure of a process from a random walk. The Nile River series – hydrologically coupled to the entire Earth flow field shows the Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic. Harold Hurst studied the Nile River – Andrey Kolmogorov turbulence.
Fluid flow at these two scales are fractal – whorls within whorls down to viscosity. The Navier-Stokes equation for incompressible fluid flow can be unpacked into incalculable millions of equations at ever diminishing scales from planetary waves to micro-eddies.
The Hurst exponent shows the tendency for hydroclimatic series to have a sequence of similar sized events. It was an early and impressive insight into a mechanism that is now recognised as deterministic chaos. One in which the elements of climate – atmosphere, hydrosphere, cyrosphere, biosphere and lithosphere – are a complex system that exhibits emergent behaviour – regimes and abrupt shifts – in response to small change. Climate shifts on decadal to millennial scales – and it can be very rapid and intense.
RIE,
Can you show that the Nile flow record was not influenced by factors such as flow changes after earthquake alterations to local topography, landslips causing transient dams, changes in basin evaporation with changes in vegetation and similar? Geoff S
While there can of course be random changes – what the Hurst exponent reveals is the tendency for a succession of similar size (high or low) flows. It is no surprise to hydrologists. This paper is what piqued my curiosity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871224_Geomorphic_Effects_of_Alternating_Flood-_and_Drought-Dominated_Regimes_on_NSW_Coastal_Rivers
To “attribute causation of changes in time series” produced by dynamic systems in thoroughly convincing manner, one needs an analytic framework well beyond elementary Hurst-Kolmogorov statistics. Such a comprehensive framework is provided by Wiener-Hopf theory. For linear systems, such attribution is obtained via cross-spectrum analysis between system input and output signals. For systems with instantaneous nonlinearities, so-called “describing function” linearization can be employed. Full-blown dynamical systems with memory need specialized methods involving stochastic integrals. Neither climatologists nor hydrologists–let alone their acolytes–show any evidence of being well-versed in these methodological advances.
The statistical method was developed by Hurst in the first half of the 20th century. It shows that classical statistics – based on an assumption of independence – is not appropriate for analysis of hydroclimatic series.
What is?
Stochastics of Hydroclimatic Extremes – A Cool Look at Risk -http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/2000/
Ahhh… http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/2000/
Rie,
Your literary romanticism seems to be on the rise. Have you plans to write an update of Emily Bronte’s 1856 novel and perhaps name it “Weathering Heights”? Geoff S
Geoff’s simple minded but long winded errors ‘can be very bad indeed: sloppy, meandering, puerile, ungrammatical, poorly spelled, badly structured and at times virtually content free.’
He has taken umbrage at a comment of mine that is completely at odds with his latest pronouncement from on high on the stability of climate. A risible notion in the larger scheme of things of course. But instead of logical, detailed, well supported and civil discourse he resorts to this level of puerile disparagement.
2. Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.moon
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin……..100.K…220.K…390.K
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Moon’s albedo: amoon = 0,11
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,32 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
Moon does N = 1/29,5 rotations/per day
Moon is a rocky planet, Moon’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φmoon = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S* Φ*π*r²*(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC, moon’s surface specific heat (moon’s surface is considered as a dry soil)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.moon:
Tmean.moon = [ Φ (1 – a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.moon = { 0,47 (1 – 0,11) 1.361 W/m² [150* (1/29,5)*0,19]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.moon = ( 2.488.581.418,96 )¹∕ ⁴ = 223,35 K
Tmean.moon = 223,35 Κ
The newly calculated Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature differs only by 1,54% from that measured by satellites!
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We have been through this repeatedly and at length. Suppose we spin up a planet while keeping incoming and outgoing power flux the same. The emitting temperature of the planet – that in the case of the Earth is not the surface temperature – remains the same. Solving the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for T:
T1 = T2 = (j*/σ)^0.25
Christos’ ‘new physics’ is contrived nonsense. Repeating it multiple times in every post is not welcome.
Here is a peer reviewed paper that corroborates what I have been asserting for years: That water vapor controls the climate and CO2 has no significant influence. The sun matters because it provides the energy to drive the water vapor into the atmosphere http://thelightfootinstitute.ca/imglib/Earth_temp_paper.pdf
Statements therein include:
“In other words, the non-condensing GHGs are passive and do not affect Earth’s temperature because they are always rendered ineffective by the much larger warming by water vapor.”
“The increase in temperature over the decades mid-1970s to 2011 was caused by an increase in water vapor and not by an increase in CO2.”
“Carbon dioxide and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) as in Figure 3 are small, passive, and have no effect on the Earth’s temperature.”
A recent update of my work which focuses on the observation that WV controls climate because it has been increasing faster than possible from just planet warming is at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338805648_Water_vapor_vs_CO2_for_planet_warming_14
Dan thanks.
seems to make sense
RE has exposed one of the flaws in your argument Christos.
“Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,32 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
Moon does N = 1/29,5 rotations/per day”:
The vexed question of rotation of an object.
You have now specified two of the different types of rotation,
Sidereal and orbital.
A third type is inclination of the rotation in orbital motion.
In other words your formula is having a bit both ways. If the formula does not work adjust your definition of the rotation until it does.
From an Einstein view of space time one can always find a reference frame in which an object is not rotating. The object itself.
Hence there is no law of physics that can apply a force to the components of that structure.
It, as RE says, still has to emit as per SB, plus follow numerous other physical laws where force and movement do apply.
This leads back to your formula being untenable on 2 grounds.
The first that it allows for a planet to be either having no rotation or infinite rotation breaking the speed of light.
The second is your use of terms to get to an eighth power.
SB to the forth power is hard enough to visualise and uses up every last bit of wriggle room in third dimensional mathematics.
It is physically and mathematically impossible to work in terms of powers to the eight for calculations.
Just looking at it makes one shudder.
Take it down to quantum terms where these concepts do exist and a lot of your stuff might be fine.
You have put a lot of time , thought and effort in, appreciated.
The concept of a more even spread of temperature with rotation leading to the temperature approaching the maximum permitted temperature for energy in, energy out is correct
The moon is rotating 27 to 29 days in its orbit around the sun depending on your choice of frame. This is easily shown by the fact that it over that time the sun gets to irradiate both sides in turn
The moon does not technically rotate in its travel around the earth as shown by the fact that the same side always faces the earth.
Isolate the two structures together and you will never see a rotation
In other words you are assigning the moons rotation as it orbits the sun to a fictitious mathematical orbit of the earth.
If one looks at the two bodies in isolation which is what you are doing in your other rotational calculations.
Thank you angech.
I should correct, and instead of:
“Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,32 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
Moon does N = 1/29,5 rotations/per day”
I should write: Moon’s diurnal cycle is 29,5 days. Thus Moon (sphere) performs N = 1/29,5 diurnal cycle/per day.
Thank you again.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech
“The second is your use of terms to get to an eighth power.
SB to the forth power is hard enough to visualise and uses up every last bit of wriggle room in third dimensional mathematics.”
In New equation it is twice the forth root operated on planetary (N*cp) product, resulting to the sixteenth root.
The planet surface rotational warming phenomenon states:
The planets’ average (mean) surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
It is an observed phenomenon, I have demonstrated it in my site by the different planets mean surface temperatures comparison.
Also it should be said, that the planet surface rotational warming phenomenon also includes the planet average surface specific heat cp.
Earth is on average warmer than Moon, not only because of Earth’s faster rotation, but also because of Earth’s average surface higher specific heat. Earth’s average surface specific heat is five times higher than Moon’s (cp.water = 1cal/gr.oC vs cp.regolith.soil = 0,19cal/gr.oC).
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert I. Ellison | September 5, 2021 at 6:25 pm |
”There is. It is called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.”
The problem might be the difference in the meaning of average or median or mean temperature as used in SB?
Mean can be calculated for any distribution including Poisson, Binomial and Geometric. If the distribution is arithmetic, then the mean is equal to average.
Here the distribution is not arithmetic which means the mean can differ from the average.
There is a mean temperature at which the energy out matches the emitting temperature.
There is an average temperature which is a sum here of non arithmetic parts.
Due to the non arithmetic nature of the emissions from the areas of the different temperatures , areas which are substantially higher in energy do not go up proportionate to the energy they emit, leading to a lower sum [average] temperature for the area as a total.
The only time an irradiated area has a temp that matches the emissions is when it has uniform irradiation and uniform emission. The black body sphere.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is obtained by integrating Planck spectral radiance.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hxYGaegxAM
We can approximate a blackbody by ignoring energy reflected from our blue-green planet.
Solving for temperature gives a blackbody emission temperature.
A rotating body exposed to a heat source will warm to the emission temperature at which time energy out is equal to energy in.
Robert I. Ellison | September 6, 2021 at 1:09 am
We can approximate a blackbody by ignoring energy reflected from our blue-green planet.
No it is a real body, not a theoretical blackbody.
Solving for temperature gives a blackbody emission temperature.
Only for a blackbody, a theoretical construct.
A rotating body exposed to a heat source will warm to the emission temperature at which time energy out is equal to energy in.
Only if it is a theoretical black body.
It does not apply to real world bodies.
The difference being that a blackbody emits the same amount of energy in all directions, virtually instantaneously. That is the energy that comes in at one spot is presumed to go out from all different parts of the surface at once.
Not the case for a real planet, The energy in goes out maximally from the spot directly under the source, then to a lesser amount as the area under irradiation receives less per curvature of the earth and finally on the dark side is receiving none to put out.
It cannot act like a theoretical blackbody, much as you wish it to.
Perhaps if Roy Spencer is not satisfactory you could ask Judith or RJP jun or anyone reasonable to opine,
Maybe even science of doom though he seems a little inactive these days.
Not me.
The third rock from the sun will warm to a temperature at which energy out equals energy in. That emission is proportional to T^4.
A rotating body will warm to a temperature at which energy out equals energy in. It is fundamental planetary physics that you cannot escape no matter how many mights and maybes you throw at it.
angech
“The only time an irradiated area has a temp that matches the emissions is when it has uniform irradiation and uniform emission. The black body sphere.”
For the rotating planet there is also may coincide the Tmean = Te. In this case the planetary average temperature Tmean is not a uniform surface temperature, but it coincides with the planet blackbody effective temperature Te numerically.
In Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
the calculated Tmean equals Te when (β*N*cp) = 1.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Only when the planet is spinning infinitely fast.
So the radiation is uniform over all the surface.
The theoretical black body has source illumination but magical emission from all sides without thought of how the energy gets instantly to the other side.
Your example unfortunately is also conceivable but physically impossible.
The third construct is an outer sphere giving uniform radiation but runs into the problem of how the outgoing energy is not intercepted.
If a planet can be uniformly irradiated and uniformly emit heat the SB equation becomes true and complete and RE would be right.
Everything above absolute zero emits energy. The Earth emits energy proportional to its temperature. How is this not a simple idea backed by experimental and theoretical physics?
Pingback: CLINTEL Goes to Court – XRVL.com
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #468 – XRVL.com
Pingback: Statistical Method Used to Link Climate Change to Greenhouse Gases Challenged - True USA
Pingback: Statistical Method Used to Link Climate Change to Greenhouse Gases Challenged – Million Voices USA
Get Willard over here.
Thanks Matt for trying
Matthew R Marler : Matthew would have you believe that mean temperature changes with a changing temperature distribution while total emissions stay the same.
Mean[t^4} does not equal [Mean t]^4; there isn’t a simple relationship between the two terms.
As I keep saying – averaging temperature is not required. That emerges from fundamental 170 year old physics.
j* = σT1^4 = σT2^4
=> T1 = T2 = (j*/σ)^0.25
Whatever the distribution – mean temperature is proportional to total emissions.
That mean temperature changes and emission stays the same is unphysical. Conservation of energy says otherwise. Earth warms to a temperature at which energy out equals energy in. Although the reality is a bit more dynamic than that.
‘Mean[t^4} does not equal [Mean t]^4; there isn’t a simple relationship between the two terms.’
Although this is not remotely meaningful. Instead:
T = (T1 + T2 … + Tn)/n (1)
And:
j* = σT1^4 + σT2^4 + … + σTn^4
Where:
T = (j*/ σ)^0.25 (2)
1 and 2 are equal whatever the distribution.
These guys are not engineers.
But the second T isn’t necessarily equal to the first T.
If T = 280, made up of a 280 K northern hemisphere and a 280 K southern hemisphere, then T = j*^0.25 = (280^4 + 280^4)/2 = 280.
If the north is 240K and the south is 320 K, the average T is still 280 K.
But if we calculate T = j*^0.25 = (240^4 + 320^4)/2 we get 288.23.
That’s off by 8.23 degrees.
The second case radiates like it’s at 288.23 K, even though it’s only at 280 K.
That’s not because of clouds or any other physical factor, it’s just due to the way the math works.
The problem is that the Stefan Boltzmann law applies to a black body (singular), not an assemblage of bodies with different temperatures, such as a planet with a non-uniform temperature. It skews toward the hot side if there is a range of temperatures, because cool areas don’t contribute much to the radiation. A place that’s twice has hot as another produces 16 times as much radiant energy.
For a simple thought experiment, suppose you have a top-notch astronomical telescope observing a small region of space containing a star and a large, dark planet whose surface temperature isn’t significantly different from absolute zero, say a few Kelvins at most. The planet is a small fraction of a light-year from the star, and it’s surface is very dark, so it doesn’t reflect any detectable radiation. It might as well be a black hole.
At our telescope, we can measure the properties of the real star with quite some accuracy. We can probably use a couple of techniques to detect the planet’s mass and distance, but we will never detect the planet directly because it doesn’t emit much of anything.
We can also use the Stefan Boltzmann law to calculate the temperature of the star, and we can study its spectral lines all night long. When we calculate the stars temperature, the fact that half of what we’re measuring is the planet doesn’t enter into the calculations. Suppose the planet is the same size as the star, and the star is 6000 Kelvin. The average temperature of what we’re looking at in the telescope is thus 3000 Kelvin. But what we see is just a star at 6000 K, and that’s what all our instruments and calculations will show, because the planet doesn’t even factor into it. If we somehow knew the size of the cold planet, and thus divided the total flux by two, SB would say the system’s temperature is 5000 Kelvin instead of 6000 K. That answer is incorrect by 2000 Kelvin.
Stefan Boltzmann shows us the temperature of the extremely hot thing, not the extremely cold thing. Similarly, if you used SB to measure the temperature when you’re welding on a piece of steel, it would tell you the temperature of the arc, not the average temperature of the whole I-beam, because the I-beam isn’t really emitting much light except for at one tiny molten pool of metal. Its thermal radiation gets swamped by the blinding cloud of ionized gas above the weld pool.
To use SB precisely, you have to break the system down into small surface of uniform temperature and then back calculate the temperature of each surface, and then use those measured temperatures to calculate things like average temperatures.
George – I got as far as you plugging temperatures into SB to calculate temperature.
It’s poor math and worse physics. Earth is not a perfect blackbody – they seem to have belatedly discovered. So we discount reflected solar radiation. That leaves Earth absorbing and emitting some 240 W/m^2. The quantum mechanics of emission is that it is proportional to T raised to some power. For a blackbody it is the 4th power found by integrating Planck spectral radiance – but also by experiment. Reality may be somewhat different – but by how much the exponent varies they can’t say. Still the fundamentals apply – at higher temperatures the emissions are exponentially higher. It is a large negative feedback to warming or cooling. A linear interpolation of the Planck feedback is said to be -3.2 W/m^2/K.
‘A place that’s twice has hot as another produces 16 times as much radiant energy.’ GT
A place that’s half as hot as another produces 16 times less radiant energy. Still – the total emission is some 240 W/m2 – that equates to a temperature of 255 K by the SB formula.
‘The second case radiates like it’s at 288.23 K, even though it’s only at 280 K.’ GT
He’s plugging the wrong variable in. But even so – if you get a result that is physically impossible it has failed the sanity test.
Thanks George
RE is not going to move on this one.
I tried to get some extra advice but it does not contradict him
‘A place that’s twice has hot as another produces 16 times as much radiant energy.’ GT
A place that’s half as hot as another produces 16 times less radiant energy. Still – the total emission is some 240 W/m2 – that equates to a temperature of 255 K by the SB formula. RE.
I think the problem is there in his explanation.
He is taking two equal areas for the different energy fluxes and of course the average comes out the same.
What he is missing is that the area of low radiance are 15 times larger than the one area of high radiance.
Hence the average temperature producing 240 W/m2 is less than 255K by a significant amount..
15 by 250K plus 1X 275 averaging out say at 252
It is like average time for two different velocities.
If you take the same time for a 15 K/H horse and a 45 K/H horse for an hour you get 60 K of distance and an average of 30 K per hour.
If you run them both for 450 K you get 30 hours for one and 10 hours for the other.
40 hours for 900 K is 22.5 K/H average.
This is the sort of maths that might be involved that RE might be overlooking.
I am taking as many regions as you like. Cool places emit exponentially less and warm exponentially more – but it all adds up to 240 W/m^2. Now we have horses?
RE “I am taking as many regions as you like. Cool places emit exponentially less and warm exponentially more – but it all adds up to 240 W/m^2. Now we have horses?”
No, we have a discussion, with in this case an analogy trying to get around a roadblock in my understanding.
You are one of the best commentators going around with clear thinking backed by references when needed.
The problem for me is that I have read Roy Spencer’s view that rotation rate can have an effect on average temperature due to the exponential differences.
I quoted his post.
Since his understanding of the physics and maths is also extremely good I think you have to provide a bit more explanation of why his maths is wrong.
I point out that other people here have also espoused this view for the same mathematical reasons.
Note,
neither Spencer, myself, Marler or George Turner have any dogs in the debate with Christos over his unexplained theories.
Nor do we dispute that the energy in equals the energy out.
Merely saying that because the energy that comes in is not distributed equally. Yet it has to leave from areas whose temperature varies linearly while the energy going out varies logarithmically.
The energy adds up to 240
The average temperature does not.
It is not a physical issue, it is a mathematical issue
Temperature might reflect the underlying energy but it is not additive, as you pointed out. Double the temp is 16 times the energy.
The consequence is when half receives no energy. The other half gets all the energy
Taken to extremes say E= 160 K average.
All the energy to hot half [ double what it was getting when rotating]
gives a rise of 40K to 200 K [X16 for a double of temp]
Not to 400 K.
No energy to cold side equals 0 K
Add the 2 together and divide by 2 average temp is now 100 K.
No point repeating energy in is energy out.
Average temp is a mathematical concept different to average exponential energy derived temperature.
Where is the maths wrong?
Not because it does not give you the right energy output .
It does.
Just not the right average temperature.
‘Average temp is a mathematical concept different to average exponential energy derived temperature.’
Tmean = (T1 + T2 + … + Tn)/n = ( 240/σ)^0.25
It is just solving for T in two different ways. Unless you are arguing that the SB equation can’t give a reasonable estimate?
The average emission of 240 W/m2 is at an average temperature. This is the real earth and not some hypothetical non-rotating body. Spin it up and average emissions – all things being equal – are still 240 W/m^2 at the same average temperature. Ignoring physics is a fatal error.
Robert I Ellison: The average emission of 240 W/m2 is at an average temperature.
That is the mathematical claim that is contradicted (for all convex functions) by Holder’s inequality. You ought to look it up.
MRM, oops, Jensen’s inequality. Sorry
It isn’t a ‘convex function’. At every unit area the emission is proportional to temperature – not necessarily surface. Average emission is 240 W/m^2 and average temperature is some 288 K. Now unless there is some physical mechanism – and not just some half arsed math – that doesn’t change with angular velocity.
Robert I Ellison: It isn’t a ‘convex function’. At every unit area the emission is proportional to temperature – not necessarily surface.
Boy, the stuff you make up!
For T >= 0, T^4 is a convex function.
You are not imaging T < 0 (on the absolute scale), were you?
As for radiation to space from below the surface, is the surface and immediate subsurface volume now conceptualized to be transparent to radiation? In the LWIR range?
Actually E=kT^4 is convex everywhere, including where T<0 , although in this case T<0 has no meaning as T is in kelvin by definition.
atandb: Actually E=kT^4 is convex everywhere, including where T<0
OH, so it is.
It is a power function – but that’s not the half arsed math.
Some 7% of the outgoing power flux is emitted from the surface. The rest from the atmosphere of course. At a lower temperature.
Robert I Ellison: It is a power function
Is that how you justify your claim that T^4 is not convex?
‘As for radiation to space from below the surface, is the surface and immediate subsurface volume now conceptualized to be transparent to radiation? In the LWIR range?’ MM
It’s a sort of madness.
Robert I Ellison: It is a power function
You don’t know what a convex function is, do you?
The rest from the atmosphere of course.
I am glad that you clarified where in 3D space the outgoing radiation, and temperatures, are distributed.
I can’t believe that I had to ‘clarify’ that it was not sub-surface emission.
Robert I Ellison: I can’t believe that I had to ‘clarify’ that it was not sub-surface emission.
You have avoided the issue of the spatio-temporal distributions of temperatures and emissions. Now it appears that the “average” temperature is an average of what? An unspecified region of the atmosphere plus the surface?
The average power flux emission of the Earth is some 240 W/m^2. That’s obtained from geometry, albedo and solar irradiance. It is proportional to an emission temperature. Despite MM’s cr@p math and worse physics.
The average power flux emission of the Earth is some 240 W/m^2. That’s obtained from geometry, albedo and solar irradiance. It is proportional to an emission temperature. Despite MM’s cr@p math and worse physics.
Strangely enough Mathew is still trying to help you.
The question is not about the 240 average power flux emission of the earth.
We all know and agree with that.
The question is about the average emission temperature of the earth under different rotation speeds.
Here, because we all have a beef with Christos theorem’s, you have chosen a statement of his , which is perfectly logical, perfectly physical and perfectly mathematical, unlike his conclusions as the vehicle to debunk him.
The vehicle has crashed.
No point endlessly repeating arguments about angular velocity not affecting energy emission.
We all agree with you.
Angular velocity affects average temperatures of the earth’s putative surface.
Whether it has an atmosphere or not.
Full stop.
You cannot dispute this by refusing to discuss actual question, well, actually you can.
The maths, the facts, the definitions that we are talking about are quite clear.
Spencer states it clearly and I take his knowledge very clearly.
Ned of NV is on your side.
The fellow who does not believe in GHG warming.
He cannot accept it because it wrecks part of his theory on pressures only.
The average surface temperature is very hard to define on a planet with an atmosphere.
But it is definable if not perfect.
It is not the TOA except when there is no atmosphere.
TOA = surface temp.
The TOA is an energy emission boundary hence always defined as a figure that equates to the energy a perfect black body would emit.
Average surface temperature tries to reach this figure but fails as the Earth earth is not spinning fast enough for it to be an ideal emitting body.
When the spin is slow or stopped we have uneven heating.
The maths and physics hold sway.
Areas that receive more heat put out more heat but at a much lower non linear temperature increase.
Because you average the temperature increases, not the energy outputs
the average temperature drops even though the hottest area is putting out most of the heat.
It cannot raise the temperature in its area enough to help the planet reach the average temperature.
As said, you can dismiss the argument by talking about energy rather than temperature.
You can ignore it.
Both valid.
Or you could try to use the mathematics to disprove it.
As an aside based on your interests there was an article on the Maillard temperature that may, it’s culinary not scientific physics, someone called O’Keefe’s textbook that throws a light on optimal temperatures, depth and spread of heat.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The surface temperature of the Earth is estimated at 288 K. Satellites do not measure surface temperature. They measure emissions from temperature related oxygen excitation in the atmosphere.
The outgoing infrared radiant flux, 239 W/m^2, from the atmosphere, clouds, and a small amount from the surface, is that obtained from the simple Stefan-Boltzmann model for a black body at a temperature of 255 K.
The Earth has an atmosphere with physical radiative properties and neglecting that is profoundly unscientific. Any estimate of the effect of the atmosphere – and these are not based on Stefan-Boltzmann – but on measurement and sophisticated radiative transfer equations – makes a nonsense of Christos’ odd equation with its new physical constants.
Things for which there is neither empirical evidence or a theoretical basis.
It is just just sky dragon slaying that lacks sophistication and credibility. Not worth repeating many times on every post. What is the point?
Pingback: Statistical Method Used to Link Climate Change to Greenhouse Gases Challenged – No Blue Dawn
and they don’t bother to look at the Vostok study of 400,000 years of ice core samples which PROVE that higher CO2 FOLLOWS WARMING instead of causing it as the commie, Al Gore, said and got an award for saying
Pingback: IPCC Method Linking Climate Change To Greenhouse Gases Disputed - altnews.org
Pingback: IPCC Method Linking Climate Change To Greenhouse Gases Disputed – Menopausal Mother Nature
Only about 25% of the recent increase in CO2 was from human activity according to Dr Ed Berry’s preprint 3 at https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3. Berry’s findings are consistent with mine at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Pingback: The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed — Climate Etc. | Standard Climate
Robert I. Ellison
I have asked elsewhere and two people with some knowledge of the answer gave these replies.
1 .Consider a planet no atmosphere, and the following two limiting cases.
Scenario 1: rotation rate exactly tidally locked. Sun facing side is in radiative balance with incoming. Reverse side is at absolute zero.
Scenario 2: rotation rate infinite. Entire planet is at same temperature, in radiative balance with incoming.
In Scenario 1, the mean surface temperature is lower than Scenario 2, because the SB law goes with the 4th power of T. Its Sun facing surface radiates at twice the rate of the planet in Scenario 2, but the temperature on that side is only above the average temperature in Scenario 2 by the 4th root of 2 (1.189). planar rather than spherical,There’s a real world example: Mercury.
2. There is a difference between what you’d get if you determined the effective radiative temperature and the average of the temperature. The former should not depend on the rotation rate of the planet (it depends on energy in = energy out), while the latter will depend on the rotation rate of the planet. A synchronously rotating planet will have a different average temperature to a rapidly rotating planet even if they have the same effective radiative temperature.
–
Only a small sample but again suggesting there are two answers to this question that are equally valid.
Pingback: IPCC Method Linking Climate Change To Greenhouse Gases Disputed - Go Carbon Neutral
Ned Nikolov has a post up where he agrees with RIE on rotation having no effect on average temperature
: Demystifying the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
I commented
First I am surprised and alarmed at Ned’s dismissal of Eds point about the rotation speed affecting the average temperature of the planet.
I understand that there are good reasons for and against this argument.
I think the overall maths comes down on the side that it does affect the average temperature of a planet..
The faster a planet rotates the closer it approximates an ideal black body and hence the closer it approaches to the ideal average emitting temperature of the SB law.
Note; any rotation energy is separate to and does not add any new energy to the incoming and out going energy which remains the same.
The planet cannot get any hotter due to the rotation, it merely approaches the ideal average temperature which it cannot go above.
A non spinning planet ie in synchronous orbit same side facing the heating source has two different levels of energy output but the average of the emitting temperatures [ the average temperature of that planet] is lower than that of a spinning planet] .
What does this say when Ned dismisses this?
To me it says that part of his theory cannot include this fact.
A theory that does not include all the relevant facts must have some problems with it no matter how close it can get to observations
As stated by someone elsewhere
“There is a difference between effective radiative temperature, which depends only on energy balance (i.e., energy in = energy out) and the average of the temperature, which will depend on how the temperature is distributed across the surface. Essentially, given the T^4 dependence for energy radiated into space, means that if you have two planets with the same incoming energy, the average of the temperature of the planet with a large temperature difference between the two hemispheres will be smaller than the average of the temperature of planet where the hemispheres have similar temperatures. However, the effective radiative temperatures will be the same.”
Interesting how many people agree with other people they might not otherwise agree with.
A verbose reiteration of the same non-mathematical and non-physical nonsense. The average emission back down on the real – not blackbody – planet Earth is some 240 W/m^2. At an average temperature. That cant change unless albedo changes.
“The average emission back down on the real – not blackbody – planet Earth is some 240 W/m^2.”
Real or blackbody makes no difference. emission is limited to 240 in and out.
We all agree with you.
–
At an average temperature.
Good point.
Care to put a figure on it?
Care to put a description of where it is that you are averaging?
See if anyone agrees with you that your figure is the average temperature of the earth?
–
You know, at the surface of the earth?
Where people live.
at the TOA.?
which is hypothetical
Somewhere in between.
UAH RSS Climate models etc.
I can understand Nic’s motivated reasoning.
A average blackbody emission of 240 W/m2 – and how far that departs from the ideal Planck emission is neglected – is based on incoming power flux – which gives an emission temperature of 255 K. It is not averaged at all. The surface temperature is higher because of the atmosphere – some 288 K. It makes life possible. That is an average from weather stations around the planet. TOA is where all power flux is electromagnetic.
Those are the numbers based on data and theory. I’ll let you know if it changes.
OK
Why this paper and similar papers will not be retracted? What about Retraction Watch, COPE (https://publicationethics.org/) etc? What are their roles? Are they protecting and promoting certain agenda based science?
People step up!